August 20, 2009 4:34 PM
Obama: "Religious Left" foolishness and hypocrisy
I guess Obama is desperate.
Once again he is trading on his "committed Christian" status - as part of the grab bag including his "International Son," "African-American," "raised in Kansas by white grandparents," "Educated as a Muslim" - to drum up support for his imperiled government takeover of our health care industry.
Yesterday's appeal to the "Religious Left" was replete with biblical references, accusing those opposed to his plan of "bearing false witness." You see, we can't read the 1000+ page document and have genuine concerns or opinions based on the actual words we read. Our questions and criticisms are "bearing false witness" against The Anointed One.
He also reminded us that we are our brother's keeper - and "sister's keeper" just to keep things PC.
A true wolf in sheep's clothing - a master politician who refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer and has trashed religious conservatives committed to the sanctity of life - uses biblical language to reinforce the "Religious Left" in believing that building a bigger government is somehow a religious/spiritual batlle.
Jesus calls us to a life of compassion and charity in a real and concrete way. I think of Mary breaking her alabaster jar to anoint Jesus with special ointment and Jesus kneeling to wash his disciples' dirty feet.
These are different acts than turning over your hard-earned money/approval/trust to an already byzantine, inefficient, unfriendly and Kafka-esque government bureaucracy and trusting that somehow they will meet the needs of your neighbors in need.
Charity is individual, poignantly real and personal. Acts of charity transform those who give and those who receive. As someone who has given much when times were good and received much when times were tough, I can tell you it is much more real to receive from the Body of Christ than to receive from the government.
And the problem with government programs is that they inspire entitlement and resentment and a sense that there is never enough. Ultimately greed rather than gratitude.
I cannot understand these "Religious Left" people who think nothing of murdering unborn babies - even as Obama supported, killing abortion survivors - yet beat us over the head with these biblical admonishments that Jesus was speaking to us as individuals. They were never intended for governments.
Seriously. Do you really think Jesus wants us to build big government? Does he really want us to pass our own personal responsibility to the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the lonely over to an impersonal monolithic bureaucracy with all the waste that implies?
And what would he make of a national leader who tries to whip the populace into shape using the word of the Lord (remember that anyone can use scripture - Satan used scripture when speaking to Jesus himself) when ignoring it himself.
If Obama believes that we are our brother's keeper, why are his own brother and other relatives living in poverty in Kenya?
And again, where are the usual suspects like Americans United for Separation yada yada on this?
See also: Obama would like you to see government as religion.
Posted in Obama Nation | Permalink
Comments
I have a friend, who is a Christian, who leans more to the left than I do. He describes himself as a moderate, and I would say that none of his positions (that I know of) go against Scripture. He's a good, sincere Christian. He also (was? is? I'm not sure if he is sure anymore.) in favor of the health care bill. Recently on Facebook he asked why we as Christians cannot simply agree that it is our responsibility to help the poor who cannot afford health care. This was my response:
I completely, 100% agree that Christians ought to be making the aid of others our number one priority, and even doing so sacrificially. I have no problem paying out of my own pocket to help others. My only objection is in getting the government involved.1) I object to the idea that Christians should legally compel our neighbors to contribute their money so we can help others. I would rather give $10 out of my own pocket than give $1 and force 9 of my neighbors to do the same whether they liked it or not. Helping the poor and needy through a government program funded by taxation does just that.
2) Government aid requires a bureaucracy that private aid does not. I can give you $1 that you can take directly to your doctor. If I give $1 to the government for you, they have to take part of it for themselves, and you may only get 80 cents. This is inefficient and wastes some of what God has given us for the purpose of serving His people.
3) Government has a long history of corruption, incompetence, and tyranny. God Himself warned that the Israelites would regret asking to have a king put over them... Throughout history, vesting too much power in a central government has ALWAYS led to a worse lot in life for the poor and needy, therefore I would argue that by giving our limited government more authority over our lives we are actually HURTING the poor.
