Difference between revisions of "Talk:Obama's Religion"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam)
(What did it for me)
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 448: Line 448:
 
::::::::I am sorry but I don't follow your reasoning.  This article is saying Obama must be a Muslim because he avoids churches.  The evidence that he avoids churches are the funerals of Reagan and Scalia.  With Reagan, Mrs. Obama went out to California for a service that was held in a tent and not a church.  The Obamas also issued public statements that said nice things about Mrs. Reagan.  With Scalia, Obama went to a formal memorial service at the Supreme Court and Joe Bidden went to the funeral the next day.  When Obama worked as a community organizer, he was hired by a group of churches and attended meeting held in churches.  He has gone to church many times since becoming a Christian in 1988.  Only someone who has not research the facts would write that bullet.  As a taxpayer, I want the President to be working hard at leading the country and not flying around the country with a full Secret Service detail going to every possible funeral.  If Obama had gone to a church funeral on each of 365 days each year, there would still be rumors alleging that he is a Muslim. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:54, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::::::::I am sorry but I don't follow your reasoning.  This article is saying Obama must be a Muslim because he avoids churches.  The evidence that he avoids churches are the funerals of Reagan and Scalia.  With Reagan, Mrs. Obama went out to California for a service that was held in a tent and not a church.  The Obamas also issued public statements that said nice things about Mrs. Reagan.  With Scalia, Obama went to a formal memorial service at the Supreme Court and Joe Bidden went to the funeral the next day.  When Obama worked as a community organizer, he was hired by a group of churches and attended meeting held in churches.  He has gone to church many times since becoming a Christian in 1988.  Only someone who has not research the facts would write that bullet.  As a taxpayer, I want the President to be working hard at leading the country and not flying around the country with a full Secret Service detail going to every possible funeral.  If Obama had gone to a church funeral on each of 365 days each year, there would still be rumors alleging that he is a Muslim. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:54, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::::::Again, I wasn't even the one who put that bulletpoint into the article in the first place. It was Andy Schlafly. Heck, I honestly don't agree with him regarding him being a muslim. If anything, I'm more inclined to view him as an atheist, if anything. The only part Andy and I even remotely agree on regarding this is that he's not a Christian. You have a problem with that bulletpoint? Take it up with him. And in case you've forgotten, him helming churches as a community organizer doesn't make him a Christian, any more than Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II made him anything other than a militant atheist. When he explicitly adheres to Marxism, which makes clear it does not allow for religion at all, that makes him, de facto, an atheist. As far as him not attending funerals with full security detail, if he can spend time golfing or going on vacations or even appearing on the David Letterman show and other talk shows on our dime, many times over actually leading the country, he most certainly can spend that time attending various funerals, and quite frankly, him attending funerals to those guys would make him far closer to a leader than going on vacations, appearing on late night talk shows, attending Hollywood parties, or golfing does by any stretch. Also, merely attending church doesn't necessarily make him a Christian. Again, Stalin, being the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has helmed it many times, yet he obviously is no Christian, explicitly holding to militant atheism. And Sweden's national church has several members attending who don't even believe in the religion. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:15, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::::::Again, I wasn't even the one who put that bulletpoint into the article in the first place. It was Andy Schlafly. Heck, I honestly don't agree with him regarding him being a muslim. If anything, I'm more inclined to view him as an atheist, if anything. The only part Andy and I even remotely agree on regarding this is that he's not a Christian. You have a problem with that bulletpoint? Take it up with him. And in case you've forgotten, him helming churches as a community organizer doesn't make him a Christian, any more than Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II made him anything other than a militant atheist. When he explicitly adheres to Marxism, which makes clear it does not allow for religion at all, that makes him, de facto, an atheist. As far as him not attending funerals with full security detail, if he can spend time golfing or going on vacations or even appearing on the David Letterman show and other talk shows on our dime, many times over actually leading the country, he most certainly can spend that time attending various funerals, and quite frankly, him attending funerals to those guys would make him far closer to a leader than going on vacations, appearing on late night talk shows, attending Hollywood parties, or golfing does by any stretch. Also, merely attending church doesn't necessarily make him a Christian. Again, Stalin, being the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has helmed it many times, yet he obviously is no Christian, explicitly holding to militant atheism. And Sweden's national church has several members attending who don't even believe in the religion. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:15, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
Does anyone have any source to indicate that IHS was hidden "with wood"?  The way I recall it, the wood paneling on the wall was shiney, and there was a concern that bright TV lights would reflect off of that surface.  So the advancemen put up a cloth backdrop behind the President that does not reflect light. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:27, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
*There was this one: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/16/georgetown-university-hid-religious-symbols-white-house-request.html Don't know of any others though (and it's a shame the article itself wasn't archived. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:43, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
  
 
==The future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam==
 
==The future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam==
Line 470: Line 472:
 
::::(e) Nowhere is the success of Obama's recruiting speech for a mindless murderous ideology more apparent now (after the attacks on Charlie Hedbo, Pam Geller, and others) than [https://mobile.twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/870611024495468544 Kathy Griffin]. Obama's hatred of the West, Christianity, America, and white culture can't be whitewashed by more lies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:42, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 
::::(e) Nowhere is the success of Obama's recruiting speech for a mindless murderous ideology more apparent now (after the attacks on Charlie Hedbo, Pam Geller, and others) than [https://mobile.twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/870611024495468544 Kathy Griffin]. Obama's hatred of the West, Christianity, America, and white culture can't be whitewashed by more lies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:42, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::Dear Brother-in-arms RobS: Please read the full text of the UN speech and then I am sure we can work a compromise out.  Even if you pull that one sentence out of context it is still a leap.  As it is now, we have a coherent bullet about the UN speech.  If you want to do a separate bullet about Benghazi, you can try.  Most conservatives have put Benghazi at the door of Hillary Clinton rather than President Obama.  In effect, the bullet is arguing that "because bad things happened in Libya, Obama must be a Muslim."  We are not talking about "Moderate rebels."  Suppose Obama were a Christian, the UN speech is still advocating freedom of religion in the Arab world, and US foreign policy would still have the same externally imposed challenges.  US foreign policy failures do not reflect the religious views of any one individual. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 
:::::Dear Brother-in-arms RobS: Please read the full text of the UN speech and then I am sure we can work a compromise out.  Even if you pull that one sentence out of context it is still a leap.  As it is now, we have a coherent bullet about the UN speech.  If you want to do a separate bullet about Benghazi, you can try.  Most conservatives have put Benghazi at the door of Hillary Clinton rather than President Obama.  In effect, the bullet is arguing that "because bad things happened in Libya, Obama must be a Muslim."  We are not talking about "Moderate rebels."  Suppose Obama were a Christian, the UN speech is still advocating freedom of religion in the Arab world, and US foreign policy would still have the same externally imposed challenges.  US foreign policy failures do not reflect the religious views of any one individual. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::The problem begins with Obama's lie over the Benghazi massacre, which he carried a step further in that speech to blame innocent victims. There is no "context" to any speech based on self-promulgated lies. There is no way to ever parse or whitewash what Obama said, or what he meant, or what he intended to mean. This phrase is akin to [[Adolf Eichmann]] saying he would "leap into the grave laughing knowing he was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews." This phrase needs to be emblazoned on Obama's tombstone.
 +
:::::: Obama should have just shut up after the media and Democrats bought his lies about the Benghazi massacre, but like all [[extremist]]s, he couldn't control himself and wanted to kick the opponents of jihad when they were down.  He cannot undo the damage he's done to himself and his legacy, justifying - and encouraging - murder. Only Jesus can save him now. And although God may not require works for [[salvation]], other Christians might want to  see evidence of a conversion before they believe an ''admitted'' and proven liar. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:57, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
 
I have read various explanations on why Gaddafi was killed. Here are a few additional ones not discussed on the talk page: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0 and https://www.africanexponent.com/post/new-evidence-the-real-reason-gaddafi-was-killed-2706  
 
I have read various explanations on why Gaddafi was killed. Here are a few additional ones not discussed on the talk page: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0 and https://www.africanexponent.com/post/new-evidence-the-real-reason-gaddafi-was-killed-2706  
  
 
I think the main reason why he was killed is that Clinton and many American politicians don't think enough moves ahead in their "political chess games".  For example, what is going to happen to Iraq after Saddam Hussein is removed from power? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 
I think the main reason why he was killed is that Clinton and many American politicians don't think enough moves ahead in their "political chess games".  For example, what is going to happen to Iraq after Saddam Hussein is removed from power? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Conservative and my friend RobS are free to add on to the Gaddafi and Libya articles.  But this does not prove the Obama was a Muslim. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
::There are even a bigger crimes in the betrayal and murder of an ally - what Obama & Hillary did to Gaddafi. (1) NATO was formed as a defensive alliance in Europe; under Obama's "leading with your head up you behind", NATO was converted to wage an offensive [[war of aggression]] outside Europe. (2) The betrayal of an ally who gave up his WMD killed forever trying to find a non-military solution to the [[nuclear proliferation]] crisis' in North Korea and Iran. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:18, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::I have great respect for RobS, but I do not see any relationship between the text of the UN speech, the Benghazi attacks and Obama's allegedly being a Muslim.  Everyone please read this section of the speech:
 +
:::<blockquote>The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained.  The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans.  It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos.  In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.  And extremists understand this.  Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant.  They don’t build; they only destroy.<br><br>It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind.  On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past.  And we cannot afford to get it wrong.  We must seize this moment.  And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.<br><br>The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one."  The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  (Applause.)<br><br>The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.  Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.<br><br>The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)<br><br>Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.  It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi:  "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."  (Applause.)  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.<br><br>Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace.  Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.  The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.  (Applause.)  Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.<br><br>In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.  If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.  And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.<br><br>Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision -- a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed -- Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians.  That’s what America stands for.  That is the outcome that we will work for -- with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute, and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.  Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and the legitimacy to lead.</blockquote>
 +
:::I agree with the above quote.  The above quote and speech reflect a Christian viewpoint.  There is nothing Muslim-centric about this. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:08, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::Bull. I can tear this speech apart, beginning with the fact he lied about Benghazi and this speech is nothing but lies. Obama armed ISIS. There was no civil insurrection in Syria, jihadis released from American detention received Special Operations training and equipment from Qatar, a US front. Tahir Square? Coptic Christians? Sunni & Shia sectarian violence? Obama signed covert action findings authorizes thugs to set off that violence. And his little partisan swipe at [[Natanyahu]], "future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace", or this pile of garbage:
 +
::::::"The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources [like the [[Clinton Foundation]]...]
 +
::::::"-- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people..."
 +
:::::The heck they do. Remember? Businesses owners never built their own business, therefore they not only ''don't'' have a right to it, consequently they have no right to the future, either. The future belongs to Muslim beheaders who murder innocent people because ''somebody else'' insulted the Prophet of Islam. Not my words - his words.
 +
:::::It's pointless trying to salvage anything out of this speech. Obama is now dog meat. The speech has no meaningful context, and is loaded with buzz phrases, intended  to stick and be repeated - to the whole world. You're time would be better served trying to paint Elizabeth Warren as the first female Messiah, or rehabilitating Hillary Clinton for another run. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:29, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::RobS, I am not trying to rehabilitate anyone, but rather come up with an article where the sources and statements match.  CP can't pull one sentence from this speech to justify that Benghazi proves that Obama was a Muslim.  Does Benghazi fall on Clinton's shoulders or was it due to Obama's religious beliefs?  There are too many logical leaps that are taken from a single sentence in a speech.  This is an encyclopedia not a rambling set of insults unrelated to the article topic or the sources in the footnotes.  You may not like the UN speech, but it does not support what you are trying to say about it in the bullet. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:07, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::::What is Benghazi? Your referring to a massacre. I'm referring to Obama's two statements: (1) on Sept. 12, 2012, murder of innocents occurred because of Muslim rage over insults to Mohammad; (2) on Sept. 25, 2012, "the future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam".
 +
:::::::Retrospectively we know insults to the Prophet of Islam had nothing to do with the Benghazi massacre. We also know Obama knew this, yet he offered it as an explanation. But he went a step further with the deception, declaring it not only caused the massacre, it justified murder of innocents in the future. That is the entire context, and undoubtably​ proves, by his own words and actions, Obama is in bed with jihad, and you can't be a jihadist without being a Muslim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:14, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::::And without clearly articulating this context, the page is exactly as you suggest, a drab collection of insults that should be deleted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:26, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::::OK. But you are free to make these other arguments in the other articles more relevant that this one.  Many thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:48, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
==What did it for me==
 +
Obama was quick to make statements
 +
in support of  [[Riots_during_the_Obama_Administration#.22Police_acted_stupidly.22|Louis Gates]], [[Riots_during_the_Obama_Administration#Obama_condemns_an_innocent_Hispanic|Trayvon Martin]], and [[Riots_during_the_Obama_Administration#Ferguson|Michael Brown]], all accused of crimes, some horrendous crimes. But [[Arab_Spring#Boko_Haram_sex_slaves|when black African Christian girls - like his own daughters - were kidnapped]], he was dead silent, did nothing, no airstrikes, no Special Forces, no covert action, nothing. (In fact, he gave 800 Stinger missiles - like the type that shot down [[TWA Flight 800]] - to the kidnappers). This seemed a little odd. But when more [[Arab_Spring#Christians_beheaded|Christians were beheaded in Derna]], again, nothing. He acted as if this is the way life ought to be. As if 'justice' were being served.
 +
 +
Now when white guys were beheaded, again, he could have cared less. What does this mean? That he's a racist scumbag? Yes, that too. But the fact he acted as if Christians, even black Christians, weren't worth disrupting his golf game, what more evidence do you need? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 07:57, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 07:09, 13 June 2017

