… we’re told by some that we’re to take him at his word and believe his claim to faith despite the lack of evidence… and if we don’t, then we’re being judgmental, intolerant and less than civil… and yet we’re told by many of the same people that when jihadists terrorize us in the name of Islam, that proclamation of faith must be rejected.
Now let me attempt to substantiate what I’m saying here (as if it was necessary to do so).
It is clear that the threat of al Qaeda-style terrorism is not limited to the al-Qaeda core group, or organizations that have close operational links to al Qaeda. While al Qaeda continues to threaten America directly, it also inspires its affiliates and other groups and individuals who share its violent ideology and seek to attack the United States claiming it is in the name of Islam – a claim that is widely rejected.
She goes on to describe at length the threats being faced by Americans from homegrown terrorists but fails to ever mention Islam, this despite the widely held and substantiated view that they are largely Islamists.
Now let’s go to Joshua DuBois, the White House Office Faith Director who is bothered by those who might question Obama’s publicized faith declaration:
“I think the general sort of uncivil tone of some of the discourse is troubling not just to the President but to a lot of the people, a lot of the pastors we talk with on a daily basis, folks who may not agree with us on particular issues all the time but when you are doing things like that when you are calling someone’s faith into question, when you are questioning someone’s motives these are things that feel like they go beyond the boundaries of what’s accetable and what’s right…”
Someone help me see where I’ve got this wrong. Aren’t they basically telling us on the one hand not to reject the professed faith of a believer while on the other hand telling us to reject the professed faith of a believer?
I await a cogent response.