Cal Thomas (emphasis added):
“Obama and others on the evangelical left see government, not individuals or the church, as the instrument by which the commands of Jesus are implemented. In such a doctrinal interpretation, government serves as a kind of “lesser God,” intruding on believers and their commission to do good works, as a means of sharing the gospel message, and concentrating not on the message, but on the implementation of the work itself, which only helps in this life, not the next.”
—————————————————————————
A graduate of the John Kerry Bible College, Barack Obama is true to form. Like his mentor, Obama cites Scripture to bolster his socialist view of the world and make himself seem more “Christian.”
Unless you live in a cave, you heard about Saturday’s Q&A between Rick Warren of “mega-church” Saddleback and presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. For this post, I want to focus on a few statements Obama made (from an unedited transcript – emphasis added):
“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic [p]recept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. And notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these…”
The Scripture is Matthew 25, starting at verse 31, whose titles are variants of “The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations,” “Judgment of the Gentiles,” etc. The passage deals with the coming judgment after Christ returns. Sitting on his throne, Christ separates believers (sheep) from the unrepentant (goats). He tells believers that what they’ve done for the least of the brethren, fellow believers, they’ve done for him.
Though Christians disagree on this, I think what’s clearly in view here is not charity for all the less fortunate. It’s about Christians attending to the legitimate needs of other Christians. But more about that later.
The Unborn: The Least of My Brothers
With a straight face, Obama chastised others for not abiding by the precepts of Matthew 25, when he had a chance to do the same and failed. For example, instead of choosing to protect and care for the least of his brothers, the unborn, by supporting a bill that would protect those born alive after failed abortion attempts, he voted against the bill. (Obama can’t keep straight his reasons for voting against the bill. Also see Life Lies.)
Who among us is more vulnerable and needy than an infant, unborn or otherwise? Obama the “Christian” said he would not yield when it comes to a woman’s right to have her baby slaughtered.
To Obama, America’s “greatest moral failure” isn’t that babies are murdered; it’s that our “wealthy and powerful” country isn’t giving more money to the poor. (See Carol Platt Liebau’s comment on that.) Never mind that Americans give billions of dollars in charity each year, uncoerced by the government.
I wonder what Obama will say on Judgment Day if Christ asks, “Why didn’t you protect the least and most vulnerable of your brothers, those in the womb?”
Obama Echoes Kerry
During his failed bid for the presidency in 2004, John Kerry implied that George Bush was neglecting to do “good works,” biblically speaking, because he wanted to cut spending, and that spending more tax dollars was evidence of fruits of salvation. See Kerry Cites Scripture To Battle Bush View and John Kerry and James 2.
Socialist types trying to appeal to Christians often cite Jesus’ earthly ministry of physically feeding the poor and healing the sick. Never mind that these acts were signs pointing to spiritual feeding and healing or that these social types conveniently leave out all that scary stuff about God’s judgment against the unrepentant. They can quote chapter and verse on helping “the least of my brothers” with more taxpayer-supported government programs, but ignore the reality of Christ’s judgment on the world or the need to accept Christ to avoid that judgment.
But I digress. The point is this: Christian acts of charity are to be done on an individual level, and the nature of that giving is voluntary. In Matthew 25, Christ wasn’t commending believers and condemning unbelievers based on what they rendered unto Caesar; he was referring to individual acts of kindness those who love God are willing do.
Does Obama really believe Christ had government in view in Matthew 25, that spending even more tax dollars on the “needy” fulfills God’s requirement for Christians to care for the poor in their congregations? From what I’ve read and heard, Obama believes in a jumbled social gospel mess that’s based on theological ignorance.
I didn’t watch or listen to the “Saddleback Civil Forum.” I only read the transcript. Did you watch/listen? Opinions, please!
Update – Clarification: While Barack Obama didn’t mention government spending in the quotes I cited, I interpret his statements about “providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class” and “there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these,” as indirect references to the responsibility of government, not individual Christians. Christ’s call goes out to all Christians, not just “wealthy and powerful” ones. No, Obama was taking a swipe at those who oppose bloated social programs and entitlements, just like most liberals.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am, naturally.
(Photo sources: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times and Pathlights)
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 80 comments }
Can you tell me who did your layout? I’ve been looking for one kind of like yours. Thank you.
La Shawn,
Longtime reader; first time commenter. Excellent point! It’s unimaginable that Obama can presume to preach to us about not doing enough “for the least of these” (i.e. not paying enough taxes) in the face of his own voting record on the abortion issue. And did you see his wishy-washy comment about the abortion question being “above his pay grade?” Dude! You’re not running for dog catcher. It’s the presidency of the United States for crying out loud. Whose pay grade DOES it include?
The thing about the socialist views of the left is that for all their pontificating about government programs most of them are extremely ineffective. I know first hand from experience with close family members that these programs that are designed to help the less fortunate tend to create lazy, irresponsible citizens who depend on the government to supply their needs.
I give as much as I can to various forms of charity including my local congregation who helps those in need with food and some monetary assistance. I have a feeling that my dollar goes a lot further that way than what goes to Uncle Sam.
And your point on the abortion issue is the ultimate counterpoint to Obama’s self-serving comments on “the least of these.” He will have a lot to answer for when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ.
The sad part is that so many Christians buy into the socialist mentality pushed by politicians on both sides. They appeal to our desire to help our fellow man, and then they turn around and dump our money into a black hole where it never helps those it is supposed to help.
Tiffany,
So true on your last Paragraph (indeed, your whole missive)….I find it very sad that people
are so self-serving for some limited reward in this short lifetime and can’t think of what they’re seeding themselves for after death.
I am also included in what I said above. I *NEED* to be a better Christian but sometimes, I don’t *THINK* before I do something….I shouldn’t have to think, I should be Christian enough to always do the right thing, but I’m not.
