Skip to comments.The Gospel According to Obama (It's now impossible to be a functioning “religious institution.”)
Posted on 02/10/2012 7:16:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified as a Christian, coincides with Jesus teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.
Now, Im no theologian, but Im fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman.
The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity as represented, for example, by the biblical injunction against retrieving any sheaf left behind while harvesting ones own field. That is for the gleaners the poor and the alien (Leviticus 19:10). Like Ruth in the field of Boaz. As far as I can tell, that charitable transaction involved no mediation by the IRS.
But no matter. Lets assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate). Lets stipulate that Obamas prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.
Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health-and-human-services secretary to promulgate the definition of religious for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.
Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the states regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.
Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such health-care services (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.
Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.
And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of religious and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.
Criterion 1: A religious institution must have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose. But thats not the purpose of Catholic charities; its to give succor to the poor. Thats not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; its to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they dont qualify as religious and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.
Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that primarily employs and primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets. Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals even Catholic schools do not turn away Hindu or Jew.
Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are social services that are properly rendered up unto Caesar.
This all would be merely the story of contradictory theologies, except for this: Sebelius is Obamas appointee. She works for him. These regulations were his call. Obama authored both gospels.
Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what theyre doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist
I thought freedom of religion was a universal right of individuals, not of government-designated organizations.
I know Satan quotes scripture to further his own ends, so why not 0bama?
But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, his application of the “much is required” to justify the idea of government taking more from the rich is very revealing of where he sees the source of all goodness. There is no healthy respect for restraining government there. In other words, he believes that no one in the government can ever do wicked, self-serving things.... no... I think I’ll take back my “benefit of the doubt”. This other possibility doesn’t make any sense.
Obama, King Of The World, Has Spoken
The King can take away, the King can issue a waiver.
Obama has said that he is a Christian. And he has said that he was drawn to Christianity as an adult. He said that he appreciates the tenets of Christianity, such as our being our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper.
Obama completely misunderstands and misinterprets the story of Cain asking God, “am I my brother’s keeper”, when he says that this is what he appreciates about Christianity. And it makes me believe that Obama is not a deeply devout Christian. You never know what is in someone’s heart, but, for him to cite a completely mangled version of a Bible story as his inspiration for Christianity indicates that he lacks strong knowledge of The Bible and Christianity.
On the other hand, when he pronounces the word “Koran”, he pronounces it with an Arabic inflection. Not saying that he’s somehow secrectly Muslim, just saying that I think he is more knowledgeable about Islam and the Koran than he is about The Bible and Christianity.
The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine
Monday , May 5, 2008
[special Friday night edition--original airdate May 2, 2008]
(some key excerpts)
["(Jose) Diaz-Balart is the son of Rafael Diaz-Balart y Guitierrez (a former Cuban politician). He has three bothers, Rafael Diaz-Balart (a banker), Mario Diaz-Balart (a US Congressman) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (also a US Congressman). His aunt, Mirta Diaz-Balart, was Fidel Castro's first wife."
JOSE DIAZ-BALART, TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Liberation theology in Nicaragua in the mid-1980's was a pro-Sandinista, pro-Marxist, anti-U.S., anti-Catholic Church movement. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts. His church apparently supported, in the mid-'80s in Nicaragua, groups that supported the Sandinista dictatorships and that were opposed to the Contras whose reason for being was calling for elections. That's all I know. I was there.
I saw the churches in Nicaragua that he spoke of, and the churches were churches that talked about the need for violent revolution and I remember clearly one of the major churches in Managua where the Jesus Christ on the altar was not Jesus Christ, he was a Sandinista soldier, and the priests talked about the corruption of the West, talked about the need for revolution everywhere, and talked about 'the evil empire' which was the United States of America."
REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: "it's based in Marxism. At the core of his [Wright's] theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous."
SCHENCK: "I was actually the only person escorted to Dr. Wright. He asked to see me, and I simply welcomed him to Washington, and then I said Dr. Wright, I want to bring you a warning: your embrace of Marxist liberation theology. It is contrary to the Gospel, and you need, sir, to abandon it. And at that he dropped the handshake and made it clear that he was not in the mood to dialogue on that point."
Source: The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine:
In March of 2007, FOX News host Sean Hannity had engaged Obamas pastor in a heated interview about his Churchs teachings. For many viewers, the ensuing shouting match was their first exposure to "Black Liberation Theology"...
Like the pro-communist Liberation Theology that swept Central America in the 1980s and was repeatedly condemned by Pope John Paul II, Black Liberation Theology combines warmed-over 1960s vintage Marxism with carefully distorted biblical passages. However, in contrast to traditional Marxism, it emphasizes race rather than class. The Christian notion of "salvation" in the afterlife is superseded by "liberation" on earth, courtesy of the establishment of a socialist utopia.
Catholics for Marx [Liberation Theology]
By Fr. Robert Sirico
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 03, 2004
In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.
The Gospels were re-rendered not as doctrine impacting on the human soul but rather as windows into the historical dialectic of class struggle. These "liberation theologians" saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to expropriate the expropriating owners of capital, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by the proletarian class of peasants and workers.
Spending other people’s money does not count as charity.
Citizens who advocate for tax’s to be spent on programs other than securing our natural rights are conspiring to steal in violation of the 8th Commandment.
Advocating for taxing the wealthy runs afoul of the 10 Commandment.
In for a dime, in for a dollar. Sebelius, like Obama, knows that we were ideologically in for a dime long ago. At least since the time of Roe v Wade.
Put another way, the wedge was already made, this is merely a lever.