Full Text Of President Obama's Speech At National Prayer Breakfast
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/obama-speeech-at-national-breakfast_n_1249837.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+(Politics+on+The+Huffington+Post)
Barack Obama's Controversial 2006 Speech on Religion and Politics
http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion_3.htm ....”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”....
Text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Exodus 20:15 KJV
”Thou shalt not steal.”
Luke 20:22-25 KJV
”Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no? But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's.”
Matthew 22:17-21 KJV
”Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”
RRD:
Obama 2006:
...... ”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”....
RRD:This is arguably one of the few intelligent & rational things the man has ever said in his life.Of course people have a POLITICAL right to point to their faith and say "My church teaches this,therefore it should be the law",but why should those of us,(not of that faith) care?If the phrase:
” I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.
Is taken to mean ”I must do this if people are to agree with me” then he is correct.If he meant, however that it somehow violates individual rights for a private citizen to simply argue for faith based laws,then he isn't correct.Advocacy of statist laws cannot,in and of itself,violate individual rights.Only by enacting statist laws,or by trying to enact statist laws(e.g. when a Senator votes for bill x),can rights be threatened.(And of course,one can argue for things that DO NOT violate individual rights by invoking God,e.g. Abolition and Civil Rights,Natural Rights etc.,but,again,that does not provide a reason for those not of your faith to agree with you)
But of course Obama cannot leave well enough alone,(if he was ever even sincere to begin with).So he argues that it's ok to use Religion so long as you don't use it to ”divide us”,& only use it for such non-divisive issues as promoting socialism & global warming:
"The bible tells us that when God created the earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that earth," he said. "It is a responsibility to ensure that this planet remains clean and safe and livable for our children, and for all of God's children."
RRD:
Leaving aside the fact that there really isn't anyone noteworthy in America calling for deliberately rendering the Earth uninhabitable,(the argument is over whether X WILL render the Earth uninhabitable),or to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh Conservatives & Libertarians do not like poisoned meat either(fn1).Leaving that aside,the Bible,as Obama noted,says many things.
For example it also tells us that God will not send another deluge against us,& this has been cited by some devout believers as "proof" that Global Warming is a invalid theory(since it predicts destruction through flooding),(you've got to read your bible Barack!)
Of course Obama is all over the map on Religion.Religion is,& has been,a political tool of both the right & left for generations,(though usually the right is more prominent in its use).
This is not to imply that there are not many people whose faith and politics are genuinely intertwined;there are.
But just as politics is a tool of religionists,religion is often a tool of politicians.
Obama does,unquestionably,have beliefs about the role of government in stealing private property & giving it to the poor or middle class.
I believe,however that that is his true "religion",(along with the other teachings of Saul Alinsky).
When Obama described his supposed adoption of Christianity in Dreams of My Father,he spoke of Wright's teachings in terms of their usefulness for,essentially,community organizing.
(See Obama's passage on Rev. Wright's ”The Audacity to Hope” Sermon.A sermon which supposedly led him to embrace Christianity,Obama's description of his ”Conversion” is a passage which,to paraphrase Wilde,”No one with a brain can read without bursting into laughter”)
I do not believe,for one instant,that this man is a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term.(Or,for that matter,a Muslim,in any meaningful sense of the term)
Religion is a tool for duping people to him.
For addressing the ”bitter clingers” at their ”level of understanding”.
He may or may not believe in God.But any such belief likely no more guides him then his enjoyment of basketball guides him.
He is a Alinskite,first,last & always.
Footnotes:
fn1
Back when Limbaugh had his TV show,in the 1990's,a Democrat once thundered (in regards to a food safety issue which Republicans opposed or delayed)
that "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT VOTE FOR POISONED MEAT!”
To which Limbaugh replied:"I DID vote for poisoned meat!(I'm quoting from memory)
Objectivists (& often Libertarians) oppose preventive laws,(such as requiring restaurant's to submit to government inspections),but it does not follow that they are ”pro-poisoned meat”,anymore than those who oppose laws that violate due process are ”pro-criminal”.They may believe that such matters should be dealt with after the fact,(as manslaughter),or by warning against,or exposing dangerous food retailers,but that does not make them ”pro-salmonella”.
Posted via email from fightingstatism
