5/11/20
Barack Hussein Obama :  Religious Illiterate
 

Does Christian faith reduce to the Golden Rule ?
Does Christian faith consist entirely of the Sermon on the Mount ?
How can anyone think so ?  For if either question is answered in the  
affirmative
then the rest of the New Testament becomes meaningless and  superfluous.
Which is precisely what Obama has done with his recent statement
on the subject of homosexual travesty of marriage.
 
Looks like Matthew 11 : 20 - 24 doesn't count, nor  Romans 1 : 24 - 32,
nor 1 Corinthians 6 : 9 - 10, nor do  any of the  other 7 passages in the 
New Testament
count which deal with the subject of sodomy / homosexuality. Not even  to
consider the Old Testament and, like the New Testament, with 10  books
that mention the subject condemning it in each and every case.
 
Why is it so difficult to understand something so basic to Biblical faith  ?
 
Answer :  Religious illiteracy, especially Biblical  illiteracy. In other 
words,
Obama never reads the Bible, or seldom does, or if he does even a  little,
obviously it is never for the purpose of meaning. Not that you would  know
any of this from the media. So far, although surely there will be 2 or 3  
exceptions
out of the 100 or so name journalists who will eventually comment on this  
matter,
all statements in the press or on TV have demonstrated just how  ignorant
the media also is when it comes to religion and the Bible. These  people
don't know one damned thing about questions of faith or
about the Judeo-Christian scriptures. 
 
Alas, many pastors, eager to "understand" developments in society, eager  to
accommodate themselves with perceived public opinion in their  community,
especially "liberal" suburbs, college towns, and islands of faith in  urban 
areas,
don't even want to know  --or admit--  what the Bible says  about sodomy.
It is too embarrassing. It isn't modern. And in many  social circles  it
is unpopular. Better to gloss over the issue, or better yet, to  
re-interpret 
the Bible by distorting what it actually says, by explaining it all  away
because, you see, what really counts is social approval, or at  least
it counts far more than actual Gospel Truth.
 
Trouble for Evangelicals and sincere Catholics and Eastern Orthodox  
Christians,
as well as for Mormons and about half of all Jews, is that the majority  of 
the
general public, while this same majority owns Bibles, is basically  clueless
about what is actually IN the Bible. Still, it does seem that there  is
just enough awareness in society that Obama's new position on
homosexual travesty of marriage will cost him votes all over the  map.
 
He can say goodbye to North Carolina, that seems obvious enough,
Indiana was already lost, and tossup states like Missouri are now  probably
going to fall into the "leans Republican" column.
 
Politically Obama's sick excuse for Christian faith, for that is what it  
is,
a farcical version of Christianity, a parody of that faith, could  well
cost him the election, and maybe cost Democrats generally
more Congressional seats than they otherwise would have lost.
About this last part of the equation I am not at all certain,
but it seems really obvious that for every vote that
Obama may gain by his "marriage" stand he
will lose 2 votes.
 
And, O yes, a slight detail, he can forget about the Muslim vote  also.
And he can forget about whatever good will he still had left
in the Muslim world.
 
The man is incredibly (1) un-moral, not so such immoral as lacking  in
moral sense, and (2) stupid.  Articulate, yes, as always. A good  
"speechifier,"
obviously, also as always. But incredibly stupid nonetheless.
 
His choice,  and now he will need to live with the  consequences.
 
 
Billy
 
 
=================================================
 
 
 
 
Religion News Service
 
Obama and gay marriage: In U.S.  religion, the Golden Rule rules
David Gibson |  May  10, 2012
 