Please read the related Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?, Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim? and Mystery:Why Do Some Oppose the Likelihood that Obama Is Muslim?.

Is it not necessary to delete this talkpage? R7 ~ Talk 16:06, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Why do you say that? Jcw 16:13, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry for the late reaction, but this is an empty talkpage. Normally these things, without content, so far as I saw, are being deleted, or am I wrong? R7 15:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Obama is United Church of Christ

Hello, I think this should be updated to show that Pres. Obama was a baptised member of the United Church of Christ, attended Trinity UCC, and continues to attend Episcopalian and UCC churches.http://www.ucc.org/barack-obama-candidate

Question

Hey guys! I'm sure this has been discussed before but I can't seem to find the discussion... maybe someone here could point me in the right direction? This article shows pretty conclusively that Obama is a Muslim, I'm not arguing that but... why does it matter? Isn't he entitled to his freedom of religion just like the rest of us? I mean, I disagree totally with his policies bordering on socialistic but this is something I've never understood. (Unless of course he claims to be christian, that would be different). Thanks! Gregory S. Kroeger 13:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)Greg

Hello all! Now I am not trying to disagree with this article but I just found a great Q&A from a trustworthy conservitive Christian website that seems to actually paint Obama as a Christian. What are your thoughts on the article? (The link is below)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

Fewer than 1% muslims leave the faith applies globally, not in the usa

Fewer than 1% muslims leave the Muslims faith applies globally, not in the usa. In the USA people switch religions more frequently than in many places. Plus, what matters is the evidence for Obama in particular and the historical context of the evidence. For example, not many people rise from the dead in history, but the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is very good. I do not know enough about Obama's history to know if he was ever a Muslim. If he was a Muslim, I would like to know at what age. It does seem odd that he attended Wright's church and had his daughter baptised if he was a Muslim. Plus, Obama eats pork and drinks alcohol. Conservative 15:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Also, this sentence is too broad: "Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim." It clearly ignores his black liberation theology church attendance, his atheist mother, Columbia and Harvard education and his secular progressive like stances on social issues (homosexuality, etc.). Obama fits a heretical liberal Christianity outlook far more than a Muslim outlook. Historical evidence is weighed in context and not through cherry picking. Conservative 15:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

This article is more harmful than good for this project

The text clearly says that Barak may be the first Islamic president, there follows a list of mostly straw grasping and "synthesis" of assetions based on certain evidence. I am no fan of Obama, but the ecmaples is SO flawed I'm beginning to think it was started by a troll as a parody to debase the authority of this encyclopedia. I have only taken the comments below but the whole article, being based on the premise that Obam is Islamic, is on very unstable ground, in fact much of it seems an errand in silliness, but let's disucss it:

  • Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them
Synthesis: shows that he has a positive opinion of the input of muslims, and proves that he has either or both lived in muslim countries and had muslims in his family. Does not provide evidence of being Islamic
  • Obama's wife Michelle does not accompany him to Muslim nations because Sharia law would apply to her there; on a presidential trip she was with him until France, but then returned home.
Synthesis again – many men visiting muslim countries would be less than likely to want their wives there to be subject to their customs. If anything it maybe evidence counter to the point
  • Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
So? 1% do (if we assume the statistic is correct to start with in a western country which I doubt)
  • During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes.
I learned about it for three years as part of general Social and Religious Studies in High School. I am a Christian and not a muslim. If I had muslims in my family, I would perhaps be even more curious from an accademic point of view.
  • Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn,
Hussein is an Arabic name. Changing a name on conversion is common in Islam but less common in christisanity so nothing can be inferred , especially as his father had that name so he is likely to retain it for family reasons
This one always amuses me. My father's family was from Germany, and my great-grandfather shared first names with Hitler. My father was named after his grandfather, and is about as far from a Nazi as can be. --SharonW 09:25, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Indeed - my aunt was born a Christian, then married my Jewish uncle and converted. But she didn't change her name from Christina. And that's hardly a Jewish name. Of course, now she's divorced from my uncle and I don't know if she went back to Christianity or not, but she's still named Christina. And there's also a convert in my synagogue named "Christian". That's about as un-Jewish a name as you can get right there. For that matter, my grandmother made a big deal about how I had the same name as a former Pope, although given that she named one of her sons Mark, I'm guessing that's just because she was mad my parents didn't name me after her late husband. Gregkochuconn 08:27, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Out of context – past tense
  • He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."
Empathy and a positive opinion do not make you part of the club.
  • Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class Arabic accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
See above
  • Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth
I was inspired and still am by Gandhi – he was not a Christian, I am.
  • Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one. Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.
Dimplomatic lingusitc trait from someone with experience of a culture?
  • Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting.
Like lots of young people, it is often hard to get them interested.
  • Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, which originally meant "Christian turned Muslim."<
Golly it gets even more tenuous. Do we really always think of the derivations of words when we use them?

DavidMilton 14:08, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Ok, then I will edit the article without deviating from its title. DavidMilton 09:13, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
In light of yesterday's terrorist act in Quebec, Canada, I find the approach adopted in this article distasteful in the extreme. I suggest that it would be a useful lesson to substitute the word Jew (or Catholic) for Muslim in this article. Words do indeed kill. There seem to be some sensible comments above.Rleonardw (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2017 (EST)
There's a huge difference - Christianity and Judaism are religions, but Islam is not - in fact, it is a cult-like, terroristic political ideology akin to Nazism and Communism. Mohammed knew exactly what he was doing when he put Islam into practice and his followers continue to do so to this day. Anyone who says that Islam is a "religion of peace" (knowing that it is neither peaceful nor a "religion") or that those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam "do not follow Islam" are lying (AKA taqiyya), plain and simple. Northwest (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2017 (EST)
While I do agree that Christianity and Judaism are most certainly different from Islam, and that Islam deserves nothing less than destruction and is ultimately similar in practice to Nazism and Communism, I'm not sure I agree that Islam's not a religion. It believes in God and the supernatural, it believes in supernatural abilities, and it believes in an afterlife, that sounds like a religion to me. In fact, it certainly qualifies more than atheism does. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2017 (EST)
I agree with Pokeria1. It may well qualify as a cult, but it is a religion. All they do is for a purpose--to please their "god" so they can be rewarded after death with 72 virgins. They use (and basically invented) terrorism, but that's a tool to the end of obeying the mandate to "...slay [infidels] wherever ye find them..." so that Allah is worships worldwide, by all living people. It's a horrifying perversion of religion, but it still is just that. --David B (TALK) 12:23, 3 February 2017 (EST)

The problem is there are terrible leaps of logic in this article:

Some Muslims are radical terrorists who should not be trusted.
Some evidence suggests that Obama may be Muslim.
Therefore some evidence suggests that Obama is a radical terrorist who should not be trusted.

The problem is that the argument is as strong or stronger in the opposite direction:

Some Christians are serious, responsible people who should be trusted.
A lot of evidence suggests that Obama is a Christian.
Therefore a lot of evidence suggests that Obama is a serious, responsible person who should be trusted.

Given that Obama has left public office, does this article serve any purpose? Even if it convinces readers, would they really care? Is anyone coming to read this article to learn or are they just being sent by critics to it to get a misimpression of Conservapedia? JDano (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (EST)

"Prepared remarks"

Obama referenced Jesus as "a" Son of God in a speech given at a formal event. He reads his remarks from teleprompters at such events. This should be distinguished from an interview, where words are chosen less carefully.--Andy Schlafly 20:06, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

No Muslim would ever refer to Jesus as "a" son or "the" son of God. The Quran explicitly declares that Allah has no son (17:111). This very doctrine makes Christianity and Islam mutually exclusive religions, serving two very different dieties.

Blatant Slander

Conservapedia is going downhill. Virtually every piece of evidence on this page is either taken out of context or entirely irrelevant. Obama read a book written from a Muslim point of view. How does that prove he's a Muslim. Does reading the book of Exodus make me Jewish because it's from Moses's point of view?

Obama's been doing a poor job, but you can point that out pretty easily without having to resort to a smear campaign. Don't sink to the liberal level. You guys are better than that--Bdor24 20:34, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Trimmed examples

I removed the following examples from the article because, even if they are true, they serve as little to no evidence that Obama is Muslim:

  • In prepared remarks in April 2012, Obama referred to Jesus as "a" Son of God rather than as "the" Son of God: "And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured—not just as a Son of God, but as a human being."[1]
  • Obama's wife Michelle does not accompany him to Muslim nations because Sharia law would apply to her there; on a presidential trip she was with him until France, but then returned home.

