FREEPERS DISSECT OBAMA'S ANTI-RELIGION SPEECH [VANITY]

“At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible.” -- Barack Obama

“If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.” Barack Obama in the same June Speech.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. 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.

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? 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? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? 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.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

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.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters ...”

I've been encouraged me to make this a separate 'vanity'. But many FR posters have made strong responses which should not be overlook. “Lest those who believe not voting is a viable option ought to rethink the terrible danger that this evil man presents to the country.” -- Carley

Another poster [with the memorable screen name of Screaminggreenaliengorilla] inspired me to dissect this speech. Please note that I read it bearing this in mind: Obama tried to keep post-birth 'abortions' legal. [Link to back this claim added later]. With that in the backdrop, the irony of his words is stunning:

“Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. 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.”

No longer a Christian nation? Those are strong words. ‘and a nation of nonbelievers’ — sounds like wishful thinking on his part.

“Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

“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?”

More mockery. And the tragedy is that pacifist leftists are the ones confusing America's preachers in college.

Who's getting carried away? This is trying to make Christians sound like nuts— character assassination of Christianity.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.”

He has no clue what ‘reason’ is when Barackula called for the killing of BORN infants with the old Roman practice of leaving them to die. His ancient sense of ‘reason’ is borderline primitive, couched by ‘progressive’ leftist mumbo-jumbo.

“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will.”

He's sophomoric when it comes to understanding how our legal system has been hijacked ever since FDR packed the courts. And his lack of common sense blinds him to the most fundamental building block of ethics— saving a helpless infant, even after the child is born.

“I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

There's only one faith that kills a fully born baby— satanism. [And he failed to explain what should be easy to comprehend.]

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.”

So they call for the stoning of people? Strong faith was the foundation of our founders. It worked really well until FDR packed the courts.

“But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible.”

ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE? DID YOU SEE THAT? ART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE? IMPOSSIBLE? ART?

“And if you doubt that, let me give you an example. We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.”

Irony. Obama doesn't need God to DO THE SAME THING! But not in the name of religion— no. To him, killing a BORN infant is little more than a commitment to his deluded view of ‘reproductive rights’.

“But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham.”

Some people might think he misquoted the Bible. In Genisis, it was 'the angel of the Lord'. I don't know if we should slam him for that being a misquote of the Bible.

But setting that aside-- when a baby lies on the operating table and is left to die there, that's perfectly legal. The guy does not even see the parallel. He needs some faith badly. Should Obama and his ilk even be allowed to be dog catchers?

“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.”

We need more modifications I suppose? [And there is the devisiveness of pitting Christians against Jews. This is not a leader who seeks to unite. He seeks to divide our Judeo-Christian culture.]

“The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

Is it wise to marry a poodle? Is it wise to re-write dictionaries? Is it wise to take a word and strike it out with a new defininition? Marriage is clearly defined. The only ‘wisdom’ in sodomous marriage is the desire of people living a dangerous lifestyle who seek the same insurance beneifits of people who live more traditionally. Gay marriage is essentially theft.

“But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state.”

What boundaries? Sophistry once again. There is no wall of separation. We simply cannot establish a single way to ‘worship God’. We do not even have the right to worship Satan, constitutionally speaking. If a state made it illegal to dedicate a book to Lucifer, it has every Constitutional right to do so.

[Note that Obama taught Alinsky methodology. And Saul Alinsky was a radical leftist organizer. He dedicated his book, "Rules for Radicals," to Lucifer. Source: 'Obama Nation']

Obama and post-birth 'abortions' reported in townhall.com, CarolPlattLietbau, 2008/07/14 Here's a google link to her report [their direct link caused an error] :

Oh, it's not just Obama. In order to be a leftist, you must believe that you and your ideological counterparts are wiser than anyone that ever lived, and wiser than God himself.

The former is evidenced by their attempts to implement the failed policies of socialism because THEY can make them work where everyone else wasn't able to. Also, you must believe that any traditional morality has no value in the face of your own superior "reasoning ability".

The latter, "wiser than God", is evidenced by their rejection of Biblical truth in favor of their own superior intellect. God had something to say about this:

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;" -- MrB

Where does he come up with such an idea? This sounds like projection. Of course the only faith that actually practices such ideas... is Islam. -- Ikka

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?

Yes. Obama is a deeply anti-Christian candidate who attracts the arrogant and smug. His prying open of that which is holy and beyond his understanding is indeed disturbing.

“Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

His mockery of the Torah is similar to that of Joe Goebbels. He simply does not understand the Bible and has no desire to.

Obama has taken his arrogance to a whole new level. He thinks he’s Obama, Pontifex Maximus.

“we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

What is he talking about? America has long been a Judeo-Christian nation, with Christian origins, a population that is above 80% Christian, and 40% of the World’s Jews, with excellent relations between the two. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu populations are each less than 1% of the population of the US.

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.”

