Warren asked Obama a two-part question. First, what was Obama’s greatest moral failing and, second, what is America’s greatest moral failing? The senator’s answer to the first part was the expected “youthful drinking and drug dabbling” response. No big whoop. But I found his answer to the second half of the question quite interesting. Here’s what he said:
I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of ”” that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having ”” not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There’s a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of us.
Now, I’m going to set aside the whole issue of whether or not it’s the government’s responsibility to take care of a nation’s poor. (Here’s a hint: I think it’s the people’s responsibility, as in you and me.) That’s a discussion for another day when I feel like quoting P. J. O’Rourke a lot. What’s really intriguing is that Obama bases his answer on a Bible verse, specifically Matthew 25:40.
Why is this intriguing?
Have you not been paying attention for the last couple of decades?
There’s been an all-out war against using any type of Judeo-Christian principles as a basis for public policy. Can’t even mention such ideals in the public arena without getting attacked by the ACLU or the ironically named People for the American Way. You know, the folks who equate a plaque of the Ten Commandments hanging on public property with the federal government establishing a national religion. I guess those buildings that have pictures of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton on display are endorsing thievery, lying and adultery. But I digress.
So the question of this post’s title remains. Will the ACLU and other organizations of similar ilk stand for this egregious intrusion of religion upon the body politic? Will they rise, en masse, to defend those, such as myself, who are unable to defend ourselves from the subtle encroachment of morality upon our lives? Will they take Mr. Obama to task and insist that he base his views purely on secular philosophies?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Later,
Fox
Interesting point. However, Obama’s statement only infers, rather than indicts, the government’s failings, per se. America the country can fail just as America the government can fail. And I think the country (the communities of people that are raising it’s children) is allowed to employ whatever religious or philosophical doctrines necessary to lead us down a path toward peace, justice and equity. It’s when government money (money they got from me and my multi-religious bretheren) is funneled into specific religions or when the governing body appears to be endorsing a religion that the ACLU gets persnickety – the country was founded with freedom in mind. Freedom, specifically, to practice whatever faith works for you. And what works for Obama in his daily life and community is just fine.
When religion shapes policy, you get the Taliban.
I would concede your point if, in fact, Obama could separate the concept of “America” from that of “American government.” Which is something I don’t think he can or wants to do. And, in fact, the government has indeed failed the poor in very nearly every instance in which the feds have tried to quote-unquote help them.
As far as the ACLU and its ilk goes, I’m sorry, but they do not in any way, shape or form wait for money to be funneled to religious organizations before throwing around lawsuits and cries of discrimination. They latch onto the text that reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but fail to continue on reading “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” So when a non-government official, say a valedictorian, is forbidden from praying or even mentioning God during a commencement speech, that’s going too far. It’s supposed to be freedom of religion, not freedom from being exposed to it. For example, if a Buddhist or Muslim were to be the valedictorian, would it be okay for them to speak of their faiths? I say yes. Sadly, the ACLU would say yes, too, but only because they are Christian or Jewish.
Freedom means risking, and at times even inviting, offense. It’s a small price to pay.
True. The ACLU has taken “politically correct” and turned it into a weapon, and defiled the term “Liberal” in new and complicated ways as a result.
A weapon with a hair trigger.