Posted on 08/31/2010 4:19:43 PM PDT by markomalley
A few days ago, Dr. Paul Kengor—who has written books about the religious beliefs of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton—wrote a thoughtful opinion piece for USA Today in which he concluded:
In short, and I don't mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we're getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.
Of course, it shouldn't be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn't Obama simply do the same? This isn't rocket science.
Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama's problem isn't a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren't sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.
Kengor has now written a column about this letter, signed by several dozen religious leaders—a letter that states, in part:
As Christian leaders— whose primary responsibility is sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with our congregations, our communities, and our world— we are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama’s faith. We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate.
President Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far.
Kengor writes:
Most striking is the letter’s stunning demand that the media offer no airtime to anyone questioning the president’s faith, even as this president has arguably the most unconventional faith profile of any president in history, understandably creating confusion among the public.
No airtime? Obviously, such a demand presents a host of thorny considerations, beginning, of course, with the First Amendment.
Would refusal of “airtime”—which I assume includes print and web media—extend to those arguing in favor of claims that Obama is a Christian? Apparently not. Would it apply to those who question Obama’s faith or (much broader) “call into question?” Who determines the difference?
And how about claims against other presidents?
Liberals constantly questioned Ronald Reagan’s faith, because of his infrequent church attendance, his wife consulting stargazers, his Central America policy, his welfare policy, his environmental policy. Reagan suffered these suspicions even as he repeatedly stated he was a Christian. He endured a question during a nationally televised presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Two weeks later, in another televised debate, Reagan was asked if his beliefs about Armageddon fueled his nuclear policy.
Still today, liberals ask me about Reagan’s faith, including if he was really a Christian.
Reagan is far from alone. Some 200 years after his presidency, Thomas Jefferson’s faith is ever-maligned. He’s accused of all sorts of things. Even the beliefs of Lincoln and Washington are debated.
What about our most recent president? I can’t tell you how many times I addressed serious inquiries about whether George W. Bush was seeking to impose a theocracy, or why Bush supposedly believed Christ had ordered him to defang Saddam. It took every bit of charity to suck it up and respond with patience. I never thought to stomp and sniff: That question should not be permitted airtime!
Most disturbing, but, frankly, not surprising, is that this push comes from self-anointed apostles of diversity and tolerance, who tell us the Religious Right is intolerant. It reminds of Nat Hentoff’s classic saying: “Free speech for me but not for thee.”
Not surprisingly, the letter was signed by Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., of Georgetown University, who regularly smirks at and criticizes serious Catholics, the Pope, and Church authority while treating as magisterial anything that proceeds from the mouth and pen of President Obama and his administration. Ugh.
Regardless, while the debate over Obama's religious beliefs is interesting and meaningful to some degree or another (almost as important as knowing what the man eats at dinner and who he cheers for on Sundays in the fall), it shouldn't cloud the fact that his actions consistently suggest that he is a statist. Not a Marxist, not a full-blown socialist, but a statist in the general mold of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, with a big dash of politically-correct "isms" thrown into the mix. Interestingly enough, his predecessor was also something of a statist, although of a less committed, less radical, and more "compassionate" sort. A key difference between the two is that Bush, however imperfectly, sought to uphold the dignity of human life from conception to death. The candidate Obama, it often seemed to me, could only be pinned down on only a couple of issues—and one of those was an unflinching, unapologetic commitment to abortion and the contraceptive mentality, something he gave full support to as a Senator. (And need it be pointed out that a really committed Muslim would not support abortion has Obama has throughout his entire public career?)
One of the ironies is that while Bush was often lambasted for being too religious and too overt about his Christian beliefs, Obama's apologists (most of them strongly opposed to Bush) are now talking up how deeply religious and open the President is about "the importance of his Christian faith." But what the polls may be suggesting is that while Pres. Obama might invoke the name of Jesus on a regular basis, many Americans are having a hard time squaring his rhetoric with his policies, which in turn raises questions about motives and agenda, especially considering Obama's time under the wing of Rev. Wright.
With that exception, I think this is a good analysis of the spiritual life (or lack thereof) of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW.
