Barack Obama – Liberalizing Christianity

Barrack Obama, in courting the Christian vote, met with church leaders recently to plead his case and, in the words of Jeff Greenfield of the Slate blog lessen the opposition to his candidacy. Greenfield points to the power of the evangelical vote in the 2004 election, specifically in Ohio, where there was a Gay Marriage issue on the ballot and evangelicals came out in “droves” as reason for Obama’s meeting with evangelicals. He goes on to explain that past presidents met with opposition groups in order to give those groups a sense that, although they may not agree with the candidates ideology or vote for them, they would come away with a sense that the candidate was not implicitly evil. This would result in this specific leader not speaking out to their congregations or members against the candidate –resulting in a low voter turnout of a specific group on Election Day – which would be good for Obama in this case. The bigger factor in meeting with Religious Leaders is Obama’s interpretation of Christianity to include abortion (or the support or non-opposition to abortion.) Seriously – anyone who believes that one can interpret the Bible, regardless of which brand of Christianity one believes, to allow for a broad view of abortion, has their head in the sand. Additionally, the issue of abortion transcends Christianity, as every major religion is pro-life and denounces the act. The media’s treatment of this issue is interesting - pointing out the variety of brands of Christianity as a defense for Obama. The problem with this thesis is simply that, despite the “brand” of Christianity and/or the influence of a particular leader (Dobson, a Catholic Bishop, etc.) it does not always guarantee that their members or followers will go vote for or against a particular candidate based on his or her stand on this issue. It is the individual who will make that choice based on their personal faith. The question of the power of the church groups is not brought to bear. There are groups within the individual churches, which are briefly mentioned from the pulpit (as in an announcement – “This group will meet…”), but whose members are not influenced specifically by the pastor, rather they are influenced by their opposition to the act, based on one basic tenant. Abortion is murder. When, in the 2004 elections, John Kerry was not allowed communion in the Catholic Church, the only uproar came from the press. Inside the church, the message was clear; support for abortion separates one from the rest of the flock. That did not transcend to all the members who voted their political ideology over their personal theology.

This time, it is not so much abortion that is the focal point, rather, an interpretation of Christianity that is meant to lessen the import of the religion in total. That is in line with a Progressive secular point of view - that religion is meaningless, a panacea for the populace that is dangerous. One need only look to Russia’s history to understand how religion and Communism interacted.


Obama is a Christian that belongs to or believes in a liberal interpretation. He argues that the varied denominations within Christianity do not mesh with his governmental point of view - making sport of the Sermon on the Mount and its application to the Pentagon. His argument, in theory, is based on the lesser import of the variety of brands of Christianity and how they allow for multi-interpretations of the Bible. John Brummet, in an article released this morning from the Arkansas News Service, applauds Obama as brilliant and in regards to those pro-life Christian leaders who might criticize Obama’s pro-choice stand he notes: “Personally, I do not presume to know what God thinks about the various reasons for ending pregnancy. I do not know what He decrees on the issue of when human life begins.”

What the Progressives do not understand or cannot seem to grasp regarding Christianity, and the variety of brands therein, is simple. The New Testament may trump the old (except in the Obama brand) but Jesus Christ himself noted that he did not come to change rather, to fulfill the law. The law he refers to is the law handed down by God to Moses – simply 10 commandments that are the cornerstone of three faiths, upon which all other laws are made. As a Catholic, it is understood that murder, regardless of whether it is abortion or the death penalty – it is wrong. This is pretty much in line with the thinking of all Christian denominations (except again, for Obama’s). The one commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is also pretty basic. Progressives will point out war, and the act of a governor ending the life of a convicted killer is also murder, and they do this to lessen the impact of the faith. The three categories, Abortion, the Death Penalty and War - may be related, however, one must take a realistic view of the three: Abortion is an individual choice; the Death Penalty is governed by the state, as is War. Abortion is seen as a right to take a life under any circumstances, without regard for that life – the same cannot be said of the later.

Brummet goes on to criticize Mike Huckabee for using the phrase “partial view” in regards to Obama’s support of partial birth abortion. He stated “That was a newly incendiary and tactical Republican term - "partial view." - Unless someone has been living under a rock, regardless of what it is called, Partial View, Partial Birth, the process is the same, the child is brought through the birth canal and then killed, at the moment of birth – the details are fairy well-known – it is an abhorrent practice, one which no fair minded person would support. If that child were a kitten, PETA would be all over this, so would Barrack Obama.

