I’m not going to comment on the theological aspects of Alexander LaBrecque’s American Thinker piece on Obama’s religion, but rather focus on this passage:
Another change concerns his attendance at Trinity for twenty years. Before he decided Wright was wrong for his campaign, he had emphasized his strong connection with the church that he attended regularly. But in July 2008 he told Newsweek that “[he] didn’t hear a lot of sermons at Trinity,” that at the beginning he attended “fairly frequently,” much less when his children were born, then “probably twice a month” as they grew older. But “there was quite a big chunk of time, especially during the [2004] Senate race where we might not have gone to Trinity for two, three months at a time” because the venue of other churches’ services was “one of the most effective ways for us to campaign.” In Falsani’s 2004 interview — just after he had won his party’s nomination — Obama said he attends Trinity “every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.”[9]
At issue is not his church attendance, but his pattern of deceit.
Personally, I think that someone may be, for example, a Christian existentialist and still be a Christian. But the fact is that Obama wishes to make his Christianity, whatever that may mean to him, by representing it as what it means to many other, particularly Evangelical, Christians. It’s just not.
This is not putting on Christ as in the Pauline injunction; Christ, this is just a put-on.
Comment by BJTex on 10/15 @ 1:58 pm #
Which highlights the problem with both the McCain campaign and others in that they are focusing on the characters like Ayers and Wright and not focusing on the the more direct and important issue: The fact that he’s lied through his teeth about his depth of associations.
It’s the lying, people!
Comment by sdferr on 10/15 @ 2:41 pm #
I agree, BJT, one of the greatest problems with Obama is the lying. But is it merely his associations (which I prefer to describe as alliances) he lies about? What about his claim to have a vision of a more just society than the society we live in today?
He has been making this claim for himself for a long time; pointing to this vision (hard for me to describe with any greater clarity than that because he won’t be more forthcoming) as the driving force behind his desire to take power in government. But the concept is nebulous beyond belief. He gives us no concrete explanations as to how he sees this future world of his dreams. Is he unable to tell us with any precision because he hasn’t thought about the question? Or is he unable to tell us because we may disagree with his vision, either of the present world from which he begins or with his posited future world and on that basis reject him as a leader?
How will human affairs be altered? What will he propose to change our ordinary behaviors? “White folks greed runs a world in need”, he says, as he gins his vision into existence. What does this tell us about the world in which we live? What does it tell us about the mechanisms of his more just society to come? Not much about either one, I would submit.
A solid theory of the world (or any particular aspect of it) ought to be highly consistent with broad and detailed explanatory power. As an example, I’d point to the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, growing leaps and bounds with every passing day. I notice that proponents of theories like this are eager to show these powers to others; they are not shy about making conjectures and following questions wherever they may lead, chasing after even the slightest intricate detail precisely to demonstrate this explanatory power and in finding error, strengthen the theory further.
Obama’s suggestion of a better way, a better world has none of this. His vision, as far as I can see, explains nothing. He runs from explanation, he waves his hands vaguely in the air and leaves all the fill-in to be done by his “believers”, who, not surprisingly, are all over the lot.
This is the behavior of a charlatan. And with a charlatan, in for a dime, in for a dollar.