In a recent address to the UN Human Right’s Council, Obama declared that America was guilty of several human rights violations. However these human rights are not the same things we would normally (meaning historically) associate with human rights. Instead, Obama’s list of our violations of human rights is very telling when it comes to the sense of entitlement and corresponding push for bigger and bigger government.
When President Obama stands up and tells the nation that we should “focus more on the ‘hard sciences'” and then a few weeks later decries the “immorality” of the executive bonuses taken at AiG, I wonder if he recognizes the contradiction, or at least insufficiency, in his logic.
He can’t have his cake and eat it too, a fact he would understand if he had studied philosophy and the logical paradox such a situation creates. No, philosophy isn’t considered a “hard science” and much less theology, something which I am sure our pluralistic president would certinly shy away from (for over a decade in the case of his former pastor whom he has left under the bus).
Why is it that we demand academic excellence and rigerously thought out answers only when it comes to the “hard sciences” and not when it comes to morality? Are we really afraid that if we look very hard we just might see a divine lawgiver we are accountable to behind the moral laws we like to throw up when it is convienent? The same one who also tells us to first examine ourselves for greed, malice, and lust before throwing the (tax) book at someone else?
A friend of mine recently recounted his disagreement with his son over their political choices, specifically Barak Obama and his struggle to explain to his son why Obama’s plans and ideals are incompatable with their shared Christian faith.
The specific problem with Obama’s ideals, and hence their appeal to a wide range of people, is their focus on the philosophical view that the individual, and his or her rights and pleasure, is the pinnacle of importance.
This philosophy colors every aspect of what we know commonly as Liberalism however it isn’t all that new for one needs not look very hard into history to find the selfish “it’s all about me” attitude permeating history and streathcing as far back as Genesis 3.
Is it any wonder, then that Obama and his camp speaks so much about the individual and so little about objective good (which presupposes that the individual isn’t of primary importance)? Is it any wonder why we hear the R word (responsibility) so little and the E word (entitlement) so much?
The only thing that befuddles me is why people would think that such a philosophy could be compatable with Jesus’s teachings. Do people really not pay that much attention to ideas and the consequences they have?
My friend’s initial question was whether I thought Obama to be the anti-Christ. While I wouldn’t start painting horns on his head just yet, I will maintain that his current philosophy (which, as his conduct suggests is subject to change according to his audience) is against Christ (hence anti-Christ in the sense of 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7) and the ideals he stood, and consequently died, for.
BTW: This underlying philosophy is also why the overwhelming majority of liberals tend to not give as much to charity or actually lift a finger to help others in any real sense (other than superficial hand-outs).