- "...and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."..."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." ~ Senator Barack Obama "A Call To Renewal" Washington, DC. 6/28/2006
It is upon that platform that President Obama spoke at
UND. I would like to look at a few of the more interesting points of the President's address to the 2009 graduates of
UND as in his address we see shades of all of his theories and a fully developed apologetic. When placed along side of others statements that he's made in the past regarding these issues his viewpoints are especially telling.
Please keep in mind that President Obama wouldn't show up for the
Washington March For Life or the National Day Of Prayer event, but he did show up at
UND. The reason why, does not escape us as college campuses are the battle ground for the proliferation of new age thought. As enthusiastic as an Evangelist willing to spread the good news of the Kingdom of Christ, President Obama is more than willing to spread the Godlessness of Pluralism and Eclecticism. Here's some of what he said:
- "For the major threats we face in the 21st century -- whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease -- these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history." ~ President Barack Obama UND 5/17/09
Similar to Hillary Clinton's,
"It takes a village to raise a child" making everyone responsible for the condition of a few (when the truth is it only takes 2 godly parents and even 1 will do especially when there's trust and faith in God) President Obama wasn't short on defining the limitations and inadequacies of both religion, humanity and nations in dealing with the important issues of our time.
As a rule Presidents don't usually invoke limitations, especially limitations of religions and religious systems. Even though his campaign theme was
"Yes We Can" President Obama, unlike any other American President, seems to have defined the limitations of all religions and especially the Christian religion.
Noting that no
"one person" or no
"one religion" can meet the challenges that the world faces alone, he begins to describe a vision of partnerships and sharing that crosses all lines of separation (except governmental) for the benefit of humanity. This concept is called
eclecticism. Eclecticism is
"a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases."Obviously, America is a pluralistic and eclectic society in many facets. In social matters eclecticism has its benefits. The problem is when the church doesn't recognize that the absolute nature of God's word is being challenged or thrown under the bus at the expense of fancy and lofty sounding, subjective humanistic values. Unfortunately, the church sometimes cannot discern what is being preached to them. Some are entrapped by the voices of
"strangers". I know
UND is not or was not the "church" but they were representative of the church in this instance and as an institution is representative of values that the church has traditionally held.
As stated, President
Obama's speech at
UND was full of pluralistic and eclectic concepts. In President's
Obama's view Christianity is only one path that people have chosen to suit their needs and must be tempered by other religious beliefs in order to come up with the best possible solutions for all. Case and point? Let's revert to his speech some time ago at the National Prayer Breakfast.
- "We will also reach out to leaders and scholars around the world to foster a more productive and peaceful dialogue on faith. I don’t expect divisions to disappear overnight, nor do I believe that long-held views and conflicts will suddenly vanish. But I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge." ~ President Barack Obama NPB Washington, D.C. 2/5/2009
To listen to our President define what's needed among religions, you would think that there is an all out religious war going on in the United States. The wording "foster a more productive dialogue" suggests that various religious leaders and faiths can't share the same room and certainly can't get anything significant done. Then he speaks that he doesn't expect "divisions to disappear overnight" as if there are casualties of war and deep scars that must be healed daily. This is ridiculous. Just like many of you reading this, I work with and meet individuals regularly who are of differing faiths and denominations. We have excellent working relationships and respect for one another. Presidential views here are what's called a "strawman". Something that looks real on the surface but has no substance or reality.
The Appeal To Not Wear Religious Values & Views Too Closely:
In one of the most astounding parts of the President's speech to UND students, he praises religious values as a virtue as follows:
- "And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse."
On it's own that sounds good. The encouragements are well taken. Hold on to your faith, speak the truth, live your faith!...but in the same breath what comes next is straight out of the humanist handbook 101:
- "But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us."
