the tindog coffeehouse

President Barack Hussein Obama (because he likes being called by his middle name now) delivered a lengthy speech in Cairo earlier today, in which he essentially apologized to the Muslim world for that whole “war on terror” thing and asked if we could be their BFF. (Emphasis mine.)

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror. The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech. In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)

Now, you may be asking, so what? Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world? After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith. It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration. He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons. He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world. But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.

The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead. They still want to destroy Israel. While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.

The point is that now is not the time for apologies. Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. Now is not the time to “change course.” If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.

In keeping with this week’s “presidential exit interview” theme, I thought it would be good to take a look at President Bush’s interview with ABC’s Cynthia McFadden, which aired on Nightline earlier in the week.

The part of the interview that seems to be getting the most attention is when McFadden asks the President about his faith. While some of the answers are pretty good, there are a few that I disagree with.

Below are some of his responses and my comments on them. (And by the way, I’m sorry for the extremely long post here.)

Bush said he is often asked if he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

“I just, I can’t go there,” he said. “I’m not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, ‘Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people.’ My relationship [with God] is on a personal basis trying to become as closer to the Almighty as I possibly can get. And I’ve got a lot of problems. I mean, I got, you know, the ego … all the things that prevent me from being closer to the Almighty. So, I don’t analyze my relationship with the good Lord in terms of, well, you know, God has plucked you out or God wants you to do this. I know this: I know that the call is to better understand and live out your life according to the will of God.”

Me: I like his answer here, especially the last sentence. But it bothers me that he constantly refers to God as “the Almighty”. Just seems very politically correct to me.

“People say, ‘But how do you know that it’s because of prayer?’ And I guess the answer is because of faith is how I know — I can’t prove it for you. People, you know, say it’s just a crutch. For me, it’s not a crutch, for me it’s the realization of a power of a universal God and recognition that the God came manifested in human and then died for sins. Now, all of this was hard for me to understand for a period of time and I am still trying to understand as best as my human mind can possibly do so. But in the understanding and in the search and in the quest, I find comfort and strength.”

Me: Well said.

When asked if he thinks that he prays to the same God as those with different beliefs, Bush said, “I do.”

“I do believe there is an Almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people…”

Me: Incorrect. The Muslim God (Allah) is not considered by Muslims to be the same as the Judeo-Christian God (Yahweh). Therefore, Muslims do not pray to the same God that Jews and Christians do. And Buddhists and Hindus likewise do not pray to God. Further, because Jews do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, then it’s fair to say they don’t pray to the same God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that Christians do.

Jesus was very clear that He is the “way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  (John 14:6).

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,’” Bush said.

(Quote taken from here.)

Me: OK, I’m going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. As he alluded to here, there is a difference between a biblical literalist (i.e. one who accepts every single word of the Bible as true, including that the universe and mankind were created in six 24-hour days) and a biblical fundamentalist (i.e. one who maintains that the Bible is God’s Holy Word but who can also accept that it contains some allegory or symbolism).

President Bush is presumably saying here that he’s more of a fundamentalist, although most viewers would not understand that distinction.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said, “I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.”

He added: “I happen to believe that evolution doesn’t fully explain the mystery of life.”

Me: I agree and I disagree.

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him.  Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

So what is President Bush saying here exactly? It’s not 100% clear. But I suspect, based on the way he framed the answer, that he’s acknowledging the limited version of evolution I just described.

Again, with a lot of these answers, it’s difficult to know exactly where he stands on a lot of these things. Certainly, many Christians will disagree with him, and I’m sure others will misunderstand him. As I’ve said before, though, our faith should never be in any politician, but in God Himself.