I apologize for that.
Thanks for a good Post, Lashawn and Tiffany.
Dan
I really do hate the use of Scripture to attempt to validate socialist ideology. Some people just don’t seem to understand that there is no such thing as government charity. Charity is the exercise of free will to sacrifice for another. When you get the government involved, it becomes compelled by force. Spiritually, it destroys the idea of the Biblical principle. Practically, because of the inherent waste of bureaucracy and the economic effects of higher taxes, it hurts the efforts it claims to be helping.
Bravo, La Shawn. Cogent & concise.
As for me, I live in a cave & have been on vacation, so I don’t even know who Rick warren is, let alone had time to watch/listen to the obamanator’s pious pandering (or McCain’s participation).
Thanks for dissecting this public exposure of the obamanator’s obvious marxist hypocrisy.
I watched and was please by Sen. Obama’s responses to Pastor Rick’s question. I don’t believe in abortion, I believe as Pastor Rick said, in WHOLE LIFE (cradle to grave-God cares). The majority of Black evangelicals (and yes, that’s not a ID tag of the white majority as many pundits/bloggers & respondents assume) are socially conservative, we work, we marry, we religiously educate our children, we offer hope and redemption thru Jesus Christ to a community you ignore until something like Katrina occurs. We preach Jesus and hope of glory in a hypocritical society. Standing for Christ when the judeo-christian ethics seems to stall on the other side of the tracks.
Bloggers/respondents like many I’ve read here are the primary reason the Sunday morning worship hours is the most segrated in America.
Irony that will all be sitting together in Glory. Won’t that be interesting?
As I’ve said before, and LaShawn mentioned in the article, even so-called believers don’t 100% agree on that scripture, so of course Senator Obama, being a babe and marginal believer, is going to be just as out of pocket as most Christians regarding the interpretation of said scripture.
“Does Obama really believe Christ had government in view in Matthew 25, that spending even more tax dollars on the “needy” fulfills God’s requirement for Christians to care for the poor in their congregations?”
Nobody here knows and had BETTER not say they know.
What we do know is that Senator Obama is an extremely liberal politician and a novice concerning scriptural application and understanding.
Politically speaking, tax and spend is a democratic/liberal mantra – and couching this in terms that try to make him legit with evangelicals is a miscalculation. He should just stick to liberal talking points and leave scripture out of it.
This stuff about him and the Bible and how it influences what he’ll do and be as POTUS is extremely distracting and annoying. He really needs to give it a rest already.
What a bunch of nonsense! And that’s why I’m an agnostic, because all you religious people THINK you have the answer to everything and your answer is the only RIGHT ANSWER. Wrong, you have an opinion and it is very narrowly contrived, based on mystical theories, unproven scientifically.
That’s OK, I can respect that, but don’t pass judgement on someone else and put words in their mouths about what they meant or what they didn’t mean. Keep your own house in order, separate church and state and vote based on actual facts, not religious beliefs. We have a so-called Christian right winger in office now….and look what he’s done. There are other issues our country faces that need to be addressed….PLEASE!
Peg,
You have come to a Christian Blog, and ‘preach’ on your own ‘religious’ views and how the secular approach should be taken. I disagree. The issues this country faces is better off with a Christian approach.
By the way, the country was founded by Christian Men and women on Christian beliefs. The statement “Seperation of Church and State” was intended to keep the Church from Controlling the Government, as it was in England at the time. It had nothing to do with keeping God out of the Halls of Government. In fact, if you’d go back and read thru the journals and writings of the Founding Fathers, you’d find that they continually asked the Almighty for Guidance in bringing this country into being and for Governing it in the Future.
“But I digress. The point is this: Christian acts of charity are to be done on an individual level, and the nature of that giving is voluntary. In Matthew 25, Christ wasn’t commending believers and condemning unbelievers based on what they rendered unto Caesar; he was referring to individual acts of kindness those who love God are willing do.”
This is absolutely correct. Liberals have for years tried to equate Christian responsibilites onto the government. I have never seen this said quite so eloquently before. Thank you.
Why don’t you go back and watch the actual Q and A? When asked about America’s greatest moral failure Obama said that we don’t always respond in a loving or benevolent way to those among us who are “the least” who have not always been given fair opportunity in American society. During this conversation nothing was mentioned about government.
Our present dysfunction of “the poor” is due to TOO MUCH federal funding.
Willa,
You’re correct. That’s exactly what he said and I agree with the STATEMENT about American’s moral failures.
BUT…I’d personally like to know what HE (the Senator) meant by it.
Let us not forget God’s participation in a developing child. How can anyone deny after reading Psalms 139 how much God loves us and anticipates the life of the unborn. Christians have no doubt when it comes to sanity of life.
David speaking under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit…
Psa 139:13 You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous-and how well I know it.
Psa 139:15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
Psa 139:16 You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.
Psa 139:17 How precious are your thoughts about me,[fn2] O God! They are innumerable!
Psa 139:18 I can’t even count them; they outnumber the grains of sand! And when I wake up in the morning, you are still with me!
Even IF Obama was not talking about government (which would make more sense given that this whole interview is about his candidacy for POTUS), he was wrong.
Click thru to the Carol Platt Liebau piece LaShawn cites.
I did watch the whole thing, twice. Not discounting that John McCain is a political animal himself, there was no comparison in the answers he gave, and more importantly, how he gave them compared to Barack Obama. Some of that I lay off to differences in background, age, and experience. Mr. Obama would prefer to talk an issue to death to show his breadth of understanding and mastery of a given subject (not to mention obfuscation of his position so as to not anger his base or turn away conservative/evangelical voters)That’s youth and inexperience. Mr McCain’s background, age and experience (more particularly the TYPE of experience) allowed him to be succinct, direct, and unwavering in his responses. Beyond that, the differences in character were striking. If I were Rick Warren, and I wanted to highlight those differences between the candidates, this was the way to do it. This is out of school, but I can’t help think that Rick Warren knew what the outcome would be, and did it for that reason. Good for him.
