We have had plenty of time now to see who our new President is. This Cairo Speech is a beautiful example of President Obama, his methodology, and his fundamental flaws. Of course members of the main stream media think that this speech puts Obama on par with God . . .really he compared Obama to God. But that is what it takes to get a job at Newsweek. When that magazine folds, I will take my family out to a nice dinner to celebrate.
President Obama’s methodology should be noted first. He loves the "on one hand . . . but on the other hand" construction. He uses it all the time, and uses it again in this speech. I believe it is because Presdient Obama believes that looking at a problem from all the angles will solve it. But is also because he believes that there is never a problem where you either have to chose the one hand or the other. There is never a black and white situation for President Obama. There is never a situation where the two positions are contradictory. It has to be admitted the other major method used by President Obama is lying. I don’t see much other way around it. "Islam has a proud tradition of religious tolerance." It is hard to imagine that is anything other than a lie. And when you sight Indonesia as your example it is hard to take it seriously. Obama was attempting to lie to get on their good side. Even the United States Council on Religious Freedom counts Indonesia as a country that allows persecution of Christians by Muslims. Not exactly a good tolerance rating there. Just because the government does not officially sponsor persecution as it does in many Middle Eastern countries does not mean that Islam is being tolerant of Christianity in Indonesia.
President Obama himself is on display in major speeches like this. There is much that he needs to be criticized for in this speech. One can wrangle about whether or not it is right to apologize for the Iraq war, as he basically did in this speech. One can argue whether or not he should have spoken of terrorism and the sponsorship of it. It is a policy debate when you are discussing Israel. They have no fundamental right to expect our support. But, it is a clear shift in policy by demanding Israel come to a two-state solution and stop settlements. President Obama is clearly pro-Palastinian in this speech. It is clear the biggest thing in the speech is this statement.
For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That is a rejection that the job of the President of the United States is to look out for the good of the United States. Now he may just be talking about sujugation, a physical oppression, but that part is not repeated. He appears to be saying the mere elevation of your interest is now a bad thing. His view of being our President is to NOT serve our own interests. He considers such things as failures. Such a statement is astronomical. Unbelievable. And it is not really being reported on.
Obama also needs to be corrected on fundamental facts. After claiming to be a “student of history” he messes up every single statement on history in his speech. According to President Obama part of the debt of civilization to Islam is the compass. Now there is a debate about who invented the compass. Some think it was the Olmec, a native tribe in South America. This is not held by many. Most think it was the Chinese. Others think it was invented independently in Europe and first used as navigation there. I have not seen anyone, other than the President, argue the Islamic world invented the compass. The argument for the invention of the compass by the Islamic world would have to be based on the fact that they had it, and we just have not yet discovered the proof for it. The Compass is mentioned in France almost 100 years prior to seeing any evidence of it in the Islamic world, and that does not get the Islamic world ahead of China. Algebra is universally attributed to the ancient Babylonians. While Babylon is roughly modern day Iraq, Babylon pre-dates Islam by 1,000 years. Only the grossest of ignorance can claim Islam gave us Algebra. I think the printing press is so well documented that to pretend the mastery of printing came from Islam is an insult.
This leads me to my point. President Obama can extend the olive branch all he wants, but he is living in a world of delusion and lies. Islam has not contributed to civilization, at least not very much. They may have kept many manuscripts alive that we later used in the Renaissance, but the question needs to be asked, why did they not have a Renaissance? If when we discovered the old texts kept in libraries in Muslim countries, we had a rush back to the sources and learned and grew and had a period of intellectual revival, what is it in Islam that prevented that from happening? Is keeping a book on a shelf keeping learning alive or is it simply storing something for others? Islam no matter how much we pretend is not a religion of peace, and their effect on countries is obvious to the naked eye. President Obama can put Judaism, Islam, and Christianity on a par as he did in the speech, but it is a falsehood to try and live by it. Like I tell my kids, it is one thing to pretend you are Superman, but it is another to live like you are Superman. The first is in good fun, the second is dangerous and deadly. Just to drive home the point. President Obama quoted from the Koran when he stated that "if one murdered anyone in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people", but the next verse is the important distinction found in the Koran. That verse goes on to state: "The punishment for those who strive against Allah and His Messenger [Mohammed] . . . is execution . . ." A verse about peace is followed by a verse that demands the death of all those who do not follow Mohammed.
In the end, this speech is a useless exercise in egotism. There are fundamental differences found in the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity that will not allow them to exist side by side as if they are the same. One has a view of civilization that is about bloodshed, hatred, subjection of women, and has holy war as one of the great virtues. The other has a view that is about forgiveness, salvation, and love. They are not both the same.