Later on, I will be going through the lengthy list of arguments to trim and refine the page to the best arguments that can be made about this. GregG 23:53, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Both are persuasive examples. Deletions of factual information are disfavored. Readers can decide whether something is persuasive.--Andy Schlafly 23:58, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree. I will discuss each example in turn.
  • The first example has many more plausible explanations than that Obama is Muslim. My interpretation of the quote is that Obama is contrasting the role of Jesus as Son of God and as a fully human being. He appears to be expounding the truth that Christ suffered great pain and ultimately death as a human being so that our sins may be forgiven (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:21-25). Even if Obama meant to say "the" or nothing at all instead of "a", and even if the speech came in prepared remarks (which, incidentally, even if prepared, we don't know whether they are verbatim or merely an outline), anyone can have a slip of the tongue (ask Neil Armstrong!). But even if Obama meant to say a Son of God to expressly imply that God has more than one Son, this still would not demonstrate that he is a Muslim, because (as I understand it) Muslims believe that God has no incarnate son. Thus, this example cannot possibly demonstrate that Obama is Muslim. If it does provide any evidence at all contradicting his assertions that he is Christian, it still does nothing to support the alternative hypothesis that he is Muslim.
  • The second example can be attributed to cultural norms in Muslim countries. Where sharia law is practiced, women are marginalized. Thus, any man, Muslim, Christian, Jew, whoever, would take special considerations before bringing his wife to a country hostile to women. Under the same logic of this argument, my refusal to take friends into sketchy parts of the city where gangs reign would indicate that I am a gangster. Again, this argument is of little probative value.
The issue I have is that when you have several weak examples, they make the rest of the examples look less strong in comparison. I know that, as a lawyer, you want to not only cover all the potential arguments of a case but also focus on your strongest arguments. I would respectfully suggest the same approach here, and I am willing to help with this. GregG 00:18, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage

Do many Muslims support same-sex marriage? AcomaMagic 15:31, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Better to seek permission

I'd like to go through this page and either rephrase or entirely remove a few of the more "sensationalist" accusations, to make this a more balanced look at the likely religion of the current-and-soon-to-be-former President. I think that many of the examples are valid, but at the same time multiple others are not. I have read the Quran, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon but I am not a Muslim, Jew, or Mormon myself; in the same vein, President Obama isn't necessarily a Muslim for taking inspiration from a Muslim-slanted work or an Islamic activist.

I'd appreciate it if someone could get back to me on this as soon as possible. :)

Regards, JGrant 14:27, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

I second that. To be honest most of this article just comes across as hysterical xenophobia. Cmurphynz 00:29, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

An idea.

A while ago a vandal replaced the text of this entry with 'Christian'. The change was reverted but I think that that might actually be the best approach to fixing the page. I just looked through the page, and it seems that almost everyone who has posted here has serious problems with the content. This includes senior members of the website (there was one bit written by conservative for instance). What I think should be done to actually make this article conform slightly to reality as the rest of the world sees it is to add at the beginning the proof that he is in fact Christian, and then state that there is still some controversy and present some of the less tenuous claims currently here so that the argument doesn't look too ridiculous. Any objections?Cmurphynz

None at all. In fact, I decided to review some of the claims, and not only were some of them heavily doubtful, some were outright untrue, and I found many sources to disprove or at least clarify some of the doubts, and I plan to check out the rest of the rest of the sources and see if I can't do the same. PatrickMarion 11:59, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
I just checked and seems the user I responded to was banned for lying, which is unfortunate, but the suggestion seems sensible enough. PatrickMarion 12:01, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
I think that the page in its current form detracts from the overall credibility of the website. Wschact 14:39, 3 January 2013 (EST)
I thought so as well. I already rewrote the introduction and added some references for some claims that needed them and added section about how some claims have rooms for doubt. In fact, I found out at least one or two of the claims were outright conspiracy nonsense/parody virtually every news post and blog I came across without a noticeable political/religious slant one way or the other outright rejected them. Still looking through the references for some of the claims, and many of them come from some obviously biased sources with anti-Obama agendas. I'm no fan of the guy as a President, but some of what I've read was such disgusting mudslinging and demonization, even from some purported conservatives, I felt like throwing up. Any help would be appreciated in helping clean up this page.
PatrickMarion 14:51, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
I'm currently cleaning up most of the allegations in this article, removing the slander and lies, and wow, there were a lot. First, one allegation was that the Defense Missile Agency logo was changed to a Islamic Star Crescent design by Obama, when it was actually designed three years prior to his taking office. The first source was a conspiracy nut ranting on a blog, and the second, more factual source refuted the first. Second, an article by FOX News (a publication I refuse to trust under any circumstance) took a line out of context to paint Obama as a Muslim, whn his next line makes it obvious they were quotemining. I even bolded the line they omitted in the revised version.This source is an obvious anti-Muslim shill blog, not a reputable news service, and its claims about Obama were obviously quote mined, the claim about taqiyya (an Islamic tradition allowing one to hide their Islamic identity if they are in danger) is unprovable, as the only one who would be in the greatest danger would be those facing criminal justice if they tried attacking him physically if he were Muslim, and the fact he he hasn't admitted to be a Muslim is not evidence he's lying, as absence of evidence is not evidence. One of the claims cited two articles from World News Daily, neither of which existed, and what I read on their site concerning Obama is such obvious extremist anti-liberal spin doctoring it's either a liberal parody of conservatives or just a horribly mean spirited hate rag I would give as little credence as I do Fox News. One was a youtube video of quotes stitched together by an obvious anti-Muslim bigot who hated Obama, and whose blog was a hideously racist and outright wrong "comparison of Nazism and Islam". One allegation was an obvious slip of the tongue in an interview turned into a lowbrow conspiracy by one source the corroborating one promptly exposed as a clear accident. A few of the cited references led to non existent pages and had no corroborating sources.
These is still a lot more to clean up, but as someone who believes in not bearing false witness, I had to remove quite a bit of it so far against a man I may not like as President, but who doesn't and will never deserve to be demonized by agenda wielding demagogues either.
PatrickMarion 16:01, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
Improvements to the entry are welcome, but what I saw in a quick review was numerous removals of information. This website lets the reader decide what to think; we don't try to decide for the reader.--Andy Schlafly 16:09, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Fair enough, Mr. Schlafly, I can understand that, but while I may have gone a little overboard trying to present evidence why some of the claims were doubtful, I politely ask you read the same sources I did for yourself and decided if some and their claims needs to remain. I may not like the President as a politician, and I do feel many of his public morals don't match up with his faith, but some of those sources were just biased, some were outright lies, and even Obama doesn't deserved to be lied about, or even taken out of context to appear as something he's not, especially not on a website that claims to be educational.
PatrickMarion 16:21, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
Pick your best three examples from the entry and let's discuss their accuracy.--Andy Schlafly 16:38, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Sure. My first example is the item about Obama's middle name (i.e - Obama's middle name (Hussein)). I checked the first two sources and they seemed to match up, but the third source seemed extremely, at best, casually related. Sure, the article subject is about a former Muslim who chose a Christian name upon conversion as part of that conversion, but that is not required by anyone with Muslim name under Muslim tradtion unless their name is sacrilegious to Islam, and according to this Muslim source, that is not required in Obama's case, as his name is in no way disrespectful to the Islamic faith, so even if he were Muslim, he would not be required to change his name for religious reasons.
Second, we have the youtube link cited in the item about Obama performing what looked like a stand up comedy routine mocking the Torah and the Bible. The youtube link is an obviously stitched together series of clips put together an obvious bigot who links back to a blog comparing the Qu'ran (or Koran) to Nazism, and as someone who has read both Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran out of scholarly interest, his interpretations are the most hateful thing I've ever read comparing the two, and they aren't even correct, and citing something by an obvious bigot is a bad thing for an educational website to do, especially a conservative one.
Finally, the introduction of this very article were written with apparent political ignorance concerning the oath of office (on top of asserting Obama was a Muslim before the reader had a chance to decide for themselves based on the rest of the article). For example:
Barack Hussein Obama is the first Muslim president of the United States, as illustrated by his many actions and comments both before and after taking the official (private) oath of office without using a Bible. - that is not even correct about the oath of office. Swearing on a Bible is not required, and for the first ceremony, Obama wanted to use the Lincoln Bible, but due to how the first ceremony was botched, there was a second ceremony. I could find no evidence of a Bible being used, but that is irrelevant to to the oath.
PatrickMarion 17:11, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
Mr Schlafly, what you are saying, in effect, is that anybody can put anything up here, true or false, and we'll just let "the reader decide what to think." Is that correct? Isn't it the responsibility of the contributors and editors here to do that vetting of information rather than to put that onus on the reader? BryanF 17:30, 3 January 2013 (EST)
There are two other bullets that are problematic. 1) "On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[20] which is written by a Muslim author.[21]" -- Many non-Muslims read that book. There is nothing to suggest that reading that book would motivate someone to believe in Islam, or that reading that particular book would be a characteristic of being Muslim.
2) "Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram "IHS", which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there" -- The only source is a dead link. I don't have any reason to believe that President Obama was personally involved in the stage design of the event. If this really happened, it would have drawn more media coverage. In any case, it is not connected to being a Muslim. Thanks, Wschact 17:38, 3 January 2013 (EST)
I'll start with the 3rd example by Patrick, and respond to Bryan and Wschact also:
Patrick wrote, "I could find no evidence of a Bible being used, but that is irrelevant to [sic] to the oath." In fact, the Bible wasn't used, as confirmed by a photographer at the event (the picture didn't show a Bible either). That lack of use of a Bible may be legally irrelevant to that oath, but the article is not about the oath. The article is about Obama's religion, and his decision not to use a Bible for his real oath obviously IS highly relevant to his religion.
In response to Bryan, this site is not Wikipedia, where censorship, downplaying, or dilution of information disliked for political reasons is routine. We have simple rules (Conservapedia Commandments), and widespread deletions of information is disfavored here.
Wschact said, "Many non-Muslims read that book." Perhaps so, just as many atheists have read the Bible. But a photograph of someone carrying a Bible is evidence suggesting that the person is a Christian. It doesn't prove it standing alone, but when combined with other, more compelling evidence, it is relevant.--Andy Schlafly 18:29, 3 January 2013 (EST)
The Bible is central to Christian beliefs. Zakaria is not a practicing Muslim; he is someone with Muslim ancestors who graduated from Yale. His book is not central to Muslim beliefs, it is just a discussion of US foreign policy and was on both the non-fiction hardcover and non-fiction paperback best seller lists. You can accuse readers of this book of being "policy wonks" but not "Muslims." Wschact 10:05, 4 January 2013 (EST)

I didn't mean to suggest that information be censored in any way. But removing things that are false or questionable or unsupported seems justified. BryanF 18:42, 3 January 2013 (EST)

But what's false in the entry? Much of what has been removed from the entry is plainly true.--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 3 January 2013 (EST)
If it is true, it should be supported by credible sources. And even so, it should be fact, not opinion. BryanF 21:50, 3 January 2013 (EST)

Quotation is irrelevant

I removed the quotation "Obama declared in prepared remarks, 'The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.'" not because it is not sourced, but because it is simply irrelevant. Because it is undisputed that Obama lived in Indonesia, which is a Muslim-majority country, the statement is true regardless of Obama's religion. Therefore, it cannot possibly demonstrate that Obama is Muslim. GregG 20:30, 3 January 2013 (EST)