(RNS) As pundits and politicians struggle to divine the political fallout  
from President Obama’s sudden endorsement of same-sex marriage, one thing 
has  become clear: The Golden Rule invoked by Obama to explain his change of 
heart  is the closest thing Americans have to a common religious law, and 
that has  important implications beyond the battle for gay rights. 
In fact, one of the most striking aspects of Obama’s revelation on  
Wednesday (May 9) that he and his wife, Michelle, support marriage rights for  
gays 
and lesbians, is that he invoked their Christian faith to support his  
views. In past years, Obama – as many believers still do – had cited his  
religious beliefs to oppose gay marriage. 
Obama _told ABC News_ 
(http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html)
  that he and the first lady 
 “are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be 
considered  to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we 
think 
about  our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ 
 sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you 
know,  treat others the way you would want to be treated.” 
Obama has _frequently  mentioned the Golden Rule_ 
(http://www.religionnews.com/politics/government-and-politics/five-statements-by-president-obama-on-hi
s-faith)  or that general idea when speaking about how his  faith shapes 
his policies, and he can point to chapter and verse to back up  his views. 
Jesus twice invoked the Golden Rule in the Gospels, in a phrase that is  
often rendered “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And Jesus 
 is cited three times boiling down all of God’s law to what is known as 
_the Great Commandment_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment) , a 
dual injunction  to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart” and to “love 
thy neighbor as  thyself.” 
In those passages, Jesus is actually citing the Hebrew Scriptures --  
specifically Leviticus 19:18, when God tells Moses to "Love your neighbor as  
yourself" -- and scholars of religion say some version of the Golden Rule can  
be found in almost every religious tradition. 
That universality is especially useful in modern-day America, as the  
religious landscape has not only become increasingly diverse, but as people of  
different faiths are increasingly living and working together, and marrying  
each other and raising children. 
“Given today’s religiously diverse context, this way of thinking about  
religion and spirituality provides a handy bridge across religious  
differences,” said Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston  
University. 
Ammerman said she first became aware of the centrality of the Golden Rule  
precept as she studied American congregations in the 1990s, and more 
extensive  surveys since then have underscored the premium that U.S. believers 
put 
on  this live-and-let-live tenet as opposed to any specific sectarian  
doctrine. 
“Consistently, roughly half say that it’s how you live your life everyday  
and how you treat others,” said Ammerman, whose book on these and other  
findings, “Sacred Stories: Religion and Spirituality in Everyday Life,” will  
be published next year. “About 40 percent place the emphasis on more  
evangelical practices like reading the Bible and witnessing to others. And  
about 
10 percent say that it’s about working for justice.” 
That phenomenon was also a central finding in a sweeping study of U.S.  
religion, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” published in  
2010. In that book, authors Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell 
elaborated  the so-called “Aunt Susan Principle” – the “Aunt Susan” in all our 
lives, “the  sort of person who epitomizes what it means to be a saint, but 
whose religious  background is different from our own.” 
Increasingly, just as we find it impossible to consign Aunt Susan to  
eternal damnation because of her differing beliefs, so too American believers  
– 
including the Obamas – struggle to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians  
who try to live upright lives, which would include a monogamous marriage. 
In everyday life, this means that believers can invoke the Golden Rule in  
order to respect others, like gays and lesbians, while maintaining their  
particular religious views, which may or may not endorse homosexual  
relationships. 
While this tendency toward toleration may not translate immediately into  
legislative or judicial victories for gay rights – witness the ban on gay  
marriage that North Carolina voters approved this week – the _shift to social 
acceptance is broad and  swift_ 
(http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/05/research-note-evolution-of-american-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/)
  and, as 
even many religious conservatives concede, probably  inexorable. 
The Golden Rule template is also one that experts say will likely one day  
pave the way for greater acceptance of marginalized groups like Muslims, 
just  as it did in past generations for Catholics and Jews. Mormons like Mitt 
Romney  already seem to be benefiting, as their visibility grows and more 
Americans  see them as living upstanding lives. 
Whether Obama will benefit from his invocation of the Golden Rule remains a 
 point of intense political speculation. That’s no surprise, given that the 
 nation remains divided on gay rights, and culture war issues can often be 
used  as stand-ins for airing other grievances. 
But the White House seemed to recognize the power of the Golden Rule as it  
scrambled to stage-manage the potential public relations crisis. As the  
president’s interview was being aired, the White House sent Democrats a _list 
of talking points_ 
(http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/2012-05-09#sha=5b75a6430)  that 
featured this  exhortation: “In the end, the values that 
the president cares most deeply  about is how we treat other people.” 
The memorandum was supposed to be confidential, but Obama’s aides could  
have simply opened up the Bible, or asked most any American believer, and  
found the same advice.



-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to