In Texas, there is a group called The Texas Freedom Network. They have made it their mission in life to defeat the religious right. In particular, they become unhinged by any mention of politics in a right wing pulpit. During the 2004 election, their rhetoric about the religious right was rabid.
Meanwhile, these same folks have never had a problem with politics in the pulpit as long as it is THEIR brand of politics – liberal redistibution of wealth.
While I am not a member of the religious right as a Catholic, I have long been stunned by the hypocrisy concerning politics in the pulpit.
Bush was lambasted for talking about his faith and now BO is lauded for talking about his. Given the fact that his charity giving hovered at 1% for years and years [Remember, he was rich according to his own definition], the whole situation approaches the surreal.
Oh by the way. I was curious how often Obama would pick and choose Scripture during the Q&A
and then use said Scripture out of context.
Obama twist Scripture when dealing with the biblically uneducated, and he gets away with it. James Dobson brought this to peoples attention, and I was so glad when he did. I appreciate this article for the same reason.
Obama cannot fool the Christian who has actually studied the bible and understand various doctrines, and biblical exegesis. We who know Obama is twisting Scripture to suit his agenda need to call him on it and expose the heretical aspects of his rhetoric.
Thank you so much. The left has hijacked Matthew 25 for political gain. It is disgusting. Keep up the good work.
As a far left leaning liberal, I think my issue with what most of your are saying is this:
Yes, you are repelled by the very idea of abortion. But what about all of the children in the United States that aren’t aborted and are otherwise unwanted and uncared for. I’m sure you’ve all heard this line before. It’s a perennial favorite of the left, I know.
But my point is that, while you are obviously more than welcome to say that Obama is a hypocrite for allowing a woman to have control of her body (even if we disagree about the morality of what that actually entails — and I’m not trying to sanitize it or anything — it’s how I see it) — I can’t understand how you can then turn around and call him a socialist because he’s saying that there is a value worth fighting for to life after birth.
I, like you ironically, don’t believe that children should be punished for sins of the parents. Now we may disagree about where personhood begins and what the moral stature is of a “baby” vs a “mother,” but we can all agree that children have rights, right?
So, why is it (and I’m seriously asking and not trying to cause a fight), that when a Democrat says that we have a responsibility to help those least fortunate in our society, that this claim is met with jeers? And when a Republican says that government has no role in the betterment of society (except when it’s fighting a war that so-lowered the standard for justification that now every country can fight wars because they think someone is a threat — ahem! Georgia), some of those who consider themselves the most religious of us all, loudly applaud?
I’m not in favor of massive welfare — and I think if you look at Obama’s proposals, you’ll see that he isn’t either. Of course, you might argue that healthcare is a welfare program of sorts, but the fact is that whether we choose to pay for it or not, in this country we pay for it . . . unless we can legalize hospitals kicking out the sick who can’t pay.
Why, for example, should an impoverished inner city kid or an impoverished appalachian kid be effectively punished because his or her parents did drugs, died young, abandoned them, et cetera? Is that just life? Government can play a very effective role in after-school programs, lunch programs, educational programs, and scholarship programs that can attempt to mitigate the impact of these situations. And it’s a price worth paying as a country in terms of increased productivity, decreased crime, decreased need for prisons and so on.
Can we, as a nation, agree that this sort of collateral damage isn’t acceptable? Or is it? And it’s the unborn that are unacceptable to lose and that’s it? And that kids who have been born already are ONLY the job of charities and that’s it.
Until that conflict of saving the born being a socialist scheme vs saving the unborn being the only thing worth fight for is resolved for me, I don’t know that Christianity and politics will ever make much sense to me.
Just read the rcp article today about England’s plight following decades of expanding their social programs. Welfare recipients getting 50, 000 dollars or more a year to vacation, over procreate and then refuse to raise their kids. The social and moral fabric of the country is falling apart. Yes we should do the best to care for the very least of them, but cradle to birth socialism does not work. When wil we ever learn?
Whew! I carefully watched the whole event and I was mesmerized. It was a Christian pastor asking the same questions to each Christian candidate as they sat before an audience (presumably largely Christian) in a Christian mega-church. Both candidates personally know the pastor and understand what goes on in a Christian church.
Sorry, but atheists may need to have the scene set for them.
Obama came off as uncomfortable with being specific or concise. Just when you thought he might have taken a firm stand, he wandered around and started opening other avenues of possibility. As the hour with him drew on, he managed to become less well known rather than better understood. If eels could talk, he was downright “eely.”
I get really annoyed when a wealth redistribution socialist finds scripture to make his point. Especially so, because so many wealth redistribution states have driven religion out of their program.
I watched and it was really just a validation of what those who’ve paid attention already knew.
Rick Warren – Inclusivist pastor practicing a Social gospel rather than sticking to the Biblical model.
Barack Obama – Stereotypical Liberal smart enough to use code language and to stay calm, but is definitely a party guy.
John McCain – Well-coached, saying the right things, but unconvincing as far as believing he’ll uphold conservative beliefs.
I had interesting conversations Sunday with backers of all three men, and all three conversations went the same way.
“____” is great, don’t you think?
No I don’t and here are the facts about why.
Well, that isn’t REALLY the case./Well, that’s was back then he felt that way.
No, here’s what “____” did just this past year.
Well, I still like him.
Shallow mental pool + voter registration = a reminder to trust God’s prerogative in the raising up and that taking down of leaders all for His purposes whoever they are.
