Must be politicking time in America. Everybody in Washington is suddenly gettin’ religion.

(And I make my previous comment about both parties.)

A more interesting question would be, “What makes you a Christian?”

There are a thousand reasons people become a Christian but there is only one means to become one.

Don

Obama seems to me to be a very skilled liar.  That’s why I believe nothing he says.  Somebody tell me where “my brother’s keeper” is quoted in the bible, and what is the context?  Sorry, I don’t want the Government to be my keeper.

That’s quite a good statement, #3.  And I guess I might believe he is really is one if he stops doing this:
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/09/obama-omits-creator-again.html

But until then, I don’t think so.

I don’t know where one sees the higher rate of sudden religious conversions:

Among convicts awaiting parole board hearings, or
Among politicians awaiting re-election campaigns.

There may be other similarities between these two situations…

It is very easy to pick statements like this apart and charity ought to rule. But I don’t think Christians ‘choose’ being Christian because the teachings have been surveyed and found ‘better’ than other options. I have heard it said that being a Muslim involves something like this: a choice. Christians say that their choices were in some sense taken away, as Jesus Christ framed the world in such a way that one found oneself caught up, sinful and redeemed. I know that Baptists might disagree, but still within a context in which Christ comes forward and confronts, and the ‘choosing’ is a response. Obama’s talk about this sounds more like the ‘choice of a religion.’ OK, Jefferson has this same aura about him. But one can also ask what kind of Christianity he embraced and in consequence, what it might mean in larger terms.

Vague statements regarding what one believes to be Christian social teachings do nothing for me.

Now if the president had said something like, “I have accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior because I seek eternal life in the hereafter,” I might be more willing to accept Mr. Obama’s word.

6:41 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?

Deacon,

“Now, the Mote/Beam missile can only be used by those who are entirely sure of their unquestionable holiness, or are completely oblivious to the irony of using an argument against criticism to criticise someone. It is a weapon that, once launched, negates the legitimacy of the launcher.”

Be wary of launching one.

Remember: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is what Cain challenged God with regarding the death of his brother Abel.

The first was: “Why are you a Christian?” The second was on abortion — the president said it should be “safe, legal and rare”

Two contradicting statements. And the question on abortion should have said “How can you have voted three times as state senator from Illinois against the Infant Born Alive Protection act that ensured medical attention for infants born alive due to botched abortions? Did you truly mean that those infants should be left to die, and if so, why?”

Important statement by our president that followed what he said about being a Christian:

“This is a country that is still predominantly Christian, but we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists” and others, he said, adding that “their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own, and that is part of what makes this country what it is.”

-From a CNN.com article on his statements.

I’m not sure I understand the obsession with what Mr. Obama says about his faith. Seems to me he is showing discretion, a valued trait in a president. No matter what he says, it will be met with criticism. With something like this, I think we simply take him at his word and move on. Now, if he said he was atheist, I would question his judgement in any number of other areas.

Thanks #11.  I guess BO didn’t know who said, “am I my brother’s keeper.  Cain is not my idea of the best example of a community organizer.  BO wants to be seen as a do gooder. Unfortunately his idea of good doing is different from mine.
Rev Wright is a black revolutionist, just like BO.  He would separate black and whites. They will set back relationships between the races for a generation.

And what did he actually tell the folks ?
““I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “My family, frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me, and I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.”

Mr. Obama went on: “But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people, and do our best to help them find their own grace. That’s what I strive to do, that’s what I pray to do every day.’’ “

I admit this makes me really wish that he might also wear that “Please be patient, God isn’t finished with me yet” slogan, on a T-shirt or a bracelet or something…...and be asked the old question, “If you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

You know . . . it’s interesting. 

I’m sincerely indifferent as to whether Obama is a Christian.  What I care about in regards to whomever is running our country is a person who will fulfill his oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Obviously, most, including Obama, who are elected these days don’t give a flying fig about the foundational document by which our country is to be governed.  And so of course, I vote against those people who do not—which is a ton of people—and attempt to scrape together a few people whom I can vote for who will at least care a teensy bit about the limitations placed on our government.

But were Obama an atheist—and yet committed to upholding his vow regarding the running of our country according to the Constitutional principles to which our country has agreed, I’d gladly vote for him.

