President Obama, More Religious Apostate than Religious Pioneer

Written by Dr. Michael Brown

According to CNN writer John Blake, President Barack Obama is “a religious pioneer” who, in the opinion of some scholars and pastors, is “also expanding the definition of who can be a Christian by challenging the religious right’s domination of the national stage.”

To be candid, and with due respect to the office of the president, Obama should be viewed as a religious apostate more than a religious pioneer. He has shown an extraordinary disregard for society’s most innocent and vulnerable members (babies in the womb), he has misused the Bible to defend the radical redefinition of marriage, and he has trashed religious freedoms with his health care mandates to the point that groups as disparate as Hobby Lobby and Catholic hospitals are suing the government. This is hardly the legacy of a religious pioneer.

Blake claimed in his article “Is Obama the ‘wrong’ kind of Christian?” that, “When Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage, framed health care as a moral imperative to care for ‘the least of these,’ and once urged people to read their Bible but just not literally, he was invoking another Christian tradition that once dominated American public life so much that it gave the nation its first megachurches, historians say.”

Blake is referring to the “social gospel” version of Christianity that was more prominent in the early to mid-20th century than it is today. As explained by Jim Wallis (head of the Sojourners, a leftwing, marginally evangelical organization), Obama’s faith “is not the faith of the religious right. It’s about things that they don’t talk about. It’s about how the Bible is full of God’s clear instruction to care for the poor.”

Putting aside the fact that “the religious right” is used as a term of disparagement in contrast with what Blake calls “progressive Christianity,” the truth is that conservative Christians lead the way in worldwide humanitarian relief efforts, they continue to build hospitals and orphanages and schools in many nations, they are active in drug and alcohol rehab programs in the inner cities of America, and they are at the forefront of the pro-life, pro-adoption movement.

As for their opposition to gay activism, it is the natural offshoot of their belief in marriage as defined by Jesus himself (one man and one woman joined together for life), it is in keeping with their high esteem for sexual purity, and it is in harmony with their wholly justified concerns that homosexual activism is the principle threat to our freedoms of conscience, religion, and speech. From a biblical perspective, President Obama is on the wrong side of these critically important issues.

For Blake, “Obama is a progressive Christian who blends the emotional fire of the African-American church, the ecumenical outlook of contemporary Protestantism, and the activism of the Social Gospel, a late 19th-century movement whose leaders faulted American churches for focusing too much on personal salvation while ignoring the conditions that led to pervasive poverty.”

And Blake wants to place Obama in the line of Black Christians like Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that “any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them …is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.”

But Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King, as our president has proven himself to be a great divider whereas King was a great unifier. And King, for his part, would not have shouted “Amen” to the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, whose often shrill version of black liberation theology formed the ideological basis of Obama’s Christianity. With spiritual foundations like that, it is no wonder that the president could make the obscene comparison between “Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf” and gay marriage.

Blake closes his article by pointing to research done by Marcia Pally, author of the book “The New Evangelicals: Expanding the Vision of the Common Good.” He writes that Pally’s “perspective suggests that Obama’s faith may be treated by history in two ways: He could be seen as the last embodiment of a progressive version of Christianity that went obsolete. Or he could be seen as a leader who helped resurrect a dying brand of Christianity for a new generation.”

Pally and Blake fail to consider a third, more likely scenario: Obama could be seen as a religious apostate, a man who denied some of the most fundamental values of Christianity (what else can be said of a political leader who three times vetoed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act “that would require medical care for a baby who survives an abortion”?), a man who used the Bible to back a radical, often harmful social agenda. In that regard, Obama is more a disciple of Saul Alinsky than of Jesus.

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

Obama the Fudger-in-Chief

Written by Laurie Higgins

Last night President Barack Obama, always the fudger-in-chief, played fast and loose with the phrase “act of terror.”  This was just a continuation of the deliberate word game he started playing in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack.

He’s playing on two different but similar sounding phrases. Professor David Norte has written about the distinction between “acts of terror” and “acts of terrorism.” President Obama, likely knowing that the Benghazi attack was an act of “terrorism” but not wanting the public to know that, because it would undermine his carefully crafted image as a fearless foe of Islamic extremists who effectively cedes—I mean leads—from behind.

The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting was an act of terror; the attack on Benghazi was an act of terrorism.

Now President Obama can use his squishy language, his dishonest and deliberate substitution of “terror” for “terrorism” for political cover.

In Their Own Words: A Comparison of Party Platforms

Can’t read it? Click here.