I watched and listened to the Forum. It pretty much reinterated why I would never vote for McCain. The man has done a 180 since 2000 and if I have to hear one more time that he was a POW, I am going to shoot myself.
Laurence,
Your post seems to equate rejection of government solutions with being callous to the needs of children. To me, this is probably the biggest fallacy in the dialogue about what to do about the poor.
Have you considered that removing consequences of bad decision making has led to far more children being born into poverty. To me, this is exponentially more cruel on a global scale.
There is no doubt that an environment that fosters business does much more to alleviate child poverty than government charity. When one sees the tiny percentage of a tax dollar actually reaches the poor, it is shocking.
The 2008 Economic Freedoms Index makes a powerful statement that the best way to help kids is for government to get the heck out of the way.
So, it isn’t the case that your view is more compassionate. To me, it is simply that we have a different view about the best way to help.
What I don’t understand is, Eric, if we, as a community, don’t teach them different values, then what is preventing them to grow up EXACTLY like their welfare sucking parents? I know it makes you angry. It makes me angry to. I pay a tremendous amount in taxes. However, I’m willing to pay if I think that it’s being put to good use.
Giving kids lunches and after school programs isn’t waste. Although it may be irritating because we all wish their parents would take care of their children, I think we could at least agree that it’s better that someone instills good values in them, rather than wishing that someone would.
Giving kids lunches and after school programs isn’t waste..[comment by Laurence]
Here’s a clip from a piece in the Houston Chron.
Houston Press served up a piece called Eating It Up. Here is a shocking appetizer:
“Breakfast in the Classroom is a project of the Houston Independent School District and its food service contractor, Philadelphia-based Aramark. Figuring that kids learn better on a full stomach, 56 schools in the district now serve breakfast during first period to anyone who wants it. Thanks to the project, HISD now serves 11 million free breakfasts a year — almost five million more than it did before the program expanded.”
“But a quick survey of the returned coolers at Davis reveals that a breakfast served is much different from a breakfast eaten. Cooler after cooler returns with untouched taco pockets and unopened milk cartons; in many coolers, the juice is gone, but that’s about it.”
“HISD spokeswoman Adriana Villarreal says that only kids who want breakfast get food, and teachers use rosters to check off the kids who eat. But the worksheets at Davis seem to bear little relation to the evidence. In one classroom, for example, the teacher has checked off 32 of 37 kids — despite returning a cooler with 33 milk cartons and 18 unopened tacos. In another, the teacher has marked off 28 kids, but only five took tacos.”
I read her out of context article on TownHall.
The moral failure is not just about money. Ya’ll love money. Nobody wants your reprobate lawless money.
And they always talk about welfare. There are ways to get people out of a rut without talking about welfare. The bill to help people out of this mortgage crisis was one, but then people are blaming the families for being in the situation in the first place because they didn’t “read the contract”.
The problem is that charity and contrition are always given GRUDGINGLY.
It’s people’s funky attitude that’s the problem, not money.
Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate and short time in the Senate speaks for itself. He has never voted or spoke out to ban any stage of abortion, including partial birth abortion as well as the care of a child born alive after an abortion UNTIL THIS FORUM. In this forum he said he would not support late term abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger. Look at how deceitful he is. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts he’ll say that a partial birth abortion is not necessarily a late term abortion unless it occurs in the last trimester and he’s already come up with a lame and deceitful excuse over his opposition to the Illinois bill protecting the life of a baby born alive after abortion. He “thinks” he has every angle covered. His doublespeak is amazing.
The other thing I came away with was that he is a socialist vs McCain who is a capitalist. Sadly, Robin Hood Obama may be the next President of the United States.
“Have you considered that removing consequences of bad decision making has led to far more children being born into poverty. To me, this is exponentially more cruel on a global scale.”
As I currently live in the center of Africa, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Here, there is no government. And all there are are consequences. Perhaps you don’t truly appreciate what your government does for you.
Now granted, I agree: I don’t think that government should be in the business of telling business how to run business. But I also think that government should do all it can to defend keep its citizens from completely avoidable ills that befall societies without protections. History shows that business will do whatever it can get away with. It’s natural. It’s what business does. It has no ethics other than making the very last dollar until there is no more marginal profit to be had.
Even our beloved Adam Smith said that invisible hand of the economy was not enough to ensure fairness throughout an economy (read it if you don’t believe me). Government’s role is to keep the playing field level (for lack of a better term) while not stifling competition.
But all of that is neither here nor there: I don’t believe that the market can efficiently solve problems of child welfare because there isn’t any money to be made doing it. Certainly none that a company would really be interested in investing in, given existing market dynamics and forces. That’s where government comes in. Either it can create the forces (e.g., via regulation, tax credits, funding, et cetera) or it can just do it.
Whatever way it’s done most effectively, I don’t care. The point is that it’s NOT being done.
I’m not a touchy-feely, let’s-throw-our-money-down-a-bottomless-hole kinda guy. But I do think that people, in the US, are something that the government should be investing in.
Laurence,
You may be confused about the ways that government interferes with economic freedoms if you think that Africa has no government. Their economy is far from free. Further, the countries in Africa that are showing the greatest progress are the ones adopting market economies.
You managed to distort Obama’s comments pretty well. It’s clear you already have your mind made up.
It boggles the mind that people can listen to a discussion about faith in a church–and not understand that when Obama said “above my pay grade” he meant only G-D can determine with certainty when life begins–at the moment of conception or when the soul enters the body. In my view, that was the most humble statement of the night.
So, I’m not quite sure I follow you, JB: are you saying that because kids are being picky, that lunch programs are a waste?
Look, I’m not saying that you just drop lunch on a kid and suddenly all problems are solved. But that’s no reason to argue that there’s simply no solution and that we shouldn’t try.