So I’m basically indifferent as to whether he is or is not a Christian.  In fact, I’ve always liked Obama, and felt I could enjoy some good conversations with him.  He likes basketball and other nice things.

I think Obama is the least of our problems.  He’s merely the current bread-and-circuses guy that the people—incredibly ill-informed and ignorant, and educated in our public school systems—voted for.

If he were to be overthrown—because of the lack of the bread and circuses—we’d still be in a heap of trouble.  Unless the people change—become less ignorant, more searching and able to learn, more principled, and with more character such that they seek liberty rather than the Loving Care of the State—we’ll continue to foster and fertilize the corrupt, power-greedy State that has grown so rapidly over the years.

The people of four years ago—they’ve got to change.  Otherwise, we could accidentally elect some principles Constitutional conservatives, and they’d be ridden out of town on a rail four years later anyway.

I personally find it doubtful that over a four year period, the American people will have a drastic change in their knowledge, principles, and character.  But you know, God can do anything.

To the extent Obama is a Christian, his belief system is most clearly that of Liberation Theology, an intersecting sub-set of both Christianity and Marxism originally arising in Latin America beginning about the mid-1950s and reaching its apex in the early 1980s when Obama was in university.

Liberation Theology focuses on sin as INSTITUTIONAL rather than personal. The appropriate response, therefore, is a “preferential option for the poor” to overcome institutional sin.

In the mid-‘80s then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, and one of the most powerful intellects to occupy the chair of St. Peter in many centuries condemned many aspects of Liberation Theology, observing that their “biblical concept of the poor provides a starting point for fusing the Bible’s view of history with Marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermaneutics for understanding the Bible.”

Ratzinger thereafter asserted that correct biblical theology of the poor emphasizes that we shall be judged on the basis of how we, individually, have responded to the poor.

Obama also cherry-picks, in that within the Catholic world of its origins, Liberation Theology condemns abortion as perhaps the most heinous sin against the helpless.

What I find most fascinating about Obama’s mental constructs is that they were broadly frozen in place during his university years. To wit: Liberation Theology, Nuclear Freeze, “alternate” energy, “America is not a good country,” and Ted Kennedy’s failed push for nationalized health care.

A generation later, such ideas linger on only amongst those persistently sheltered from the ordinary world of attempting to CREATE wealth, rather than merely redistribute the fruits of others’ efforts.

“the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother and sister’s keeper.”

As in zookeeper?  To keep free people from freedom by legislatively and judicially narrowing their actual choices down to PC and liberally acceptable options?  Obama doesen’t have to wear his faith, whatever it may actually be, on his sleeve.  But his voting record, his political affiliations, his choices of cabinet members and appointees, his fawning and abjectly apologetical bowing and scraping to Muslim leaders while denying America’s Christian founding and heritage, stated explicitly by the founders and in the charter documents of the colonies, belie his words.

I think there are far better things to criticize the President about than his faith.  Yes, he does promote the social gospel message, but he also does not deny Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins, or that he is saved through God by grace. 

This puts him in the camp of liberal mainstream Protestantism, but in his home church the United Church of Christ, such statements as above make him almost a “right-winger” in that denomination.  Heck, that testament above would most likely make him a “moderate” in TEC.

As Sarah said, what’s important is to elect leaders who will govern by the plain language of the Constitution regardless of their religious persuasion.  BO does not do this at all, but then GWB really didn’t either especially in his last two years and not at all in any kind of fiscally responsible ways.

I am not a Christian because I believe that being a Christian will lead to a more fulfilling life or a better society.

I am a Christian because I believe that God created the world, that creation sinned and became separated from God.  God send His Son to become part of that creation and to redeem it (through his Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection) so that it can, once again, be in relationship with God and that we, too, will share in the resurrection life because of our faith (trust) in the saving work of Jesus and through our active participation with God’s grace in our lives.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder

The second was on abortion — the president said it should be “safe, legal and rare”

Why?  If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion, why should it be rare?  If there is something intrinsically wrong with abortion, why should it be legal and safe?

Abortion is the ending of a human life for money (the doctor) and convenience (the parent).  Our society pretends that a baby in the womb isn’t “life” but rather just the cells and tissues of the parent - a willful fantasy that disregards the independent DNA and viability of the baby by virtue of it’s location and stage of development.

The president’s position is that, “a little murder for money is ok, just not a lot of murder for money”.  Either abortion is a good/neutral thing and should not be rare, or abortion is an unspeakable evil that should not be legal. 

The president’s statemtent is just more of the typical post-modern babel spewed from the mouth of a politician attempting to put on a cloak of Christianity in order to garner votes.  That this line is widely accepted without people grasping the inherent contradictions is troubling.  That it revolves around the fundamental issues of Life, Justice, and Morality are deeply troubling.

The only plausible justification for abortion, in my opinion, is if it is a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the baby or if both would be lost.
——————-
PS. Well said Phil! (#21)

I think Obama is the least of our problems.  He’s merely the current bread-and-circuses guy that the people—incredibly ill-informed and ignorant, and educated in our public school systems—voted for.

Ah yes, the classic liberal academic view.  You know, I was raised in academia (my father was a physicist at the Princeton Univeristy Plasma Physics laboratory, all other family members by blood and marriage basically academics and intellectuals.)  Typical dinner table conversation:  “But WHY do poor and middle class people vote Republican?  I mean, that’s like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving.  They can’t be TOTALLY stupid.  They must be HORRRIBLY IGNORANT and indoctrinated in our stupid public schools.”

Actually, things are not always black and white except to political True Believers.  It is not always totally obvious how best to achieve goals even if everyone were agreed (they aren’t) on what those goals should be.  Some conservatives have good points to make on some issues.  Some liberals have good points to make on other issues. 

I do not worship the Constitution as a sacred document.  It is a political document:  as such, there is some evidence that it works reasonably well.  However, I have no religious belief that states “all our political and economic problems derive from deviation from the Constitution.  If we all got back to the Constitution, things would be much better for all Americans.”  I do believe that things would be much better for all Americans if we all got back to Jesus.  Other than that, I have no religioius certainty that 1) we have deviated excessively from the Constitution [as per Sarah’s interpretation of it] and 2) we’d all be better off if we stopped it [as per Sarah’s definition of stopping it]  And I think a lot of people who are not necessarily horribly ignorant or uneducated agree.  What we have in the United States is basically a practical, non-ideologically oriented population, and that causes a lot of people on the extreme left and right wings to grind their teeth.

RE: “Typical dinner table conversation:  “But WHY do poor and middle class people vote Republican?  I mean, that’s like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving.  They can’t be TOTALLY stupid.  They must be HORRRIBLY IGNORANT and indoctrinated in our stupid public schools.”

Now see—I can understand that completely, considering the foundational worldview of liberals. It makes sense.

RE: “However, I have no religious belief that states “all our political and economic problems derive from deviation from the Constitution.  If we all got back to the Constitution, things would be much better for all Americans.” 

Yes, I know.

RE: “Other than that, I have no religioius certainty that 1) we have deviated excessively from the Constitution [as per Sarah’s interpretation of it] and 2) we’d all be better off if we stopped it [as per Sarah’s definition of stopping it].”

Yes I know—that certainly fits well.

It’s understandable that we disagree about these things, considering our differing foundational political worldviews.

And so at any rate, it’s understandable that it’s not all that important, in regards to running our country according to its central founding and organizing document, for a conservative to have a President who is an evangelical Christian.  Of course, it would be *nice* if all Presidents were Christians, for the sake of their souls and eternal security.  But there are plenty of Christians [as witness some of the comments on these blogs] who would make dreadful Presidents, and there are plenty of non-Christians who would make excellent ones.

It’s understandable that we disagree about these things, considering our differing foundational political worldviews.

We certainly differ in this respect:  I don’t HAVE a foundational political worldview.  I DO have a foundational religious worldview.

I have found that people who have foundational political worldviews assume that people who disagree with them are either 1) ignorant or 2) immoral. 

Hence the left wing view:  “right wing politicians are immoral and the people who vote for them are ignorant.” 

And the right wing view “left wing politicians are immoral and the people who vote for them are ignorant.” 

I will also say this.  Having had a respected/loved/revered/powerful father who holds strong views on any subject is a major obstacle to ever developing any deviating views.  And I suspect that this is one way that you and I do not differ, although I think I struggle more with it.

