Dangerous New Politics
(An Evangelical Response to the Audacity of Hope)
Introduction:
I wrote this article about 6 months before the 2008 presidential election. I wrote it in response to my research while trying to decide which candidate was better qualified to lead our country. In this search I read books by both candidates. This article was in response to Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope”. After writing the article and posting it on my web-site, which was linked to several other Christian web-sites, I was overwhelmingly criticized and removed from a ministry I was involved in. Confused by the response I pulled it from my web-site and put it on an undisclosed blog-site and left it there for the providence of God. But now, getting involved in my new church and with a six week study there called “Doing the Right Thing” by Chuck Colson, I am drawn back to this article and wondering wether or not I should try and promote it again.
Recent events have also taken place that I believe make this article more validated and less extreem. Numerous respected Christian leaders have publically commented on the anti-Christian politics of our president and his administration. Charles Stanley has written a best selling book adapted from his sermon, “Turning the Tide” that exposes the present administrations ties to atheistic ideologies that he says are threatening to destroy America. Michael Yousseff of the nationally sindicated radio ministry, “Leading the Way” has written extensively about the presidents clash with Americas’ historical Christian heritage and ethics. From his early article, “How Obama Misleads Non-Discerning Christians” to his latest book, “When all the Crosses are Gone” he exposes the war that’s being waged by the Progressive Politics of Barack Obama against Christian ethics. Also telling is the recent change of support that Tony Evans, who heads the National Black Church Initiative, gave to the coalition of 34,000 churches under him when he said, Obama "has violated the Christian faith" by failing to uphold Jesus' teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. As a result, Evans says churches must "reassess their extraordinary support for him." (CBNnews.com ,
Thank You and God’s Blessings & Protection Upon Us,
John @ 4MarksMinistry.org
November 5, 2011
Dangerous New Politics
In his book “The Audacity of Hope” Barack Obama explains his political views to the American people and discloses that he believes government needs to be fundamentally changed in order to address today’s complex issues. He then goes on to explain how he plans to implement a brand new type of politics in order to accomplish this fundamental change if he’s elected president. Within this explanation he makes known that one of the core changes his new politics endorses is that the foundation for government should no longer be based on the founding fathers principles of “natural law” and “natural rights” because he says we are no longer a Christian nation. (“natural law” and “natural rights” is a concept of government that our Christian founding fathers claimed was indespensable for creating a just-society because they held that a just government must order its laws in accordance with the laws of natures’ Creator and therefore these laws, being His, must be ‘transcendent or absolute and unalienable’, standing above both man and culture). This concept of transcendant law is also clearly portrayed by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” .
But Obama argues that this ideology and foundation for American government is flawed, has become irrelevant and is even oppressive because we are now a multi-cultural society and no longer a Christian nation. He therefore presents a compelling argument in his book for a fundamental transformation of our government. One that is able to address the reality that we are now a multi-cultural society and therefore our government policies and laws need to be based on a new foundation of a shared global/multu-cultural consensus rather than the antiquated ideology of natural rights and law. Or to put it more simply Obama believes that law and government must find its highest authority within the shared consensus of the culture itself rather than in transcendant unalienable laws to which he says no multi-cultural society has yet or ever can agree upon.
Obama therefore readily acknowledges that his new formula for American government radically departs from the original intent of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Defending his argument for this transformation Obama explains that: 1) America has long ago strayed from our founding fathers convictions and ideologies (which he elsewhere refers to as “myths” of the past) due to the reality that they are no longer relevant and, 2) that in a truly pluralistic democracy these founding ideologies have become oppressive to todays’ global and multicultural population (pg.12 and 13).
While promoting this new political vision Obama eventually reveals some of the consequences his transformation and new politics will have for those who are Christians and those who believe in conservative Constitutional government. He carefuly explains the changes they must make in order to have a part in the advancement of his ‘fundamentally new America’. The arguments and reasons Obama gives for this new American vision are what this article addresses with the intention that we might better see and understand what Obama means when he says that he will fundamentally transform America and then we will be able to make an informed decision as to wether we can conscientiously participate in this new American experiment or not.