Translation: Evangelicals will have no choice but to accept Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, or else they are not welcome in a democratic society.

“Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.”

Evangelism is about persuading people to the common reality of Christianity. In a country with separation of church and state, citizens will evangelize each other. He elevates politics above religion.

“It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing”

“If” God has spoken? Obama is not a Christian. In a democratic country, policy is guided by the people. When the people vote, they are exercising power, and must vote their conscience. Policy will always be decided by what bases one’s life on. Environmentalists and Marxists vote this way. So should Christians.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

In the big picture it may not matter that I am a Buddhist but I fully agree with you both about Obama. To my way of thinking he has demonstrated here that he is an extremely dangerous individual with a severe form of malicious narcissism. He is not at all a uniter. His words and actions show him to be deeply divisive and intentionally so. -- Tigerseye

His goal with the “Buddhist nation” comment was to get Buddhists to vote for him, of course. His goal is to get the non-Christian vote, from wherever the source, by attacking his “own faith” in an unsympathetic belittling way. No wonder he sauntered out of Islam and wandered into Christianity with no conversion or change in conviction. To him, its all “socio-political.” This is the view of a hardcore Marxist.

Ah, yes, the trick of overlooking the Apostolic Council in Acts and the writings of St. Paul.

The Church, using the authority granted by Christ, set aside most of the cultic law of the Old Covenant, but did keep the prohibitions against porneia (sexual immorality) and blood (in the West taken as bloodshed, in the East as a very limited recollection of the Kosher prohibition—we Orthodox don’t eat blood sausages), so we Christians eat shellfish (it’s even allowed to Orthodox Christians during our fasts) and don’t have to check the label to avoid wool-linen blend clothing.

Thoughtful post. Thank you.

“Barack Hussein Obama makes the argument for moral relativism. Which leads inevitably to moral anarchy. Which in turn will lead to some form of tyranny. Because there WILL BE a moral order.”

Well said.

“The form of government established by the founders of this nation is the best that humans have so far conceived. And it is based on limiting government by pitting it against itself in the hopes it would be hamstrung just enough to prevent it from becoming a tyranny.”

Thrown off balance by the Marxist law professors. It endured lasted a long time and still just might. But it’s a hard fight.

“Once the parties come to agree that they can make the Constitution mean whatever it is they SAY it means (regardless of what it actually says) our liberty dies. And this is exactly what is happening.”

While we desperately cling to a faint hope in McCain, we will need to fight him tooth-and-nail if he wins. If Obama or Hillary win, we will be demoralized and overrun with dual citizen votes. Checkmate.

“We are now at the point where the Constitution is almost meaningless.”

Ominous times, and the UN salivates over the prospect of a few more leftists in the Supreme Court.

What Obama speaks of isn’t Christianity. Christianity is accepting Christ as our Savior and trying to live a life worthy of His grace. Christianity is acceptance of the inerrant testimony of the Bible. The point isn’t whether we fully understand it or not. The point is we accept it as God’s Word, whole and true. It is our belief that gives us justification because of what He sacrificed for us sinners. We don’t deserve that grace, nor can we earn it. It’s a gift and all we need do is accept it.

This is nothing of what Obama speaks. He speaks of Christians having to subdue their beliefs in order to create a more perfect society on Earth. He has no understanding that Christians don’t live for a perfect society on Earth. They live for what’s to come after this life is over. And with that in mind, why then should we subdue our beliefs? This life simply isn’t important in the grand scheme of things. But this belief of his is proof enough that Obama isn’t a Christian, doesn’t understand Christian belief, and simply uses the garment of Christianity to fulfill his Worldly desires.

I have to make some more comments. Sorry.

This speech is deeply insulting. It is aimed at Christians and Jews. It is a clear exposition of the left’s vision of religion.

This man is ignorant of history. He knows little of religion but I am sure he is convinced of his own wisdom and the “rightness” of his opinions about the subject. His view of American history is twisted and his vision for America is frightening. This man would have no problem passing then using laws aimed at suppressing religion. Neither would he have a problem passing and using laws aimed at suppressing political opposition. Once in power, if backed by a congress dominated by like-minded persons, he will pack the courts with jurists who share his overall views. Once that happens the American experiment will die.

I have never feared more for this nation.

Thanks for posting this excellent summary of what Christianity is versus the CINO, Obama's interpretation and slants.

"What Obama speaks of isn’t Christianity. Christianity is accepting Christ as our Savior and trying to live a life worthy of His grace. Christianity is acceptance of the inerrant testimony of the Bible. The point isn’t whether we fully understand it or not. The point is we accept it as God’s Word, whole and true. It is our belief that gives us justification because of what He sacrificed for us sinners. We don’t deserve that grace, nor can we earn it. It’s a gift and all we need do is accept it."

