Do you consider yourself a Christian who also voted for Barack Obama? If not for such Bible-believing supporters, Barack would have had no prayer at gaining the presidency. Perhaps many Christians think their faith can’t influence casting votes in government elections. But what fruit has such political agnosticism borne? Are believing Barack-boosters now proud of themselves?
All modern Americans have been programmed to unthinkingly support complete “Separation of Church and State.” But consider the results of this lazy theological notion, as applied to the following subjects.
I. 2008 Vote & American Spiritual Demographics
According to the US government website, there are currently about 310 million people living in the U.S. Of these, approximately 77% classify themselves as “Christians,” claims the Gallup research group. The NYTimes reported about 137 million Americans voted in the 2008 presidential election. Of this group, almost 70 million citizens cast votes for Barack Obama, claims the Seattle Post-Intelligencer election blog. Therefore, by a process of simple mathematical deduction, roughly 59 million “Christians” voted for Barack (if trends hold). But, was this vote a “Christian” decision?
II. Defining “Christian”
It’s inevitable a definition for the term “Christian” is needed for this analysis. But for a brief summary is end-noted the famed Nicene Creed1 (credo, ie “I Believe”), the most popularly used summary in churches, dating from the 4th century. If one can roundly assent to this creed, many would consider them a Christian.2
Now, let’s examine some of Obama’s most trenchant policies and consider whether they could be considered “Christian.”
III. Obama Policies & Christianity
Obama shows a lifelong passion for Abortion. His only known article while running Harvard Law Review was an anonymous piece touting abortion. Politico describes this:
The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year’s Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.
Later, in the Illinois senate he famously supported partial-birth abortion. When he got into the White House, one of his first acts was to increase federal abortion by cutting restrictions.
But is abortion a Christian activity? Many Believers insist no for the following reasons. First, God interacts with fetuses. Jeremiah says this, “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5) So the Bible does not describe the unborn as inert, but ascribes human qualities.
Second, abortion contradicts the Genesis1:27-28 mandate:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it…”
People cannot both fruitfully multiply and also abort offspring.
Third, abortion puts decisions of life and death in people’s hands, but the Bible teaches this is God’s authority. For example, 1 Samuel 2:6 says, “The LORD puts to death and gives life,” a theme repeated across the Bible.
Fourth, abortion activists claim a “Right” to abortion. Nowhere in the New or Old Testaments is described such a “right.” Instead is condemnation for harming children. Likewise, one searches in vain for this “right” in the US Constitution. And this idea flies against the biblical notion children are a gift from God. For example, it says in Psalm 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
Beyond this, killing fetuses defies the Sixth Commandment’s, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” where killing means “murder.” There is no doubt abortion is killing. The question then becomes: Is a fetus a human being? The upshot: If fetuses are humans, all abortions are wanton murder, and therefore outside the biblical tradition. How else do we then interpret the Bible believers opposing child sacrifices to Molech (a pagan god of the Ammonites)? Leviticus 20:1-5
The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
Let’s not forget Matthew 19:13-14, where it states:
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
So, according to the Bible, no one has a “right” to kill a fetal human, in the same way that no one has the “right” to murder an adult. Second, mankind is under a mandate to produce children, and so kids are a blessing. Third, killing of infants in the Bible is a sign of pagan worship.
B. Economics: Marxism, Socialism & Capitalism
Barack Obama has personally ratified using socialism for “sharing the wealth,” telling Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbachers… “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” But is redistributing income biblical?
Astute theologians oppose socialism for the following reasons. First, the Bible defends private property in the Ten Commandments, where in Exodus 20:15 it says, “Thou shalt not steal.” How can the government take legally earned property from one person and give it to another without stealing? And how can such actions not foment crisis and chaos? Further, the entire rule of law in the civil code is based upon the sanctity of private property.
Second, Jesus claimed he came to bring freedom: “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”” (John 8:31-32) Capitalism is simply human freedom applied to the marketplace. And, in fact, our Puritan forebears believed in the biblical concept of “Calling” where people did in life what they were “called” to do by God, such as a career. But socialism and Marxism artificially constrict the marketplace and people’s right to work. Typically in socialism, the government enters into marketplaces to regulate them.
Third, all communist countries had command economies. Brutally inefficient, such top-down decision making means permanent shortages since no army of geniuses could foretell future needs of a large and dynamic population. But such economies do steal opportunities and futures of those unfortunate enough to be trapped in them. In fact, the lack of choice and freedom, ie slavery, is the hallmark of an anti-Christian system.
Finally, even bigger problems exist with socialism & Marxism. After all, in all socialist states the church is shunted aside or attacked as government grows in power. In leftist states, the government itself begins assuming a godlike role, making all important decisions as arbiter of right and wrong, and good and evil. This generally coincides with rank corruption, collapse of the command economy, and disappearance of human rights. Recall, Communist regimes killed perhaps 200 million souls last century.
C. Foreign Policy: Soft Power = Appeasement
Obama’s chief foreign policy seems “Appeasement.” Barack has outlined a strategy of soft power where his opponents are encouraged to understand that Obama is sympathetic with the world and not antagonistic against other countries and religions; that Barack does not have to bully others with war and threats to see his points, since he is exceedingly wise and infinitely persuasive; and that Obama is not an idiot like the war-mongering idiot George W. Bush.