Anyone who honestly believes Hussein is a Christian more than likely believes in the tooth fairy.
Can a person that has supported the slaughter of millions of unborn babies be a Christian? I forget what book in the bible made this comment but it goes like this: Any person that claims to love God yet hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him. How much more hate can a person show than to kill an innocent and helpless baby?
That would be 1 John 4:20:
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
(And you’re right. I does preclude sentencing innocent babies, in Obama’s case, some of them already born alive, to death. If you can’t even love a little baby, how can you claim to love God?)
The word Liberal is used in Isaiah regarding the liberal: here the liberal is called a vile person and compared with a rude vile churl person [Churl: A rude, boorish person. A miserly person.] The Liberal is aptly described in Isaiah 32. I will develop the identity of the liberal with that of the vile person and the churl after the verses in Isaiah 32.
Isaiah 32:5-8:
v.5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal [due to eternal judgment], nor the churl said to be bountiful. [bountifully rich from stealing from everyone] [note: these are future eschatological judgments]
v.6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
v.7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
v.8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
The vile person shall be no more called liberal. The liberal is associated with the vile person, being named that "vile person" in verse 5. Even though the vile person shall be no more called the liberal; the liberal is that vile person, by grammar structure. That is the identity of the liberal in usage from verse 5-6.
Now notice how the liberal, from verse 6, and is spoken of as being villany, iniquity, hypocrisy, utter error, make empty the soul of the hungry.
Then notice how the liberal is compared with the churl in verse 7, how that liberal is associated with the churl with respect to the hungry and poor by wicked devices (verse 6: poor; verse 7: hungry); making those poor by this vile bountifully rich person who steals from those who are becoming poor, by that act.
Notice here that the liberal is compared precisely as that wicked person to destroy the poor with lying words, even towards the poor which are not wicked, but speak rightly.
Now unto Obama's perspective:
This is a perfect description of Barack Obama, who is exactly that liberal liar, even to the poor with false promises which he does not intend to fulfill from his campaign. Barack Obama is a full of villany, full of iniquity, hypocrisy [need we prove more], and utters error against the LORD GOD. Barack Obama is a liar and he is no christian. His liberation theology is false doctrine from doctrines of demons from Rev. [Wrong].
Oh, yes, Liberal is used in the Bible, and today it is evident in the person of liberal democrats and Barack Obama.
And by liberal things shall he [Barack Obama...shall] stand before God on the Judgment Day.
If you have a bone to pick on this issue, do not blame me; for it is God Almighty which wrote these verses and vile practices regarding the Liberal. Take up your argument with God...
I disagree and I think the President felt, after what he went through with the Reverend Wright, he'd be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I believe the President is a deeply spiritual person and that the Wright controversy was very painful for him and has had a lasting effect.
Never saw THAT before and will assuredly study further ... thank you.
Desperado .... why don’t you come to your senses .... you bin’ out rid’n fences way too long ....
What freedom-loving, truth-telling, American-principle-honoring, non-collectivist, non-muslim-individual...OR...MAN...ANY MAN....would EVER say that?
EVER
Personally, I don’t understand the importance of his faith. There is nothing anywhere that says that the POTUS has to be a Christian as far as I know. What will Americans possibly do if it can be shown that Obama is a Muslim?
It is more important that it be recognized that Islam is NOT a religion but a sinister political world movement with designs to destroy the American political system to the point of replacing its legal system with Sharia law.
God Almighty did not translate the Bible into KJV English. God Almighty inspired Isaiah to write his book of prophecy. In Hebrew.
FRiend, your exegesis is tortured.
The word that the KJV editors translate as "liberal" is the Hebrew word נָדִיב (nadiyb). Its meaning is that of "inclined, willing, noble, generous." In the King James Version, this word "nadiyb" is rendered as "prince" (15 times), "nobles" (4 times), "willing" (3 times), "free" (2 times), "liberal" (2 times), "liberal things" (2 times).
For example, in Exodus 35:5, it is rendered "willing:" Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever [is] of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass,
Or, in Numbers 21:18, the same word "nadiyb" is rendered as "nobles:" The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by [the direction of] the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the wilderness [they went] to Mattanah:
Or, in Psalm 51:12, it is rendered "free," Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me [with thy] free spirit.