"This is nothing of what Obama speaks. He speaks of Christians having to subdue their beliefs in order to create a more perfect society on Earth. He has no understanding that Christians don’t live for a perfect society on Earth. They live for what’s to come after this life is over. And with that in mind, why then should we subdue our beliefs? This life simply isn’t important in the grand scheme of things. But this belief of his is proof enough that Obama isn’t a Christian, doesn’t understand Christian belief, and simply uses the garment of Christianity to fulfill his Worldly desires."

“He speaks of Christians having to subdue their beliefs in order to create a more perfect society on Earth. He has no understanding that Christians don’t live for a perfect society on Earth. They live for what’s to come after this life is over.”

Right. Atheists are filled with tragic thoughts, thinking that this is ‘all there is’. A tree falls ‘forever’. A bird dies and is ‘forever lost’. ‘You only live once’. Death is unspeakable. That helps explain the irrational priorities of the Left and why they view us as irrational for not freaking out over every ‘eternal’ loss.

That's as good as an atheist can get. Predatory atheists are much worse.

Oh, there are many Evangelical sects out there today who don’t get it either. Justification by faith and original sin are being lost to the doctrine of moral relevancy.

There’s no longer good vs. evil. The Bible is nothing more than a history book that has some good advice on how to live our lives. The message of the New Testament is that we are all one under God. How can we say we are better because we’re Christian? Doesn’t the sinner also have a place in God’s Kingdom? Who are we to say he doesn’t?

Oh, btw, the one about the Bible being just another book is one from a Lutheran pastor of a synod I no longer belong to.

“I have to make some more comments. Sorry.”

Sorry? Yeah, I'm really mad at you. [Just kidding. =]

“This speech is deeply insulting.”

Darn straight it is.

“It is aimed at Christians and Jews. It is a clear exposition of the left’s vision of religion.”

Their contempt. Karl Marx sought to replace worship of God with worship of government. Obama sought to paint us as ‘kooks’ without outright slandering us.

“This man is ignorant of history. He knows little of religion but I am sure he is convinced of his own wisdom and the “rightness” of his opinions about the subject. His view of American history is twisted and his vision for America is frightening. This man would have no problem passing then using laws aimed at suppressing religion. Neither would he have a problem passing and using laws aimed at suppressing political opposition. Once in power, if backed by a congress dominated by like-minded persons, he will pack the courts with jurists who share his overall views. Once that happens the American experiment will die.
I have never feared more for this nation.”

Actually, I think he's much the same as others before him. To me, there is now hope. If we had elected Al Gore, I believe that would have been the death blow. We are one president away from losing it all. [A lot of 'bitter clingers' in the Supreme Court.]Ever since FDR, the left has worked steadily to infiltrate our courts with dangerous ‘justices’. They also seek to weed out religious judges and have been very effective since demanding virtual human sacrifice via abortion ‘rights’. Now we have the Kelo ruling over our heads.

How badly does the Left want this? Badly enough to violate their constitutional duty. In lock step, democrat senators unconstituionally filibustered judicial nominees. It was their duty to offer ‘advice and consent’. There's no room for ‘filibuster’ mentioned.

Sure, most of the appointments were by Republican presidents. What people fail to add is that the first two nominees are often blocked, and the third one is either a compromise or a closet leftist. Even if the third choice is neither, look at Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. Blackmun felt like he was over his head, and his wife was wooed by the Beltway Party Crowd. She ‘assured’ a law clerk that she was ‘working on’ her husband [Blackmun] at home while the clerk worked him over in the office during the Roe v Wade decision. Blackmun later was caught up in his fan mail [and bristled at the hate mail]. Both kinds of letters pushed him further left [just goes to show what the third best choice results in— a justice who is influenced by fan mail]. Source: Men in Black.

We have a serious problem whether it's Obama or Hillary. Remember her pornographic Christmas tree in the White House?

Welcome to the community of Believers. As we say in our church, “God’s blessings. Peace be with you”.

I’ll be 65 next month and am a life-long Lutheran. I’m not saying that because of conceit, just to announce myself. You see, Christianity isn’t about the sect, it’s your personal relationship with your Savior. We commune together to help support one another because we know that even as Christians, we’re still humble sinners in need of help. And, to paraphrase what Christ said “Where two are together, there am I also”.

This “humble sinner” stuff is all too often missing in today’s Christian message. But we were born in sin and will die in sin; unless, that is, we truly accept God’s grace through the sacrifice of His Son. That’s the gift He offers. And only through it will we find salvation. Also, there’s nothing we can do to attain that salvation. It’s freely given to all who will accept it. (If it weren’t it would diminish Christ’s sacrifice on the cross). For those who don’t (or won’t), they will be judged by the Law (which is God’s Law).

I don’t know whether Barry Obama is in the “don’t” or “won’t” category. I don’t know what message he’s been given these 20 some years from that Rev. Wright (except for snippets). But it’s clear he’s going to be judged by God’s Law. As will the good Rev. Wright.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.