The wording is odd, and suggests that Obama is a Muslim but felt he could not say so publicly (yet). When combined with other compelling evidence, it is relevant. It would be admissible under basic rules of evidence.--Andy Schlafly 20:32, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Frankly, I see no compelling evidence on the entire page. Perhaps, in a similar way as what you suggested above, you could identify your three strongest arguments that Obama is a Muslim, so that those could be discussed. Thanks, GregG 20:41, 3 January 2013 (EST)
I don't believe Mr Schlafly has a single strong argument that Obama is Muslim, let alone three. Unless I'm very much mistaken, he's working on the old "throw enough mud" approach. --JohanZ 20:52, 3 January 2013 (EST)
I personally think that the quotation should be in the article as it is a good piece of evidence and does suggest the fact he is a muslim. Dvergne 21:08, 3 January 2013 (EST)
It is evidence that Obama either has a muslim in the family, or has lived in a muslim majority country, both of which we know to be true. It is not evidence of anything else. --DamianJohn 21:11, 3 January 2013 (EST)
And, perhaps, your forefathers, Dvergne, were Albigensian so we can say that Australia has been enriched by people from Languedoc. Names don't matter. According to my name I'm Welsh. According to my parents' wedding certificate, I am Sri Lankan. According to my great-great-grandfather's records I am Catholic. According to my great-grandmother's records I am American Episcopalian. According to my grandfather's records I am Presbyterian. I was baptised a Methodist. Most of us are mongrels, D., I have read the Book of the Mormons, and the Quran and the novels of V.S. Naipaul. I listen to Tchaikovsky and, every Anzac Day, make a point of playing Britten's "War Requiem". Do my listening habits make me gay, Dvergne? (Oh, and what was your opinion of Nassar Hussain?) AlanE 21:58, 3 January 2013 (EST)
People of the Islamic faith have made a great contribution to a number of countries including Australia, with much of central Australia being serviced by the afghan camel caravaners, who where muslim. I find your assertion that I am anti-muslim quite offensive as I know and quite a few people of the Islamic faith, some of which are quite good friends. Dvergne 22:07, 3 January 2013 (EST)

The point of the paragraph is "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans" (which is true) - with Obama then providing himself as an example. Obama does have a Muslim in his family - himself. It's implausible that he was referring to anyone other than himself. The part about having lived in a Muslim country once doesn't have relevance to the basic point being made.

Why do some people object so much to recognizing Obama's religion? He's not running for reelection again, so there is little political motive to rejecting it. The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test. Give credit where credit is due: America has a Muslim president. The insistence on denying the likelihood of this is itself worth criticizing.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 3 January 2013 (EST)

Yes Andy...why do some people need to make so much of a point of his religion?
And D. (I do hate having to talk to people without names, I find it disrespectful) I am concerned if you are under the impression I find you anti-Muslim. That was not my intention. AlanE 22:36, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Alan, it's not a big deal. I have spent relatively little time discussing or editing these entries about Obama's religion. But there is no denying that the personal religious beliefs of a president is a significant fact: historically, politically, and economically. Would Obama really defend Israel? Does Obama have a private spiritual guide from whom he takes advice? Now that Obama does not have another election, will he govern in a way more consistent with his personal beliefs, and what are those personal beliefs?--Andy Schlafly 22:46, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Thank you for your reply Andy...obviously, as an Australian, I cannot know the nuances of the American political situation other than what I read in the Murdoch press on a daily basis and, perhaps, I should not comment. BUT. Even as one who is firmly pro-American (apart from certain aspects of popular culture) I do find that the Right's ceaseless attack on Obama on matters other than aspects of his Presidency to be unfortunate. Like concentrating on Brahms' atheism or Horatio Nelson's adultery with Lady Hamilton. AlanE 23:28, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Your point is well-taken. But at this point I don't see why the observation that Obama is a Muslim would be considered so negative. He's not campaigning any more for an election. Understanding his personal beliefs -- about which he's said little -- is not a criticism of him.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 3 January 2013 (EST)
As we say here: I'll wear that. :) 23:48, 3 January 2013 (EST)

As to why the accuracy of this article matters, I will offer two hypotheticals. Suppose in 2020, a Muslim runs for the Presidency. Some people will argue that electing a Muslim might not be wise, other people will respond that a precedent was already set with Obama's two elections. They will go to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) and retrieve this article as evidence for a "fact" that over 90% of Americans do not believe. Second, suppose that some long-time volunteer (including the home-school students that you recruited) put their CP work on their resume. This article will cast a pall on all of the good work that has been done in this project. The problem with this article is that it draws a false conclusion using a series of non-facts that are presented in a highly misleading manner. The article also implies that President Obama is untruthful about his religious beliefs. Thanks, Wschact 08:35, 4 January 2013 (EST)

"Obama exempted American Muslims from the mandates of Obamacare"

This newly added point should be removed. Obama did not exempt American Muslims from the mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See [2] and [3]. --Randall7 10:28, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Oh, I just noticed that GregG and Jpatt have had some back-and-forth about this. GregG's re-wording seems much more factually accurate. It could even be mentioned that apparently some people think this provision was designed to favor Muslims. I wonder how much Obama was actually involved in creating this provision, though. --Randall7 10:46, 5 January 2013 (EST)
I have removed GregG's changes because it was watered down to discuss talk about Amish. This is a page discussing Obama's religion and Amish tax-exempt status neither is the topic nor the provision Muslims will be able to opt-out on.--Jpatt 11:42, 5 January 2013 (EST)
The law as written is vague but enough can be gleaned from it, such tax and insurance mandates. Muslim most certainly "Can" and very likely will take advantage of the loophole and opt-out for religious conscience. We already know that Christians cannot opt-out for religious conscience. My sources say "Presumably, they [Muslims] will be exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the religious exemption," and "Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews." --Jpatt 11:46, 5 January 2013 (EST)
"We already know that Christians cannot opt-out for religious conscience." Amish and Mennonites are Christian and they would certainly be eligible to opt out. It appears that your source is making baseless speculation. I find my sources and WND (in a rare example of a stopped clock being right) far more reliable and believable. Of course, the moment of truth will come next year, and we can see whether any Muslims have actually been granted exemptions from the individual mandate. GregG 13:10, 5 January 2013 (EST)
I agree that Muslims can take advantage of this provision. But it is not just for Muslims, and it does not discriminate against Christians or Jews. As GregG mentioned, the PJ Media source's claim is highly dubious, and in fact, many who qualify for the exemption are Mennonites and other Christian fellowships.
Overall the point in the article appears to be false as it is written. The Religious Conscience Exemption (the "loophole") applies only to the individual mandate, not the whole of Obamacare. And it is misleading to just mention American Muslims when they are not singled out in the law. Christians and Jews are not discriminated against. The requirement for the Religious Conscience Exemption, which applies to all religions equally, is that the religious sect or division must certified under section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code for Social Security and Medicare payroll tax exemption. --Randall7 13:20, 5 January 2013 (EST)
I am going to leave it for now. I must say that you have successfully diluted the meaning and have bent over backwards to try explain away the truth. That truth is that Muslims have a religious conscience opt-out due to insurance and Christian and Jews do not. You keep bringing up Amish but they are exempt because of taxes. No other Christians are exempted. Essentially, you took everything I said about the fact checkers and you disregarded it by finding other sources that agree with your position. Congratulations.--Jpatt 14:54, 5 January 2013 (EST)

The Five Pillars of Islam

In Islam, to be considered a Muslim, there are five core principles,(Pillars) that must be followed. Certain minority groups do not follow all of them, but even then hold at least 3 or 4. These are:

1. The Shahada, the oath that you must take in some group/public setting to confirm your allegiance to the Muslim faith. (We don't have anything confirming or dis-confirming this about Obama, so it can be skipped.)

2. Salat: The 5 daily prayers that Muslims must do while facing toward the Kaaba in Mecca. (They must also wash themselves before praying.) Seeing as we know quite a bit about Obama's daily schedule, and that he has never been caught on a prayer mat facing east, we can deduce he does not Pray. (Although it's worth noting that many western Muslims do not adhere to this principle.)

3. Zakat: All Muslims must give at least 2.5% of their income to charity or other good causes. We have access to a lot of Obama's tax returns and can see that he and Mrs.Obama give an average of less than 1% of their income to charity.

4. Sawm: The fasting that Muslims undertake during their holy month of Ramadan. (Between dawn and dusk). In 2010, Ramadan began on August 11th. On August 17th a photographer photographed this photo of the president ordering lunch. Which he preceded to eat in front of hundreds of people. [4]

5. Hajj: The Muslim pilgrimage to their holiest city of Mecca. All Able Muslims must take this journey at least once in their life. Mr. and Mrs. Obama are certainly able (Physically and financially) to undergo that voyage. They have not yet made this trip, although there is still time, but it's unlikely he ever will for this reason: The Saudi government will not let you into Mecca if you are not a Muslim, and Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

Conclusion: So it's possible that Obama has said the Shahda at some private moment we are not aware of, he completely fails to follow any other pillars of the Islamic faith. So we don't even need to get into the fact that he drinks beer or eats pork hot-dogs. This presents us two possibilities: Either Obama is not a Muslim, or he is an extremely terrible one. Please note, dear friends, that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, Obama just isn't one. He's also not Jewish, not a minor, and not the starting left fielder for the New York Yankees.

Before I get flooded with responses, (Or the post deleted and I am outright banned), I would like to see what Andrew Schlafly, Esq. has to say about my post here. Thank you! (I am new to this site, so forgive me if I make an error in posting this).

-Alek

Muslim prayer

This eventually will need an entire page in itself. Confusion abounds, even among Muslims. Many people, especially young Muslms, haven't had the time to study the list of all the thing that make their prayers void. In a famous interview with Connie Chung onboard a Lear jet, Yassir Arafat explained how he was a devout Muslim, but because he was so busy running a terrorist organization and on the run for his life all the time, he, like Reformed Jews, cut corners and figured the 5 minutes of prayer 5 times daily could be condensed into one 20 minute prayer on the floor of a Lear jet without doing all the squat thrusts required. Then he proceeded to demonstrate.

Last winter while visiting a small church which runs a small employment outreach which offers computer access and job counseling and I volunteer as a mentor for young people, at 2:00pm several of us stepped outside in the winter air for a break. There was a kid crouched over on the back steps we had to step around to get out. At first, I thought he was sick and throwing up. But he implied in few words he was ok, and didn't want to be bothered (never mind the rest of us being inconvenienced by stepping over him). But he was fully conscious and involved in whatever he was thinking about. In coming days, as I got to know him, I connected the dots. I could have explained to him his prayers were null and void, per Islamic scholars, but figured it was a waste of time. I am more concerned however, about 20 year old youths, not having a clue what they are doing, essentially reiterating in their minds 5 times daily curses on non-Islamic believers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:18, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

Should this page be deleted?