Good Ideas, Bad Politics
Although President Barrack Obama makes many important contributions in his book such as; exposing our need to better address corruption in politics and corporate America, the need to work for a more equal and humanitarian world, the need to address the hypocritical and manipulative political techniques used by the ideologies of both the Right and the Left, and his insight into matters that Christians’ must come to terms with in order to better live out their faith and serve their country, yet his prescription for a fundamentally new American politics, which claims to address these issues, builds on a core philosophy and governing foundation that is ultimately a rejection of both the core philosophy and governing foundation put forth by America’s founding fathers and also the core ethics of historical Evangelical Christianity. This is why so many of us are confused about Obama. While we agree with the bulk of his humanitarian vision for a better America
Sorting Out the Good, Bad and Ugly
Barack Obama’s book, the ‘Audacity of Hope’ is very well written and reads more like a good novel than a presentation of a political vision so we almost forget that it is promoting a very specific political point of view. When reading it you feel as if you are in the presence of a good coach and close friend who is giving you a great pep talk before the decisive game. As a result of his pre-game pep talk you walk away with a great sense of hope and confidence, one that’s anchored to the tune of “yes, we can.” But while this emotional feeling is carrying the day you forget all about the fact that the coach who gave this pep talk also has a definite plan and strategy, a definite set of plays he plans to use, etc. As a result our trust and confidence is not rooted in the details of his game plan but in his overall personal charisma. All too often this situation ends in failure. Therefore we need to take a close look at the game plan that Obama discloses in this book.
But in order to see the game plan we need to remember that this book is not a novel. Rather it is an outline of a very fine-tuned and well thought out political system. It is so well thought out that Barack Obama can say with confidence, “it will transform America
For example; when Mr. Obama says that ‘we need to begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life by grounding them in concepts of common values and common good’ (pg. 13), we tend to project our own personal hopes into his words and therefore naturally side with him. But these words are not open to personal interpretation. Rather they are historical phrases that are constantly linked to the writings and speeches of Left wing ideologies and Progressive politics that see constitutional government as oppressive and outdated.
Identifying the Players
Before proceeding further I want to list several definitions of the political players fighting to determine the authoritative basis for declaring just-laws and politics for governing America
- Natural Rights (also called ‘inalienable rights’ or ‘moral rights’). These are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are therefore considered universal in the sense that they stand above cultural rights because the have greater authority, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative… The focus of natural rights in the United States Declaration of Independence is expressed in the legal philosophy known as Declarationism, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. From this quotation we can see the intent of the founding fathers. Natural rights and natural law were meant to be the highest law, with the authority to confront kings, presidents, cultural norms, or anything else that tried to contradict the laws of natures God. This is why the original word for ‘self-evident’ in the Declaration of Independence was the word ‘sacred’. You can still see the word ‘sacred’ where it was replaced by the word ‘self-evident’ in the original documents online. During the Age of the Enlightenment, natural law theory was also used to challenge the divine right of kings, and it became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government.
- Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution (which by extension makes a Declarationist an adherent to the concept of natural law). Clearance Thomas, one of our Supreme Court Justices, for example is a Declarationist. This is why he is so hated by progressive and left wing ideologies. To show a contrast with a Declarationist, the legal positivist, argues against Declarationism and concludes that law is strictly an arbitrary human construct without a connection to morality, and is forced to conclude that the Constitution is a de novo document, and that the two concepts of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the idea of a self-evident truth of a Creator endowing Men with "unalienable Rights" are false and therefore unjust when imposed by any government upon a culture or society.
- Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of modern legal positivism are that:
- There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.
- Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings. The positivist argument is that the highest authority of law is vested solely in human institutions.
(The general outline of the above three definitions was taken from Wikipedia).
Understanding these three terms above helps us to better understand the politics that Barack Obama presents in ‘The Audacity of Hope’. The politics that Obama champions in his book is in line with the definition given under ‘Legal positivism’. Obama’s fundamentally new politics bases its primary authority for government and just-laws in human institutions, in which there is no higher law to appeal to. The cultural norms of the majority in power are the highest law in Obamas new American politics or as he defines it in a clever projective phrase, ‘a politics grounded in common cultural values and common good’, and thereby this form of politics does not need to justify its laws or policies according to ‘natural law’ or ‘natural rights’ which must be in conformity to some Ethics of religion or the laws of the Creator God as clearly put forth by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence written by our founding fathers.
