I have perused the President’s Notre Dame speech. In one sense, it is a model for how to deal with a controversy and how to win people’s hearts. In another sense, it is mere words, not backed up by actions.
While some will point to the speech as moderate, if you look carefully, you still notice a shrillness when it comes to issues of capitalism, climate change, and other liberal causes. On the economy, it places all the blame on greedy capitalists, none on greedy congressmen. With regard to the climate, he uses scare tactics when he claims the world is on the brink of destruction. Where is the balance there, as many scientists do not believe those dire warnings?
Then he says that no one person, religion, or nation can meet these challenges. I can agree completely with the no-one-person part, partly with the no-one-nation, but not at all with the no-one-religion. Christianity is the only solution to all of man’s problems, both spiritual and material [primarily because they can never be separated].
He then turns to cultural divides, and attempts to paint a picture of opposing sides, both earnestly and honestly committed to their points of view. He equates the evangelical pastor with the gay activist. You see, they are simply two honest people with different perspectives. This is the essence of modern-day pluralism, an approach that does not believe there is a truth; rather, there are many truths that can co-exist with each other.
That leads to the major controversy over his appearance at Notre Dame—abortion. Yes, he deals with it, but in the same context as he does all other cultural divides—we just have a disagreement and we need to respect one another. Obama works hard to convince the audience [and the audience seems to be convinced] that he does respect the pro-life position. He promises to make adoption more available and to allow liberty of conscience for healthcare workers who don’t believe in abortion. Sounds good.
So why is he then considering wiping out that liberty of conscience? Why has every action he has taken since becoming president made abortion more available and more supported by taxpayer money?
If we have any critical thinking ability at all, we have to question his commitment to respect for pro-life people. He even goes on to talk about how he came to Christ. As I’ve noted before, his idea of being a Christian is a theologically liberal position tinged with radical liberation theology. Based on his own words, faith in Christ is not the only way to God. Therefore, I cannot be impressed with his “faith.”
And his heartfelt remembrances of working alongside Catholics as a community organizer does not offer real hope. Odds are the Catholics who embraced him were the radicals within the church who deny their own church’s teachings.
He concludes with high-sounding words, but includes certain zingers toward those who disagree with him: “talking heads” who “scream on cable” and “blogs that claim definitive knowledge.”
The mainstream media will praise him for this speech and use it to contrast with those on the other side of the cultural divide: why can’t you people be as moderate and approachable as this wonderful man?
President Obama offered what he always offers: words, mere words. The Scripture reminds us that we will know a man by the fruit of his life, not by his mere words.