There is a piece in the Hill this morning which is both unintentionally funny and disturbing at the same time. In a column entitled "Religion Burns Obama Again", Niall Stanage and Amie Parnes attempt to explain both president Obama's religious convictions and the reasons why Obama keeps having trouble with religious folks.
One thing is quite clear from the article: Stanage and Parnes (whoever they are) are secularists attempting to explain something about which they have at most little knowledge. They announce that Obama has religious beliefs but then point out that Obama's beliefs are "cerebral" and Obama "doesn’t have a natural feel for the depth of emotion of how some people hold their religious views." Really? If one believes in God, then that faith is not "cerebral". A "cerebral" Christian is one who gives gifts at Christmas and checks the box for Christian when filling out a questionaire, but a "cerebral" Christian does not believe. True faith in any religion requires an emotional commitment. There is no unquestionable logic that requires a person to accept the existence of God; every argument has an answer -- on both sides of the question. No, belief in God has to be accepted emotionally, in the core of one's being. Simply put, if the article is correct about Obama's views, then there is no question why Obama gets into trouble so often with religious folks: Obama does not believe in God, he only professes such belief for political purposes.
Another interesting slant in the article is the statement that Obama and his aides "missed the fact that the Catholic hierarchies had emotion on their side." What? Only someone with no religious beliefs could describe the debate in that way. Those "Catholic hierarchies" had God on their side. This was not a dispute between reasonable and calm leaders favoring contraception and abortion for all on the one side and emotional raving hierarchies on the other side who refuse to see reason. The dispute is actually one between folks who want the freedom to pursue their religion and follow the teachings of God (as they understand them) against a group of government bureaucrats who claim to know what is best for everyone in the country and who will not listen to the views of anyone else.
Amazingly, the article sees the entire dispute as a political failure by Obama to handle the matter in the correct way. Various polls get cited and "experts" get consulted. Indeed, the article concludes that all Obama really needed was to have an Office of Religious Affairs in the White House, as if yet another bureaucrat would make any difference. The authors think that the answer here is more government.
The real truth is that neither the authors of this piece nor Obama actually understand the true basis of the American system of government. No issue has been more important in the history of this country than religious freedom. Whole colonies were founded in North America just to escape religious persecution in Europe. Places like Pennsylvania became the first spots in the Western world with actual and complete freedom of religion. The concept was enshrined in the Bill of Rights; it is in the First Amendment, and there is a good reason why it is the very first on the list. The government cannot establish a single religion as the national religion. The government cannot interfere in the practice of religion by the people. It is not a complicated structure, but it is one that Obama and his cronies just do not accept. They simply do not accept that people have faith. Let me rephrase and clarify that: Obama and his cronies do not accept that intelligent and rational people have faith. In Obama's world, it is the so-called bitter clingers who have faith. It is the poor, uneducated masses who have faith which they cling to along with their guns and their prejudices. And, in the Obama world, these bitter clingers do not know what is good for them; they require the intevention of benevolent government "experts" to make their lives better and, indeed, bearable. It is an extremely anti-American view. It takes centuries of American history and tosses it out the window. It tears up the basic foundation of American civilization. It is a direct assault on personal freedom.
I know that I am sounding somewhat over the top here, but the future of the United States as a free society is not something which is debatable in my opinion. Obama and the Obamacrats have made a direct attack on the individual liberty which is the core of the American system. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment