We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule ”“ the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.
It is an ancient rule; a simple rule; but also one of the most challenging. For it asks each of us to take some measure of responsibility for the well-being of people we may not know or worship with or agree with on every issue. Sometimes, it asks us to reconcile with bitter enemies or resolve ancient hatreds. And that requires a living, breathing, active faith. It requires us not only to believe, but to do ”“ to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.
In this way, the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. This is not only our call as people of faith, but our duty as citizens of America, and it will be the purpose of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that I’m announcing later today.
He will be about as successful as Henry Clay was.
Don
How does this square with murdering babies?
“President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama’s executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban
I predict that within 6 years President Obama will be known as “the Great Divider”.
Don
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”
Earlier (Paraphrased): “If I’m elected I’ll sign FOCA”.
So does this mean that you will defy God, Mr. Obama?
“In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
And just how does the Muslim define “brother?”
T
These are the snarkiest comments I’ve yet seen on Stand Firm. I support most on this site but not this. As much as I abhor abortion, the above commentors appear to be one trick ponies.
[i] This is NOT Stand Firm. We try to carefully monitor comments. [/i]
little searchers – it’s just hard to believe that Pres. Obama means what he says when he says “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” when we know that, as Illinois state senator, Obama voted numerous times against the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, which would have required medical care for those babies born alive due to botched abortions. Especially after the story out of Florida this week of the abortion provider actually murdering the baby, it has been brought to mind once again that Obama, based on his voting record, would have sided with letting the baby die. That might seem like a “one trick pony” but if one doesn’t intrinsically value human life, it is hard for many of us to then take seriously from that person any statements that claim to do so. As actions are more important than words, the fact that one of Pres. Obama’s first acts was to rescind the Mexico City policy and allow U.S. taxpayer money to possibly fund abortions overseas, we have a hard time believing his words at the prayer breakfast.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you outsnark one another.
I am very sad for #6 and #8 who see nothing but “snark” in legitimate questions about what the President means when he says “innocent human being.” It’s an obvious and serious question.
Tikvah, good question also. To get a “golden rule” quote from Islam, we have to go to the hadiths, not the Qur’an itself, apparently. Nor is there anything like the parable of the Good Samaritan.
This speech seems to be built along the lines of the “all religions say the same thing at their core” argument. It may be good for a generic “spiritual” gathering like this, but I don’t think it’s true. But then, Obama is not an expert on religion. In fairness, we don’t elect Presidents to be religious leaders.
Abysmal and uninformed Pick ‘n’ Choose platitudes from BO.
“The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”‘ – no, that isn’t in the Torah (nor in Job – I know my New Testament).
The hadiths are very dangerous territory to wander around in, no less for a man who was taken to a mosque in his childhood.
Katherine’s observation is very fair. The right to life is the foundation of ALL OTHER rights. This is the fatal weakness that undermines Obama’s rhetoric.
9 & 10 —
Except that the fact that there is a common moral outlook is part of one argument for the existence of God (who or what that God is, and whether He became incarnate and lived among us is a separate issue).
See, e.g., C.S. Lewis’s initial chapters of “Mere Christianity” or the appendix to “The Abolition of Man.”
Mr. Obama’s problem is not in articulating the concept of a universal morality. It is the way he seems to think it should apply.
Rick Warren: When does life begin?
Obama: That’s above my pay grade.
For some perspective, there were more than 11 million abortions performed in America while Bush was President.
How is that “perspective”? That’s more along the lines of “misdirection” or “equivocation”.
And Bush didn’t do anything to make it easier to get an abortion at any time, any place. Obama hadn’t been in office a week when he guaranteed that more abortions would be done under his auspices.
Kumbayah, first, second and last verses!
Everybody sing!
Had we either more knowledge of who and what our President is and thinks, or less knowledge of the bile in which he bathed himself and his family all those years at Trinity UCC, it might be a little easier to swallow this speech. Having, as many of you have, given “ecumenical” or “inter-faith” talks over the years, I recognize all the standard cliches: “the Golden Rule is universal in all religions”, “religious conflicts are the source of most violence”, “We can all meet together as children of the same God and just talk out our differences”, etc., etc., etc. Mr Obama’s speechwriter (surely no one believes he actually writes his own stuff!) hit all the points in the standard script. The problem, as others on this string have pointed out, is that Mr Obama’s actions before assuming the office are not consistent with his words. Even his “Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” is a clever conflation of religious efforts to relieve suffering with ACORN-style rabble-rousing and vote rigging. Note how Mr. O describes the office: “The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another – or even religious groups over secular groups.” No, it will just be one big orgy of hustling after grants and writing compliance reports that no one will bother to read…or believe.
As Charles Krauthammer (in an editorial that should have been posted on this blog) so eloquently put it: “After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.â€
A good presentation, I think.