Click Here for Printable Version


Did the President Cross a Bridge To Far?

Written by Micah Clark

Here is a remarkable story that would have been unimaginable in 2008.   A group of African-American faith leaders has formed an organization called God Said, which plans on raising $1 million dollars in an effort to drive 25% of black voters away from President Barack Obama’s re-election.   The reason for this effort is due to the President’s support of same-sex marriage. The group, with 22 advisory board members, plans radio and television ads in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida.

“The black community is among the most religious in America, and we are offended that President Obama has announced his support of same-sex marriage, that the NAACP has blindly supported the secular views of the Democratic Party, and that their national platform plainly supports same-sex marriage,” Apostle Claver Kamau-Imani, a God Said founder said in a statement published by The Daily Caller. “I am confident that this message will be well received and acted upon on Election Day.”

Many people assume that Barack Obama, and virtually any other Democrat, has a near guaranteed 96% of the black vote backing them, because that is the routine breakdown in election after election.  Yet, a new survey from Zogby shows that Governor Romney has 6% of the black vote. Most surprisingly, it found that 18% of African-Americans surveyed said that they were “undecided” on how they would vote this November.

“During the 2008 elections, 70 percent of African-Americans voted to ban same-sex marriage in California while they also voted for Barack Obama for president,” Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., told The Daily Caller.  “We fully intend to shift 25 percent of the black vote from the 2008 election by charging every voter to examine each candidate and vote for the one that supports their core belief in natural marriage.”

Eating Our Own?

Recently, someone accused Illinois Family Action of “eating our own” for criticizing the positions of a Republican candidate for the Illinois State Senate. Here are the thoughts of one IFA reader, attorney Mark Rouleau, to the notion that conservatives ought not criticize any Republicans running for office:

The description of criticism of Republicans as “eating our own” is the product of a reprobate mind and a seared conscience. Such a charge reflects a kind of tribalism. Yeah, rah, rah for our team and our guys because they wear our colors (a la gang style). It doesn’t matter if they are upholding godly positions.

Personally, I will vote for pro-life Democrats or third party candidates who believe in traditional marriage and limited government over a Republican who doesn’t believe in those things, even if that means that they will cost Republicans on other votes.

Eating one’s own is exactly what our society does when it allows people to kill their children. When people think it is all right to kill a baby because the baby is not wanted (their only crime is not being loved enough), it is usually premised upon the thought that everyone (primarily the parents but of course the rest of society) “can live a better life” as a result of the killing. Some with this reprobate thinking extend the argument to say that the baby is better off being dead than with parents that do not want them. It is a moral decision that is bought off with money, lifestyle, or convenience. An even scarier basis for the belief that abortion on demand is a good thing is premised in eugenics (see Maafa 21) and the Nazi ideal of creating a “master race.”

IFA’s point is well made that those who think this way are not our own. Those who espouse the idea that we should support someone who morally disagrees with our very core simply because they wear the same team jersey do not have the same Father as we do. They have an entirely different father who has been a liar from the beginning of time.

The fact is that when the Republican Party backs free markets without morality the implicit statement is society should devour its young and refuse to take care of those who need our help (some people go as far as to call them “useless eaters”). This is contrary to the views of Adam Smith (an ardent Scottish Presbyterian), the father of the “Free Market” theory who clearly argued in the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” that morality was necessary to make the free markets work.

While amoral, fiscal-only Republicans argue that taking care of the poor is a role for private charity (which I agree with) then they strip morality away from governance, they also remove morality from the consciousness of the public (i.e., the culture of death). People then apply the moral ambiguity of perceived “enlightened self-interest,” and come up with all kinds of excuses for disposing of the “useless eaters.” They, in fact, devour the young.

Even the agnostic Thomas Paine recognized the moral underpinning of 1776 England when he wrote: “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families.”

His argument is that England was devouring her young (the colonies and the people in the colonies) and, therefore, England was not the legitimate parent of the American Colonies. Rather, European Christendom was the legitimate parent. We know that the devouring was the result of “mercantilism” (controlling the means of production), which required the colonies to ship raw materials to England and to purchase their finished goods from England. We also know the outcome of this policy was a Revolution.

The person who wrote that “tribal” comment is willing to sacrifice the young for the “good of the tribe.” He is not unlike the Spartans who were willing to throw their weak and defective infants over a cliff for the good of their society.

I for one do not want to be a member of that tribe or family. My family is with brothers and sisters in the biblical Jesus Christ.

Modified by Matthew