While I commend President Obama for encouraging religious freedom abroad at the National Prayer Breakfast, it is rather ironic for the President to be making such comments when domestically we are suffering from great abuses of religious freedom. The President also made statements which may have sounded pro-life in nature, though certainly the pro-abortion head of state was not referring to the unborn. He also mentioned issues on his political agenda such as gay rights and climate change.
While it is noteworthy that the president mentioned the plight of Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is being held in prison in Iran for his Christian faith, by name, time will tell how much the Obama administration acts on this urgent matter. After all, words are just words. And, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), who represents Saeed’s home state, recently criticized the U.S. State department for not doing enough. We can hope that with the president’s call to action, more efforts will be made to release Pastor Saeed, as well as countless others being targeted for their faith.
During his speech, Obama made the eloquent point that “[e]ven as our faith sustains us, it’s clear that around the world freedom of religion is under threat. That’s what I want to reflect on this morning.”
Such a point would have been even more worthwhile to hear if Obama recognized that “religion is under threat” in our nation. If nowhere else, the President has the power to ensure that all here enjoy one of our most fundamental rights in the United States. Instead, the Obama administration has forced organizations and employers to provide and fund contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations which they have religious and moral objections against. Loyal Americans are forced to choose between obeying their President to remain in business, or their faith.
While there may be pressing concerns of religion freedom abroad, one cannot deny that we are having such issues here at home, in a nation which is supposed to be a beacon of light and example of freedom and liberty for others to follow.
Ben Johnson for LifeSiteNews.com highlights another cause for concern during the president’s speech:
Still another portion of the speech generated controversy. While many welcomed the President’s decision to highlight religious-based violence, much of it directed against Christians, as well as his use of the term “freedom of religion” in place of “freedom of worship,” Americans say his enforcement of the HHS mandate represents a threat to freedom of conscience in its own right.
Perhaps such a substitution to “freedom of worship” in the past has been no accident then considering how much this administration has trampled over our religious freedom and conscience with its unrelenting HHS mandate.
The President professes to be a Christian, though Johnson also brings up instances in which Obama has spoken positively about Islam.
President Obama is known for his support of gay marriage as well as abortion rights, for any reason and throughout all nine months. The President is very much at odds on these two issues with many traditional Christians and others of faith.
From LifeSiteNews.com:
The President’s remarks this morning instead appeared designed to denigrate traditional Christians who hold to the faith’s consistent teachings on homosexuality, placing them on the same level as Islamic fundamentalist extremists.
“We sometimes see religion twisted in an attempt to justify hatred and persecution against other people just because of who they are, or how they pray, or who they love,” Obama said today.
The President makes quite the blunder then in claiming that religion is “twisted in an attempt to justify hatred and persecution against other people just because… who they love.” He misunderstands the point of opposing gay marriage then, as well as makes the gross assumption that those committed to traditional marriage also hate and persecute homosexuals.
But perhaps the largest kind of hypocrisy comes in the form of Obama’s comments on “killing the innocent.”
The President mentioned that:
Extremists succumb to an ignorant nihilism that shows they don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess — for the killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will; in fact, it’s the ultimate betrayal of God’s will.
Barack Obama could very much be talking about himself then. If he is to call himself a true believer and follower of Christ, he cannot support abortion. For him to do so shows that he is part of those who “don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess.” Who can be more innocent than a baby in his mother’s womb? Yet Obama betrays God’s will in his unrelenting support for abortion rights, as well as his previous call for God to “bless Planned Parenthood.”
It is fortunate that the President has highlighted the plight of many facing persecution for their faith abroad. We can hope that his words will lead to action. But perhaps he should focus on repairing the religious freedom he has abused here at home.
Comment by Marco Bell on February 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Abortion is legal and should remain the sole decision of the pregnant woman.
Everybody else should stay out of ‘her’ womb!
It would be wrong to expect our President to deny any woman her right as an American to act on her own personal beliefs and needs.
After all, it’s her life that is in question, not her fetus. Lots of living things don’t come to term.
I wish all the energy that the “anti-choice” crowd pours into the abortion issue, would spend half of that energy on something that belongs to them, and not the personal property of others!
Comment by Rebecca Downs on February 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Marco, you make an interesting case. Just because abortion is legal though, does not mean that it should be. What is in that pregnant woman’s womb? Another human being, with his or her own body parts and DNA which makes them a separate, unique person.
The unborn child is not a matter of “personal property” but a separate person, no matter that we cannot actually see them outside the womb just yet.
To say that “[l]ots of living things don’t come to term” may be true, but nevertheless is a non sequitur. It does not give any of us the right to play God and terminate the life of an innocent, unborn child.
Also, why wouldn’t those who are against abortion spend time and energy on this issue when this is the issue they are passionate about…?
Comment by Marco Bell on February 24, 2014 at 10:15 am
Rebecca, you are quite right about the passion for a cause being sufficient credo for involvement. Thus the vigorous debate among ALL points of view.
However, we ‘slice’ it, the point at which we each determine the unborn’s status as autonomous, and not an integral part of the Mother, is where I find the crux of the issue to rest. But then, I don’t have a womb, so I feel it isn’t my right to ever tell a woman that she must carry her pregnancy to term.
It is still a freedom of choice issue in my view.
Comment by Rebecca Downs on February 26, 2014 at 10:05 am
Marco, I can understand the position about not telling a woman what to do with her body. After all, that’s why it is wrong for a man to rape a woman. But a real man should stand up for the other body that is inside the woman’s womb, especially if it is that of his own child, which he too had a role in in creating. Abortion also hurts women, and oftentimes it is a man who coerces her into getting one.