Time magazine reported an interesting survey of Americans:

Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President — a slightly higher percentage than the 24% who mistakenly believe the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim.

So one in four surveyed believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and their belief is labeled by Time as being mistaken. But based on Islamic teachings, President Obama is a Muslim because his father was himself a Muslim. And because Islam defines someone born to a Muslim father as a Muslim, I have titled this article, “Our Muslim President.” He has certainly demonstrated that he has sympathies towards Islam and Muslims, and I’m sure that is due to his upbringing. No, I don’t consider him a Muslim. President Obama has stated clearly that he is a Christian, and I will accept his word on that.

But If you listen to any of his speeches, they are loaded with his view of himself and filled with “I,” “me,” and similar language more than I recall any other politician doing. So based on his actions and words, I see that President Obama believes in Barack Hussein Obama above and beyond any personal belief in Christianity or Islam he may have.

Let’s face it — President Obama is our Narcissist in Chief.

Unless you have lived like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, in a shack in the woods somewhere, you’ve probably heard about the upcoming movie produced and directed by Mel Gibson. Originally titled The Passion, it is being released Wednesday, February 25 as The Passion of the Christ. While this certainly isn’t the first and won’t be the last movie about the life and death of Jesus Christ, I believe this particular film has the most press surrounding it. Yes, The Last Temptation of Christ generated a lot of press at its 1988 release, but that has been eclipsed by the international press stir of Gibson’s movie. One common complaint by various Jewish groups and organizations is that this new movie will stir up anti-Semitic feeling in the viewers, or that it is anti-Semitic by its very nature.

The Passion of the Christ tells the story of the last few hours of Christ’s life as outlined in the four Gospels of the Bible’s New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather than write his own spin on how things might have happened, Gibson has stated his goal was to make this movie conform as closely as possible to the text of the Gospels. This is why the actors speak in Aramaic and “street Latin,” not English. Originally Gibson didn’t want any subtitles in the movie, trusting the audience to follow along based on the actions, but I am glad he decided to release it with full subtitles. I prefer the language of the King James Version of the Bible, so the dialog seems familiar but not exactly what I’m used to. Yet not everyone is as familiar or comfortable with the archaic language of the King James Version, so I understand using a more modern version of the text.

“My intention for this film was to create a lasting work of art and to stimulate serious thought and reflection among diverse audiences of all backgrounds,” says Gibson. “My ultimate hope is that this story’s message of tremendous courage and sacrifice might inspire tolerance, love and forgiveness. We’re definitely in need of those things in today’s world.” But The Passion of the Christ has not inspired tolerance, love, and forgiveness so far. Many critics have condemned the movie as anti-Semitic, but if Gibson has followed the Gospels as closely as he claims, then so is the New Testament.

But is the New Testament really anti-Semitic? Jesus himself was a Jew, as were His apostles and His earliest disciples. So whence comes this idea that a straight retelling of the last few hours of Christ’s life is anti-Semitic? Well, in Matthew 27:24-25, Pilate declares his lack of culpability in Christ’s death, and the multitude cries out, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Certain people have used this single verse as justification for calling the Jews “Christ killers” and blaming them for His death. But the only people who can be blamed for an evil act are the people who commit it, as explained in the 18th chapter of Ezekiel in the Old Testament. The prophet Ezekiel uses three generations as an example. The grandfather is righteous, his son is wicked, and his grandson is righteous. Do the grandfather or grandson bear the sins of the father? Not at all! Ezekiel sums this up in verse 20: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son…” So how could the descendants of Jews who were present at Christ’s crucifixion be blamed for His death? They can only be blamed by people who do not understand the Bible.

But who did kill Christ? It certainly wasn’t the Jews. They didn’t have the authority to execute prisoners. That right was reserved by the Romans, which is why the Sanhedrin brought Christ before Pilate. It was Pilate, the Roman governor, who issued the command for Christ’s crucifixion. So it must have been the Romans who killed Jesus, right? Wrong! Christ himself was the only one who could decide to lay down His life. He was a deity. Had He chosen to do so, He could have hung on the cross forever or removed Himself from it, rather than dying after only a few short hours. In the 10th chapter of John, Christ explained this as he spoke of his own life in the parable of the Good Shepherd: “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” So ultimately, we cannot blame either the Jews or the Romans for the death of Christ. He chose to lay His life down for our sins, and He took it up again within three days. This was His purpose in coming to Earth, and this is why I do not mourn at His crucifixion when I can praise Him for His resurrection.

