Barrack Hussein Obama has a decidedly unscriptural and politically-motivated view of the Bible, God’s Word, which he bends and cherry-picks to sate whatever appetite of political convenience he wishes to expound upon. In the days following the firestorm over the Black Separatist church sermons from Pastor Jeremiah Wright that Obama has has joined himself as a member of for 20 years, it serves us well to examine just what exactly Obama does believe in terms of his Christianity.
While he gave a speech today, once again trying to distance himself from the anti-American racist comments of his pastor of 20 years, he did nothing more than to give another flowery speech filled with emotional rhetoric and smooth typical Democratic talking points that are favorite class and racial warfare keywords used to exploit those issues. While distancing himself in word from the outspoken racism of pastor Jeremiah Wright, his speech today does nothing but continue to exploit the issue of racial divides.
Obama said today that race is stuck in a “stalemate”, suggesting that America was founded as imperfect but can be made perfect, by him. He excuses the racial hatred of his pastor and fellow Black racists by telling us that “The anger is real; it is powerful” and that we must “understand its roots” and that if we do not, it will “only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races”. So on one hand he tells us he wants to denounce the racist liturgies and ministry of his pastor that he was a member of for the last 20 years, and in the same breath, expects everyone to “understand the roots” of the hatred that Pastor Wright expounded on. So he denounces what his pastor said and stands for, but also excuses the hatred at the same exact moment.
Obama wants his cake, and expects us to let him eat it too.
He has not gone into the details of what his actual religious views are. He claims to be a devout Christian, but regardless of what Barrack Hussein Obama claims – we need to be circumspect of a man who chose to be part of a congregation that has as it’s motto and mission “Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian”.
In a speech at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference in Washington last June, Obama gives a grand view of the bible comporting with a Socialistic-Left application of politics and government charity. I’m only going to post the excerpts that inspire me to comment, but the entire speech can be found at Obama’s website.
…I’d like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we’ve been seeing over the last several years.
I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.
If Barrack Hussein Obama properly understood the scriptures, he would know that poverty is not as important to God as sin is. Indeed the fact that poverty may exists BECAUSE of sin, is a fact that must never crossed his mind, or he ignores. The personal responsibility to feed the poor and clothe them is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility, a congregational responsibility – not a governmental one.
I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.
And why is it that you suppose he was motivated to say such a thing Mr. Obama? Mr. Keyes views abortion and homosexuality as biblically-defined sins and you support both practices, even so far as to permit third trimester and live birth abortions.
Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope? …I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
Barrack Hussein Obama, you cannot call yourself a Christian, and think that literal interpretation of the scriptures is folly. For if that be the case, should we deny the Resurrection of Christ since the literal raising of the dead is a scientific impossibility? What part of the bible can be discarded and ignored according to “your faith” Mr. Obama, and which ones are to be accepted? Just the red letter parts? Just the portions that you can twist into a justification for government socialism?
But Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me.
Yes, it’s called your conscience and the fact Mr. Keyes’ words pricked your heart with a sense of guilt.
Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.
Your party and your ideology has been working overtime those thirty years to remove any and all semblence of God in politics and society from free public exercise. You yourself say that there should be a ‘separation of church from state’.
Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.
Wouldn’t be because those in church still believe in God’s Commandments and Christian principles as a way of life now would it? A way of life your party and ideology has sought to demagogue, while your party celebrates sin, debauchery and abominations now would it?
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church…
Excuse you Mr. Obama – but you yourself talked about Evangelical Christians on Meet The Press November 11, 2007 and said of them; “we’ve got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don’t like.”
You were referencing Evangelical Christians as “people we don’t like”. Yet you accuse Evangelical Christians of exploiting the fact that your party does indeed disrespect their values and their church. So is this attempt of yours trying to ‘exploit’ this gap yourself, makes you a hypocrite.
…I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
Once again Mr. Obama – you have it wrong. As much as you Socialists and Marxists wish to paint us as a ‘pluralistic’ or ‘progressive’ democracy – we are NOT a Democracy.
We are a Republic. Or we were, before people of your political ideology insisted we became a Mobocracy with a Socialist mindset.
And if it weren’t for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.
What in the world is this ‘Historically “black” Church”? Only Divisive Separatists who pretend they are Christian, can identify themselves by race. Obviously you never read the words of the Apostle Paul in Colossians 3:11, and again in Galatians 3:28 that plainly state:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
It is obvious listening to the words of your pastor of 20 years, and reading his words, that he does not share that scriptural belief. And since he does not share that belief, since you were of his fold for two decades – can we not properly assume YOU do not share Paul’s plain truth in those chapters?
Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities.
And the White congregations, the Asian congregations, the latino congregations do not?
Even so, you confuse deliberately, the role of the individual and the church to do those things, by empowering the government to do them instead – as this ‘agent of change’ you speak about.
But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
His Truth is not a truth that hates this nation, or affords Himself the time to sit and listen to hate against people of color and wealth status for 20 years and think himself a true Christian.
