On Thomas Jefferson and America as a Christian nation

Is America a Christian nation? That is another question that is preoccuping the American media since Barack Obama returnded from his tour of Europe. While in Turkey, Obama said that although most Americans were Christians, there are also sizeable communities of Jews, Muslims etc. He stated that America does not consider itself a Christian nation, nor a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, they are a nation bound by common ideals.
Of course, Fox News considered this statement tantamount to treason How dare he misrepresnt us like that? How dare he say that? The usual Anti-Obama vitriol flowed from the likes of Hannity and Rove.
I wonder what Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissenger would say about this idea of America as a Christian nation, two very prominent Americans, two former Secretaries of State, both Jewsih. Of course the anti-Obamans are quick to point out the term 'Judeo-Christian' they say America was created on Judeo-Christian values.
I have two points, the first one is about this concept of Christian values, no such concept exists, Christianity is not a uniform religion, it has been and is been interpreted in very many different ways. The complexity of what Christianity is is evidenced by the myriad of denominations that exist, with many denominations in stark contrast with each other. So what is a Christian nation then, if some say America is a Christian nation, then what about the Philippines, where 90% of the population is Christian, the values of these countries should be identical if they are found on this so called Christian values. Of course one can have the argument that the Philippines is a Catholic nation, and yes that argument holds water, so it would seem that in order to claim a state religion, the wide umbrella of Christianity needs to be fractionalized into denomintions. So is America an Episcopalian country, or a Baptist nation, or Methodist or Seventh Day Adventist.
The many ways in which Jesus Christ's words are interpreted make the concept of Christianity a very contentious one, yes the hatred and violence between Protestant and Catholic has reduced over the centuries but still one would accuse the other for not being Christian. When we add Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness and various strands of Pentecostalism, the issue of what exactly Christianity is becomes even more complex.
This brings me to Thomas Jefferson, one of the most revered American statesmen, a founding father of the great nation, his face graces the very rare 2 dollar bill.
He is still quoted today by many American politicians. He authored the Declaration of Independence, arguably the most important document in American history. The words on that document have framed American civic life and made it the unique country it is today, so this, and The Bill of Rights, authored by Jefferson's protégé James Madison, must be the source of the so-called Judeo-Christian values.
But a simple study of Thomas Jefferson would reveal his interesting brand of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, unhappy with the divine Jesus, set about to write his own bible, removing all of Jesus' miracles and supernatural events during his life, claiming that these events were added by the authors of the gospels.
My point is that Jefferson saw Jesus Christ merely as a great philosopher, not as God as 'Christians' should believe. Yet despite his views, views that no self respecting Christian American politician today dare have, he is still revered today, and his Declaration of Independence is deeply cherished, and widely quoted.
The philosophy on which America is built does not stem from a religion, research tells us that most of Americans founding fathers were Deists and not Christians. It is a philosophy based on freedom and equality, a philosophy that was strengthened during the American struggle against Britsh Aristocracy and Monarchy.
While it is a fact that most Americans are Christians, and unlike in many European countries faith plays a prominent role in American political life, it is simply illogical to use those facts to claim that America is a Christian nation.

America is a Godly nation, however, would be a more truthful statement.

Nous avons confiance en Dieu

So, Did he Bow or Not?

Americans are back at it again, wasting time on pointless news. This time the furore is about President Obama's bow or semi-prostrate to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about it yesterday, and he denied it at first, then when pressed, he brushed the question aside.
Well, I took a look at the picture, and the video, and it clearly shows Obama bowing to the King.
The right wing is furious, they are, first Obama says in Turkey that America is not a Christian nation, then he bows to the King of a Muslim nation, the right wing and religious right have all but confirmed that Obama is a covert Muslim.
But, why did Obama bow to King Abdullah? When Bush Jr was in house he didn't bow to the King, instead they held hands.
American journalists are saying that it shows submission, it undermines the USA's image of power if the president is seeing showing too much respect to someone else.
But we forget one simple thing, it's all about image and the power of language, I think when one has the words King or Queen in front of their name, it kind of beats being a President or a Prime Minister, it means you are the top boss, no one can impeach you, vote you out, nothing, it means total control. It is enviable, when one is born into power, when leadership of a country is a birth right. One can not be surprised that when an elected leader meets a born leader, the lesser one bows. Obama bowed when he met Queen Elizabeth (although a less back breaking bow) and I suppose he'll continue to bow when he meets monarchs around the world.
I think the problem American's have is who he bowed to, Xenophobia and Islamophobia are rife in America, anyone who's traditional dress involves headgear is looked upon with suspicion in American society (look at the backlash Sikhs got after 9/11)
America is proud of its power, they are proud of the way other countries bend to their will, many respected African statesmen are reduced to boys when faced with the might of America. So when the so called Leader of the Free World bows to the Leader of the "Oppressed World", one can expect a storm to gather. If Obama gave that same bow to say King Harold of Norway or King Albert of Belgium then it will be seen as nothing but Obama showing reverence and respect to an old monarch, but when he does the same to King Abdullah, the variables change- the media would not construct it as Obama just greeting an old man, No, he is bowing to the King of a nation where women are not allowed to drive, he is bowing to the leader of the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, he is bowing to an "inferior culture"

.....When really, he is Bowing to Oil.

The Rise of American Fascism?