In Progressive politics it is the ever changing contemporary culture that authoritatively determines what is just or unjust and it may or may not justify those viewpoints held by ‘natural law and rights’ and this new authority Obama claims is justified because America has already strayed from its founding myths anyway. These left-based political aspirations have been progressing in the culture wars of America for many years and it is one of their foundational strategies to base rights for just-laws and government on a purely cultural basis (globalism, humanitarianisms, etc.) which are always relative to the times, or to put it in another great projective phrase, “life as it is actually lived” (pg. 31). ‘The Audacity of Hope’ is filled with these key words and phrases from the playbooks of Progressive and leftist politics and their game plan is to destroy those ideologies that adhere to a ‘Declarationist Philosophy’, a philosophy of government that holds to the founding fathers ideals of ‘natural law’ and ‘natural rights’ contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
It is very important that we as Christians and conservatives understand the seriousness of this political conflict because if we loose this battle for the basis of authoritative law then the Progressive politicians will replace our conservative ‘Declarationist Philosophy’ of America’s founding documents with a ‘living-Constitution Philosophy’ which by definition replaces ‘natural rights’ and ‘natural laws’ with a purely cultural interpretation for declaring the basis of just-laws and politics. One recent example of the tyranny this politics will play against Christian ethics is President Obama’s nomination for Superior Court Judge, Elena Kagan. When addressing the Supreme Court on the issue of allowing access to recruiters due to the military’s standing on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, Kagan and her colleagues wrote:
"We are deeply committed to a fundamental moral principle: 'A society that discriminates based on sexual orientation--or that tolerates discrimination by its members-is not a just society.'"
This is a classic example of the new politics where the cultural norm is imposed authoritatively on all peoples and there is no recourse to ‘higher law’ and in this case appealing to ‘higher law’ is actually called unjust by Kagan and her colleagues. This is the reality of the power that “life as it actually lived politics” will have to fundamentally change America
Under the purely cultural based politics of Progressives, those elected from its ranks can speak as God and sovereignly declare what is just without the possibility of any legal recourse from those who oppose them on religious grounds. And not only this but once their ‘new-politics’ declares what is just on the basis of, “life as it is actually lived” (pg. 31) then they will, in the words of Elena Kagan, legally declare without the possibility for challenge that, “A society (Christians) that discriminates based on sexual orientation--or that even tolerates discrimination by its members-is not a just society.” This is why Barack Obama knows his new politics will fundamentally transform America
The seriousness of loosing this battle for the authority of determining just laws and government cannot be overstressed because history has shown; again and again that loosing the battle here is loosing the war for freedom itself.
A Christian Response to “The Audacity of Hope”
Some key points to understanding the Presidents new-politics and therefore his critical attitude toward Christian and conservative politics can be found on pages 12 and 13 in his book. He begins by saying that American life has strayed from the founding principles (referred to as “myths”) that we have held since our beginning and as a result we have suffered too long under these minority-approved narrow interests and ideologies that continue to impose their own version of absolute truth on the nation. He further says:
“We need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate (rid us of our mythological founding principles as mentioned on page12) and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans. That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life… ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good” (Pg. 13).
It is this fundamental belief in the primary authority of common ideals and values grounded in the present-day culture, “life as it is actually lived” (pg. 31) as the only basis of governing Constitutionally that leads the President to reject the manner in which Christians and conservatives have governed in the past and also the manor in which they have imposed their private ideologies (beliefs concerning ‘unalienable rights that come from God’) on a pluralistic and democratic society. For this reason he says that what we need is:
“A government that truly represents these Americans (since we have strayed from the myths we held since our founding, and since we are no longer a Christian nation)—that truly serves these Americans—and it will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be prepackaged, (like the Bible, or the Constitution), ready to pull off the shelf” (pg. 31).
Throughout the rest of the book President Obama builds upon these statements to form and validate his new kind of politics that he promotes throughout his book. This new culturally authoritative politics eventually reveals that it creates some serious problems for Christians where Obama admits:
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values (since Christian values are not the values of common culture as they no longer reflect life in culture as it is actually lived). Therefore they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, such ‘rules of engagement’ may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic Democracy we have no choice” (pg. 259).
These quotes of President Obama cited above reveal a prescription for a new-American politics that radically departs from our founding principles that allowed for free expression of religion for the necessary role of protecting natural rights and laws in government yet this is precisely the radical departure that our President builds his entire governing philosophy upon. This new philosophy of government is central to his message of change and why he continually says that our present times demand a totally new politics and therefore he states this as the purpose of his book:
“That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life…ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good” (13)
This brand new type of politics may be a message of hope to many but to Christians and those who believe in conservative Constitutional government it is the beginning of the end, and these new “rules of engagement” (pg. 259), are knowingly intended to end the old era of governing and bring in the new.