Anyway, this is way off topic. I just tend to think that, while Obama may disagree with all of you on abortion, I’m completely shocked to hear that you think that he’s a socialist. While he may believe that government can do better than business in limited respects — to call someone who fundamentally believes in free trade, tax credits, low taxes for virtually everyone (even the rich, in general, are paying less here than anywhere else in the world except tax havens) and social justice a socialist is just plain incorrect.
For John McCain to escape scrutiny from this crowd for his lack of ethical judgment time and time again, I find similarly shocking. What, he just says he’s sorry and then . . . it’s ok?
JB — in fact I’m very familiar with these issues. The problem seems to be that you don’t appreciate what good government DOES do — and it isn’t just get out of the way. Granted, African countries have MANY problems and many of them are related to good governance.
However, to say that the countries that are making progress in Africa are the ones adopting market economies is an oversimplification. Yes, trade is an essential part of getting yourself out of poverty. But, no, it is not even close to the only thing that brings a country out of poverty. Moreover, it isn’t even what the United States did. In fact, no country has ever just used trade and the market to address poverty. Ever.
There are many examples (Argentina is a great recent one) where adopting a totally forward, market oriented economy led to complete and total collapse of the country. Doctrinaire approaches to development are fundamentally flawed. Of course, aid is not the solution alone (and it can be a hinderence), but neither is an unwavering approach to trade and open market reforms. If you look at the openness of markets in the past 200 years, you’ll see wide variations in openness depending on how well or how poorly economies are performing.
Anyway, Africa has no government. The countries in Africa have all different types of governments, some more functional than others. The issues are never as simple as: have a market economy so that you can develop.
For example, in the place that I’m in, 50% of the population has no education at all. None. Now, imagine, for a moment, what that means for this country’s development. What business is even set up to deal with a country full of people who cannot read? Well, you can do natural resource extraction. That’s great. Good. Wait. There are no roads in the country (literally, only 500km of paved road). Ok, we’ll build them. How are you going to get the resources into the country? Oh, yeah, you need to bring them over land — over the roads that don’t exist. Hmmmm, so you need to develop the tools to build the roads in the country. Hmmm, alright, this is getting really really expensive. And if I build the roads, it also means that I’m helping my competitors get into the market for nothing. Hmm, maybe I need to work something out with the government so that there will be NO competition if I build the roads.
Ok, well, say I’ve built the roads and I know where everything this in the country. Now every time I drive on the road, I get robbed by bandits. Why doesn’t the government stop it? Because the government has no money and can’t pay soldiers to defend the road. Ok, so I’ll hire security to defend my convoys. Great, so now I’m importing weapons into a poor country. And I can’t really trust my staff with the weapons because they may just end up robbing people with them. So then I just need to hire foreign nationals that I trust. Now all the money that I’m spending is really just leaving the country — since the government shouldn’t tax me because that works against the free market.
Again, it’s not exactly like this every time. But it’s like this enough of the time that, the government is barely a presence at all (in the true economic sense). The issues are so fundamental that all the economic papers, all the academic jargon, all the eggheads who talk a great game about how economic openness is the solution . . . well, perhaps John McCain is saying it best when he says that these kinds of plans usually don’t survive their first contact with battle.
I’m not saying that there aren’t kleptocracies, but what I’m saying is that these issues aren’t solved by waving a “market economy” wand over a country. The issues are huge. And not simple. At all.
As I don’t want to hijack LaShawn’s site for a tiresome discussion on Africa, I will simply say that the complexity of the world is a given. We get that. Therefore, I am somewhat surprised that you boiled it down to contrasting POVs being related to whether one cares about life AFTER birth. And, I am curious about your characterization of Republicans as saying “that government has no role in the betterment of society (except when it’s fighting a war.)” BTW, many of the posters here do not subscribe to the Republican brand but are conservatives.
@jb
I agree – Africa is a bigger subject.
My original comment was about trying to get a better understanding of what, I’ll assume, is your position as well. It’s not a comment meant to generate a simple distillation — it was an attempt to understand the viewpoint’s complexity, which is why I asked the question at the end. Sadly, no one responded other than with generalities about how it isn’t government’s responsibility, which I wanted to press on: mainly to find out how the market, or what-have-you will actually address this issue (since we’re not talking about gov’t). I’ve studied this stuff intensely throughout my adult life and I want to know how the market takes care of people, especially children who have either no parents or grossly negligent parents.
The comment about Republicans was a bit of hyperbole that could have been cut. Fair enough. I’m sorry that I put it in there as it was also an oversimplification.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
he meant only G-D can determine with certainty when life begins–at the moment of conception or when the soul enters the body. In my view, that was the most humble statement of the night.
Comment by regina
You mean except for the fact that science has already determined that the process of life begins at the moment of conception, right?
And do we really need to illustrate again the biblical passages which speak of God knowing us before we were even conceived, or the passages which speak of God forming us in the womb?
The one above Obama’s paygrade has already made it quite clear what He thinks. Barack just doesn’t agree with his Maker. Not too bright, and most certainly not humble.
Laurence,
Your gracious response is much appreciated!
Since Jesus was referring to “the least of these my brethren”…and since Jesus is a Jew …just maybe Mr.Obama, Jesus was referring to doing good to the Jews in Israel….HMMMMMMM
#40 Marvin the Martian,
Great response.
#43
Thank you kindly Bev.
No Linda, Y’Shua wasn’t referring exclusively to any of the so-called Jews in Israel, but certainly they could be included in that.
All of Y’Shua’s words are congruent with one another and that really is about doing whatever you can do for the poor, sick, and alienated and desolate people amongst you and having His MIND about you as you go about it instead of being what I mentioned in #30.
Not a specific function of Government, per se, but Governments can assist in these endeavors. It’s not Government that is or isn’t the problem, it’s PEOPLE.
