Obama is too a Christian

From Dave Kopel here.

Quote:

Ergo, belief in the racist, Marxist philosophy of black liberation theology is not necessarily incompatible with being a Christian who has orthodox beliefs on most matters of Christian doctrine (e.g., the trinity, the resurrection, virgin birth, and so on).

Taking them at their word, there’s more evidence of BO’s “Christianity” in an historical orthodox sense than there is for George Washington and James Madison. I use them as examples because, I admit the evidence isn’t conclusive. Whereas J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin are on record explicitly announcing what it is they believe in (i.e., that they reject the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines) Madison and Washington are less clear.

Still, taking them all at their word, BO has given us more evidence of his belief in historic Christian doctrine than GW or JM did.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Obama is too a Christian

  1. Mark Boggs says:

    Sadly, I’ve heard the argument put forth that, because of his father’s Muslim faith, this therefore dictates that Obama is Muslim…in his heart…regardless of what he professes publicly or whose congregation he sits amongst on Sundays. It’s like hereditary baldness I guess, even if he actually has hair.

  2. James Hanley says:

    Mark,

    What’s particularly odd about the, “his father was Muslim so he is to, even if he doesn’t think so” argument is that Christians believe God can save anyone, except apparently Barack Obama.

  3. Mark Boggs says:

    Well James, look at the man’s name. How can the Christian God save a man with a name like that? As soon as he was named, he lost all “hope” of being saved. Ironic indeed.

  4. Michael Heath says:

    Mark Boggs states:

    Sadly, I’ve heard the argument put forth that, because of his father’s Muslim faith, this therefore dictates that Obama is Muslim…in his heart…regardless of what he professes publicly or whose congregation he sits amongst on Sundays.

    There’s two additional defects with this meme popularized by Franklin Graham, Billy’s idiot son (who reminds me of W. compared to H.W.). Barack’s father was not Muslim but instead was an atheist. That’s compounded to the fact that Barack Obama was not raised by his father nor did he know his dad nor was he even raised near his fathers’ family or home town but instead on the other side of the world in a completely different culture (with a short stint in Muslim Indonesia with his mother and another man who never became a real father to him). In fact after the age of three Barack only visited with his father once for a short while, when he was about 10.

    Their are layers of idiocy compiled into this meme that says a lot about Mr. Obama’s critics and absolutely nothing about him.

  5. Mark Boggs says:

    Yes, but Michael, all of those little tidbits you call “facts” spoil the narrative.

  6. Pingback: Bryan Fischer’s Confusion | The One Best Way

  7. buddyglass says:

    Couple thoughts:

    1. Most of the “but he’s a Christian!” pieces seem to focus on what he says about what he believes. This is unlikely to satisfy those who base their opinion on what he does in a “book of James” kind of way. In that sense it doesn’t matter whether Obama says the right things, it matters whether he does the right things. And, in their estimation, Obama does not behave in a way that would suggest a salvational relationship with Jesus.

    2. If Obama is a Muslim, then he’s really, really secretive about it and, honestly, anybody could be a secret Muslim. Pat Robertson could be a secret Muslim. What is the evidence that would suggest it is likely Obama is concealing his status as a Muslim? Well, he had a Muslim parent, he went to a Muslim school for a while, and one could (maybe) argue that his policies as president have been “favorable” to Muslims. What about someone like Ergun Caner? Or if you want “favorable to Muslims”, how about Michael Gerson, who has defended the Park51 project and loudly criticized France’s burqa ban?

    3. There would seem to be a big enough critical mass of “non-orthodox” statements from Obama to suggest his beliefs are roughly comparable to what passes for “Christianity” in most liberal mainline denominations. Whether or not that means he’s truly a “Christian” is another discussion.

  8. Michael Heath says:

    Buddyglass states:

    Most of the “but he’s a Christian!” pieces seem to focus on what he says about what he believes. This is unlikely to satisfy those who base their opinion on what he does in a “book of James” kind of way. In that sense it doesn’t matter whether Obama says the right things, it matters whether he does the right things. And, in their estimation, Obama does not behave in a way that would suggest a salvational relationship with Jesus.

    What’s especially ironic about this whole issue is that President Obama is heretical to conservative political dogma, but his actual policy prescriptions are far more easily reconciled to what the NT has Jesus teaching and demanding than those who argue the President is not a Christian while they are.

    And yes, I’m perfectly cognizant of how these Obama opponents avoid confronting this fact by claiming Jesus teachings were inter-personal and absent of government involvement. However I’d still argue a fair rendering of the texts puts Mr. Obama and others promoting help for the elderly, infirm, poor, and children are effectively following those admonitions where his opponents mostly and quite effectively oppose such.

  9. buddyglass says:

    Michael:

    This argument is nothing new (and I don’t mean that as a slight to you). I may even have made it myself at some point. But lately I feel like its a little lacking. It seems possible, at least, to maintain a principled opposition to “progressive” politics with respect to aid programs while still having a strong personal commitment to helping these groups.

    I think a case can be made that Jesus’ teachings imply progressive politics, but I hardly think its an open and shut case, and I think one could just as easily make a case for the exact opposite. That is to say, a case for not compelling others to charity, which is what state-funded aid programs essentially are.

    The kicker is that the folks calling for the state to refrain from compelling charity are often the same ones calling for the state to compel other types of behavior. That, at least, seems fairly hypocritical.

  10. Michael Heath says:

    buddyglass states:

    It seems possible, at least, to maintain a principled opposition to “progressive” politics with respect to aid programs while still having a strong personal commitment to helping these groups.

    Oh I quite agree. That’s the precise reason I used the adverb “effectively”; to note whose passion and energy is actually focused on those the NT’s Jesus demands we help. I perceive far more of both exists on Obama’s side than his critics’.

    buddyglass:

    I think a case can be made that Jesus’ teachings imply progressive politics, but I hardly think its an open and shut case . . .

    I again concur. My point was about my perception of whose demonstrated efforts resulted in following Jesus’ supposed teachings, not whether this was the only or optimal way to accomplish such.

    I don’t happen to make an argument we should create a welfare state with certain unearned entitlements because the NT’s admonishes us to help certain people, partly because I’m not a Christian (though I was raised to be one and do value some of the lessons). If I were to argue as a Christian the government should do so in order for me to effect change commanded of me as a servant of Jesus, it would be for one primary reason, we empirically know that using government is a far more effective and cost-effective tool than alternative methods of reaching an optimal result. Not exclusively government, but instead a primary tool. The problem with this approach however that it succeeds so well people become less fearful of the future and their financial security and therefore become far more irreligious – pretty ironic.

    However that’s merely my abstract perspective if I were a Christian and not what I actually promote since I’m not a Christian nor do I find it useful to follow admonitions merely because some claim them as holy dogma. Instead for me it’s about what would achieve the highest possible long-term rate of economic growth with a context of constantly increasing median discretionary income and full employment. From that perspective we’ve learned from our experiences, several European countries, and a few other countries that it’s economically prudent to provide a floor to where government subsidies insure no one falls beneath that floor. Especially in a developed economy where low-wage jobs are disappearing and a country requires an increasing rate of innovation to provide full employment and opportunities to increase median discretionary income.

    Currently the largest source of government waste I perceive that doesn’t violate Jesus’ supposed admonitions is how we spend taxpayers funds through Medicare during patients’ end-of-life. We over-treat them far more than they desire at the taxpayer’s expense. And yet Sarah Palin has made this a politically untouchable item, i.e., the biggest waste of money the taxpayer funds also achieves no good end but instead prolongs suffering and yet it’s defended by a conservative Christian, her political-religious movement (they’ve converged), and her party.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s