4) God gave the responsibility to help the poor to us, Christians -- the church herself. By giving that responsibility to another entity, the government, and especially by giving it to a less efficient and less capable entity, we are shirking our responsibilities and the poor are suffering from less quality than what we ourselves could provide them.
Those are just my arguments against the government being involved in ANY program to help the poor. The particular program that is currently proposed has even more problems and frightening provisions.
Understand, my solution is that we literally give our money, time, and resources sacrificially, and directly to those who need it. Also understand that I am not arguing from a selfish perspective. My current financial situation is such that the government would almost certainly not be taking MY money to fund a national health care program. So far, every year of my adult life but one, I have not paid a single cent of federal [income] tax. Every year (but one) we have gotten back more than we paid in. I am in no way selfishly refusing to pay for other people's health care with my money, but instead worrying about the poor care people will receive (even worse than they receive now, I fear) when the church (myself included) could provide them with so much better.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 20, 2009 6:17 PM
i couldn't agree with this more:
"You see, we can't read the 1000+ page document and have genuine concerns or opinions based on the actual words we read. Our questions and criticisms are "bearing false witness" against The Anointed One."
my president using biblical references is something that doesn't just offend my sensibilities, but contradicts my country's constitution. the fact that this happened at all is so many shades of wrong.
lately it's become popular to draw parallels from obama to hitler. laugable as that is, at least hitler actually existed in the real world. you're referring here to satan -- with a capital S no less -- like this is a real entity. not even a real entity, but a person. a person who spoke to another mythical character, jesus. with a capital J.
anyway, i'm not sure why it is your blog is linked to hipmama, but this was a nice light read.
Posted by: hmmmm | August 20, 2009 6:37 PM
Very well spoken, Barbara. I admire your conciseness and your way with words. Thank you for keeping me informed here in my insular little world!
Posted by: Michele Mom of 8 | August 20, 2009 7:21 PM
If O is such a great Christian, why didn't he participate in the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have?
Posted by: Sandra | August 20, 2009 7:43 PM
"Charity is individual, poignantly real and personal. Acts of charity transform those who give and those who receive."
This is precisely the point well-meaning liberals miss. Giving and sacrifice has a transformative effect on both the giver and recipient. It is not just about meeting materials needs, but the sanctification of both parties.
When the "government" takes responsibility for the poor, then the Church seemingly has less of a responsibility. Not to mention the fact that the government will take your property and put you in jail for not paying taxes -- not exactly the model of cheerful giving.
Posted by: Michele | August 20, 2009 8:34 PM
Dear hmmmmm,
Satan is not a mythical character. And most definitely Jesus is not either. You have found yourself on a Catholic blog.
I really hope, hmmmm(the poster) that you try to research a bit more than you seem to have done so far. "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis is an excellent book. I hope you have the....courage to read it.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | August 20, 2009 8:38 PM
Hmmmm (the poster, as Sue said),
Even the proper names of mythical or fictional characters are capitalized: Zeus, Thor, Bilbo Baggins. There is no grammatical rule stating that if Jesus and Satan are not real, or you believe they are not, then you should not capitalize their names. By refusing to do so, and explicitly pointing it out to all of us, you seem to fancy yourself as being merely factual or a stickler for technicalities. Instead you betray yourself as pointlessly demeaning and rude, insulting the religion of 2.1 billion people for no reason.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 20, 2009 10:03 PM
To be fair, Sue, I don't think Obama himself actually believes Satan is a real person, so hmmmm has a point.
Posted by: Amy K. | August 20, 2009 10:39 PM
Amy K, I think hmmmm(the poster) was referring to him/herself in reference to Satan and Jesus being fictional.
--------------------------
This quote from hmmm: "my president using biblical references is something that doesn't just offend my sensibilities, but contradicts my country's constitution."
Very inaccurate. It does not contradict this country's constitution. Separation of Church and State means not having a state-sponsored religion. In other words: The state of New York cannot have an official religion. Media and left-wing people have twisted it to mean something else. They lied.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | August 21, 2009 9:36 AM