…And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
So to translate, what you mean is that you need to communicate a Socialist/Liberal ideology in a way that masquerades as Christianity. That as Liberals, you understand that the Conservative religious nature of Americans is not one to continually denounce – but subvert.
To appear as a lamb, while actually speaking like a dragon, yes?
…those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
Which is exactly what you are doing here.
In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
You mean the people you said “you don’t like” on Meet The Press last November?
What you stand for is contrary to both scripture and most religious traditions in this country.
More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.
Truly insidious Barrack Hussein Obama!
So instead of simply eschewing and removing any vestige or mention of God in public, you are advocating that you simply co-opt it – use the buzz words and catch phrases with religious imagery and terminology to come as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Do you not think that Christ’s own will hear their own Master’s voice instead of yours masquerading as His? Do you honestly think Christians are shallow enough to be taken by key phrases and catch words to embrace a morality of political ideas anathema to the bible and to our foundational principles?
Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.
The fear is there because there is a conscience that did not wish to be seen as hypocritical, so removing religion and God was the most convenient way to push unbiblical morality on a people as a just and moral choice. But now, with you, you are willing to be bold – and outrightly misconstrue the scriptures and God, to speak as one to gain their confidence, and teach them doctrines totally alien to God’s Way.
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness
No. Wrong. Those problems are rooted in sin and the indifference and callousness to sin that you “progressives” truly preach. Many Americans, are uninsured and unemployed, and they are not rooted in societal indifference or callousness. They might be rooted in job performance, market conditions, income level, living standards, family situation – time and circumstances happen to ALL MEN Mr. Obama. Not everything untoward that happens is the result of societal indifference and racial callousness.
Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds.
Totally backwards, and a bastardization of Christ’s Gospel, and the Foundations of this Republic. Government, should have no policy in engineering and administering social charity. That is the individual, the congregational, and the community’s policy to be acted upon and lived.
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities…
An infringement on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
..but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.
No you blithering idiot. The government HAS NO ROLE to fix men’s hearts. That is the job of an individual Christian, his church and the community he lives in. Given the kind of hate rantings that took place at your church, is it any wonder that heart-holes are wide open to hatred and anger? The same kind of anger you tell us today that we must “understand” the roots of?? The moral problem began when the gang banger decided to pick up a gun to do murder in the first place. Not that he shot into a crowd. Perhaps if this man was taught religion in his home, morals and standards in school, with a liberty to pray as he was led without the threat of penalty from government to prohibit that free exercise – the gun would never be used in anger or over sin.
I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.
So you would use the government to enact that transformation of conscience in CEO’s minds as they do discriminatory anti-discrimination laws? How large of a tyrant do you wish to be? How long have you wanted to be king again?
I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys.
How many multiple millions of dollars are ALREADY spent each month while test scores fall and the drop out rate increases?? More money is not the answer, yea I say it is part of the PROBLEM! The more money taken in for education – the dumber our children seem to get. How about less money thrown at giant bureaucracies and simple basic teaching restored with STANDARDS of high achievement expected, rather than boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator?
I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.
You interfere in the sacred role of parents here. Who are you to promote the very tools that CONDONE promiscuous and pre-marital sex? Did Jesus suddenly revoke the sacredness of marriage?
But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
Train them in the way to be what? Sexually promiscuous but safe? How about teaching chastity, abstinence and purity – which are BIBLICAL and CHRISTIAN virtues. Giving a condom to a teen is NOT the Gospel of Christ on preventing pregnancy. Being monogamous, faithful and patient are.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology – that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith.
Thanks for demonstrating that very thing Mr. Obama. It would be dangerous indeed if every “progressive” out there suddenly sounded like they ‘got religion’. It might reveal your sham to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap — off rhythm — to the choir. We don’t need that.
Heck no. You want everone walking in lockstep!
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality.
Without religion, there is no morality.
Only the rule and morality of men, who decide what is, and what is not moral.
Like killing babies, or having sex before and outside of marriage.
How many panderings to Atheists, Secularists and the like will you make? How about militant Muslims – do they have morality? Wll you support THEIR morality of sawing off the heads of bound and helpless civilians with a steak knife or fly hijacked planes into buildings?
Oh, that’s right – your pastor said we deserved 9-11 because those were “Chickens…coming home to roost”
…Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
So you contradict yourself.
Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.
There is nothing moral, and nothing of value from government imposed Socialism. It is pure tyranny, wrapped in a blanket of compassion to fool the unsuspecting.
We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.
You are not talking about ‘renewal’ – you are talking about remaking this nation into something it was never intended to be. You’re talking about co-opting and creating a leftist Secular Gospel masquerading as Christianity, to sucker in the masses to supporting your Marxist revolution.
Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.
Red Letter Christians erroneously think Jesus was a Socialist, and that by extension, we are supposed to transform this nation into a Soviet utopia. If Christians are so concerned about budget cuts, let them care directly for those such tax benefits are supposed to relieve. Wallis and Compolo more than prove that Christianity is simply a political tool for you to forward the Leftist agenda.