The citations showing Obama to be a Muslim are all bald-faced lies, half-truths, or are elements that are completely irrelevant to the point. Obama's Christian faith has been demonstrated countless times. MackD 01:02, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Obama has not proven any kind of Christian faith, he merely engages in Taqiyya. Regardless he has already accidentally admitted to being a muslim. - Markman 01:06, 21 February 2013 (EST)
Taqiyya does not apply to Sunni Muslims, which is the religious heritage of Obama's father and thus, Obama. And the "my Muslim faith" quote was shown to be taken out of context. MackD 01:09, 20 January 2013 (EST)
How we know if he hasn't converted to become a Shia ? This page needs to be kept as it is pretty clear that there is considerable doubt and evidence that his faith is something other than christian Dvergne 01:12, 21 February 2013 (EST)
With no evidence to support the notion of conversion to Shia, or any evidence that he was a Muslim at any point in his life, and all available evidence pointing towards Obama being a Christian, there is no ground for reasonable doubt in this matter. MackD 01:16, 20 January 2013 (EST)
I'm sorry but there is compelling evidence that he clearly is of faith other than christian. If you deny this then I'm afraid you lose all credibility. Dvergne 01:19, 21 February 2013 (EST)
1) I wouldn't be surprised if Obama decided to adopt Shia Islam as a way to get back at his abandoning father. 2) I know for a fact that Taqiyya is not only practiced by Shias. The Druze (a religion that split from Islam) practice it too. Furthermore, according to wikipedia (though one needs to be very careful with that website) Sunnis have been known in their past to conceal their faith as well. - Markman 01:24, 21 February 2013 (EST)
I have yet to see any compelling evidence on the matter. If you would kindly provide me with any that you know of, I will evaluate it with an open mind. After all, I joined this site in hopes of stimulating and intelligent conversation, not to get blocked seemingly because someone disagrees with something I have said. MackD 01:42, 20 January 2013 (EST)
You got blocked for being a troll. Anyway, there's plenty of good evidence in this article (including the My Muslim faith quote, and I don't see exactly how you can claim it was taken out of context), if you want to dispute anything then go ahead. - Markman 01:50, 21 February 2013 (EST)
If seeking to have an intelligent conversation is trolling, then I guess I'm guilty of trolling. The article, as previously established, contains almost nothing but lies, half-truths, and a deliberate attempt at defaming a man over something that should not be viewed as defamatory int he first place. The "my Muslim faith" was indeed taken out of context. If you would watch the entire interview, then you would understand that. Until then, you have lost all credibility to claim that you speak the truth. MackD 01:57 20 January 2013 (EST)
This discussion is going pearshaped. We have MackD editing after he's supposed to have been banned. We have an edit of Dvergne disappearing without trace. (Nothing lost there except for yet another use of the word "christian") What's going on? AlanE 02:12, 21 February 2013 (EST)
@MackD: I've seen it already several times and just for you I've seen it in now once more, I don't see anything taken out of context. If you're going to say that this article "contains almost nothing but lies, half-truths" than you best bring some concrete examples rather than just throw accusations around. In regards to your claims that being a muslim is "something that should not be viewed as defamatory int he first place" than I guess you're OK with people following the creed of an avowed pedophile and a murderer. I guess you won't have any problems with a Satan worshiping president or with a president who follows "positive Christianity" (the pseudo Christianity promoted by the Nazi party). - Markman 02:18, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Andy has how protected the page. However, the recent edits both help and hurt the page. I think that downplaying the point about Israel and Chuck Hagel is sound editorial judgment. However, removing the quotations from the Obama campaign emails probably detracts from the value of the page. To me, the page would benefit from presenting both sides -- Obama has said that he is a Christian and that people who are questioning that are politically-motivated. Then follow up with any arguments against that. I find this whole debate a bit distasteful. Most Christian congregations are welcoming to everyone -- including someone whose father was an atheist. In 1960 people attacked John Kennedy with the claim that he would be "too faithful" a Catholic to the point of allowing the Pope to influence his decisions as President. In 2008 and 2012, people attacked Obama with the claim that he was not sufficiently "Christian." All three times, the voters rejected these arguments. I hope that this type of politics gets relegated to the dustbin of history. Thanks, Wschact 08:25, 12 February 2014 (EST)

It really is poor encyclopedic form to include unconfirmed sources, rumours, or hearsay about a person's religious faith. Official records, provided by the United Church of Christ itself, show that Obama was a baptised member of the liberal mainline Protestant denomination. http://www.ucc.org/barack-obama-candidate

Religion of Barack Obama

Please move the content from this page to here.--JoeyJ 07:52, 5 September 2014 (EDT)

The two articles take different approaches to this question, and I don't see how they could be harmonized without loss of the integrity of either viewpoint. Thanks, Wschact 08:18, 5 September 2014 (EDT)
Wasn't Obama largely raised by his white American mother? --Rleonardw (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2017 (EST)
"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world". But isn't this the view of any true Christian? has some editor confused a few psychopaths with Muslims; that is apostates who claim to be Muslims. --Rleonardw (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2017 (EST)

I removed Northwest's section header because

I removed Northwest's header because there is not certainty that Obama is a Muslim. Please see the section entitled Counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim. In fact, it is not even close to being certainty. He is probably not a Muslim, but merely a liberal who has antipathy towards conservative Christianity and Israel which is very common among liberals. It is also very common for liberals to criticize criticisms of Islam and cry "Islamophobia".

Norwest, please do not add another subtitle to this article. Conservative (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

Obama's annual celebration of Seder

Why would a Muslim celebrate a Seder meal every year during his Presidency? Passover Seder - One Last Time for Obama White House Tradition

The only sensible conclusion that one can draw from this is that this President is just plain ambivalent when it comes to religion in general, but is enamored with ritual. He is certainly not pro-Israel, nor is he Jewish, but he obviously enjoys the ceremony.

If I used the same loose associations you came up with in this article to assert that Obama is a Muslim, then this (ridiculously) would prove that the President is a Jew!

Good point, but multifaith meals are not extraordinary. A quick search easily discovers examples, like this one:
The Islamic Society of Mid Manhattan hosted a multifaith Passover celebration with Temple Emanu-El and the NYC Muslim-Jewish Solidarity Committee, blending the food and traditions of the age-old holiday with some modern twists.
People commonly attend weddings by friends of different religions also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2016 (EDT)
I am amazed all that is listed yet he is still given the benefit of the doubt. No other president has this much concerning Islam in their history. No other president has sided against Christianity than this presidency. It's quite clear Islam is a major part of his life despite the accusation that he is or isn't. --Jpatt 16:32, 20 July 2016 (EDT)

Image of Obama

Why was the image restored when even to my ancient eyes it aint him – his father? --Rleonardw (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Christianity Today quote

For 99.9% of people, we take them at their word when they tell us their religious affiliation. Most people are willing to take President Obama at is word as well. I suspect that many people hear a rumor that President Obama was a Muslim, or thought that he had a funny-sounding name and assumed that he was a Muslim. So, when asked in a poll, they said that Obama was a Muslim. (Some other people also said it to troll the polling organization.)

The most important fact in this article is the magazine quote. It explains why Obama considers himself a Christian and why other people are saying that he is Muslim. I believe it should be moved back from the footnote to the main article. I also have not seen much on this issue since Obama left the White House. I agree with everything that President Trump said about the Obama birth certificate matter -- Obama's 2008 primary opponents started it, and Donald J Trump put it to rest in the fall of 2016. That should apply equally to the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor as well. Our energy is better spent documenting Obama surveillance policy. JDano (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

This article was created then the "is Obama a Muslim" debates were actively occurring. This article does not have much activity right now, other than edit warring. We are focusing most of our time now on issues such as Obama's surveillance (look at RobS's edits). I don't buy the arguments that Obama is secretly a practicing Muslim (I also don't believe he is a practicing or orthodox Christian either, and I do think he has strong pro-Islam sympathies). However, I think the article is good now, as the intro (the first line I added) does not take a stance or make any judgment, and both sides to this issue are discussed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
IMO, a public consensus that Obama has some sort Islamic sympathies, if not being a closet Muslim, versus being a cosmetic Christian, is stronger today than what people were willing to admit to pollster while he was in office. And for obvious reasons, harassment and fear of reprisal from the Obama machine. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:35, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
I will repeat what I stated above:
Given that Obama has left public office, does this article serve any purpose? Even if it convinces readers, would they really care? Is anyone coming to read this article to learn or are they just being sent by critics to it to get a misimpression of Conservapedia? JDano (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (EST)
The article currently "take[s] a stance and make[s]" a pro-Muslim judgement. JDano (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
So, are you proposing deletion, retitling, or what? It's got nearly 400,000 hits. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:04, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
If we are going to present both sides, how do we include these in a Conservapedia article? [5] and [6] and [7]? This silly ugliness works both ways. JDano (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Obama is as Christian as his former pastor, G-d damn the United States Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Most Christians I know don't curse the name of God, Christian scripture makes it clear about that. Is the article relevant today? Unfortunately Obama decided not to leave the limelight, only the office he held. He stays in the news and so should his past. --Jpatt 23:18, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
@JDano, I don't see where this is a big problem. Your first link is a parody page, and even Obama took the oath on two Bible's. The second doesn't,t amount to anything, based on "suggesting". Big deal. People are suggesting a multi-billionaire is a KGB stooge, which is more outlandish than suggesting Obama is/was a Muslim. In Obama's cause it was plausible; in Trump's case it just shows how ridiculous and naive people can be. Your third link is no biggee, either. I had qualms when Ronald Reagan bowed his head to the Queen and accepted Knighthood. That had symbolic meaning. But the Saudi King isn't the Caliph, and he's breaking Islamic law just being the same room with a filthy infidel, let alone touching or honoring him in some way. In Trump's case, there's a quid pro quo: Trump accepting an honor in appreciation for everything America has done for an ally. In Obama's case, there​ is no way to walk back the subservience Obama committed America to, leading from behind, and the slaughter of Yemen and Syria is what Obama & and King Abdullah have to show for it.
Trump's an Episcopalian; and his life shows the effect Norman Vincent Peale had on him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:01, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

In furtherance of the comments immediately above, no self-serving assertion by a politician should be accepted at face value. When the evidence is overwhelming that he's lying, then it's an important issue for the public, for historians, and for anyone who might consider his credibility. I suppose it is the latter issue that causes some to protest too much when anyone questions Obama's Religion. Any conscientious historian would engage in the same inquiry we do here.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

I agree. Obama's life from the earliest we've got to know him is one big long deception. There is nothing special, unique, or shocking to this. Millions live their lives like this daily. He's not even a leader. In a sense, I feel sorry for him. He's been used as little more than pawn by Democratic donors and globalists. He probably only got the job because his middle name was Hussein, to push the multi-cuktural agenda. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:05, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Overall critique of the article

We have to separate our opinions about Obama in general from our opinions about Conservapedia's goals. Every website has a finite reservoir of credibility. It may be that due to hard work and exhaustive research, CP has a better-than-the-pack coverage of Wikipedia bias or CIA surveillance. We should showcase our best work. However, Donald Trump (before he became politically active), decided to investigate the birth certificate and religion claims that were started by Obama's 2008 primary opponents. He spent more money on the investigation than CP ever had. Then-candidate Trump announced that his investigation put the birth certificate and Muslim issues to rest.[8] CP's response to that was to leave the Obama's religion article unchanged. This article could examine how the rumors got started, how Trump and others investigated and dismissed the claims, how Obama addressed the claims and put them to rest, and how polling data shows that the pubic can be influenced by fake news. Instead, it is written as if it advocates the proposition followed by a rebuttal of the strawman assertions made in the first half of the article. Critics then send readers here to show that CP's editor corps are internally conflicted and mislead by fake news. So, we spend our limited credibility on a poorly-written article that has been passed by events. In Trump's word, "Now we all want to get back to make American strong and great again." JDano (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

There. I tried to make it more neutral without ripping up the body of the text. I don't know how much more it may need. What do you think? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
"Limited credibility" means you don't understand what we are all about. --Jpatt 09:38, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
Every website has a finite amount of credibility, and first impressions are lasting. If people come to this article in 2017 as one of their first exposures to Conservapedia, we will not get them back. JDano (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

If you want to instantly give the article more credibility, then put my material atop the article which gives the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim. I say this because Obama is extremely unlikely to be a Muslim. The odds of Trump being a liberal "Manchurian candidate" are higher than the pork eating, beer swilling, homosexuality loving, feminism loving Obama being a Muslim.

