An New Mexico event on the economy took a turn for the personal yesterday when a woman asked President Barack Obama about his Christian faith and views on abortion:
Q: One of them is basically — Mother Teresa answered it in an article and I was going to ask you the same because I loved her answer. The first one is: Why are you a Christian?
Second one is, there’s really no laws about the abortion law and when a woman can and can’t have an abortion, whether it’s two months or eight months, and what is your view on that?
President Obama: You know, I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t — frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church.
So I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.
And I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace.
And so that’s what I strive to do. That’s what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith. And it’s — but the one thing I want to emphasize, having spoken about something that obviously relates to me very personally, as President of the United States, I’m also somebody who deeply believes that the — part of the bedrock strength of this company is that it embraces people of many faiths and of no faith — that this is a country that is still predominantly Christian. But we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and that their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own. And that’s part of what makes this country what it is.
Now, with respect to the abortion issue, I actually think — I mean, there are laws both federal, state and constitutional that are in place. And I think that this is an area where I think Bill Clinton had the right formulation a couple of decades ago, which is abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I think that it’s something that all of us should recognize is a difficult, sometimes — oftentimes tragic situation that families are wrestling with.
I think the families and the women involved are the ones who should make the decision, not the government. But I do think actually that there are a whole host of laws on the books that after a certain period, the interests shift such that you can have some restrictions, for example, on late-term abortions, and appropriately so. So there is in fact a set of rules in place.
Now, people still argue about it and still deeply disagree about it. And that’s part of our — that’s part of our democratic way.
Thoughts?
(Via: Touchstone)
September 29th, 2010 | 10:31 am
Here would have been my follow-up question:
You say you want abortion to be rare. Currently almost 1 in 4 pregnancies in America ends in abortion. What would you consider “rare”, and what concrete steps will you take to help reduce the abortion rate.
(And when he answered that he would increase access to sex education and contraception I would ask him to provide examples of such programs at the state or national level that have demonstrably lowered abortion rates.)
September 29th, 2010 | 10:53 am
Whether or not this is evidence of Obama’s truth faith or not I won’t say, but it is striking that he is unable to (or unwilling) to link the ideas of faith, sin and Jesus’ atonement with the most egregious evil of our time (if not all time).
September 29th, 2010 | 10:57 am
What’s new? He just lies. The master – regulator knows there are virtually no regulations on abortion in this nation. People actually believe we have stopped partial-birth abortion, but we haven’t even been able to do that.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:01 am
Yes, I saw the headline about Pres. Obama and his decision to be a Christian. I didn’t read the article because I know he supports the abortion business. And of course, he is not the only Christian to support the abortion business. Someone should ask VP Biden how his Catholic faith encourages him in his support for the abortion business. What will he say?
September 29th, 2010 | 11:07 am
“But we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and that their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own.”
This sentence is bizarre. According to Obama I must not only tolerate atheists, but I must revere and respect atheism as much as I do Christianity. Also, what exactly is an atheist’s “path to grace”? Do atheists not deny the possibility of transcendent grace?
This is a classic example of Obama rhetoric. Sounds good unless you subject it to even the slightest scrutiny, after which it rapidly falls to pieces.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Sound and fury.
September 29th, 2010 | 11:35 am
My first thought is that it is just political pandering, that was my first thought when “W” would do religious talk, but when I feel tempted to question someone’s profession of faith, the scripture that comes to mind is:
Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
September 29th, 2010 | 12:43 pm
“But I do think actually that there are a whole host of laws on the books that after a certain period, the interests shift such that you can have some restrictions, for example, on late-term abortions, and appropriately so.”
Rather than give his opinion, he just states that there are laws in place, except where he lets it slip that laws restricting late-term abortions are appropriate to have.
So the follow up question is, “Then why, oh, WHY, are those restrictions appropriate but a law protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion are inappropriate?”
What a disingenuous fool.
September 29th, 2010 | 12:47 pm
John Hinshaw,
It’s not accurate to say that his answer is a lie. There are federal and state laws that regulate abortion. Of course, both you and I (and most Americans) agree that these regulations are not sufficient and are not restrictive enough, but the fact of their existence is incontestable.
What is interesting in his answer (although not surprising) is his insistence that there are not only state and federal laws but also “constitutional” laws regulating abortion. The clear implication here, exemplified in his reference to Roe’s “compelling interest” language, is that the Supreme Court’s ruminations on rights that emanate from the penumbra of the constitution are laws and regulations equivalent (or superior!) to actual regulations enacted by legislatures.
September 29th, 2010 | 12:50 pm
Maybe this is nitpicking, but if Jesus’ precepts are what attracted him, how is that he gets one of the most obvious ones fundamentally wrong –
“treating others as they would treat me.”
