At his National Prayer Breakfast address yesterday, President Obama declared, “Now, we can earnestly seek to see these values lived out in our politics and our policies, and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values. In the words of C.S. Lewis, ‘Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program. It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.’ Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical.”
These are wise words. I only wish Obama believed them.
Because in the same speech in which he quoted Lewis, Obama also said this:
And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.
For Obama to move from the Biblical injunction that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required” to higher marginal tax rates on those making $250,000 or more is laughable theology. Why draw the line at $250,000? Why not draw it at $125,000? Or $500,000? And why doesn’t Obama, in the name of Jesus, propose increasing the highest marginal tax rates to 90 percent? In fact, why doesn’t he endorse a plan for the government to take over people’s property and their life savings and distribute it to the poor under the banner of “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required”? Why doesn’t he propose a plan to take money from Americans making $25,000 a year in order to send it to people in Africa making a dollar a day? And why doesn’t St. Barack, in order to set an example for us all, commit that his net worth will never exceed $1 million? Or perhaps the argument being made by the president is that if we read the book of Acts carefully enough, we’ll find that God’s preferred tax rate just happens to be the one championed by Obama.
My point in this exercise is to illustrate what a ludicrous dart game Obama is playing. But it’s actually worse than that. What the president is doing is using the Scriptures to advance a transparently partisan political agenda, and he did so in a setting where past presidents have traditionally stayed away from such stunts.
To be clear: I believe, and have long argued, that people’s faith should help shape their political ethics. But I have also written that Scripture does not provide a governing blueprint and that, while whether the top marginal tax rate should be 70 percent, 40 percent, or 28 percent is a serious public policy issue, neither the New Testament nor the Hebrew Bible sheds light on the matter. The Christian ethicist Paul Ramsey put it best when he said, “Identification of Christian social ethics with specific partisan proposals that clearly are not the only ones that may be characterized as Christian and as morally acceptable comes close to the original New Testament meaning of heresy.”
In the vast majority of cases, what we are talking about are prudential judgments about competing priorities, and we need to approach them with humility and open minds. No president, even Barack Obama, should pretend his tax policies have been chiseled on stone tablets delivered to him on Mt. Sinai.
It’s no secret that Obama, in order to win re-election, is attempting to divide us by class. But that, apparently, is too restrictive a category for Obama. Now he wants to divide us based on faith, portraying his position on taxes as consistent with the teaching and spirit of Jesus and those who oppose his agenda as being anti-Christian (as well as anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish).
Barack Obama, in his quest for re-election, is as eager to vulgarize and dumb down Christianity as Jerry Falwell was. I wonder if any of those on the left, especially liberal Christians, will express a word of public criticism or concern. Or might it be their real concerns have less to do with preserving the integrity of their faith and more to do with advancing a narrow partisan agenda?
We’ll know soon enough.
There will be no criticism because everyone knows Obama's faking it. He could start talking in tongues and they would yawn. It's interesting that when Obama lists religions he usually mentions islam before Judaism and yesterday was no exception.
Extremely well said, Mr. Wehner. And thank you, because I did not trust myself to comment. n nWondering what kind of a backlash is brewing for our vulgar campaigner-in-chief… between this heresy and the other deliberate fight he seems to be picking with Catholics. Where it is all leading I do not know, except that I hope it helps open the eyes of voters who might lead him to the door and give him a kick off the porch next November.
Jesus is just lucky he's not running for president. he is also quoted as saying, as he dismissed his disciples' concern that a woman was using expensive oil to anoint his feet, "the poor will always be with us." n nimagine if the DNC got hold of that soundbite!
Michigan. Jesus said that in regards to Mary pouring expensive perfume as a pre burial ritual. I am sick and tired of christians taking one verse out of context when the rest of the Prophets and Jesus' teachings. Go to Biblegateway.org and search for poor, greed, rich, or bribe. You will see that Jesus economic teachings are liberal. I hate Obama's policies on abortion but I also hate the conservatives policies on economics. They take there cue from the atheist Ayn Rand.
"Because in the same speech in which he quoted Lewis, Obama also said this…." n nI can't remember a speech in which Obama did not compromise his own prescriptions in similar fashion, often within the space of mere paragraphs. If streamlining government is not sufficient to a problem, eliminating waste and inefficiency is the answer. Republicans are the only thing standing in the way of Presidential consensus building. n nAlas, there is nothing so sacred that it cannot be shaped to Obama's imagined advantage, if, indeed, there is anything at all that won't be. In last week's SOTU homily, even non-partisan military heroes were retooled to fit the Community Organizer in Chief's sales pitch. Obama has built his career on attaching himself to other people's achievements like a leech.
Mr. Wehner had me agreeing till he took a cheap shot at Mr. Falwell who was a sincer and devout man. Then I turned Wehner off. Cheap shots are for the opposition.
I agree with JMHanes, President Obama has no record of personal achievement. I think the term narcissistic applies to him very well.
Look up the medical term MALIGNANT Narcissist, and see how much BETTER that applies.
Jeremiah 22:13 Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness and his [upper] chambers by injustice, who uses his neighbor's service without wages and does not give him his pay [for his work], n nHellOooo'bama
What stupid foolishness!r nReligion is nothing more than a scam to cheat hard working people of their money.The only people who benefit are the leeches like you who get free housing,transport,food maid service and other such benefits!Get a real job!r nThink of all the benefits to society if man had never invented religion!r nPeople might actually live their own lives instead of trying to control how other people live.r nMyles.
"To whom much is given …." n nWell, if GOD gives "much" to me, then He certainly has a right to demand much from me. n nBut neither government nor Obama – especially not Obama – is God. n nTranslated from the nonsense, here's what Obama is saying …. n n"If you have 'much' – as I define it – you owe it to me."
Nice snow ball logic there, with your examples of taking ever greater amounts from the wealthy. What Obama is saying is why is it OK for people like Mitt Romney to pay less than 15% on their income while public school teachers, construction workers, nurses, and basically everyone in the middle class pays a higher percentage than that. Your comments are much more divisive, and false than his. I was looking for some good, logical arguments to challenge my friends with. Guess I have to keep looking.