We must admit that it's beyond our imagination to know the beauty that God has planned for us as believers, but that in now way reduces our ability to know of certainty that he DOES have beautiful things planned. As Christians we know that "faith" is present NOW (Heb. 11:1) and that eternal life begins NOW (Jn. 3:16, Rom.10:8-9). The irony of the statement is that President Obama addresses a religious institution telling them that even they cannot be certain of their faith as it pertains to God or HIS plans. In essence, The President expresses that faith is a proposition that is filled with doubt which can only be managed, not overcome. Every religious student at the ceremony, and every faithfully observant religious professor, should have been outraged that the President basically told them that even what they believe is an uncertain proposition. Let's look further:
- "And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.And this doubt should not push us away {from} our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame."
The President makes many assumptions in these statements. Basically it says that faith can never be too confident, because after all, it is only "faith". The President reduces Faith to a set of lofty hopes, or mere wishful thinking about good things. However, as demonstrated by his encouragement to "doubt" faith is unreal and an untenable truth as it pertains to natural things. Certainly in President Obama's world faith is not an absolute and by his own words it should be "tempered", and "remain open and curious" because, after all, YOU COULD BE WRONG.
One final note here, the President immediately appealed for the students to move away from parochial principles to universal principles. Parochial, meaning principles that are narrow in scope, not diverse in considerations of the issue at hand and for the benefit of the community from which their values are derived which is usually the church. Look at this:
- "And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal, whenever we can, to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds."
As I said, this basically means hold on to your faith, but YOU COULD BE WRONG so appeal to universal principles (notions that everyone can accept) rather than those learned in church, through the bible or in relationship to God, because those values may not have mass appeal and are only about "faith" and everyone can't get with that...The ultimate encouragement to religious people to not be too religious.
The Real Issue, Abortion & The Ultimate Misdirection:
What is specially interesting about President Obama's speeches is that sometimes he misdirects and says nothing while appearing to address the issue at hand. At UND The President began speaking about a Dr. who disagreed with his stance on right-winged anti-abortionists. He later said that the Dr. helped him to better understand that a diversity of ideas should be desired when it comes to addressing the abortion issue. In other words the Dr. helped remind him that he himself was a pluralist instead of the left-wing extremist that he had become. Then, suddenly, The President changed the argument. Look at this:
- "Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."
The problem here is that abortion was the watershed issue of this whole encounter. The anti-abortionist doesn't negate the woman's right or equality. The anti-abortionist merely emphasizes the unborn's right to equally exist. He completely overlooks or writes off abortion itself as something that "we won't agree on" and immediately undertakes another issue. Where is ANY mention of a human beings right to life or right to exist? It skillfully and calculatingly doesn't exist in President Obama's dialogue. He further states:
- "So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)"
Reducing the number of women seeking abortions doesn't address stopping abortion or changing the law that is currently favorable to killing the unborn. In lieu, the President says appease or 
"honor the conscience" of those who believe that babies have a right to live by drafting a "conscience clause"??? In a sense this is very telling because it indicates that currently abortion is unconscionable or at least viewed that way by the anti-abortionist. Then the President says, root policies in "sound science" and "clear ethics" and "respect the equality of women"... Once again, notice how the President takes the argument AWAY from the center of abortion and focuses the conversation on the "science", "ethics" and "equality of women" emphasizing the moral and spiritual implications of HER decision, with no regard to addressing the moral and spiritual implications of murdering the innocent through the act of abortion. What do the President's statements here say??? I'll tell you what they say...NOTHING! This whole tirade was designed to change the argument away from fetus killing to a woman making a decision that has both moral and spiritual dimensions, because he readily admits that the practice and act of abortion itself is something that we can't agree on.
But my question to President Obama is this:
Is abortion murder, physically, morally, spiritually and/or ethically??? If not, on what basis do you make your evaluation; morally, ethically, physically or spiritually???
Maybe his statements in A Call To Renewal will clarify what the President was actually telling the graduates of UND:
- "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." ~ Senator Barack Obama "A Call To Renewal" Washington, D.C. 6/28/2006
By His Own Words:
By the President's own words I know that God has not been a part of his decision to promote and make room for abortion. He says this in confirmation of such:
- "But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know." ~ President Barack Obama NPB Washington, DC. 2/5/2009
There is NO GOD who condones taking the life of an innocent human being??? Is that really so Mr. President? Then why do you condone it???
