The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Christian historian David Barton comments on America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President, documenting 24 acts of hostility toward people of biblical faith, 18 acts of hostility toward biblical values, and 8 acts of preferentialism for Islam. It's quite a record. Barton concludes, "The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president."

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I think it should be, "The President toward whom religious leaders have shown the MOST hostility."

Our clue was when Franklin Graham ended up apologizing for remarks that went a little too far:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/29/white-house-appreciates-franklin-grahams-apology/

Mr. Graham released an apology Wednesday, saying he accepts Mr. Obama’s word that he’s a Christian.

“We didn’t seek an apology,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said when asked about it Wednesday. “We certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed, and we’ll leave it at that.”

No one doubted any other President who professed Christianity.

Reverend Graham's elaborate "uncertainties" were theatrical and creepy. It wouldn't surprise me if some of his fellow Republicans took him aside and asked him to dial this back.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Do I have to go point-by-point showing why most of these are distortions of the truth? Barton is not a "Christian historian;" he's a quack who cherry picks quotations to supported his twisted view of history.

-Dan.

Some off the top of my head:

Point 3: Barton claim of "Active hostility towards people of faith" regarding the covering of the name of Jesus at a speech at Georgetown isn't even supported by the article he cites. "Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered. ... The Belief Blog talked with the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who said he didn't think "this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy."

"December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. [14]"

This one's just a flat-out lie. The link he cites is broken, but this is the correct one. There is nothing in there that denigrates anyone's religious beliefs. What Sec Clinton called out was using religion as a cover for excusing or condoning violence or abuse of homosexuals.

-Dan.

"February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion"

That is not hostility towards religion. That's making government funding religion-neutral, i.e. no longer paying to support religious institutions. If you read the article that Barton cited, also excluded from this is work for labor unions and partisan political organizations.

-Dan.

"June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. "

This was due to a rogue administrator, not instructions from Obama. The VA claims there is no ban on religious speech and that administrator has been transferred to a different job.

lemme break up the rant with a post...

why should we be surprised since the Pres attended Rev. Wright's church for 20 yrs?! -- or that the Pres mentioned his "Muslim faith" during an interview

if he's a Christian, praise God -- if he's not, that's another thing we all need to pray for him

"August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America)."

Another lie. The course was modified because the material used several examples from the Bible to show how it would be ok to go to war, in spite of the fact that not all of the candidates be Christian.

As you can see from the pdf, the material itself was also not very good, and I'd argue, bad theology.

Some more info.

-Dan.

There is no occasion for President Obama to be receiving MORE scrutiny on this point than the other Presidents. President Clinton went to church and obviously was a professing Christian, yet he accepted sexual favors from a White House intern. Funny how his faith never came up. Yet President Obama is a squeaky-clean family man, and everyone is looking for gnats to strain? These people need to get over it! He is probably a more devout Christian than we have seen in a long time, but even that is beside the point, because the Constitution says the President can be a Muslim if he wants to. He isn't, but he can be if he wants to, which makes the whole discussion irrelevant. (That is to say, we can certainly discuss it, but I am not sure why it woud be a political discussion.)

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

"September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. "

More false implications. Here's the letter Barton cites. It says that commanders shouldn't be recommending these services so that they don't give the appearance of endorsing them (which has been a problem in the USAF), but rather that it should be the chaplains who make the airmen aware of them.

That is not hostility towards Christians, that is removing undue religious influence from the chain of command.

-Dan.

"September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

By every single account I've ever read on this story (and there were many), including this one from CNS News (a source I normally loathe), this was nothing but a poorly-worded attempt to stop outside groups from proselytizing patients who didn't want it. This was not some sort of act of hostility towards Christians, and the military quickly retracted the policy when the issue was brought to their attention.

Do I need to go on, or is this enough to plant a seed of doubt about Barton's qualifications and affinity for the truth?

-Dan.

9(!) posts by you & 2 by Assured -- i'd say the liberal side of the coin is covered -- folks can review the material & decide for themselves

Gideon,

Oh, my! You sure drew a lot of fire with this one!

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.