When you’ve got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.
“Trillions” of dollars for social programs that have no business BEING government social and entitlement programs in the first place. Jesus’ instructions were for INDIVIDUALS to care for the poor and needy ourselves – not to empower a giant behemoth government to do it for us. Yet somehow, you ‘progressives’ – you Marxists deliberately attempt to equate charity with a government-run program that becomes a towering trillion dollar behemoth of waste, ruin and inefficiency. You are using Christianity to promote class warfare and hatred, by deciding who should and should not be entitled to a tax rebate of our own money!
Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
And let that continue, for individuals and churches have done a far superior job in those realms than by ANY and ALL the government programs out there. I was there. I was part of it. I lived and experienced it.
Government should have no role in such things.
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?
Lead by example.
It’s going to take more work, a lot more work than we’ve done so far.
Code words for tax increases?The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
How about the ground rules of liberty? Like get the government off our back, leave us alone to pray and worship in peace, to freely exercise our faith, our speech and our rights without some giant government bureaucracy looking over our shoulders and prohibiting us?
Your platform and ideology stands for slavery to the government.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Except that you “progressives” have made it so ANY and EVERY expression of Christian faith and principle is to be excluded from any public exercise. What preserves our liberty SIR, is the religious tradition of this nation. For the principles of Christianity afford anyone to exercise, or not to exercise their faith – and to promote the kind of society, justice provides. A separation of church from state, ensures that true justice – of which our laws and rights are built upon – is tossed to the wind for the doctrines of men. A separation YOU AGREE WITH!
Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
A nation that cannot agree on foundational principles, must of itself – be uprooted and cast aside for new principles to be established whomever becomes a majority – be they Muslim ones, Hindu ones or things alien to our very existence. If we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation as we were founded – then the liberties enshrined in that foundation will be assuredly cast aside for the tyranny of men.
The kind of tyranny you obviously see as solutions to our problems.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?
Oh please, go back to history class. We had many divisive sects of Christian denominations at our founding – and they were willing to stand on the common bridge of understanding to forge our future. You essentially tell us in smooth words to toss the baby with the bathwater. The Colonists cried aloud “No King but Jesus” for a reason. From Catholics to Congregationalists to Lutherans to Presbyterians – they all stood as Sons of Liberty, on that which united them in common purpose.
You talk about uniting, but do nothing but accentuate the divisions and justify the hatreds and class envy and warfare with smooth words that have women fainting in your presence.
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination?
Excuse you – but slavery was NEVER okay with God – and neither was DIVORCE. God allowed both, because of the hardness of our hearts, and the hard labor of sin that plagues us. It was never God’s intention for us to be slaves. Either to sin, or own one another – but we chose that for ourselves and we thus reap the consequences. So He made provision for it, because we refused to heed, but this was never God’s intention for us from the beginning.
As a Christian nation, we came to see that as sin, – and spilled large amounts of blood to rectify that sin.
How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?
Excuse you Barrack. Perhaps your Muslim upbringing robbed you of proper biblical context. Israel was a theocracy under God in a covenant THEY signed to. Death by stoning for sin was a necessity in that covenant. They were learning the physical example that sin brings death. Without salvation – they die in their sins. Have you not read Paul’s admonition that “A little leaven leavens the whole lump”? (Gal. 5:9) God instituted laws designed to protect the whole of the physical nation from crime and predators.
Should unrepentant criminals walk free in your morality Mr. Obama? Free to rape, kill and abuse and then if caught, be supported for life by the very society he sinned against?
The Messiah was promised that the death penalty we all earn for sin, can be forgiven. He was not yet given in Ancient Israel. But even in the presence of Jesus Himself – a woman charged with adultery was told to ‘go and sin no more’, lest she be caught again in the act and be stoned as proscribed by law.
We do not hear you saying, go and sin no more. We hear you excusing the sins, and telling us that the moral choice is to let sin abound.
Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
I daresay, you have not been reading yours. Or your interpretation is as twisted as any I’ve read.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
Where is that written in the Constitution?? If the whole people are no longer in agreement on morality, then it is an impossibility to translate anything into a universal value unless it is sin. For what is morality outside of scripture but the devices and ideas of mere men?
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.
Well, right there, you disqualify yourself as any kind of Christian we should take seriously or consider. You come in the name of yourself and your own perverted standards rather than letting yourself be transformed by the Word of God.
It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible.
God has no compromise with sin. He makes no exception for it. Interesting you admonish us to.
Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
Most Christians do not take the Word of God as a buffet table where we can pick and choose for ourselves what we like while discarding the rest.
No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack.
Like your pastor of 20 years did?
They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide.
Like the church you attended for two decades taught?
They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.
Funny that you never grew tired of hearing 20 years of White America Bashing Screed, even though now you say what your pastor Wright preached is not what you think.
Sorry Mr. Obama – you make yourself appear as an angel of light, and you are nothing of the kind when we stop to closely examine what you say outside of the clever and emoting rhetoric.