It is odd, is it not, that this is now a pivotal issue? Iraq has left the front page, so the war is no longer a selling point for the press or the left, due to the fact that the surge worked. Inflation and the rising costs of Gas, that’s being downplayed a bit, as Obama does not favor a gas tax holiday and would rather push for higher taxes – there is really only one way to go – bring up Abortion. It’s about time.

Obama’s Interpretation of Christianity – The Progressive Plan

James Dobson, Focus on the Family founder and prominent Christian Leader has accused Barrack Obama of distorting the Bible. Dobson referenced the speech that Obama gave to the Call for Renewal Christian Group. Obama came back with Dobson is “Making stuff up”. Dobsons fears are well-fouonded but he is missing a point.
Full Obama article, Dallas Morning News. Dobson has a fundamentalist view of the Bible, one that is consistent with most Christian think, while Obama holds a progressive viewpoint. Is Dobson being over-critical of Obama’s view of Christianity? The text of the speech can be found at Obama’s senate site
here Christians, as Obama points out, often allow their religious viewpoint to affect their political think. To combat that point of view, he gives a template for getting along with those who hold overly religious views in order to attract them politically. It’s all in the turn of a phrase. Dobson should not be concerned with Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, as any Christian can point out, the Bible has multiple versions (King James, American, Catholic, Teaching) however, the premise and theme remain the same, with only slight variations in the language, these variations do not dilute or distort the message. It is a fact that a Christian refers to Jesus Christ as their savior, one who lived a life that was based on a message of peace, tolerance, law and personal responsibility. A practicing Christian, whether Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, And Baptist, etc. understands that their responsibility is to act in accordance with principles set forth by the law that Jesus referenced: The laws handed down by God to Moses – the commandments. Paraphrasing: Jesus spoke to his disciples saying, I did not come to change the law but to fulfill the law. Therefore, arguing that the Old Testament is irrelevant, distorts the basic values of Christianity. Jesus also pointed out the difference between the law of man and the law of God, and the inconsistency between the two. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the law of God and continue to pay taxes to man.

Those that profess to be Christians yet support abortion use the bible as well as reference the US Constitution in the same breath – they combine the two to prove a political point. The problem is; this is not consistent with Christianity. Christians are exhorted to act according to their faith – and that faith does not condone or support so called “Reproductive Rights”. The thought that one can vote for partial birth abortion, taking an active roll in promoting death, then one can call oneself a Christian, when it is politically expedient to do so. It is not fair to point to Obama as the only one who follows this type of Christian-political manipulation, one need only to look to the Bay state and multiple elected officials who will attend a Catholic Mass and then vote their conscience in accordance with a secular point of view.

Obama raises the question that is raised every time an election cycle occurs. Should there not be a separation of church and state with regards to one’s personal religious feelings not infringing on the rights of all citizens by actively practicing their faith once elected? That is the one most fallacious arguments used by progressives. The country was founded by Christians who were seeking to escape the persecution of religion, not escaping religion entirely. The thought that one can vote or uphold a law that is antithetical to any world religion (reproductive rights), based on the founders beliefs should be given more than a second glance. The point of the constitution and that clause that is so abused: to make a separation between church and state, to avoid creating a theocracy that would establish one religion over another. It was not designed to completely eradicate religion from the public square. Obama in his speech suggests that people do not read their bibles – and that the religious right distorts the bible for their own political gain. The same could be said of those politicians that distort the constitution and inject religion into the same speech for political gain.

What Dobson and any clear-thinking American who wishes to preserve our democracy and the republic under which we live should be concerned with in regards to this particular speech is the following: Obama constantly refers to “we as progressives”.

Progressives are simply stated, communists who refute religion, believe they are elite and entitled to control the masses. The fact that the Democrat Party has been taken over by Progressives in the past 20 years or so, should be completely vetted. The Progressives would destroy our current form of government replacing it with one similar to the Soviet Union. (A country they greatly admire). To learn more about progressive think visit:
Progressive Democrats of America. To understand the correlation between Progressives, Socialists and Communists read a good book on Post-Marxism such as “Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism”.
Even allowing a cursory study of the material is enough to “curl the hair” of any American, regardless of Religious Affiliation. Therefore, debating or decrying Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, is the least of our problems. In the analysis of the speech that Dobson criticizes – it appears that the problem truly is Obama’s use of his Christianity as a political tool to further the Progressive agenda.