Misery Index

FAITH

Although the “faith” page has disappeared from the Change.gov website, the topic still appears on the Change.gov forums and it still appears on the Obama/Biden Election site.  So what did the “Faith” part of Obama’s old Change agenda page say?

RECONCILING FAITHS AND POLITICS

“(Obama’s speech on faith) may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy’s Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican…Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief.”

--E.J. Dionne, Op-Ed, Washington Post, June 30, 2006

In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years.  Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate.  In December, 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.

The speech that is noted is Obama’s “Call to Renewal” speech at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for New America.  During this speech Obama talks about his own personal faith.   His speech borderlines ending the separation of church and state and basically implies that the “reason a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd” is because there “a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.”  That religion will fix everything.  And that we as a nation of different religions and nonbelievers have to come to a “compromise” on what is ethical and moral across the board on a political level.  The speech borderlines on the “S” word……What is good in one religion that is good in another religion, is good for all religions. 

And there is man’s law and God’s law, if man’s law goes against God’s law, it is our duty to follow God’s law and not man’s. 

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” – Romans 13:1

“We must obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

All I have to say on the matter is this.  If I want or need more God in my life, I have the option of going to a church.  I don’t need government telling me that I need more God in my life.  And I don’t need a government telling me that there is only one book that can be followed and all other are trash?  That is a Constitutional right that I have, via the First Amendment.  Personal responsibility for personal  morality and personal ethics are the responsibility of each individual, not the government.  If all religions have a “compromise” then what separates those religions anymore?  And that we need to think in terms of “thou” and not just”I”, when it comes to religion.  And does all that not brush on State or National Religion?:

“Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

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.”

So unless Obama decides to change our Constitution, he’s out of luck.  Additionally Obama keeps calling Abraham Lincoln a genius, which he may have been when it came to many things, however obviously he is not completely knowledgeable about Lincoln since Lincoln stated the following:

“The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.”

Excerpts are below with the entire video so that the Obamabots can not say that I am taking things out of context,which admittedly I am however, I am ‘highlighting’ certain statements to prove a point.  You are a human with a mind, and can watch the entire video for yourself, to determine whether you think I am correct, or form your own conclusion.

“At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands.”

“But in the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives – in the lives of the American people – and I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it.  You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”

“More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.  Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.”

“I believe in keeping guns out of inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem.  There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.”

“But what I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

“Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.  We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms lf “thou” and not just ”I, resonates in religious congregations all across the country.  And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.”

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.”

“And 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? … 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 suggest 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 our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.  But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.  It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible.  At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.  It’s the art of the impossible.”

“Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.”

“But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state.  Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters.  It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.”  I didn’t.  Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.  And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.”

“A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.  It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.”