Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Is Obama trying to omit God from American History? Again

Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker writes:

Obama omits 'Creator' from Declaration rights language again

He's done it again! President Obama has removed "Creator" from the language of the Declaration of Independence when citing the rights with which we are endowed -- by God, as the Declaration tells us. From the website, the text of the President's remarks to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 18:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

He did this before on September 15th, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute:

After President Obama says "created equal..", there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times. For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter. It looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says. (video here).

Both times, he was speaking before political groups of his supporters.

Once could be a mistake, but twice is a pattern. Acknowledging that our rights come from a power higher than government or himself seems to rankle this man who claims the power to halt the rise of the seas.

Its actually the third time now. There were two in the last article here. The first was at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala on Sept. 15, then the second was when he was speaking at a Sept. 22 fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) at the Roosevelt Hotel and now this one. I think the last line of Thomas Lifson's article sums this up well.


  1. Good of you to keep an eye on this. Thanks! It's a sad but important trail to follow.

  2. I have a friend who wants to see where Obama declared his power to control the seas. I replied:

    I believe the text on which Lifson was riffing is this:

    "I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are wi...lling to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; *this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow* and our planet began to heal…."

    A writer, Lifson is ending his piece with a rhetorical flourish. If the complaint is that Lifson is misstating what Obama actually said, well, that's a sweet irony, since the entire point of Lifson's article (rather than the tiny rhetorical coda) is that Obama has publicly misstated on at least two occasions what the US Constitution says about the created endowment of our equality. Forest, trees. Like I say, I find this an interesting specimen of political behavior.

    She then objected: "Obama did not directly quote the Declaration but was rather, paraphrasing. He said 'each of us,' as well which is not part of the original text. Politicians paraphrase that and the preamble all the time. I get frustrated by Christians consistently implying that Obama is anti-Christian. He is our brother in Christ. He says he's a Christian. He walks a Christian path. Who are we to consistently call that into question?"

  3. Yeah, I believe that Obama is a Christian, but at the same time he is a liberal. And because of this he feels the need to show his alliance to liberal ideals over any religious ones, in some way he must see religion as being divisive, as so many on the left do. His Christianity is of the detached sort, not so much based on the teachings or truth of the religion, but more to do with the real world effects of said relgion, he says the thing that lead him to want to become a Christian was seeing its importance within the black community when working as a community organizer, so in some way its seems that this brand of Christianity just happened to fit in with his politics and compliment his already existing liberal beliefs, if it hadn't he more than likely would not be a Christian. In the end I feel he is a liberal first and a Christian second.

    This can be quite a common thing on the left, especially in Europe, take Christian Socialists as an example, they adapt there Christianity around there socialism, rather than letting the Bible or Christian teachings inform there economic views. They only believe in Christianity as long as it fits in with there politics.

  4. "Obama did not directly quote the Declaration but was rather, paraphrasing. He said 'each of us,' as well which is not part of the original text."

    In this case he changes it slightly, he doesn't leave out an important part of the text, but it still comes down to the the same point. Why did he leave out this specific part? My guess, because as a liberal he see's religion as being divisive and to mention God in this context, to him is to enforce your beliefs upon others. So he's willing to re-write the Founding texts and American history, through the lens of modern liberalism.

  5. Changing slightly versus omitting, a good point.

    On top of this, imagine if he had left out something like "equal" or "rights" or "self-evident" or "all (men)". Pretty glaring omissions, but "by their Creator" is supposedly not a big deal.

    Even so, I take an Ignatian line on these things and try to read people as charitably as possible. So perhaps, in Obama's mind, saying "created" was enough of a concession to the religious and federalist constituency. Again, I'm being charitable. Too charitable? ;)

  6. I understand your point I am going into a form of psychoanalysis here. But you do begin to see patterns of thought with some groups of people.

    Even the most hardcore secular liberal believes all men are created equal, even though he has no logical reason to believe it. Once you accept that Naturalism and Materialism are correct, that belief can no longer logically follow.

    What he said was "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On reading this you can't help but think "Where do these things come from?" it doesn't make any sense without saying who they are created by. He may have believed it was enough, but it still shows that he was willing to edit the Declaration of Independence to suit how he personally wishes it had been written, which means without reference to God or a Creator.

    Also some liberals use the term "created" within different circumstances to represent the fact that the state alone (with no need for God) can create rights for people out of thin air.

  7. Hey, man, I agree with you, really, I'm just trying to be charitable as a general Ignatian policy. Check my blog in a day or so for some recent posts about similar interactions on liberalism in the USA. (If I may ask, are you Catholic? Email is fine, if you'd rather not write 'shtuff' here.)


  8. Sorry, if you think I was being aggresive or forceful, I did not mean to come across like that. I was just trying to explain what I thought about this.

    I visit your blog often and even posted a comment on the Keith Ward lecture on Transcendental Idealism supplying the text to accopany that lecture.

  9. No, I'm sorry, I wasn't offended or taken aback at all. Really. The "Hey, man" is more my way of saying, "Sigh, sometimes I wish we (I?) could just cut the P.C. B.S. and say it like it is: Obama's a talking suit, of the pagan Christian pin-stripe." I try to be diplomatic nearly always but do sometimes get frustrated with my own perhaps 'jesuitical' cowardice. Keep up the good work!