BURN: Would There Be Enough Evidence To Convict?

Writing in Politico, some perfidious idiot named Neal Gabler published a piece titled "Obama In Disinformationland".  In it, he asserted that Collectivists love objective truth, while non-collectivists rely on fairy tales.

OK, fair enough.  We have a testable hypothesis!  As a rationalist and son of the Enlightenment (which Gabler risibly claims for the Collective), I happily accept the challenge!

The idea that there is such a thing as verifiable truth — such as Obama being a Christian — is increasingly seen as elitist. It’s as if truth were yet another scheme by the powerful to impose their will on everyone else.

See, Gabler identifies the proposition that Obama is a Christian as OBJECTIVELY true.  The idea that people...LOTS of people...find that a dubious proposition puts those people in a "anti-elitist" group of snake-handling believers in "individual truth", of which he says G.W. is a leading proponent.  Gabler sees no irony here, as he accuses Obama's skeptics of the very keystone of the Collective's "post-modern" philosophy of "multiple truths".

A great challenge that leaders of various religions have put to their followers is this: "If you were accused of being a [insert religion here], would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

In the case of "Obama Is A Christian", I think I could get him acquitted before most juries.

OBJECTIVELY, we have this evidence that Barack Hussain Obama is a Christian; he has said he is.  For twenty years, he attended a nominally Christian church.

OBJECTIVELY, the jury would have to consider Obama's character for truthfulness; how credible a witness is he.  Here, the OBJECTIVE evidence cuts against his declaration of his faith.  The man is OBJECTIVELY a terrible liar.  Add to that his statement that, despite being present in Rev. Wright's church for twenty years, he was unaware of Rev. Wright's doctrine.  OBJECTIVELY, many people find Wright to believe the inverse of what Christ taught.

Adherents of Christianity can often be identified (as against people who only say they are Christians) by examining how they live.  Christianity does have...across its variants...certain commonly accepted tenets.

Charity--actual Christians are charitable people.  They give...freely...of their substance.  OBJECTIVELY, Mr. Obama has a history of penury that is common among Collectivists, but foreign to Christians.

Free agency--Christians today (if not in history) believe in people choosing their conduct.  That does not mean they will forebear from persuasion or social pressure.  It means that others are not to be compelled to do what a Christian believes should be done.  Mr. Obama believes the opposite, judging by his history.

The Golden Rule--This seems universally to be a Christian ideal.  Mr. Obama, based on his conduct, does not believe in this precept.

The Ten Commandments--Christ didn't suspend these, but supplemented them with some new commandments which were intended to be "higher standards".  Mr. Obama, as we know, does not tell the truth.  He also does not respect the property of others.  His use of free time suggests (which is SUBJECTIVE, but no less valid) that his first allegiance is not to God.  He supports the taking of innocent human life.

So, OBJECTIVELY, people who are skeptical about Obama's profession of faith have ample reason, based on OBSERVED conduct.  Christians are not to CONDEMN, but all of us HAVE to make judgments.

And, Mr. Gabler, facts DO matter to most Americans.  We won't ignore them because some politician CLAIMS one thing or another.  No matter how you demonize us for using our common sense and powers of OBSERVATION, we won't suspend critical thought.

Is Obama a Muslim?  I very much doubt it.  Is Obama irreligious?  That is apparently the case.  His god is the man in the mirror.  And he has no other god before him.