Thank you …”THEBIGDODDY”…are you Messianic ?
Obama’s problem is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be perceived as compassionate and utterly nuanced and does not want to have hard choices hung around his neck. Yet, the reality is that every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken from somewhere else. While it is lovely to float around and talk about compassionate complexity, the reality is that hard allocation choices have to be made. While it is popular to damn those who have the guts to draw a line in the sand, the reality is that real life involves real hard choices.
The reason that BO often sounds so vague is because he is stuck in the arena of nuance, often assumimg that nuanced views never occur to the rest of us. In reality, most folks recognize that they live in a nuanced world, but have simply recognized that there comes a time when a decision has to be made.
Obama’s record is mostly one of running from the hard choices.
Hello there Linda..
I don’t really label myself anything, but my belief system closely resembles Messianic, as my teachers over the years have been members of the Lemba of South Africa, some notable Messianic and Israelite teachers, and many contemporary Christian teachers of the Sabbatarian Apostolic persuasion.
“In reality, most folks recognize that they live in a nuanced world, but have simply recognized that there comes a time when a decision has to be made.”
Yep.
“Obama’s record is mostly one of running from the hard choices.”
Double yep.
Thank you, THEBIGDODDY. I appreciate your reply.Linda
Thanks LaShawn for the continuing political posts as it intersects with “Christianity.”
I too did NOT watch the Rick Warren sham. I did/do have some interests to watch strictly for entertainment. After the bait-n-switch Bush has done, certainly no one at this juncture believes there is any validity to what a politician pontificates.
Rick Warren is a FARCE – IMO, Warren’s christianity is as questionable as Barack’s and most other politicians. For example, Warren dishonestly led the audience to believe that McCain was in a cone of silence. When CNN asked him to clarify he danced around the truth like just like he avoids biblical christianity. Hey, I guess this is how he packs “his” house – not the Lord’s house, engaging in “tickling ears.”
I once championed the cause of voting. I see NO reason why any Christian should vote for either of these POTUS candidates. If we don’t vote for either one, what “real” difference in the most important aspects of our lives would it be? We will continue to be a spiritually bankrupt country being led by a spiritually bankrupt gov’t.
Hello Lashawn, great post! As usual you are right on the money! Its been a long while, hope all is well.
Jerry
I hate the use of scripture in any political debate because both parties use it selectively.
How sad is it that we needed a debate in a religious forum? What about a science and reason forum?
America would be far better served then to base our morality on 2000 year old fairy tales.
(don’t be angry at what i say, take solace in the fact that i will be burning in hell for eternity b/c i disagreed with you. I’m the ultimate martyr for reason.)
Does Obama really believe Christ had government in view in Matthew 25, that spending even more tax dollars on the “needy” fulfills God’s requirement for Christians to care for the poor in their congregations?
Christians cannot outsource their Biblical obligations to government entities. This is by far my largest area of disagreement with the mainline Christian denominations, which place an unhealthy emphasis on political action in the name of “social justice”. One might as well argue that grace is a Constitutional right rather than a gift from God.
Putting government in the charity business is dangerous indeed. Don’t think for a moment that bureaucrats will be content merely to distribute taxpayer dollars. Today the California Supreme Court ruled that doctors who have religious objections to artificial insemination of gays/lesbians can be legally forced to do so. Suddenly the notion of doctors being forced to perform abortions and ministers being forced to marry gay/lesbian couples no longer seems so far-fetched. Can an official state-approved religion be so far behind?
You know, this post would have been fine if you’d had the restraint to leave out the personal sarcastic junk. You’re a new reader, obviously, and don’t know how I run things around here. And I’m not fan of McCain’s. If you’d been reading this blog for more than a day, you’d know that. Keep personal remarks about me out of the discussion, and you may participate. – Admin
#35 regina throws an amazing brick into the crowd:
My logic tells me that since God does not post a notice as to when He determines when the soul has entered the individual body, we had best nix all abortions immediately.
How would regina or Obama or anyone determine that the soul has not entered the body at the time of conception?
These things cause my brain to itch and then my head to hurt. I wish someone could help me understand this concept.
America would be far better served then to base our morality on 2000 year old fairy tales.
Our Founding Fathers based their morality and the founding of America on the principles found in those “2000 year old fairy tales”. I would posit that those men were much wiser and more reasoned than you or me.
(don’t be angry at what i say, take solace in the fact that i will be burning in hell for eternity b/c i disagreed with you. I’m the ultimate martyr for reason.)
Please spare us your martyrdom. Reason isn’t your issue. Pride & arrogance you display in spades though. BTW, you don’t go to hell for disagreeing with Christians, nor do we take solace in such things. You go to hell for rejecting Christ and His atoning death on the Cross. You were conceived and condemned with a sin nature. Christ’s sacrifice is your only hope for redemption. Pray that the blinders are removed from your eyes that you may see the truth.
#53 Graham notes:
McCain has invited Obama to haul his bones to numerous town hall meetings. Obama has “demurred”.
Rick Warren, I suspect, forced Obama’s hand. I would be glad to see McCain and Obama in science forums, reason forums, or Old McDonald’s Forum.
However, I would prefer the forums to show the neutrality and remarkable statesmanship that Rick Warren brought to his “religious” forum.
It’s funny how the left never seems to quote the tenth commandment, isn’t it?
These false accusations of cheating by the Obama camp just shows what a lack of character these sore losers have. Obama has been getting a free pass from the beginning of the primaries. Obama looked like the rank inexperienced amateur that he is in the Saddleback debate … while McCain looked decisive and competent. The election is only about 70 days from now, and if Obama hasn’t already come up with positions on these crucial questions by now, he is certainly not qualified to be President of the United States. Crying and accusations of cheating because Obama lost the debate, only makes Obama look smaller and less deserving of the office.