How the New Rules of Engagement Affect Us
Our founding fathers, many of which were Christian, incorporated their religious beliefs into our nations governing principles because one of their basic understandings of government was that the rights of people and the laws they enacted to govern should never contradict those religious and certain unalienable rights that come from God.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty Independence
Our founding fathers clearly believed that a significant purpose of the Constitution was to enforce, maintain and clarify certain unalienable rights that were God-given and therefore above the authority of men or government to tread upon. It was also on the basis of this belief that Western Law was written:
“Let it simply be asked, where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? (George Washington, from his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796 )
Due to this belief that there are foundational governing principles that come from an authority higher than the people or the government our founding fathers wrote extensively that the right to make or change laws had to be justified by a ceaseless inquiry as to whether or not they were consistent with the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, ‘God’. In this manner our Constitution and Western Law would not only serve the positive purpose of securing goodwill and freedom but it would also always retain the right to ‘confront’ individuals, political parties and cultural movements that would inevitably come along seeking to create laws exclusively by their own authority, according to their own times, without regard for religion or man’s natural rights. (This tyranny of governing without regard for man’s religious and unalienable rights was known first-hand by our founding fathers and the thirteen colonies that were under the persecution of Great Britain United States of America
We therefore conclude, historically and factually, that such a form of politics and governing as that proposed by President Obama is indeed a brand-new politics that in his words, “excavates” (pg. 13), by tearing down the old foundations that allow for higher-law moral criticism, and instead builds solely upon a new foundation of secular and culturally based “shared understandings” and “notions of a Common good” (pg.13). In this manor Progressive politics makes obsolete a lawful representation of religion and its divine unalienable rights that our Constitution has guaranteed. But Obama says the elimination of this Constitutional avenue for the lawful representation of religious beliefs is necessary in our modern democracy (Pg. 259) because he writes that these religious “myths” are, “now in the minority and therefore oppressive” (pg. 12).
It was precisely this invention of a new authoritative foundation for politics, self-styled under the guise of a tribute to modern patriotism that George Washington warned of in his farewell speech:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, which should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens… Let it simply be asked, where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge of the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education… reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (George Washington, from his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796 )
As seen from these remarks, our conservative Constitution that gave freedom to men and the opportunity for self-governance was based on the conviction that our freedom and self-governance must also include the representation of those who seek to clarify and realize the authority of the unalienable rights and laws of the Creator God held by religious institutions, and that only when this order of our Constitutional government is upheld could freedom, quality living, and general happiness be maintained. In this manor and by this authority our founding fathers expected us to guard against the competing and rivaling powers that would come against this Constitution in both small and large numbers and therefore held the position that our political process must always retain the right to confront culture and certain men of power with religious ideals whenever necessary. This right for religious institutions to represent divine authority in the governing process and confront the freewill of the people and/or its representatives was considered indispensable for the continuing effectiveness of the Constitution to protect the happiness, prosperity, reputation and life of its free people. Our founding fathers understood that in our freedom we needed to stay far away from eliminating these divine foundational principles that gave the Constitution its authority to deliver what it promised. But this is precisely the aim of the new-politics that President Obama claims is necessary today in order to create:
“A government that truly represents these Americans (since we have strayed from the myths we held since our founding, and since we are no longer a Christian nation)—that truly serves these Americans—and it will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be prepackaged, (like the Bible or the Constitution), ready to pull off the shelf” (pg. 31). Therefore: “What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values (since Christian values no longer reflect life as it is actually lived). Therefore they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, such ‘rules of engagement’ may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic Democracy we have no choice” (pg. 259).
This quotation clearly lays out President Obama’s intent to govern by his new-politics and rules of engagement in order to give an over-ruling authority to the secular and material so as to make the sacred and eternal obsolete and even un-Constitutional when the sacred is defended. But our Nation, governed “by the people and for the people”, is also “One Nation Under God”. To recreate the government solely in the image of the people and the cultural needs of the hour in exclusion to any concern for God’s natural rights and laws is a sure recipe for disaster.
As Christians we need to be aware that this form of ‘New-Politics’ proposed by our President involves the fundamental remarking of America ‘in the image of man’ governing solely from a self-referential foundation, … or as the Scriptures say, “being as God, and therefore independent of Him and His laws, with a contemporary democratic and pluralistic wisdom capable of deciding completely on our own what is right or wrong.” (Genesis 3:5; “the temptation that brought about the original fall of mankind”).
Christianity, Politics and the Lordship of Jesus Christ
But more than anything else it is Christians living out their Christianity in the public arena that will be most persecuted under this new politics. President Obama realizes this and even apologizes for it where he says,
“For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, such ‘rules of engagement’ may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic Democracy we have no choice” (pg. 259).
It is here, in submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in both our public and private life, that the Christian Community has its most serious problem with President Obama’s politics. By adapting to the presidents demand to compromise our faith into universally accepted ideals in order to have a place in his new political process we must reject Christian values, the Scriptures and the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our public lives.
In his book Barack Obama also reveals that he gets upset when Christians cannot follow his example and properly distinguish how to compromise and adapt their values in the differing arenas of private and public life. Revealing his lack of tolerance and understanding for the religious community to correctly apply his wisdom in these two areas he writes:
“Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics” (Pg. 261).
He then explains how applying the wisdom of this dual understanding in his own life has gotten him into trouble with some Christians who feel he holds to a double standard. When replying to the critique of Alan Keyes, a political opponent who brought this charge against him, President Obama gave the following defense:
“I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates—that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be a U.S. senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois” (Pg. 251).
But what President Barack Obama fails to realize is that Christians do not live out their faith under a false idea of competing arenas such as public or private, corporate or political, etc. Because for the Christian there is not one way of life and values in private and another for the Christian in business and yet another for the Christian in politics but rather whatever positions God has ordained for Christians to fill is to be lived out faithfully to all the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, I am confused when our President says in books and speeches that he cannot understand why some Christians do not appreciate the wisdom of his private and public dual-value system. He says he is a Christian but yet makes no valid Christian apology to his fellow Christians for aggressively implementing and supporting governmental policies that are clearly opposed to the Word of God. Rather he seeks to justify himself by reminding us that he is a public official of a pluralistic democracy and therefore employs a dual value system to make them both work toward establishing his new kind of politics and then he makes the wound deeper by demanding that all Christians follow his wisdom if they still want to have a place within this new political process. The problem with his wisdom is that ‘as Christians’ both he and we no longer have the option to support another rule that is contrary to God’s rule because to do so is to deny that we have submitted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, something he says he has done in his book on page 246. In short our Christian President rejects the clear teachings of Christianity in order to be a politician and then demands that others Christians do the same before they can be active in his political process.
It is therefore clear that we as Christians have a right to be confused and should be confused by the wisdom of his dual standard and politics. And so here we find ourselves today: He is confused over us and many of us are confused over him.
The New Religion of the New Politics
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.” (pg. 259). “This is not to say that I’m unanchored in my faith. There are some things that I’m absolutely sure about—the Golden Rule, the need to battle cruelty in all of its forms, the value of love and charity, humility and grace.”(pg. 265).
Although Barack Obama wants Christianity to abandon its historic role before it can have a place in his new American politics yet he is not interested in seperating a ‘universally acceptable church’ from the state. In his chapter on “Faith” Obama writes that he realizes that his views on religion will anger both the Left and the Right. He says his new rules of political engagement for Christians will anger the religious Right but he also admits that a truly successful government must necessarily incorporate culturally relevant and universal religious values into its politics in order to accomplish comprehensive humanitarian goals, a reality that he says is little understood by those on the Left (pg. 253-4).
Obama explains how this new partnership between church and state is constitutional, "Not every mention of God in public is a breach of the wall of seperation (of church and state); as the supreme court has properly recognized, context matters" (pg. 262). And as we have already shown, the 'context' Mr. Obama is speaking about is wether or not religious expression is acceptable in a universal multi-cultural context where the culture itself is the highest authority. In this political system 'established' religious beliefs that do not meet this universal criteria will be considered unconstitutional, oppressive and not allowed (pg. 259).
With these arguments Obama justifies a global or universal multi-faith partnership with his new politics as necessary for governing America today. Therefore he says, "We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith into the large project of American renewal" (pg. 256).