I can understand people's distrust and antipathy towards Obama. And when people are overly emotional about a topic, it can impair their judgment. But at some point, you have "let go of your investigation" that Obama could be a Muslim and your claims that Obama is probably a Muslim.

Confirmation bias often occurs when you set out to prove a position from the start rather than go where the evidence leads. The first portion of this article is a textbook example of the danger of allowing confirmation bias to negatively affect an articles quality. Conservative (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

As JDano expresses, we should take a nuetral stance. Many of the claims on both sides really stretch credulity. What does attending a funeral have to do with Christianity? Read you Bible back-and-forth, upside down, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Esperanto, Polish, Yiddish, whatever. You will not find one single word, let alone phrase or verse that remotely suggests a believers standing in Christ has anything to do with honoring the dead. Yet this item appears in both the pro and con sections. In the pro section, it's number 1 on the list. In the con section, it's boldened. ,This page teaches us nothing about Christianity, let alone Islam. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:49, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
RobS, previously I merely fired off my starboard evidential cannons that Obama may be an adherent of liberal Christianity. Today, I fired off the port evidential cannons indicating he may be a closet atheist or closet agnostic. Today, the steamship "SS Obama is a Muslim according to Conservapedia" was scuttled. :) Conservative (talk)
IMO, he's a secular gay Muslim, which borders on agnosticism/atheism. I believe he is hostile to Christians, and prejudiced or disposed to favoring Islamic culture (which is predominantly a secular culture) he identifies with, moreso than American culture or Islam. What he knows of Christianity, undoubtably he learned in adulthood, and not voluntarily. It was the result of his relationship with his domestic partner. The central significance of the Christian Church in African-American communities is totally alien to his upbringing and attitudes, and remains so. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:50, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

This entry stirs strong emotions. Some might resist the notion that one's religious beliefs are not really what says they are. It's an unsettling insight, but it's plainly true. If one claimed to be the greatest fill-in-the-blank, few would believe him. If a politician makes a self-serving claim to believe in fill-in-the-blank, one should be equally skeptical.

As to Obama's refusal to attend Christian funerals of prominent political figures like a Supreme Court Justice and a former First Lady, it does suggest he disfavors attending Christian funerals. That is a key data point explained by Islamic doctrine. An atheist would not have such reluctance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Jackie Kennedy's funeral was probably the last First Lady any sitting President attended. They don't regularly do so nor are they expected. It's a bit of stretch to read anything into it. Orthodox Jews have the commandment, "Ye shall come at no unclean thing." Gathering around a corpse is hardly Christian; it's a tradition in some Christian cultures, but this is hardly the sort of thing we should deem "Christian behavior" or in anyway attached to the Christian faith. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:43, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
Attending funerals of high-ranking public officials are part of the job duties of other high-ranking public officials. The funeral for the unexpected death of perhaps the most prominent Supreme Court Justice in a generation should have been attended by Obama, even if you're right about Nancy Reagan. Obama didn't attend. When he spoke at Georgetown, they covered a Christian symbol on the wall for him also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

The basic question is whether we take a position advocating one side or the other. I believe that every person's relationship with God is very complicated. I also believe that most of the debate about Obama's religion was politically motivated. It will be very hard to do justice to either in a short concise article. The basic structure of the article, which was proposed as a compromise above is sound: a short lead paragraph and then two major sections: one giving the claims for the Muslim rumor and the other refuting those rumors. Moving the table of content toward the bottom of the page shows bias for one position vs the other. Many thanks to all for their hard work on this. JDano (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

We have many entries more complicated than this one, such as quantum mechanics. Encyclopedias exist to address complicated questions.
I think this entry hits a chord in part because some feel that one's religion is what one says it is, period. But nothing is what one says it is. There is an underlying reality that is often different from self-serving claims. God is not going to accept self-serving statements as being automatically true, and neither should we.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2017 (EDT)
I agree with the premise Obama is a Muslim. But some of the "evidence" here is pretty lame. Sometimes less is more. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:42, 27 May 2017 (EDT)
If most people are willing to take anyone at his word about his religion, then we should start the article by highlighting what Obama says about his religious views. I personally don't care if Obama is a Muslim or not, and I will not evaluate his Presidency based on his religion. Nor will I attack Kennedy for being Catholic, Romney for being Mormon, or Joe Lieberman for being Jewish. The religious tests of the 1950s no longer apply. The current article is costing Conservapedia credibility.
What is our intended audience for this page, home-schooled high school students? This page as currently written would never convince a high school student that Obama is a Muslim. Why is Conservapedia beating this drum after "Donald J Trump put an end to it."? JDano (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (EDT)
The question at this point in history revolves more around, What kind of a Muslim was he? These points are clear:
1. He's anti-Western.
2. He has a decided hostility to Christianity, it's history, values, and traditions
3. He is secular in appearance
4. He is respectful and sympathetic to the Prophet of Islam, and it's contemporary follows
5. His actions and policies place him today within what is commonly referred to as the "Muslim Unity" movement, and sympathetic to Iran.
6. While he has armed, trained, and aided salafi-jihadists of the Wahhabi sect who waged a genocidal war against Shia and Christians, none of this conflicts with fundamental Sunni beliefs. Not being Arab, of which most Sunni are, he has a long record of association and sympathy for Sunni-Arab causes predating his presidency.
So yes, his attitudes and beliefs toward Western culture and civilization are just as disheveled as is common today throughout much of Muslim world, if not the entire world. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:17, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

TOC and header dispute

There is a dispute, as seen in the page history, on whether to add a "TOC" below the section detailing the evidence in favor of Obama being a Muslim and with a header above that section (like what I did here). I strongly support doing this because it makes the article more evenhanded, rather than making it seem like we're arguing that Obama is a Muslim (we should state facts and let the readers come to a conclusion through them). Also, the articles Liberal and Conservative do the same thing. This will not reduce the visibility of the "in favor" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

This kind of stuff is done on Wikipedia, with a big TOC that tends to obscure the best insights of the entry. I'll check our liberal and conservative entries to see if the first page is covered with a TOC. If so, I'll remove it there also. When people click on an entry, they want content quickly, not an overlay that requires them to dig further.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
Our liberal and conservative entries are fine: no TOC that obscures the content on the first page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
So, why then can't we make this article like the other two? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
As long as the reformatting does not obscure content on the first page, I don't object.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
Done. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (EDT)

Making the article neutral

I have re-read this talk page and the other three pages linked to it at the top. It seems clear to me that dozens of Conservapedia editors do not believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim, and that only four editors believe that he is. The points that were made arguing in favor of his being a Muslim are addressed on Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?. Our talk page discussion then agreed to a compromise about the layout to make the article more neutral. Recent edits by Aschlafly give me the impression that he does not want the article to be neutral. At several points above he asked, "Why do some people object so much to recognizing Obama's religion? He's not running for reelection again, so there is little political motive to rejecting it." The answer is that critics of this website are driving traffic to this article and are using it to uncut the credibility of the many valid articles and our hard work. This article is so bad that it singularly detracts from the entire project. How can we all cooperate to address this problem? Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

I suspect a move to essay space is the best anyone can hope for. I fully support such a move. JohnZ (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
Folks, it is a factual entry on an encyclopedic topic. Efforts to downplay or dilute it will not work here. This is not Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
Dear Mr. Schalafly: In view of the hit that Conservapedia is taking with this article, we should decide on an editorial approach -- not a dilution of an approach. Do we follow Donald J. Trump in putting an end to the "Muslim rumor" or do we try to convince the reader that Obama is a Muslim? If we do the latter, we need some solid arguments, because as shown in Debate:Is Obama a Muslim? the current material is not convincing. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
JDano, just keep finding facts that chisel away at the argument that Obama being Muslim. For example, I just added to the article that high retention rates for Muslim children (such as 1%) apply to areas with high Muslim concentrations. In the USA, Muslim retention rates are 76% for people raised Muslim.
And Obama spent most of his childhood in Hawaii. And multicultural Hawaii presently has an extremely small amount of Muslims and I documented this in the article. Compared to many countries, the USA has a high degree of religious switching due to our religious freedom and people being around people of different faiths. So I would assume the retention rate of Muslims in multicultural Hawaii could be even less than the USA as a whole. Conservative (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
Obama didn't move to Hawaii until he was 9, I believe. That's not really "most of his childhood". In fact, his most formative years were spent in Indonesia. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:48, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

Important point about pronunciation of Pakistan

Pakistan aome much later than the Koran and the Hadith. So how could there be an official Muslim way to pronounce the word Pakistan?

Mr. Schlafly has not shown that Muslims around the world have an official "Muslim pronunciation" for Pakistan. Mr. Schlafly has not shown that Islamic clerics/scholars have an official Islamic pronunciation for the word Pakistan. Mr. Schlafly has not shown that American Muslims generally pronounce the world Pakistan like many Pakistanis.

Until proven otherwise, I am going to assume that Obama used (or uses) the Pakistani pronunciation of Pakistan - not the "Muslim pronunciation". The burden of proof is upon the claimant and Mr. Schlafly has not met his burden of proof. Conservative (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

I think the point is, he doesn't use the American pronunciation and instead uses the same pronunciation that the residents of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan use, despite not being from there and having travelled there in 1981 as an adult under the name Barry Soetero and later having lied to Illinois Bar Association that he had never used another name. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:55, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
I largely eat basmati rice from India rather than the rice that most Americans use. Doe that mean I eat "Hindu rice" and am likely a Hindu?
Obama does not use the "Muslim pronciation" of Pakistan. Conservative (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
The point is that there is a sloppy American pronunciation of Parkistan and there is the pronunciation used in International diplomacy. Neither is indicative of a religion. Diplomats call what I say is the "Ivory Coast" instead "Côte d'Ivoire". Does that make me a Muslim? JDano (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
You are all correct but I side with RobS, his foreign influence rather than his American influence dictates his pronunciation. I would think that the way it is said is likely some elitist-preferred talk (look how worldly I am as I say P-o-ckistan.) Is it signify that means he is Muslim? Likely not but I bet Muslim elitists like Fareed Zakaria got a warm and fuzzy feeling from it.--Jpatt 20:31, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
The explanation could be even simpler, as these things often are: he didn't want his P-o-k-E-stani lover to get offended and think he was selling out to white folk just to get elected. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:17, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
Let's agree that the pronunciation of Pakistan does not indicate whether an American is a Muslim. JDano (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

re: the cloudy situation of Obama's worldview

My position that Obama is definitely not a Muslim was reactionary. I disagreed with Aschlafly's position that Obama is the first Muslim president of the United States.[9]

In retrospect, I will simply say that I don't know what Obama's worldview is.