I would tell you that most English translations of the 20th century render "nadiyb" as "noble." But, of course, I understand that there are a number of people who believe that the KJV is literally written by the hand of God and so this may not mean anything to you (if you are one of those people). Instead, I would like you to consider how corrupt the English language has become in the past 100 years.
Liberal used to mean generous. If, in the 18th Century, you said that a person was characterized by his liberality, you would be lavishing high praise upon him (he's generous). In the 19th Century, the meaning morphed a little to be associated with libertarianism -- wishing for people to do as they wish and for government to stay out of everybody's business. And we know what the word has morphed into toward the second half of the 20th Century.
Liberal is not the only word. Prior to the second half of the last century, "gay" had a totally different meaning: a declaration that "Charles was a gay fellow" would mean that Chuck was happy. Again, we all know what that means now.
Other places where the English word liberal is used in the KJV (these also illustrate my point):
That's not to say that Isa 32 doesn't apply to Øbama. But I think it would make a lot more sense to apply the characteristics of the vile person to him rather than the liberal (generous) person.
Unless, of course, you are claiming that Øbama is generous and noble.
A statist?
I WONDER Why?
For the unaware and unknowing.... and the wary
We all have different dreams, and perceptions about America and what it should become. A special thank you to Cruise _Missile for summarizing his observations!
Obama is a Muslim wanabe or Wahabe
• The FIRST thing Obama did as a newly elected Illinois State Senator was to attempt to declare a Muslim holiday. Obama sponsored Bill SR0110 in the 90th General Assembly to declare November 1, 1997 to be Islamic Community Center Day. It did not pass.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/summary/900SR0110.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/srgroups/sr/900SR0110LV.html
• His biological father was a Muslim.
http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?title=Barack_Obama%2C_Sr.&src=abop&qpvt=barack+obama+seniot&q=barack+obama+senior&fwd=1
• Because his biological father was a Muslim the Islam world thinks he is a Muslim.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/08/obama_is_a_muslim_18_24_or.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/
• His stepfather was a Muslim.
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/
• As a child Barry was enrolled in school as a Muslim in Jakarta Indonesia. An Indonesian Madrasa.
• Barack Hussein Obama’s first and middle names are Arabic Muslim names.
Barack was the name for Mohammad’s horse. Husein, enough said.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700246419/Barack-Muhammads-horse.html
http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/will-be-obama-with-us-muslims-as-the-meaning-of-his-name-in-persian-language/
• Obama recited the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer, which includes a vow of fidelity to Islam, in flawless Arabic on a radio program. - Nikolos Kristoff, NYTs, 3-06-07 (***this one is a gottcha moment***)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3413/pub_detail.asp
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11679
• On that same program he said he thinks the call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.”
http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/obama-muslim-call-to-prayer-one-of-the-prettiest-sounds-on-earth/
http://caosblog.com/archives/7373
• Obama belonged to Rev. Wright’s (a former Muslim) church for twenty years. Many congregants are Muslims.
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/04/07/jeremiah-wright-former-muslim/
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/03/20/rev-wright-got-his-masters-degree-in-islam-in-west-africa/
http://endtimes.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/289
• Obama’s said that the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9959057/Barack_Hussein_Obama_US_one_of_the_largest_Muslim_countries_in_the_world/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/obama_america_one_of_the_large_1.asp
• Obama holds Muslim celebrations in the WH but canceled the National Day of Prayer.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1724544/obama_cancels_national_day_of_prayer.html?cat=9
http://www.exposeobama.com/
• President Obama’s religious adviser, Eboo Patel, once deemed the United States “the ideal place for the renewal of Islam.”
• Obama does not give gifts on Christmas.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html
• Obama doesn’t celebrate his birthday.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/a-tough-birthday-for-obama/
• Obama falsely attributes Muslim participation in the founding of America.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7041/pub_detail.asp
• Obama required that the cross be covered when he gave a speech at Notre Dame.
http://blog.acton.org/archives/9843-notre-dame-georgetown-and-president-obama.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/11/opinion/main5006203.shtml
http://dougpowers.com/2009/04/17/obamas-jesus-coverup/
• Christian symbol covered up during Obama’s Georgetown speech
http://myfaithspace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-covers-christ-and-cross
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
• Obama’s first major speech in office was a “Muslim outreach” speech in Cairo Egypt.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8083171.stm
• “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/bombshell-egyptian-foreign-minister-ahmed-aboul-gheit-says-on-egyptian-tv-%e2%80%9cthe-american-president-told-me-in-confidence-that-he-is-still-a-muslim-%e2%80%9d/
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=166905
• Obama gave strong support to the Cordoba House community center and mosque to be built at the Ground Zero site of Sep. 11, 2001 at a dinner celebrating the day’s end of the first day of Ramadan at the WH.
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/president-obama-supports-ground-zero-mosque/19593492?ncid=webmail
• Obama tasked NASA with a mission of “Muslim outreach.”
http://technology.newsplurk.com/2010/07/nasa-and-islam.html
• Obama referred to his faith as “my Muslim faith” gaffe in an interview with George Stephanopolous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I
• Pushes Islamic freedom of religion but not Jewish or Christian freedoms. Several weeks ago he told Israel NOT to build settlements in East Jerusalem. But OK to build that Mosque at Ground Zero.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7514285/Israel-spits-in-Obamas-eye-by-announcing-new-settlements-in-east-Jerusalem.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-israel-settlement-plan
Be wary, wary aware ....and wary, wary afraid
I totally agree with the above - and to say Obama is in the bible - well, you’ll have to point me to that one.
And I mean LITERALLY in the bible, not in some tortured interpretation thereof.
Thanx Mark .. ‘preshatate that
But the CONTEXT here in Isaiah 32:5-8 is NOT taking about a noble person (no matter what the Hebrew says):
The CONTEXT demands the reader to see that Isaiah is NOT discussing a noble, generous person. Therefore, the drive of these verses is all about vile people practices.
And yes, I know about the corruptions of the English language and Bible translations in the past 100 years. The KJV is 400 years now and well advance of all those English corruptions.
And thanks for all the other cross references on Liberal, but none of those have a context which Isaiah has and clearly Isaiah's force regarding the vile person is the theme, not a noble, generous person:
Read the context of Isaiah 32:5-8: Where is the noble, generous person in these verses:
v.5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. v.6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. v.7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. v.8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
And yes, Obama is a big zero, who ran on a platform as Messiah (false Messiah, in reality)
I don’t believe that deep down Obama believes in anything definitive as concerns deity. I think he is, frankly, agnostic. Obama once said his talent was to project just enough of himself to let others believe what they wanted of him. He expressed it as an ability to project a blank slate on which others impressed their own desires and hopes or to be a mirror which allowed others to see themselves in his face. Commitment is contrary to that tactic.
The CONTEXT contrasts the vile man and the liberal (a/k/a generous) man.
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said [to be] bountiful.
Note: the vile person shall be no more called liberal...(in other words, the wicked shall not be called noble)
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
This verse doesn't talk about the liberal man...it talks about the vile man.
The instruments also of the churl [are] evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
This verse talks about the churl (a/k/a knave, scoundrel -- a deceiver) and how he does his work
But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
Note the first word there: "BUT" -- in other words this is in contrast to the previous verses.
Saying it in modern language, we could say: "but the noble person plans noble things and by noble things shall he stand"
The key is to understand the "BUT" at the beginning of verse 8.
And yes, Obama is a big zero, who ran on a platform as Messiah (false Messiah, in reality)
Agreed.
The word I think about is chameleon.
That’s a good one too. I think he has spent his whole life maintaining himself as a chameleon so as to not drive people away—neither white nor black, neither Christian nor Muslim, neither political insider nor outsider, neither hot nor cold. He is a manipulator. Even as his administration drove unpopular legislation agenda, he forced Congress to front for him so his fingerprints wouldn’t stick to anything. It isn’t changing.
While he’s willing to claim credit for anything good, he is not willing to accept responsibility for anything. His specialty is driving parties apart so he can step in as a neutral arbitrator and resolve the issues while leaving the parties to actually do the work of the proposed solutions.
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.