A forum for the irrelevant

Oh. Gary Bauer. I'd kind of forgotten that you existed. Apparently, someone somewhere cares enough about your opinion to give you some space over at Politico. How nice. Because nobody could possibly guess what a strident, socially conservative martinet would have to say about President Obama. Oh, well. Let's see what you've got.

[W]hereas most liberal politicians are content to confine their religious references to public statements about things like caring for the poor expressed through government funding for welfare programs or through minimum-wage increases, Obama goes much further. He often invokes God at what seem the unlikeliest moments — in support of policies condemned by the Bible and most major religions. Obama gets away with it only because he benefits from a curious double standard.

And right away, Bauer begs the question so hard his knees are practically bleeding. One of the most ready arguments against religious orthodoxy, particularly when applied to social policy, is that you can find justification for just about anything if you look for it. Bauer obviously considers himself such an authority on God that he can claim to speak definitively for what the Bible does and does not condemn, and expects that we agree. (I don't.)

For example, Obama has referenced the Sermon on the Mount in support of special rights for homosexuals, despite the Scriptures’ clear support of marriage between one man and one woman and its admonitions to celebrate sex inside the married relationship only.

Hmmmm. Really, Gary? One man and one woman? Inside married relationship only? Because I think your memory of scripture may be a little bit weak. A few notable exceptions to that "clear support" spring easily to mind. They're famous guys in the Bible, and I'm kind of surprised that you don't remember them.

Life and death issues became the spark igniting the public backlash against Obama’s plans. They arose from concerns over possible death sentences for the ill and elderly should care be rationed and from concerns about tax-payer funded abortions, to name a few. Obama wrapped himself in Scripture to combat opposition to his plans. At one point, he alleged that Obamacare opponents were not just mistaken but also immoral and “bearing false witness” for worrying about taxpayer funding of abortion under his plan.

No, Gary, he wasn't saying they were immoral for "worrying" about the funding. He was saying they were bearing false witness because they were alleging the existence of something false. In this case, "death panels" and public funding for abortions. Nice slippery language there. Very moral.

I don’t mean to question the sincerity of Obama’s faith. This is a discussion of language. Increasingly, it seems as though the president’s deepest belief is in his own ability to disregard his critics’ moral objections by touting abstract religious principles and embracing empty religious symbolism. Obama seems to think that Americans will accept his out-of-the-mainstream views on moral issues as long as he claims those views arise in part from his religious beliefs.

Golly, Gary. How to put this nicely? I don't believe you. I think you do mean to question the sincerity of Obama's faith, and I think maybe your protestations to the contrary are not 100% honest. And I really don't think that love for one's neighbor, or a religious imperative to care for them are particularly abstract. Further, as time goes by, I think you'll be surprised which of the two of you ends up "out-of-the-mainstream." (Hint -- not him.) The times, they are a-changin'.

For the record, I believe elected officials should talk about faith. Our founders believed the moral principles of faith were indispensable to our nation’s survival. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. And faith has been a source of many of America’s most important social movements, from abolition and civil rights to the right to life.

But in using faith to advocate positions that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture, Obama undercuts his credibility. As Obama writes in “The Audacity of Hope”: “Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith, ... such as the politician who ... sprinkles in a few biblical citations to spice up a thoroughly dry policy speech.” Obama should heed his own advice.

For the record, I think you're full of baloney. You think elected officials should talk about faith if their beliefs comport with yours. Your mention of civil rights is especially wry, given how clearly you think gays don't deserve any.

And, again, you hold forth about what scripture does and does not teach, as though we are all on the same page. But the thing about faith is that it is incredibly personal, and unless you have a problem with an especially vexing sin, you don't hold forth that yours is more valid than anyone else's. Once you embark on that path, you end up in all sorts of crazy places, like deciding the Bible isn't conservative enough. (I really, really wish I were making that last thing up, but the link speaks for itself.)

And, since we're talking about advice that should be heeded, I would direct you to some from Paul.