Wow! For all the claims of Christianity by the posters on here, the pontificating and judgmental statements you make about Barack Obama are laughable. Have you all forgotten that John McCain CHEATED on his first wife by having an affair with his (richer, prettier) current wife? If you were truly Christians, you wouldn’t vote for either candidate as neither of them passes muster under your arrogant and hypocritical terms. Remember: God’s wrath is worst for the hypocrite.
While Rick Warren strikes me as Oprahesque [I have yet to grasp the hoopla over the charming Oprah] I have to high-five the man for the elegant way he treated both candidates.
While network news folks pride themselves on their lack of bias, the reality is that they reek of partiality; their bias is often painful to watch.
It was also refreshing to watch an audience graciously allow diverging points of view. One sees this so seldom on the left which is where most forums take place [academia].
#61 jeff does not understand politics.
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Both would like to impress voters who take their Christianity seriously. They freely agreed to the forum.
Now, Christians here are openly saying why Barack Obama did not measure up. But jeff sees it as “pontificating” and he uses that word in all likelihood because it seems clever to him. Jeff is also scornful of Christians here openly deciding what about Barack Obama’s statements have turned them off. Jeff calls this judgmental. Ok, then so is getting a second opinion on a serious medical decision or leaving a church where the pastor loudly damns America or keeping your distance from unrepentant radicals who have bombed things.
Judgmental? I certainly hope so. This isn’t a beauty contest where the talent is to show the books you have colored.
As to McCain’s first marriage and Christian forgiveness: ooops, I notice that jeff didn’t mention Christian forgiveness.
As to McCain’s first marriage and jeffs admonition (pontificating? judgementalism?) that “God’s worst wrath is for the hypocrite.”: Shall we just stand back and let God handle it?
It is passing strange that folks like jeff recoil from judeo-christian morality, but become righteous watchdogs when they think they have caught a slight scent of Christian hypocrisy.
So, jeff, here’s the deal. McCain’s first marriage and its collapse is not the pretty picture anyone would like. From everything I know, he has not walked away from his responsibilities involving the marriage or his role in its failure. He and God will work out the rest.
We Christians have to decide who to vote for just as your ilk has to make up your minds. Obama’s campaign has finally admitted that he has been lying about his record, motives, and role in partial birth abortion legislation. I would oppose him on his support of partial birth abortion alone. But the fact that he has openly and continually lied about his record in order to mask his determined support for partial birth abortion is a complete deal breaker with me. Notice I said that without using any reference to hypocrisy. A lying weasel is not a hypocrite, he is a lying weasel.
I will stand by as you return with the KOS talking points on McCain’s first marriage.
Jeff, you have an interesting and completely ignorant view of Christianity. The point is we’re ALL screwed up. Those that call themselves Christians are the ones that recognize this and have accepted the sacrifice of Christ as payment. In return, we do our best to follow His directions on how to live our lives.
It is certainly true that some Christians have given in to arrogance and indignation by acting in God’s place to condemn unbelievers for their misdeeds. That’s not good Christian behavior and any reasonable Christian will tell you that. However, when dealing with fellow Christians, our criticisms are supposed to be a bit sharper. Just as I would reprimand another Christian for being overbearing and arrogant in their judgment of unbelievers, I reprimand fellow Christians for wallowing in any other sin.
When a Christian claims responsibility for their sin, repent (that is, turn away from continuing in it) and asks forgiveness, our part in helping them right their spiritual ship is done.
Your analysis is flawed because of the bad example of Christians in need of correction. Sorry for that. But by condemning a group of people in its entirety for the misdeeds of a few is just as much a display of arrogance and hypocrisy as what you claim to be pointing out.
Please forgive the horrible construction of the last sentence. I was distracted in the middle of crafting it. Ick…
Jeff’s comments remind me of a phenomenon that has sprouted in America. We seem to have lost the distinction between what is and what isn’t an attack.
I have been speculating on it for some time and I think that much of this is due to the political correctness that is rampant in our society. Identity politics underlies much of the malignancy.
Just today, Leonard Pitts penned yet another dreary piece about how conservative talk radio/tv and the conservative blogosphere have created a culture of hate. Hmmm….I wonder if he has ever noticed the kinds of vitriol Bush has received.
Meanwhile, an evangelical forum provided a tolerant environment that one seldom sees on the left.
Am I in a parallel universe?
Identity politics IS the course of the day and Leonard Pitts IS correct, but the pendulum swings both ways, so he’s out of pocket for just singling out conservatives.
The blogosphere is merely a microcosm of the mind and heart of America – on display.
As I’ve said before, it’s a war of attrition leading to nihilism..
And the lack of political correctness only leads to the “keeping it real” mentality whereby even reason is diminished and cognitive dissonance sets in.
I just saw an interesting quote from George Orwell on my Google page that sums up the debate in Lake Forest:
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
I think that it’s quite obvious who was talking straight and to the point, and who was thrashing about a bit….
Expanding on #67
I have also come to the conclusion that there are many who see attacks & hatred where none exist. Perhaps they are projecting from their own feelings. Most of us know of people who give virtually nothing to charity and harbor ugly thoughts about others while assuming that others are just as selfish and mean-spirited. Of course, they never see it in themselves.
jb, you might be right, but you don’t worry about that.
You just concern yourself with promoting justice and not make excuses for the ugliness in men, conservative OR liberal, because there is more ugly than anything, which is the cusp of the problem. You can’t cover up the smell of poop with Febreeze. It’s still poop.
If people are lying about their virtue, then Father Yahweh will sort that all out.
Some liberals are justified in their angst, and others are not. Conservatives are the same and are just as off – and on point as the next man.
jb, in # 67 you noted:
Many liberals who strive to shield people from consequences see the conservative value of taking personal responsibility as an attack upon the “defenseless.”