RE: “I don’t HAVE a foundational political worldview.  . . . “

An interesting assertion, one which I don’t believe about anyone at all, much less someone whose political statements consistently fit within recognizable and predictable parameters, as do mine.

RE: “Having had a respected/loved/revered/powerful father who holds strong views on any subject is a major obstacle to ever developing any deviating views.  And I suspect that this is one way that you and I do not differ . . . “

Oh that my father could believe that!  How he would revel in this hope.  He would feel so much better about his daughter.  ; > ) 

And now the thread is veering off-topic . . . But I will email your hopeful words to him, and allow him to treasure them close to his heart.  All is *not* lost—it is possible that I will come to recognize the wisdom of his views and will cease the deviation.  It is always possible, I will explain to him, that the deviations are merely illusory—that will give him a crumb of comfort.

And a *possible* crumb of comfort for you—just think of the pursed lips of my Dad as he gazes upon his sole daughter.  ; > )

“I realized that outside of Jesus Christ, I was/am unacceptable to God.”

OK, a few more “on topic” questions then:
Sarah:
1.  I accept your belief that, given the fact that the Constitution is our ruling document and the President swears to uphold it, he should.  But why do you assume that something written by a bunch of Deists 200+ years ago automatically holds all political and economic wisdom and all our problems could be solved by huing (sp??) more closely to what (you believe) it says?  I mean, this isn’t a divinely revealed document, yes?  How can you know with 100% certaintly that your “foundational political worldview” is not deeply flawed??
2.  Why is it a matter of indifference to you what the religious beliefs of the President are when it is perfectly possible to combine total allegiance to the Constitution with things such as support of gay marriage or a belief that government should not restrict abortion in any way?  [Note:  I’m not saying that a strict reading of the Constitution MANDATES these things, just that a strict constructionist could make a very good case that it does not PREVENT them.  Hence a non-Christian strict constructionist President could well be in favor of gay marriage and unrestricted abortion.  Would you support this person?]

“... leave every man to his own conscience. And methinketh in good faith that so were it good reason that every man should leave me to mine. ”

It would have been a better answer (easy for me to say a few days after the event), or at least one that I would have enjoyed hearing him say,  for the President to have said that “the answer to your question involves my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, and that relationship will remain personal.”

RE: “But why do you assume that something written by a bunch of Deists 200+ years ago automatically holds all political and economic wisdom and all our problems could be solved by huing (sp??) more closely to what (you believe) it says?”

Hi Catholic Mom—just back to this thread so sorry this is so late.  I do think that *any* system of government is deeply flawed because humans are involved with government.  So the question is only which one best allows human beings the rights endowed to them by their creator, and the freedom to flourish, with the least possibility of organized State evil inflicted upon them.

That being said, I think history demonstrates that the best system of government for a free peoples is one that acknowledges the perfidy and fallenness of mankind-with-group-power, and thus establishes a very limited vision of government, radical separation and limitation of powers, a system of unshakeable rights for individuals as well as individual liberty, free enterprise, and the principle of subsidiarity:  “an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.” 

I do believe that the vast majority of our *political* problems—and many of our societal problems—would be solved by adhering to the principles on which our country was founded, and which our elected officials swore to uphold.  Once that goes, the *ideas* which make up our country—the ideas on which our nation was founded and which all of us at one time entered into agreement to pursue—are finished.  And then America is finished.  It’s no longer America at that point, since more than any other country, America is founded on *ideas* more than nationality or blood or ethnicity or tribal loyalty.  It’s not by accident, I think, that the “bunch of Deists” [rather a simplification of what was actually a melting pot of religious belief] had embedded in them ideas that sprang from Christian principles [the liberty of man, the fallenness of man] and founded the nation based on those ideas, among them, for instance, the principle of the fallen and corrupt nature of man-in-power.  It certainly was not founded by men who believed that men given national power were by nature kindly, non-corruptable people.  No, having endured corrupt government, they carefully circumscribed the decision making power and purview of men-in-government and hemmed them in as tightly as possible. 

RE: “Why is it a matter of indifference to you what the religious beliefs of the President are when it is perfectly possible to combine total allegiance to the Constitution with things such as support of gay marriage or a belief that government should not restrict abortion in any way?”

