Sunday, February 12, 2012

Invincible ignorance (cont.)...

Following up on the previous post, I'd like to do two things: to be a little more forthright and to make a prediction.

As to the first, I want to make it clear that I don't believe that Obama is invincibly ignorant or that he is just another Christian acting in good conscience. My apparent willingness to so believe in the previous post was just that, an appearance, a semi-polite and quite condescending strategic ploy in service to a larger point, which is that, in fact, I don't believe he's a Christian at all. He's an oxymoron. He's a Christian anti-Christ. Not the anti-Christ, but an exemplar of the kind.

To accuse your opponent of acting in bad faith is not what one is supposed to do in these latter days of political and moral intellectual warfare. No one, we're told, should ever venture to judge another man's conscience. All right, I'll back off if someone, preferably Mr. Obama himself, can answer a few questions:

How can a man who calls himself Christian look at two thousand-plus years of Christian history and belief and then confidently claim that he finds in that historical witness permission for a mother to seek out a hit man with M.D. after his name for the purpose of having her unborn child done in?

How can a man claim allegiance to the Christian understanding of marriage - one man, one woman - but then swear he'll lift not a finger to enforce a federal law proclaiming precisely this understanding? A man who, in fact, responded to California voters' rejection of that existentially impossible thing called same-sex marriage by muttering about "divisive" and "unnecessary" discrimination against folks of a different persuasion. Well, Mr. President, you fur it or agin it? Or, in modern parlance, "What would Jesus say?" Hmmm? It's hard to tell what a man's for when he's against nothing.

And where, Mr. President, in your love of Jesus and all the words He uttered and all those written about him (also known as Holy Scripture), or in the entire Christian tradition common to both Protestant and Catholic, do you find the holy counsel that men and women, in defiance of the command to be fruitful and multiply, should make themselves chemical and surgical eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of sexual gratification on earth? Just where, exactly, are we told that it's all right to keep the kids at bay by any means other than a chaste stewardship of our sexual faculties?

As with the "living" constitution, I suppose it's possible Mr. Obama believes in an evolving Christian morality. In which case he'd have to be a Christian born yesterday, one for whom time and history have no meaning. Can anyone tell me of one thing he has said or done that would shore up the Christian foundation of this country, or that would give hope and solace to those of us who claim to share his love of the Savior?

There might be many interesting and inspiring ways to describe our President but, lacking evidence, I doubt that 'Christian' can be the chief modifier. In fact, I believe that he is of an entirely different sort, and that his issuing of the contraceptive mandate results from precisely what Andrew McCarthy delineates:

Government may not compel an American to parrot the policy preferences of the executive branch, nor may it force an American to engage in or directly abet practices that are repellent to Christian doctrine.

The Obama Left is well aware of these things,for these things are basic. The president does not care. His doctrine, hard-Left doctrine, is government promotion of contraception and abortion on demand. On these tenets, he brooks no dissent. Regardless of what the Constitution says, you are commanded to obey. He has started the war against our liberties not because of any crisis, but because he can. That is tyranny. It is a rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler. It cannot stand.

Now, as to that prediction I wanted to make, it will have to wait for another follow-up, because right now I need food accompanied by strong drink. And I have scriptural evidence that Jesus did not entirely oppose that latter thing.


Lydia McGrew said...

During the last election there were actually prosecutors in one or two cities (I believe St. Louis was one) who had the unprofessional gall to make threatening noises about possibly prosecuting people who denied that Obama is a Christian. I kid you not. They spoke of it as "spreading falsehoods" and acted like it was illegal.

William Luse said...

Are you trying to scare me?

Well, spreading falsehoods seems to be perfectly legal in this country. I've been watching the Republican candidates do it to each other for months.

It (the Obama thing) would make an interesting court case, the more I think about it. I'd like to walk him through the Nicene Creed and get his response to a couple of points.

Lydia McGrew said...

No sirree! I would never try to scare you! I'm trying to show how insane the Alinskyite Obamamaniacs are, that they would treat a theological question like, "Is Barack Obama a Christian?" as a possible matter for criminal prosecution if the answer they deem false is uttered in the months leading up to an election.

Seeing as you are taking the *obviously correct* position that Obama is not a Christian in any normal or traditional sense of the word and are treating that, as all sensible people do, as a topic for open discussion, I just thought I'd illustrate the craziness of the world we live in. I think it was an idle threat and any such prosecution would be thrown out of court, given the controversial and theological nature of the subject. But it was creepy that they even tried it.

William Luse said...

I shall read it. Meanwhile the creepiness proceeds apace.