Our Secular President

During the campaign leading up to the 2008 presidential elections, there was a lot of ink spilled concerning Barack Obama’s religious views in an ongoing attempt to ascertain whether he was a Christian or a Muslim, whether he prayed to God or to Allah. This gave rise to questions such as, “Will he take the oath of office with his hand upon a Bible or upon a Koran?” However, if we listen to Obama’s words carefully, it is quite evident that he is neither a Christian nor a Muslim, but a secularist: he is neither a man of the cloth nor of the book, but of the State.

Obama’s religion, far from resting on the Supernatural, is summed up in the State and driven by democratic ideals and possibilities. Therefore, when he talks, he sounds much more like a Jacobin from the French Revolution than he does a Christian from the Protestant Reformation that so impacted this nation’s beginnings. In speech after speech, he asserts a type of democratic unity as his ultimate goal while discarding the religious convictions of our Founders.

The impression he gives those willing to listen is that we are not subject to God in this country as much as we are subject to reason. Of course, the troubling aspect of this is that the word “reason” is a piece of Leftist jargon which only includes those things which the Left considers reasonable, as any of the nonconformists beheaded by the Jacobins during the French Revolution would have told us.

Consider the following words from Obama’s speech during the “Call to Renewal” conference in 2006: “Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality [and] this is going to be difficult for many who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice.”

Please understand what he said here. When Obama uses the word “inerrancy,” he is referring to the knowledge and conviction that God is perfect in all his ways and in all his words, and therefore cannot be in error. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO OBAMA. What matters is that we make ourselves willing to ignore or at least suppress what the Bible teaches so we can achieve a secularized, “pluralistic,” common aim. He might as well have ascended to the pulpit in the church that sponsored that conference and asked, “Hath God really said?”

Do you think I’ve taken his words too far? Well, consider these words of Obama as well: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. What I mean is that their proposals [must] be subject to argument and amenable to reason.” With these words and his secularism, Obama is setting the stage to reject whatever points of morality need to be rejected in order to accomplish his goals within the State. It’s that simple.

What does this mean for evangelicals who inexplicably voted for Obama in this election cycle? It means they cast a vote for a man diametrically opposed to everything they hold dear, including life itself. As a matter of fact, they voted for a man who refuses to allow the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” to diminish in any way his support for killing the unborn. Obama himself said: “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons…but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will, I have explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths; including those with no faith at all.”

Have you ever considered how difficult it is to find common ground between the faithful and the faithless? Or even what differences exist between people of one faith, who value life, and people of another, who are willing to blow themselves and a multitude of innocents to bits to the glory of Allah? Moreover, as modern thinker Ravi Zacharias has said, “In some cultures they love their neighbors, while in other cultures they eat their neighbors;” I wonder which course the Obama administration will deem acceptable in seeking consensus between the various extremes while simultaneously trying not to criticize those who want to eat their neighbors or who wish to practice suicide bombings to the glory of Allah?

Overall, it is absolutely imperative for us to understand that Obama’s emphasis on pluralism (a worldview that rests on reasons “accessible to people of all faiths; including those with no faith at all”) is hooey. Pluralism is chaos by a kinder name, and chaos is what the Left creates so that they can then assert their long-held solutions (such as a police state, abortion on demand, the abolition of liberty, etc.,). If you think I’m wrong, take time to read the writings of Vladimir Lenin, another precursor to Obama who appealed to reason in 1917 when promising to wrest control of Russia from the wealthy and give it to “the people.” (Sound familiar?)

The point is this: Obama is a secularist and we would do well to see the danger this poses for us by learning how secularists have destroyed liberty in other nations. For example, following “the glorious revolution” in France, the Jacobins removed any Christian symbol that reminded the people of their once proud faith. One temple which bore the name of a particular saint was renamed “the Temple of Reason.” Lenin followed the same path in Russia, and St. Petersburg was renamed “Leningrad” to rid the city of the reference to a saint.

While I am not arguing that St. Louis or St. Augustine are soon to become Barackistan, we have to be extremely foolish to miss the direction in which Obama is leading us when he makes statements like, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” For, with such a statement, he seeks to create a void that Christianity once filled — a void into which he can assert “reason” as an end-all-be-all justification for dictates and policies that our Founders would have risked their lives to oppose.

Will Obama take the oath of office with his hand upon a Bible or the Koran? In truth, neither would be appropriate for him if he wants his pledge to reflect who and what he really is. Therefore, I suggest he simply place his right hand in mid-air while taking the oath to demonstrate allegiance to none except his Statist predecessors as he endeavors to remake America in his own image.