It is not at all necessary for a person to be a Christian for that person to 1) be opposed to the murder of the unborn [and acknowledge that the Constitution does not at all give a “right to privacy” for mothers who wish to kill their babies] and 2) recognize that society gets to define marriage without court intrusion that *forces* unwilling societies to define marriage in such a way as to give special rights to one particular faddishly-favored minority sexual orientation.

RE: “Hence a non-Christian strict constructionist President could well be in favor of gay marriage and unrestricted abortion.”

A non-Christian strict constructionist could not be in favor of unrestricted abortion—the State clearly forbids murder and that is one of the *few* things that the State is allowed to police under our Constitution.

It is *possible* that a strict constructionist could allow the states to define marriage in any way that they please.  And I would not be opposed, for instance, *constitutionally* [though I would resist it at the ballot box, of course, as a traditionalist] for states to define marriage as “any persons who wish to declare a legal union with any other entity”.  That would allow, for instance, states to recognize “marriage” as the union between a person and a plant, or a person and a dead person [see France] or a person and three other persons.

I expect that in any state there would be a public outcry against that—but then, that’s what we see with gay “marriage” [sic] as well!  The problem is that liberal activist judges have determined that they will *force* societies to accept *the judges’s* re-definition of “marriage” to favor a currently-faddish accepted minority sexual orientation [though of course, none other minority sexual orientations—for the present].

But then, that is why this whole question needed to be decided *as a Constitutional amendment*—we needed as a country to determine that marriage would be legally defined as that between a man and a woman, so that we would not have the chaos of various states declaring various sorts of unions to be “marriages” that are unrecognizable to other states.  I’ve been bleating about that for years now, and it is in perfect keeping with being a strict constructionist for someone to support going through the process that the Constitution itself lays out—which is that of a challenging and difficult amendment process.

The founders recognized that they might have missed something here or there—thus amendments are allowed.  But that process is difficult precisely because the founders wished to limit changes to that document which, after all, the states agreed to be bound to in order to form a working union.

The way to amend the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Sarah—I don’t disagree that a Constitution is necessary to protect us from what would certainly otherwise be the evils of the State.  I think the difference between us is that I assume that just about EVERY human endeavor can, and eventually will, be used in an oppressive and evil way.  So I believe that the “free” (unregulated) market can result in child labor in coal mines (it did) women working 12 hours a day,  six days a week for pennies in a mill (it did) dangerous drugs being sold as snake oil cures (it did) rivers so full of pollutants that people are warned not to even FALL in them (East River in NY) ships allowed to sail without enough lifeboats for all passengers (the Titanic) horses worked to death then left to starve, and on and on and on. 

Although the State is inherently evil, Americans believe that, by dividing up its powers, we can make one part of it serve as a check on the others.  Likewise I believe that the marketplace is inherently evil, but that the State (through its power to regulate commerce) can serve as a check on it. 

You are incensed at the use of the state to “redistribute wealth” yet, inherently, every single thing the state does involves redistribution of wealth.  It’s impossible for the state to act at all without it having some impact on the distribution of wealth.  I simply recognize this and am willing to have some of the wealth distributed in such a way as to give food, shelter, and medicine to indigent children rather than shipping it all directly to Blackwater.

Re: Abortion.  Obviously, abortion, as it is practiced in the United States right now, is not, be definition,  legally classified as murder.  Belief that it is is a Christian stance, not a legal one.  Hence I have met many non-Christian right-wingers who support it as well as left-wing Christians who oppose it. 

I want three things from a President:  1) Someone who generally shares my values and shows that he lives up to them.  This does not necessarily have to be a Christian per se.  But if he is the married governer of NY (just as a random example) then he should not pretend to be going down to meetings in DC but actually frequenting prostitutes.  Or he should not be fathering children out of wedlock while his wife is being treated for cancer and then trying to get one of his aides to say that he is actually the father.  2) He should have a vision of what is good for America that is similar to mine and 3) he should have the skills and abilities to further that vision.    Adolf Hitler might qualify for #3—hence religion would not be a factor in picking a president who is effective in carrying out his vision—but religion MAY be a significant factor in picking a president who shares my values and has the same vision for America.

Catholic Mom (#33), what you say makes a lot of sense to me - and is largely borne out by observation.