That’s actually the opposite of the Golden Rule. I realize it could be a mistake, but it’s a little worrisome when the accurate version is so well-known.
It’s not that I really believe that he believes that the precept is that we should treat others as they would treat us, it’s that such a fundamental misstatement of what he claims is a central thing attracting him to Christianity just increases the suspicion that it’s all blather, not real conviction. Normally, something so dear to someone doesn’t get misstated, because of its deep internal familiarity. I realize misstatements of that kind DO happen — it’s just unlikely enough to make you wonder.
September 29th, 2010 | 1:10 pm
The foundational issue remains the definition of what is aborted – let us never get sidetracked from that.
“I think the families and the women involved are the ones who should make the decision, not the government. But I do think actually that there are a whole host of laws on the books that after a certain period, the interests shift such that you can have some restrictions, for example, on late-term abortions, and appropriately so. So there is in fact a set of rules in place.”
This is incoherent doublespeak – either intentionally or because he really is trying to reconcile concepts which can’t be reconciled. Here’s why: If it is not a human person then no restrictions need be in place at all. If on the other hand it is a human person, then no, the ‘decision’ to abort should be neither the family’s, nor the mother’s, nor the government’s.
September 29th, 2010 | 3:23 pm
“Normally, something so dear to someone doesn’t get misstated, because of its deep internal familiarity.”
You mean like saying, “I have visited 57 states.” (I think he added “and I have one or two more to visit,” but I’m not absolutely sure about that. It was sort of mumbled.)
Or when he said to George Stephanopolis “my Muslim faith”, and it was called “a slip of the tongue.” In all of my years and in all the years of every Christian I know, no one’s tongue has ever “slipped” in that direction.
September 29th, 2010 | 4:27 pm
He sounds just like the column in our local paper that we get from the Unitarian minister once a month. “Everyone must find their own path to The Holy”.
And would someone please ask why, if abortion is “safe and legal”, it needs to be rare.
September 29th, 2010 | 4:52 pm
Abortion – the only decision ‘the government’ doesn’t have an opinion on (except to encourage and fund it)
September 29th, 2010 | 5:18 pm
Robert – And would someone please ask why, if abortion is “safe and legal”, it needs to be rare.
Lots of medical interventions should be all three. Even if someone thinks of abortion in terms of a medical intervention, they can still want it to be rare.
September 30th, 2010 | 9:16 am
You mean like saying, “I have visited 57 states.”
Golly, do think he might have been tired and meant to say “47,” as in “almost 50″?
Or when he said to George Stephanopolis “my Muslim faith”, and it was called “a slip of the tongue.” In all of my years and in all the years of every Christian I know, no one’s tongue has ever “slipped” in that direction.
It didn’t slip in that direction. He was saying that McCain had never accused him of being a Muslim and he made a syntax error.
September 30th, 2010 | 10:53 am
Ray, it’s not like an operation to remove a cancerous tumor. It’s a choice that doesn’t have to be made. The “rare” qualifier is just a sly way of saying you know it’s a bad idea but we should let it happen anyway.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
Obama is a moral therapeutic deist, like most Americans, and indeed like most nominal Christians. He has the instincts of a politician, and so it should not surprise that he should speechify like one, even in an answer to a deeply personal question.
Even compared with his staid father, George W. Bush was the outlier, a man of obviously deep personal faith, so much that he had to do the opposite of Obama: Whereas the current president must be encouraged to appear faithful, the former president had to restrain himself from speaking so personally about Jesus Christ.
For those of us who unabashedly love Christ, it is obviously easier to identify with Bush. But there is nothing scandalous about Obama. He is entirely typical. The chief articulator of the nation’s true faith. If he’s not its pope, he’s certainly a preacher.
September 30th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
Ray:
Here’s a corollary to Robert’s question: If a “medical intervention” for pregnancy is a matter of “choice”, and it is safe and legal, why on earth would it ever be rare?
October 2nd, 2010 | 1:57 pm
With all respect to B.H. Obama,his character, words, attitude, and religious lifestyle dos not reflect that he is a foolower of JESUS CHRIST at all. He will say anything to win people but people are smarter than he gives them the credit.
Rorie
October 4th, 2010 | 1:11 pm
Ah, the American Pope has spoken on two fundamental issues, Faith and Sin! First he strips Christianity to less than optimum “the brotherhood of man” and for Sin, well it is legislated but should be rare… Does our erudite, intellectual President actually hear himself think before he speaks?
Mr President, if achieving salvation is through a grace of God, how then are you going to help them find “their own grace”? I have a grace, you have your grace, he has his grace… and God has His grace… hmmm do atheists have grace? Or is the absence of grace, well grace itself?
I am confused… Thought the writing of Pope Benedict were tough read!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact