Obama insults people of faith (what else is new)
At a “LGBT Pride” reception at the White House Monday, President Barack "Show Me the Money" Obama described opponents of homosexual political issues as holding fast to “worn arguments and old attitudes.”
What, arguments about the sacredness of marriage? The Natural Order? Natural Law? Chastity? Sin? The Bible?
In playing up to the homosexual community (and their deep pockets), Obama once again revealed his attitude toward people who hold traditional religious beliefs. No wonder he can't find a church for his family: They haven't found one yet that allows them to believe what they want.
Meanwhile, now that we've ended Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Pride Month, I wonder if he's trying to come up with another group to honor with a month. Let's see, who else has lots of money to support him? How about Pro-Abortion, Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Eugenicists Month?
What, arguments about the sacredness of marriage? The Natural Order? Natural Law? Chastity? Sin? The Bible?
In playing up to the homosexual community (and their deep pockets), Obama once again revealed his attitude toward people who hold traditional religious beliefs. No wonder he can't find a church for his family: They haven't found one yet that allows them to believe what they want.
Meanwhile, now that we've ended Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Pride Month, I wonder if he's trying to come up with another group to honor with a month. Let's see, who else has lots of money to support him? How about Pro-Abortion, Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Eugenicists Month?
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 7:13 AM
4 Comments:
At least he's not a hypocrite about jettisoning old ideas. Unlike some governors, he doesn't opt for the Biblical solution: multiple children by multiple women (or at minimum, sex with multiple women), justified by the notion, "God said it was okay."
Hmm. Sanford? Spitzer?
The thing about Obama is that he seems not to have ideas to jettison - other than the basic principle of "I'm for it if it benefits me."
Sorry, Lee, I just don't see it. SSA rights are still viewed with a great deal of suspicion among the general public. The president is going somewhat out on a limb on this one, and not too much upside to it.
The SSA community is pretty much like you and me and the rest of the heterosexuals: spread out across all economic levels. The "deep pocket" remark is rather cynical, and I don't know if it even has any legs. I'm sure the Jews in charge of Hollywood have made sure that they remain ascendant in California, and the like.
I read through the transcript posted on The Catholic Key site, and I didn't see anything insulting to me. I think it's more accurate to say this reception was distasteful to some religious conservatives.
I don't mind when you and others make a case against a principle elucidated by the president. For your own sake, I wish you'd offer a tighter argument. This post strikes me as more of an echo than original thinking. I think you can do better.
Au contraire, mon ami (hot dang, I remembered some of that high school French!).
While it is true that the majority of people oppose - or have "a great deal of suspicion" regarding - homosexual marriage, they don't count. What counts are the views in states with the most electoral votes, and the groups with the most money to give. Obama can do the math: He can get away with it, especially if the economy turns around and people are basically happy with their own little piece of the pie. To quote a President I'm glad to see gone, "Sometimes money trumps morality."
Even if the homosexual community is spread through all economic strata, there is a small group with lots of money, and they have support from some groups with losts of money - Hollywood, for example. There's plenty of money to tap there. Meanwhile, people of faith are less likely to vote for Obama now, and less likely to contribute to him. Even though a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, polls indicate that the majority of Catholics no longer support him due to his actions (and maybe some help from outspoken bishops, and internet nuts like me).
Finally, I did take it as an insult. He was dismissing the very real and legitimate arguments agaisnt some of the things the homosexual community want as "old" in the pejorative sense. Yes, they are "old" - just as the argument against murder is "old." That does not make the arguments any less valid. But he is appealing to an audience that celebrates the "new."
Post a Comment
<< Home