Anyone with a basic understanding of Biblical end-times prophesy can see the writing on the wall here. These are dangerous times my friends.
“Through your universal, multi-faith politics you have destroyed the authority of God's word. And you do many other things like that” (Mark 7:8).
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!” (2 Tim 3:1-5).
A Right to Political Representations under the Constitution
The opening words of the Constitution declare the freedom of its people to be involved in its politics: “We the people…” We are a government that allows for its people to be lawfully involved in all of its politics. All American people have the right to lobby and elect representatives that stand for their beliefs and causes, and it is a form of discrimination to deter, restrict or compromise them from seeking or filling such representative roles for the furtherance of their causes. The current attempt to silence Christian activists or make them compromise their beliefs before they can even be engaged in the democratic political process is itself undemocratic and Un-Constitutional. Christians have too often been made to feel ashamed and have wrongly been labeled as oppressive for publicly upholding religious beliefs that have not only helped shape the Constitution but that the Constitution also protects. All Americans (including Gays, Lesbians, Pro-Choice, Libertarians, etc.) have the same Constitution and the same right to lobby and promote their beliefs and values without compromising their message while engaging in the American political process. If any of these other people groups just mentioned above were told they could not be involved in the American political process unless they translated their concerns into universally held ideals they all would cease to have any say in our political process as none of their concerns are universally held either but this is exactly the position that President Barack Obama plans to impose upon Christians (pg. 259).
In conclusion we who are Christians and call Jesus ‘Lord and Savior’ must make a stand and declare today whom we will serve: ‘God, under the old order’ or ‘man, under the new order?’ As for me and my family we will serve the Lord. May God help us to live our lives boldly and uncompromising from a position of Truth and love as we continue to live distinctively Christian in our private and public lives. Amen.
APPENDIX
This material is an addition to the blog, "The Secular Anti-Christian Politics of BHO" due to the fact that some people (from all nationalities) felt this article was mean-spirited and possibly racist. My only intention in these articles is to protect Christian Family Values in America
“AMERICAN VISIONARIES”
ML King Jr. or Barack Obama... “Who’s Right?”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama are both accepted as great leaders with vital visions for the fulfillment of our nation’s dream that is American Democracy.
Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights on the time tested principles of the Christian faith that have proven themselves the instruments of God throughout the ages. As such his message of hope triumphed and changed America
Barack Obama became the President of the United States America
Both of these men claim to be pursuing a great and just vision for America America
The following documented quotes of both these men should lead you to answer these questions with a Truth that is ‘self evident’ (sacred). May God open our eyes to the Truth and steer us to the right Vision for America
1. Concerning the United States
Obama
"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
(press conference in Turkey
ML King Jr.
“I want it to be known throughout Montgomery
(“Address to the first Montgomery 5 December 1955 )
2. Concerning our founding fathers principles of Democracy:
Barack Obama
American life has strayed from the founding myths it held at is inception
(“The Audacity of Hope,” pg. 12)
therefore…“We need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate (rid us of the mythological founding principles from which we have strayed) and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans. That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of “changing” our politics and our civic life… In Chapter 2, I discuss those common values that might serve as the foundation for a new political consensus”
(“The Audacity of Hope,” pg. 13)
ML King Jr.
“Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived” (“Loving Your Enemies,” Dexter Avenue Baptist Church 17 November 1957 )
“The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system”. (“Loving Your Enemies,” Dexter Avenue Baptist Church 17 November 1957 )
3. Concerning God-given and eternal moral values
Obama
We need… “A government that truly represents these Americans (since we are no longer a Christian nation)—that truly serves these Americans—and it will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be prepackaged, (like the Bible, or the Constitution), ready to pull off the shelf”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 31)… Therefore:
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values (since Christian values do not reflect life as it is actually lived today in our pluralistic democracy). Therefore they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, such ‘rules of engagement’ may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic Democracy we have no choice” (The Audacity of Hope, pg. 259).
“When it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values… This Order (legalizing stem cell research) is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America
(The Presidents Speech at the signing of “Stem Cell Research,” March 2009)
ML King Jr.