In other words, Obama believes in appeasement. He has refused to criticize or work against many rogue nations, including Iran, North Korea, Palestine, Honduras’ rogue president, Venezuela, while fighting against stalwart allies such as the UK and Israel.
The problem is appeasement always fails in the end, which is especially true of the sociology of the Middle East, where giving concessions to an opponent is a sign of only weakness, not good will. Consider the classic example in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s address to Parliament in 1939, ie the Appeasement Speech.
Chamberlain believed Hitler would drop his war plans if only he were appeased. In fact, when Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, he was widely hailed as the “Saviour of Europe.”
On September 30, 1938, Chamberlain made his famed “Peace For Our Time” speech after returning from Munich, where he and government leaders from France, Italy, and Germany had signed an agreement over the division of Czechoslovakia in the hope of averting war. He stated:
We, the German führer and chancellor, and the British prime minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.
“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German naval agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe. My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time … Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
Of course, Chamberlain’s Appeasement led directly into WWII because Hitler realized the UK and other European countries were so afraid they would do anything to avoid another war. Common sense and history show appeasement not only fails to stop bullies, but actually can help start wars.
Unsurprisingly, Bible writers do not countenance appeasing enemies. Samson, David, Joshua, and many other Old Testament battled to protect Israel. Further, while Christ was mostly a pacifist in the New Testament, except perhaps for the cleansing of the Temple with cords, he was no appeaser. He died instead of compromising. And while almost all the Apostles died as martyrs, Paul wrote, “The state does not bear the sword in vain,” (Rom. 13:4) proving countries have a right to bear and use arms.
The American military tradition is avoiding conflict until no other option remains. But Yankees did not appease King George when he tried to take away their British Bill of Rights. In fact, our country was born upon principled armed conflict. Therefore, there is no reason to insist the world’s strongest and most fair nation disarm and try to survive via flaccid verbal negotiations. There is a time to put fear aside and fight for principles. Or, as Admiral Farragut said when taking New Orleans in the Civil War, against a heavy naval attack, “Damn the Torpedoes, Full Steam Ahead!!”
D. Religion: Christianity & Islam
In terms of religion itself, do the beliefs of a president matter? Almost all presidents before Obama have claimed to be Christian, even if some might have pretended. This shouldn’t be surprising given America’s history, nor the fact that Barack claims Christianity. But is Obama Christian and does it matter if he’s not?
The modern trend towards secularism and the notion beliefs of politicians are irrelevant to the quality of their work would have struck most Believers throughout history as nonsensical. We cannot know for sure what Obama believes. But the biblical standard for evaluating other’s beliefs is spiritual “fruit.” Does Obama produce the fruit of a Christian?
First, consider Obama went to a Church for 20 years with a foundation in Black Liberation Theology. Rev Wright’s church was driven by Marxist demands for forced reparations and wholesale condemnation of White Americans. Obama has also hung out with many anti-American radicals like the Terrorist Bill Ayers, NOI Muslim, Louis Farrakhan, etc.
Second, commentators describe big problems with Obama’s self-described “Christian Conversion.” First, Islam expert Daniel Pipes argues Obama was at least once a Muslim. Further, another finds large numbers of lies in Barack’s “Conversion Experience” deducing it’s highly unlikely his story is true
Third, Obama has gone out of his way to proclaim America is not a Christian nation. Why?!! Why would a sincere Christian do this, especially since almost 80% of Americans claim such status?
Obama also has a fixation on Islam. For example, he claims the Muslim Call to Prayer is… “One of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth.” Obama is also appeasing Islam by not calling Muslim killers Jihadists, such as Fort Hood shooter who shouted “Allah Akbar!!” (God is great!) while murdering.
Now we find Obama’s White House meeting secretly with Muslims, according to the NYTimes: “Muslim and Arab-American advocates’ have met with top White House officials, including Obama Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. They’ve discussed, among other things, “‘counterterrorism strategy.’”
How can a president lead a Christian nation if he himself is not only not a Believer, but to the contrary, is even goaded by non-Christian goals and aspirations?
Should tens of millions of American Christians support a politician seemingly opposed to most biblical ideals and practices? Contra, since bad leaders are described by the Bible as a curse upon God’s people, could Obama be a sign for Christians of worse things to come if they do not repent? Does Barack encourage any truly biblical reactions from Americans? On this July 4th, does Obama even care about the birthplace of religious freedom and human rights? Perhaps this is why rocker Ted Nugent claims, “Did you know that the White House is currently “spitting on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule”?
Some of Obama’s Fruit: Claiming America is not a Christian nation, appeasing radical Islam, stating there is nothing special about America, attacking Capitalism, bowing to foreign leaders, taking a hard line towards America’s ally Israel, extolling and instituting socialism, running a racist Department of Justice, supporting abortion, regularly lying, habitually blame-shifting, talking down our future, criticizing America in foreign countries, misusing and extending crises for political opportunity, etc Symbolically, Barack doesn’t bother to attend church.
Does God care about fetuses, economics, religion, and America’s waning influence in the world? To say the least, Obama does not seem to have any love or knowledge of the Bible. His criticism of America includes almost every detail about our way of life. The real question from all this is—Does God really want his people to freely elect leaders who apparently oppose Him and do the exact opposite of what He Himself directed his people to do in His own Word?
1The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
2 Members of the Reformed tradition would also insist a Christian must assent to Calvin’s five point refutation of Arminus, being set in the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin); Unconditional Election; Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement); Irresistible Grace; Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved).
This story is found here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24983