Jim K, You sound pretty upset that Obama is expanding the office – and office that Bush created. You ask, “surely we don’t believe he writes is own speeches.” Why? I would bet he writes more than the previous president, given that he’s actually written two books. He does have a speechwriter. It sounds as if you think Obama is a dumb guy.
If anything Obama has been clear he’s just a human being. But, as one Republican has mentioned, he’s given them more respect than Bush did in his eight years. And Obama has been far more public in two weeks than Bush was in his entire time. He’s already holding a press conference this evening.
From an article on [url=http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=849]State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing[/url]:
[blockquote]there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states. …
[b]Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed [i]federal Freedom of Choice Act[/i], which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion.[/b][/blockquote]
Mr Wilkins,
Kindly spare me your analyses of my emotional state. If you would like to comment on the substance of my posting, do so by all means.
To say that I disagree with the substance of your posting regarding President Bush’s openness and respect as compared to the not-quite three weeks of the present administration would be an understatement. My interpretation of the fact that Mr. O is holding a prime time televised news conference this early in the administration is evidence that he really doesn’t know how to do anything else but run for office. His pattern has been to get one office and then immediately begin running for the next…while voting “present.” The office to which he’s been elected is not “present” but President.
With regard to your emotional state, that is a matter for you and your physician or other counselor.
[i] Mr. O is holding a prime time televised news conference this early in the administration [because] he really doesn’t know how to do anything else but run for office [/i] —Jim K [#18]
Confident, articulate presidents hold press conferences early and often. Presidents who lack confidence—e.g., because they are thin-skinned, tongue-tied, factually challenged, or afraid of the questions—avoid press conferences to the extent they can.
If you were right in suggesting that early press conferences belie a lack of substance, then we’d expect to see presidents hold more press conferences more frequently as their terms go on. That has not (as best I can tell) been the case. The longer presidents remain in office, the more likely they are to be concerned that exposing themselves to reporters’ questions might do more harm than good.
#19
Mr O has revealed himself, tonight and earlier, as a thin-skinned, arrogant, brittle little hot house flower who has never been subjected to the kind of abuse and calumny his worthier predecessor suffered for eight years at the hands of people, like yourself, who were unworthy to clean the bottom of his shoes with their tongues. When he is exposed to half that much hatred, Mr Zerobama will fold like the proverbial house of cards. Sadly, his and our real enemies: Achmadenijad, Putin, Chavez, Kim, etc. can see the weakness and shallowness of our President and draw their own conclusions. You, on the other hand, can continue to live with your delusions; at least for a while longer.
[i]Mr O … has never been subjected to the kind of abuse and calumny his worthier predecessor suffered for eight years at the hands of [b] people, like yourself, who were unworthy to clean the bottom of his shoes with their tongues[/b][/i] —Jim K [#20]
Jim, do you consider that comment worthy of a Christian?
#20. heh – I’m just noting your resentment toward Obama. It’s pretty clear. Do you want to be in that category of “unworthy” people who abuse their presidents? “Zerobama” is a classy way to enter that club. He’s probably been called lots of names, lacking the silver spoon that the previous president was born with. The previous president did a pretty good job of calling other people lots of nicknames.
We don’t know if or when Obama will be exposed to that much hatred. His approval ratings are still pretty high, for a president that has taken on something so controversial. They’re higher than the Republicans at this point. And I admit I’m perplexed by his eagerness to befriend them, after all, he doesn’t need their votes. He does seem to treat Republicans a lot better than Bush did. Or is that “weakness” in your book?
“Sadly, his and our real enemies: Achmadenijad, Putin, Chavez, Kim, etc. can see the weakness and shallowness of our President and draw their own conclusions.”
What are you talking about? Do you know these guys personally? Look, I know how this works. When he fights back, you call him “hot headed” and “arrogant” rather than weak. When he demonstrates he knows his stuff, you call him an “elitist.” Same old stuff.
A press conference shows that he feels accountable to the people of the United States rather than simply congress. That’s a good thing.
Look, you might want to read what Mr. Gates and General Jim Jones have to say about Obama. They aren’t exactly wimps.
One commenter here (JW) is consistently comparing the present and past Presidents, the new one being better in his opinion. I think the current President should be judged on the basis of his own talk and actions, and I think the antagonistic snark directed at the past one should be ignored.
The point, where the discussion of this news item began, is that to large numbers of Christians there is a jarring disconnect between the defense of “innocent life” and the support of unlimited abortion on demand.
I’d also like to add that making snarky remarks about the present occupant of the White House because the other side was so nasty to the last one is childish. I reserve the right to criticize Obama when I disagree with what he says or does. It looks like that’s going to be most of the time, but that’s no reason to be using childish language, especially not if I want my criticisms to be taken seriously. I found it hard to take much of the criticism of Bush seriously because it was so often clothed in virulent personal dislike.