Obama and company are dedicated to big government redistribution of wealth and the creation of government programs staffed with government employees who will see to the raising up of the poor and down trodden.
Anyone who compares socialized medicine with public schools, the DMV, the social security office, the employment office, public housing, food stamps, etc. is automatically a “hater.”
If one attacks the sense and sensibility of government social welfare thinking, many on the liberal left react as if the barbarians are at the gate.
Most of us conservatives really do live in a parallel universe when so many liberals spend so much energy not hearing or reading what we say and insist on talking right past our meaning.
I always tape my lectures. Frequently, I have confrontations from people who clearly heard what I did not say or imply. It is very helpful to provide them with the truth. Even then, I get an occasional genius who charges me with manipulating the tapes.
Helio,
Along those lines….
There is a bizarre, yet prevailing, mythology on the left that the left does not respond forcibly enough to so-called-attacks from the right. In reality, the left is rancid in its attacks and has little sense of scale in its responses.
John Kerry’s insistence that he lost because he was “too nice” struck me as so absurd as to be almost incomprehensible. Meanwhile, Kerry has been forced to admit that he did NOT witness the grotesque acts that he ascribed universally to his peers, but why should that matter …blah blah blah.
And, when BO or Michelle O accuse Americans of being mean, bigoted, moral failures, that is somehow not an attack BUT saying that BO is disturbingly inconsistent IS………….
Go figure….
jb,
I wretched, big time, when Kerry decided to run on his Vietnam record. The left and MSM had been all over Bush for his National Guard “escape” from being in harms way. Yet they pulled a complete “baby milk factory” feint to support Kerry as they did with Al Gore and his noble Vietnam far behind the front lines shutterbug role. (Don’t forget the well protected lies about how Max Cleland ended up as a triple amputee.)
(At least Gore didn’t have a documented record of lying and grand standing before Congress as an anti-war activist.)
I have no issue with anti-war sentiments, so long as they respect the delicacy of protecting the lives of those serving in the line of fire.
I grew up with a clear understanding of what is means to be “disingenuous.” Maybe that is a $5.00 word, but I learned to avoid that charge like the plague. If someone throws it at you and it sticks, you have a lot of rehabilitation of name and reputation ahead of you.
Kerry and Gore are both disingenuous. They have done nothing to confront either their shortcomings or to compensate. The fact that their supporters are such willing enablers means, in my view, that they are in league with the deceivers.
If McCain or any other Republican screws up, I will be among the first to say so. There is no way I could ever have defended Clinton’s sick Lewinski affair or attempted to explain Sandy Burglar”s “innocent” actions.
When power at any price overtakes crystal clear morality, the parallel universe is the only explanation. The Obama swarm will brook no honest criticism of their messiah. It seems to be Democrat standard operating procedure.
Christ wants to give of ourselves. Obama wants to give of others.
I can see a difference.
about the constitution being made by Christian men and women- read the declaration of independence it says Nature’s God.
Helio,
Speaking of wretching…How about the fatuous claim that criticism, however unbridled/untempered/unbalanced/unhinged is the highest form of patriotism? Love of country?
Kerry’s “documented record of lying and grand standing before Congress as an anti-war activist” certainly never struck me as the highest form of anything but deceit and weaslehood.
As for Gore…even HE does not believe in the urgency of his message. He, like the rest of his ilk, preach the gospel of “good for thee but not for me.” Only in a world in which words are valued over actions, would such a corroded view make sense.
If ever the $5 “disingenous” should be stuck on someone’s foreheads, Kerry/Gore are two prime candidates/suspects.
Yet another interesting piece by Powerline
Obama Plays the Patriotism Card
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021283.php
I did watch the Saddleback forum, and LaShawn–it was the MOST eye-opening, revealing look at the two people running for president. McCain showed depth, conviction, experience and knowledge in things international and domestic, and just sounded most like the one who’s MORE than ready to lead this country.
Obama, otoh, sounded unsure, lacking terribly in depth, seeming to shore up my suspicion that he’s all about marxist theory and not anything real-world. He stuttered a lot and really could not get a sentence out easily at all (I’m not kidding!). It was shocking how bad he looked. When asked if he’d ever voted to decrease abortion, he dodged the question by talking about something else–because as we all know, he hadn’t!
Also very telling, he said he wouldn’t have confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas. He started to say it was because Thomas was “inexp”, but before the whole word dropped off his tongue, he clearly and suddenly remembered that lack of experience was in fact his own worst problem. SO HE STOPPED MID-WORD! It was SO revealing. Obama KNOWS he isn’t experienced.
I was no great fan of McCain’s before this, but this forum had the effect of moving a lot of evangelicals like me from “voting against Obama” to “voting FOR McCain.” I’m hearing this over and over. This was a major shift for McCain with evangelicals. I was so surprised by what I saw. Suddenly, McCain looks better to me (not perfect, of course) and Obama looks SO much worse. He just looked so ill-suited for the job. Too unsure of himself and instead of easily speaking from the heart, seemed to be putting way too much lawyer-type energy into just trying to sound not as liberal as he is.
Try to watch a repeat of the forum. I’d never watched a single presidential debate before this. Didn’t care to. But I happened onto this, because it was airing on a christian radio station that I turned to casually. I suspect many christians found it the way I did. Something big happened there on Saturday. And it was not good for Obama. The mask was removed from him; and we all saw what he really was. Ill-prepared, shallow, trying to soften what he really is. Trying not to let people see how leftist he really is. I’m so grateful that christians are starting to see the real obama!
‘whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me.’ now that barry’s brother has been found (living in a 6×9 hut in a shanty town), will he apply this principle to himself?
Link
Thanks for reminding me about this. I drafted a post earlier. It’s live!
Discuss George Obama here.
Comments on this entry are closed.