According to a man who interviewed Rev. Wright, Obama came to Wright and said, "I need some spiritual advice. I don't know exactly who I am."[10] Obama may essentially be in the same place now. Conservative (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

Funeral Blues

I'm removing the part insinuating Obama doesn't attend Christian funeral services held in a church. The WaPo has a handy guide to the funerals / memorial services he's attended up to Feb. 2016.

In anticipation of any silly lawyering over this, these three were unequivocally Christian funeral services held in a church:

  1. Funeral of Ted Kennedy, Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Boston, Aug. 29, 2009
  2. Funeral of Dorothy Height, Washington National Cathedral, Washington DC, Apr. 29, 2010
  3. Funeral of Beau Biden, St. Anthony of Padua Church, Wilmington, Jun. 6, 2015

The full list, including memorial services, reads:

  • Ted Kennedy
  • Walter Kronkite
  • Dorothy Height
  • Robert Byrd
  • Daniel Inouye
  • Tom Foley
  • Nelson Mandela
  • Beau Biden
  • Clementa Pinckney

I trust this will suffice as sufficient proof of the absurdity of this particular insinuation. JohnZ (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

WaPo, now there's an authoritive credible source we can all agree and rely upon. Got anything better? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:53, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
I move that until WaPo retracts all trash, lies, distortions, and outright falsehoods, its published about Donald J. Trump over the past 23 months, that it not be considered as a credible source for what JohnZ has suggested. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:57, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
I move that you pull your head out your a___ and follow those three numbered links. He was at those church services. Game over for this particular bit of the argument. JohnZ (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, I don't recall that part indicating he never participated in ANY funerals, just the ones for Scalia and Nancy Reagan. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
Pipe down, parodist. JohnZ (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
I was being serious. Unless you think that Nancy Reagan and Anthony Scalia's funerals were the only Christian funerals out there and that somehow mentioning that meant Obama didn't attend any Christian funerals, I suggest you stop removing it, because those funerals listed were for Nancy Reagan and Anthony Scalia, and nowhere in that article did it state or hint that he does not go to any Christian funerals. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
I appreciate the source and will validate the information. In the meantime, I suggest that everyone rethink the overall format of the article. At present, the first section presents a series of weak arguments for Obama being a Muslim and the second section explains Obama's own view of his religious beliefs followed by a point-by-point refutation of the first section. Some, like the funeral point, was a bit of trolling by someone who was unhappy that Obama did not attend the Reagan and Scalia funerals. Others, like the statement that Obama did not visit Israel during his first term, was probably written before Obama visited Israel twice during his second term. I would feel more comfortable with an article that did not try (weakly) to convince the reader that Obama is a Muslim and then shows how Obama is not a Muslim. Thanks, JDano (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
The whole page is just a garbled mess - and it's got 400,OOO hits. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:02, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
It is probably 2,000 page views by readers wanting information, 100,000 page views from editors rearranging the deck chairs in the chapel of the Titanic, and 298,000 page views from links on critic websites. I am sure that the advocates for "We still think Obama must be a Muslim" will also argue, "this low-profile article can't affect CP's stature and credibility." This is an article that says more about the editor than about the article subject. JDano (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Absurd rationale for removing the picture at the Evergreen Chapel

The reasons given for finding the picture improper:

  • It needs a date.
  • Was it [taken] early during Obama's presidency, before he figured out a way to avoid photos like this?
  • Why was Obama there?
  • What was he saying? Was he preaching the Gospel, as the photo misleadingly suggests?

Are utterly absurd, and suggest that the picture, and its inclusion in the article, is being held to a standard that is simply hypocritical. We could ask similar questions about some other pictures, for which the explanations are missing.

Ed Poor on campus

This picture, on Ed Poor's user talk page, has a caption that says "Ed Poor on campus", but there is no further explanation. What campus? Was he a student, or alumnus, or faculty member there? What was he doing? Was he trying to imply that he was a student or alumnus of that college? Was the picture taken before he figured out a way to avoid photos like this, perhaps to avoid giving a misleading impression?

PZ Myers

This picture, appearing on a great many pages, including The subject's article page, was obtained from a commercial source, and as such, its date can be traced. He appears to be in a pub, and holding a mug of ale. Why was he there? Did he actually drink the ale? Did he frequent pubs? Was the picture taken before he figured out a way to avoid photos showing him holding a mug of ale, perhaps to avoid giving a misleading impression?

Andy Schlafly at Columbia University

This picture, on Andy Schlafly's user page, has a caption that says "Andy Schlafly at Columbia University", and a creation comment saying that it was "in an academic setting". What was the setting, and why was he in it? Was he attending a commencement? Was he a student there? Alumnus? Faculty member? Was the picture taken before he figured out a way to avoid photos like this, perhaps to avoid giving a misleading impression?

SamHB (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

The Obama photo misleadingly suggests he was preaching the Gospel. He wasn't. What was he saying, when and why? We don't allow photo bias here.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
You do not allow bias here? What a joke, this is THE MOST biased site on the web. What you mean is you do not allow truth here. What you do allow is the glorification of right wing terrorism but Conservapedia is epidemic with bias, deceit and downright lies--Indus (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
Wrong, Indus. We do allow truth on this site, what we don't allow on here are liberal lies (including your false claims of "right-wing terrorism", which you would've only gotten by watching CNN and MSNBC or reading liberal fake news sites). The only bias, deceit and lies come from the Left (including supporters like yourself) and you do not get to impose that type of viewpoint here. Northwest (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Here's a photo of Obama delivering a eulogy for Beau Biden at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Wilmington, Jun. 6, 2015. Details corroborated here and here. For extra comedy value, it's even got some Christian clergy in the background. JohnZ (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Beau Biden was a communist, just like his daddy. Cosmetic photo ops for him or Obama is not exactly what God had in mind when he formulated the doctrine of salvation by grace. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
The first section of the article states as a reason for believing Obama is a Muslim,
Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram "IHS", which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there[49][Dead link]
Apparently, the advancemen for Obama's talk at Georgetown University had a non-wood backdrop constructed on the stage where he was to give a speech. The backdrop happened to block the monogram "IHS" on the wall behind the stage. 1) How can CP attribute the detailed actions of the White House advancemen to Obama's personal religion? 2) How can CP make the argument from this example and the fact that Obama chose the Supreme Court service over the church funeral for Scalia to conclude that Obama doesn't like being in churches? 3) How can CP conclude from two faulty examples that Obama doesn't like being in a church to the generalization that photos showing Obama in a church must be rejected as evidence? 4) How can an article which has photos showing Obama allegedly "bowing" to shake hands with a much shorter Saudi king; of Muammar Gaddafi; of a pig in a pig pen; and an undated old photo of Senator Obama wearing a native costume be guilty of photo bias when adding Obama speaking at the alter of the Evergreen Chapel, the church which the Obama family joined during his Presidential years? 5) How can CP argue from the Georgetown speech backdrop and the two missed funerals that Obama must be a Muslim? I am not impressed by the logic here. Please enlighten me.JDano (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Regarding the IHS thing, and the whole bit about two missed funerals, all that really proves is that Obama, for all his talk, is definitely no Christian (certainly not a conservative Christian). It could mean he's an atheist or a muslim as it could go either way, so it's not definitive proof. We could note the bit about him wearing a muslim ring during his College years, though. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Dear Pokeria1, you are assuming that these three things are a result of Obama's religious beliefs, rather than security concern dictated by the Secret Service or other non-religious factors. The fact that Obama has attended church many times and attended at least three funerals held in churches while President, really negates the argument. "Neither Pokeria1 nor JDano attended the Christian funeral of Nancy Reagan, therefore Pokeria1 and JDano must be Muslim," is a silly line of argument. Finally, there has never been a claim that Obama is a "conservative Christian". Most of his religious introduction to the faith was in the United Church of Christ which is more Congregationalist. He joined an "middle class" congregation which was less expressive and celebratory than some of the African-American denominations. As president, he then decided to join the Evergreen Chapel, where most of the regular attendees are enlisted naval seamen stationed at Camp David and the pastor is a Navy chaplain. The whole operation is the chaplain and a part-time music coordinator who plays the organ/piano for both the 10 a.m. Protestant service and the 8 a.m. Catholic mass held in the same building. I don't judge people by how they worship, and Conservapedia should not get into the business of arguing that some Christians are "more Christian" than others. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
First of all, I wasn't even invited to Nancy Reagan or Scalia's funeral in the first place, I don't live in the same state as the funeral that was being held for each of them, not to mention I'm not sure I can even afford the trips in any case (I live in Georgia), and I'm a complete stranger to them, so I have no right to be at the funeral in any case, and I'm pretty sure you never received an invite to the funeral either (don't know if you even live in the state the funerals were being held at, so I can't comment on that bit, and I also can't presume you actually knew them personally.). This is completely different from Barack Obama, who most certainly was invited during that time, and actually could afford to go there if he so desired, not to mention in the case of Scalia personally worked with him, which actually DOES speak volumes about Obama's views on things. And either way, trying to hide the IHS initials for Jesus Christ is something a Christian would NEVER do. Did any of the other presidents do that at Georgetown or any other religious universities? And bear in mind, Georgetown right now is closer in political leaning to Obama, so there's nothing he did there that was politically motivated as the reason, and as far as the Secret Service, why on earth would they be concerned about the IHS logo being placed nearby. It's not like that would make Obama a target, and besides which, if he truly was afraid of being made a target, he wouldn't have even held the ceremony in the first place. And let me also point out that the United Church of Christ is not proof of him being a Christian, since the Sweden article makes clear that there's a large percentage of membership at the official church there, yet a significant minority of them actually believe in it and are a lot closer to atheists. It's the same deal with Obama. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
There is nothing to indicate that the family invited Obama to the Nancy Reagan funeral. The funeral was in Simi Valley California, which is as far from Washington as it is from Georgia. The funeral was held under a tent and not in a church. Mrs. Obama attended, which seems appropriate respects for a former first lady. Please explain to me how sending your wife to a funeral on the west coast makes you a Muslim. JDano (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
I never said that it made him a muslim absolutely, I just said it didn't make him a Christian. Don't forget, there's also the very likely possibility that he is an atheist, which I personally found to be far more likely than a muslim considering he explicitly adhered to Marxist agitprop. Maybe Andy thought it made him a muslim, but I didn't think of it in any way besides as a remote possibility. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
I am sorry but I don't follow your reasoning. This article is saying Obama must be a Muslim because he avoids churches. The evidence that he avoids churches are the funerals of Reagan and Scalia. With Reagan, Mrs. Obama went out to California for a service that was held in a tent and not a church. The Obamas also issued public statements that said nice things about Mrs. Reagan. With Scalia, Obama went to a formal memorial service at the Supreme Court and Joe Bidden went to the funeral the next day. When Obama worked as a community organizer, he was hired by a group of churches and attended meeting held in churches. He has gone to church many times since becoming a Christian in 1988. Only someone who has not research the facts would write that bullet. As a taxpayer, I want the President to be working hard at leading the country and not flying around the country with a full Secret Service detail going to every possible funeral. If Obama had gone to a church funeral on each of 365 days each year, there would still be rumors alleging that he is a Muslim. JDano (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Again, I wasn't even the one who put that bulletpoint into the article in the first place. It was Andy Schlafly. Heck, I honestly don't agree with him regarding him being a muslim. If anything, I'm more inclined to view him as an atheist, if anything. The only part Andy and I even remotely agree on regarding this is that he's not a Christian. You have a problem with that bulletpoint? Take it up with him. And in case you've forgotten, him helming churches as a community organizer doesn't make him a Christian, any more than Stalin helming the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II made him anything other than a militant atheist. When he explicitly adheres to Marxism, which makes clear it does not allow for religion at all, that makes him, de facto, an atheist. As far as him not attending funerals with full security detail, if he can spend time golfing or going on vacations or even appearing on the David Letterman show and other talk shows on our dime, many times over actually leading the country, he most certainly can spend that time attending various funerals, and quite frankly, him attending funerals to those guys would make him far closer to a leader than going on vacations, appearing on late night talk shows, attending Hollywood parties, or golfing does by any stretch. Also, merely attending church doesn't necessarily make him a Christian. Again, Stalin, being the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has helmed it many times, yet he obviously is no Christian, explicitly holding to militant atheism. And Sweden's national church has several members attending who don't even believe in the religion. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Does anyone have any source to indicate that IHS was hidden "with wood"? The way I recall it, the wood paneling on the wall was shiney, and there was a concern that bright TV lights would reflect off of that surface. So the advancemen put up a cloth backdrop behind the President that does not reflect light. JDano (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