Last week, republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin said at a rally, that she liked to visit ‘pro-America’ areas in America, leading the media to ask if there are any ‘anti-America’ areas of the nation.
This suggestion by Mrs. Palin is not surprising, since she was brought into the race to the White House, Mrs. Palin has riled-up the so called ‘conservative base’ of the Republican Party. She has timelessly said that she is from a small town, and has duly positioned herself as a champion of small town values (which her husband Todd specified as Hunting and Fishing)
For those not familiar with American society, perhaps the explanation given by Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey (who regularly parodies Mrs. Palin) would give an insight into the mythical small-town vs big city values gap. Fey listed New York, Delaware, Maine, Connecticut and California as amongst the ‘anti-American’ areas. This is not just a random list, these areas happen to be the most urbanized and cosmopolitan areas of the nation, also, these areas are traditionally Democratic.
Mrs Palin who has once said that there is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women (misquoting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright) has once again courted controversy with her pro vs anti America parts of the nation.
This is not a new phenomenon, but it’s a very American one, and I find it bordering on fascism- and I don’t use that word lightly. By bordering on fascism, I mean that some Americans find any criticism of America’s actions by an American as unpatriotic- that is fascist. John McCain and Sarah Palin continuously calling out Barack Obama for refusing to use the word ‘victory’ in his speeches on Iraq- that is fascist. Republican supporters’ continuous attempts to portray Obama as unpatriotic and a secret terrorist-that is fascist. This notion that some parts of the country do not have America’s best interest at heart is fascism.
It’s going to start with ‘areas’ that are anti-American, then it will move on to individuals or groups of people that are anti-American. Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has recently fanned the embers of fascism, by calling for a purge of the legislature for those holding anti-American views; this is reminiscent of McCarthyism where everyone was on the lookout for the mythical ‘communist’
There is a growing tendency by conservatives to equate liberalism with anti-Americanism. The real fear that Obama will somehow sell-out America explains the divide and the deep ignorance of the American electorate. I hope Senator Barack Obama wins, I do, because frankly, the alternative is fascism, not the bold face Mussolini or Hitler type, but a new brand, a new American Fascism- criticize or protest against the government? Good Luck to you.

Obama's Father's Day Speech

One of the best speeches you'd ever hear

LeBron James: America in a Post-Racial Society

A World War I US Army propaganda poster and the infamous Vogue Cover

US Basketball star LeBron James is in the middle of a big media storm about his depiction on elite fashion magazine Vogue. This is only the thrid time that a man has appeared on its cover, and the fourth time a black person has appeared on the cover of Vogue which was first published in 1892.
James appears on the cover with Brazilian model Gisele Bündchen, a caucasian. He is clutching her with one arm, while his other bounces a basketball. On his face he has his characteristic grimace after scoring in a game.
The fury by many African-Americans over the picture stems from the depiction of LeBron. Most say the picture is animalistic, by him clutching a white woman he is perpetuating stereotypes of black men lusting after white women. Personally, when I saw the picture I was not impressed. I have an avid interest in both World Wars, and much earlier I had been exposed to the US. Army's propaganda poster, which depicted Germany as a great ape, clutching a female (representing USA, as seen by the clothing resemblance to the Lady Liberty) I noticed that the Vogue cover bore a startling similarity to that poster, and I prepared myself for the furore that was almost certain to emerge.
Now the question people ask is 'Was that similarity to King Kong or an ape done on purpose?' or was it innocent, did they just photograph LeBron in his element and Gisele in hers. Some people will say just that. They say if you look at the picture and see 'Ape and white woman' then you are subconciously racist, as far as they are concerned, the picture is innocent.
Is this true though? Has America genuingly moved on from the stark racism of 40 years ago. Has what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 faded completely into the past, Has the legacy of Rosa Parks completely vanished? Is America in a Post-racial society? Is race no longer an issue?
The finalizing of the Vogue cover is not a small issue, it is certainly not an issue that is dealt with by one person, several photographers and editors critique and enhance the photograph before it appears in the newstands. Didn't anyone at Vogue predict this backlash by African-Americans claiming Vogue is racist for depicting 'their own' in such an unflattering manner, or, did Vogue think that America has moved to a stage where a black man showing 'ape-like behaviour' should not raise any eyebrows.
Of course, it can also be argued that Vogue, by doing this, is pushing America toward a post-racial society, by 'normalizing' sensitive issues is Vogue saying "Look, black or white we are all the same"
As black people, not just African-Americans, we are constantly trying to put our best face forward when it comes to our depiction in the media. We want to be seen as beautiful, intelligent and articulate, and so often one famous black persons blunder becomes an embarrasment to the whole race. Similarly, one black person's triumph is shared by the race, for example the case of O.J Simpson or even Barack Obama's presidential race.
This attitude is brought about by an inferiority complex, in Afro-Americans due to slavery, and in Africans due to colonialism. We want to show white people that we have progressed to a level of equality, we want to show that their assumptions of us as being inferior were wrong.
So when Lebron James shows up on the cover of what can be described as a 'white magazine' looking unattractive, black people everywhere feel unattractive, we are angered that the 'white magazine' has chosen to show the ugliest picture. The Vogue cover is an important milestone for blacks and whites alike, and with this rare oppurtunity to present ourselves to 'white world'; we have chosen to put a 'terrible' picture of 'our own'- this summarizes the feeling of many people who did not like the Vogue cover.
Of course there's the other side: What do white people really think? When they see a black man screaming, do they really think 'Ape!' When they see a black man holding a white woman, do they really think 'Rapist!'
The sad fact is that even in academia we are taught to expect the worst, not only in terms of race, but also in terms of gender. Nothing is ever 'what it is', there is always an ulterior motive.
Girls are taught that advertising featuring men and women are inherently sexist, and black people are taught that any depiction of a black person displaying a negative trait is an extension of the general view held by white people.
We are in a vicious cycle, on one hand we want to combat racism, but on the other we look for racism in every single thing.
As far as reaching a post-racial society is concerned, I believe we would one day reach it, when black milestones are no longer counted, when we look at Denzel Washington as merely an actor, when Obama becomes just another presidential candidate, when there would be no need for a Black Entertainment Television channel.
Martin Luther King had a dream, and I share that dream too!