“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws… Now at least two things convince me that we don't believe that, that we have strayed away from the principle that this is a moral universe… that we have accepted the attitude that right and wrong are merely relative… But I'm here to say to you this morning that some things are right and some things are wrong. Eternally so, absolutely so. The God of the universe has made it so. And so long as we adopt this relative attitude toward right and wrong, we're revolting against the very laws of God himself… My friend, that attitude is destroying the soul of our culture. It's destroying our nation… All I'm trying to say to you is that our world hinges on moral foundations. God has made it so. God has made the universe to be based on a moral law. So long as man disobeys it he is revolting against God. That's what we need in the world today: people who will stand for right and goodness”.
(“Rediscovering Lost Values,” 28 February 1954 )
4. Concerning the Validity of a Biblical Perspective in Government and Politics:
Barack Obama
Politics needs to reflect life as it is actually lived. Therefore, it cannot be prepackaged, (like the Bible), “ready to pull off the shelf”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 31)
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 259)
“So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 261)
ML King Jr.
“The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God”.
(“Paul’s Letter to American Christians,”4 November 1956 )
(“Paul’s Letter to American Christians,”
***A Key Quote*** “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law”. ***A Key Quote***
(“Letter FromBirmingham 16 April 1963 )
(“Letter From
5. Concerning the Necessity of Silencing or Compromising Christian Values in Our American Democracy:
Obama
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values (since Christian values do not reflect life as it is actually lived today in our pluralistic democracy). Therefore they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, such ‘rules of engagement’ may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic Democracy we have no choice” (The Audacity of Hope, pg. 259).
ML King Jr.
“I am impelled to write you concerning the responsibilities laid upon you to live as Christians in the midst of an un-Christian world. That is what I had to do. That is what every Christian has to do. But I understand that there are many Christians in America Gallup
(“Paul’s Letter to American Christians,”4 November 1956 )
(“Paul’s Letter to American Christians,”
“If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust… Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany , Georgia Birmingham 16 April 1963 )
“The Greek Church in Russia
(“A Knock atMidnight ,” 11 June 1967 )
(“A Knock at
“I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion." Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.”
(“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,”31 March 1968 )
(“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,”
6. Concerning the right and respectability of Protesting:
Obama
“So I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. (Laughter.) You would think they would be saying thank you. (Laughter.) That’s what you’d think.” (Applause.)
(DNC Reception, 4/15/10)
Obama is quoted as referring to protesters as “tea baggers”. A sexually insulting slur.
("The Promise: President Obama, Year One," by Jonathan Alter)
Although President Obama hasn’t said much concerning protests about his policies his administration has been very involved implementing policies to silence his critics. These efforts include reimposing some form of the “Fairness Doctrine” to silence conservative talk radio, the continual assault from the White House against conservative news agencies and even trying to ban them from the White House (Oct. 22, 2009), pushing for policies to regulate and control the internet, and publically ridiculing and shaming critics in all forms of media, etc.
ML King Jr.
The only weapon that we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of protest. That's all… And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America
(“Address to the first Montgomery 5 December 1955 )
“Of course, there is nothing new about civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire . To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience”. (“Letter From Birmingham 16 April 1963 )
“There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests… Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.” (“Letter From Birmingham 16 April 1963 )
7. Concerning how to be Christian in American Politics:
Barack Obama
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 259).
“This is not to say that I’m unanchored in my faith. There are some things that I’m absolutely sure about—the Golden Rule, the need to battle cruelty in all of its forms, the value of love and charity, humility and grace.”
(The Audacity of Hope, pg. 265).
ML King Jr.
“Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos…. In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you are not attempting to defeat or humiliate him, or even to pay him back for injustices that he has heaped upon you. Let him know that you are merely seeking justice for him as well as yourself... and Don't worry about persecution America; you are going to have that if you stand up for a great principle… I still believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may”.
(“Paul’s Letter to American Christians,” 4 November 1956 )
“And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Amen) That's a new definition of greatness… And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. (Amen) You don't have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. (Amen) You only need a heart full of grace, (Yes, sir, Amen) a soul generated by love. (Yes) And you can be that servant”.
(“The Drum Major Instinct,”4 February 1968 )
(“The Drum Major Instinct,”
“I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion." Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus… On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?... There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.” (“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” 31 March 1968 )
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, pray, search for me, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear ‘their prayer’ from heaven, forgive their sins, and heal their country.
2 Chronicles 7:14
* words in Italics are my own comments.
An Acts 2:42 Ministry
Promoting Christian Family Values in our Communities & Government
(678) 715-4718
4MarksMinistry.org