The future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam

This is the defining moment of Obama's career and life.

  1. Gaddafi was an ally of kufr states and an enemy of jihadists.
  2. Obama armed and trained jihadists to kill Gaddafi, a traitor to Islam.
  3. Obama set up a strawman argument that innocent Americans were murdered by jihadists that Obama armed.
  4. Obama proclaimed the victory he achieved for Islam over Muslim traitors from the pinnacle platform of global debate justifying the murder of innocents to further jihad.
  5. Obama engineered the deception, strawman, assassination, and betrayal.
  6. Obama laid the groundwork and justification for the Charlie Hedbo massacre. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:15, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Dear RobS: Everyone can agree that terrorism is a serious worldwide problem and that several nations have been harboring terrorists. The message that Donald Trump, Obama and George W Bush have in common is that moderate Muslims should actively work to neutralize the terrorists in their countries. To do this, each of the Presidents has actively communicated to the Arab world that the United States is at war with just terrorists and not all Muslims. All three have given speeches to that effect. You are misconstruing one of those speeches as "proclaimed the victory he achieved for Islam over Muslim traitors from the pinnacle platform of global debate justifying the murder of innocents to further jihad." If you read the entire speech, you will see that the message is very similar to the recent speech to Arab leaders by Donald Trump. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Obama lied about the cause then he blamed everyone who refused to cowtow to Mohammad. Many people felt Obama was signing their death warrant. Obama provided the justification for Charlie Hedbo. Jihadists recruitment exploded on his watch. When Obama took office, there were an estimated 12,000 jihadists worldwide; CIA estimates it has killed 30,000 ISIS jihadis already, and 7,000 remain, Al Qaeda recruitment is up (probably around 10,000 worldwide); Boko Haram has 15,000; and still other groups. And in removing Gaddafi, Obama has facilitated the jihad in Europe. This is what he meant by being a "transformational agent of change".
Obama had me fooled; I gave him the benefit of the doubt on when he said he was a Christian. But after he murdered Gaddafi cause Gaddafi was a friend of the West, and promised the jihadis they own the future, the evidence is overwhelming.
Even Christians don't get bent out shape when someone insults God himself-Jesus Christ. These people worship a sinful man. This is the epitome of evil. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:03, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
There is a big difference between cataloging reasons why people dislike Obama and reasons to believe that he is a Muslim. Both Trump and Obama are pushing a key strategic point -- to defeat ISIL (or terrorism in general) we need to get moderate Muslims on our side. Terrorists use social media to recruit by messaging "The West is the enemy of all Muslims." Our counter must be "Just because the West is fighting terrorists does not mean that the West is the enemy of all Muslims."
Any speech on this topic will have sentences that could be pulled out of context and misinterpreted or distorted. I don't see how the speech shows that Obama personally is a Muslim rather than a Christian. JDano (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
(a) "moderate" rebel is another Obama lie; (b) Obama created ISIS. (c) Obama not only armed ISIS, Obama made a jihadi recruiting speech at the UN; (d) "Just because the West is fighting terrorists does not mean that the West is the enemy of all Muslims" - was the clear mantra of the Bush administration for 8 years, which Obama vowed to undo, and he did. (e) Obama's UN jihadi recruiting speech nullifies Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:46, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
(e) Nowhere is the success of Obama's recruiting speech for a mindless murderous ideology more apparent now (after the attacks on Charlie Hedbo, Pam Geller, and others) than Kathy Griffin. Obama's hatred of the West, Christianity, America, and white culture can't be whitewashed by more lies. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:42, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
Dear Brother-in-arms RobS: Please read the full text of the UN speech and then I am sure we can work a compromise out. Even if you pull that one sentence out of context it is still a leap. As it is now, we have a coherent bullet about the UN speech. If you want to do a separate bullet about Benghazi, you can try. Most conservatives have put Benghazi at the door of Hillary Clinton rather than President Obama. In effect, the bullet is arguing that "because bad things happened in Libya, Obama must be a Muslim." We are not talking about "Moderate rebels." Suppose Obama were a Christian, the UN speech is still advocating freedom of religion in the Arab world, and US foreign policy would still have the same externally imposed challenges. US foreign policy failures do not reflect the religious views of any one individual. JDano (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
The problem begins with Obama's lie over the Benghazi massacre, which he carried a step further in that speech to blame innocent victims. There is no "context" to any speech based on self-promulgated lies. There is no way to ever parse or whitewash what Obama said, or what he meant, or what he intended to mean. This phrase is akin to Adolf Eichmann saying he would "leap into the grave laughing knowing he was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews." This phrase needs to be emblazoned on Obama's tombstone.
Obama should have just shut up after the media and Democrats bought his lies about the Benghazi massacre, but like all extremists, he couldn't control himself and wanted to kick the opponents of jihad when they were down. He cannot undo the damage he's done to himself and his legacy, justifying - and encouraging - murder. Only Jesus can save him now. And although God may not require works for salvation, other Christians might want to see evidence of a conversion before they believe an admitted and proven liar. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:57, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

I have read various explanations on why Gaddafi was killed. Here are a few additional ones not discussed on the talk page: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0 and https://www.africanexponent.com/post/new-evidence-the-real-reason-gaddafi-was-killed-2706

I think the main reason why he was killed is that Clinton and many American politicians don't think enough moves ahead in their "political chess games". For example, what is going to happen to Iraq after Saddam Hussein is removed from power? Conservative (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

Conservative and my friend RobS are free to add on to the Gaddafi and Libya articles. But this does not prove the Obama was a Muslim. JDano (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
There are even a bigger crimes in the betrayal and murder of an ally - what Obama & Hillary did to Gaddafi. (1) NATO was formed as a defensive alliance in Europe; under Obama's "leading with your head up you behind", NATO was converted to wage an offensive war of aggression outside Europe. (2) The betrayal of an ally who gave up his WMD killed forever trying to find a non-military solution to the nuclear proliferation crisis' in North Korea and Iran. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:18, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
I have great respect for RobS, but I do not see any relationship between the text of the UN speech, the Benghazi attacks and Obama's allegedly being a Muslim. Everyone please read this section of the speech:
The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this. Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." (Applause.) Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine. (Applause.) Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision -- a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed -- Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians. That’s what America stands for. That is the outcome that we will work for -- with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute, and assistance and support for those who work for this common good. Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and the legitimacy to lead.
I agree with the above quote. The above quote and speech reflect a Christian viewpoint. There is nothing Muslim-centric about this. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
Bull. I can tear this speech apart, beginning with the fact he lied about Benghazi and this speech is nothing but lies. Obama armed ISIS. There was no civil insurrection in Syria, jihadis released from American detention received Special Operations training and equipment from Qatar, a US front. Tahir Square? Coptic Christians? Sunni & Shia sectarian violence? Obama signed covert action findings authorizes thugs to set off that violence. And his little partisan swipe at Natanyahu, "future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace", or this pile of garbage:
"The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources [like the Clinton Foundation...]
"-- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people..."
The heck they do. Remember? Businesses owners never built their own business, therefore they not only don't have a right to it, consequently they have no right to the future, either. The future belongs to Muslim beheaders who murder innocent people because somebody else insulted the Prophet of Islam. Not my words - his words.
It's pointless trying to salvage anything out of this speech. Obama is now dog meat. The speech has no meaningful context, and is loaded with buzz phrases, intended to stick and be repeated - to the whole world. You're time would be better served trying to paint Elizabeth Warren as the first female Messiah, or rehabilitating Hillary Clinton for another run. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:29, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
RobS, I am not trying to rehabilitate anyone, but rather come up with an article where the sources and statements match. CP can't pull one sentence from this speech to justify that Benghazi proves that Obama was a Muslim. Does Benghazi fall on Clinton's shoulders or was it due to Obama's religious beliefs? There are too many logical leaps that are taken from a single sentence in a speech. This is an encyclopedia not a rambling set of insults unrelated to the article topic or the sources in the footnotes. You may not like the UN speech, but it does not support what you are trying to say about it in the bullet. Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
What is Benghazi? Your referring to a massacre. I'm referring to Obama's two statements: (1) on Sept. 12, 2012, murder of innocents occurred because of Muslim rage over insults to Mohammad; (2) on Sept. 25, 2012, "the future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam".
Retrospectively we know insults to the Prophet of Islam had nothing to do with the Benghazi massacre. We also know Obama knew this, yet he offered it as an explanation. But he went a step further with the deception, declaring it not only caused the massacre, it justified murder of innocents in the future. That is the entire context, and undoubtably​ proves, by his own words and actions, Obama is in bed with jihad, and you can't be a jihadist without being a Muslim. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:14, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
And without clearly articulating this context, the page is exactly as you suggest, a drab collection of insults that should be deleted. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:26, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
OK. But you are free to make these other arguments in the other articles more relevant that this one. Many thanks, JDano (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

What did it for me

Obama was quick to make statements in support of Louis Gates, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, all accused of crimes, some horrendous crimes. But when black African Christian girls - like his own daughters - were kidnapped, he was dead silent, did nothing, no airstrikes, no Special Forces, no covert action, nothing. (In fact, he gave 800 Stinger missiles - like the type that shot down TWA Flight 800 - to the kidnappers). This seemed a little odd. But when more Christians were beheaded in Derna, again, nothing. He acted as if this is the way life ought to be. As if 'justice' were being served.

Now when white guys were beheaded, again, he could have cared less. What does this mean? That he's a racist scumbag? Yes, that too. But the fact he acted as if Christians, even black Christians, weren't worth disrupting his golf game, what more evidence do you need? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:57, 13 June 2017 (EDT)