Gibson spent over $50 million of his own money to make Passion. He tried to get backing for the project, but the studios balked at the idea. Eventually, the distributors who buckled under pressure and refused to aid Gibson will see the profits pass them by, and while I am no prophet, I predict Passion will be a big money-maker for Gibson–and rightly so! Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, also predicts that this movie will make “a great deal of money” for Gibson and Icon Productions, his movie studio. He also predicts that this movie will become famous “as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made” and that the faith of Christians “will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them.” I hope Rabbi Lapin is right in each regard.

So far the prediction that this movie will make money seems to be accurate. Even though the movie opens tomorrow, people have been buying tickets well in advance. Some churches have bought out whole showings so the congregations can see this film. It is rated R for graphic violence, but that hasn’t stopped many pastors from encouraging young teenagers to attend. I plan to see this movie, but before I do, I will read the final chapters of the four Gospels. Then when I see the movie, I should be able to spot if Gibson has departed from the written word.

Recently I wrote about some comments made by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad. His recent comments were merely one incident in a long string of Jew-bashing speeches he has made. But honestly, did you hear about Mohamad on the nightly news? While some Jewish organizations spoke out against Mohamad’s comments before the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, the major media basically gave his speech a pass. Where is the outrage?

Well, the media outrage is not focused on Mahathir Mohamad’s speech; instead, it is focused on Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin’s recent comments. Gen. Boykin is the decorated former commander and veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force and the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. If you have been watching the nightly news for the last week, you will have seen news stories about Gen. Boykin’s comments. But let me quote a few, just so you know what the hubbub is all about.

Speaking of President George Bush: “He’s in the White House because God put him there.” Speaking of the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia: “I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol.” Speaking of radical Islamists: “[They hate America] because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian … and the enemy is a guy named Satan.”

Did he make these comments before the nation in some televised forum? No. These comments were made in churches around the nation, but the media decided to make the comments into national news. Judging by the venom issuing from the left, you would think that the General had eaten a spotted owl or done something similarly evil. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) jumped into this fray with his letter to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:

“I am writing to express my extreme displeasure over Lieutenant General William Boykin’s remarks about the war and the Muslim religion. Lt. Gen. Boykin serves as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and is charged with heading a Pentagon office that focuses on finding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other targets. This is a critical policymaking position, and it is outrageous that someone who holds such extreme, closed-minded, zealous views would be allowed such a prominent position in our military.”

There has also been some reaction from the Islamic community. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said, “Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how ill-informed or bigoted, but those beliefs should not be allowed to color important decisions that need to be made in the war on terrorism.” Tell me, Mr. Awad, should we instead listen to you and other members of CAIR? Your organization is suspected of having ties with Hamas and other radical terrorist groups. Former and current members of CAIR have been arrested for such offenses as conspiring to train on American soil for a “violent jihad.” Forgive me if I’m not too keen to follow suggestions issued by CAIR.

While listening to discussions of Gen. Boykin’s comments on the radio, I heard several conservatives suggest that he should not have made religious pronouncements while in uniform. But contrary to the popular and incorrect view of separation of church and state, the General did nothing wrong. When someone joins the military or has a position of leadership in the government, that person does not give up his religion nor his freedom to express it freely.

Gen. Boykin has stated that he respects Islam, but that the terrorists and radicals who fight against America are “not true followers of Islam.” For the pundits on the left, this was not enough. Last week, Boykin apologized by saying, “For those who have been offended by my statements, I offer a sincere apology.” I can understand the political necessity for it, but I think that style of apology was the wrong choice. Here’s the apology I wish I had heard him give:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I do have an apology to make. To the good and faithful people of Islam, I am sorry that radicals have twisted your faith into an excuse to commit murder. I regret that too many good Muslims have stood by while terrorists and lawless thugs have hid behind the words of Mohammed in an attempt to justify their evil deeds. I apologize for the need to kill these people who have taken up arms against our nation and our people. I regret that Islam stood by while evil men conspired to do wickedness in the name of Allah. I am sorry Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be freed from the hands of brutal, diabolical dictators. I am truly saddened at the loss of life caused by these terrorists, and I apologize for the need to hunt these murderers like the dogs they are. I pray to God that we are victorious in ripping out, root and branch, this wickedness from off the face of the earth, and that the terrorists burn in hell forever.”

Now that is the type of apology I would love to hear, but I realize that we as Americans are not unified in the war on terrorism. Too many people have forgotten the image of planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, and too many people do not understand that radical terrorists do not want to discuss their hatred for us. They want to kill us. But this understanding has been lost. That is why there is more reaction to the fervent words of a decorated, twice-wounded soldier who believes in God than the malevolent speech of an outgoing Malaysian prime minister who wants to see Israel destroyed. Please tell me, which of these two is filled with more hatred?