Obamanation of the Day
September 2nd, 2012 - 5:54 am
I admit it, when it comes to Barack Obama, I think pretty low. But not, apparently, quite low enough. This exchange, from an interview with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times, took even my jaded breath away:
Falsani: Do you believe in sin?
Obama: Yes.
Falsani: What is sin?
Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.
Have you ever found a pithier summary of the narcissistic core of today’s “progressive” Left-liberal ideology? I’m not sure I have.
h/t the great Ed Driscoll.
Also read:
To paraphrase the great philosopher Tina Turner, “what’s God got to do with it?’
Too bad Obama will still win the election….
Ha!
To folks who follow the Catholic blogosphere, Mr. Driscoll has revealed nothing new today.
@TTT: Obama is going to lose, and lose badly. I could use up the rest of the memory on PJmedia’s server explaining why Obama will lose, but I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think he will win.
To be fair, I believe he means that for him to sin, he would have to act in a way that was out of alignment with his own values. Meaning, apparently, that he is without sin. Of course, that only makes it worse.
“Meaning, apparently, that he is without sin.”
It’s even worse … he is either with or without sin depending on his determination as to what suits him best at that time.
He has not said his “values” are immutable. Therefore, change the values and by definition sin is present or not. Hence, if it suits him in his quest for glory and power, then he will tune his “values” to achieve “sin”. But if it suits him to be without sin, then so be it.
A striking window into the soulless nature of the man.
The ultimate free man, floating away in a vacuum
I apologize for the length of the following quote, but it captures this point of view almost perfectly. Its from “The Diamond Age” by Neal Stephenson, and when the character talks about his youth, he’s referring to the 1990s, as the setting is in the near future:
“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vice,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others — after all, if there is no absolute right or wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? …
“Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgement whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior — you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
“You wouldn’t believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi…
“Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves — they took no moral stances and lived by none.”
“So, they were morally superios to the Victorians–” Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
“– even though — in fact, *because* — they had no morals at all.”
Great quote. It does perfectly describe the progressive mindset.
“To be fair…” ??? Who’s not being fair to Obama? His words are his words, and they are the words of a narcassist. No one is being unfair to him.
I believe the point is that most people would say sin is going against God’s values, not their own. Obama puts himself first, as is evident by his words and his deeds.
Obomination.
“Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:21
Re: “Being out of alignment with my values.” That’s code for “when Empty Chair is wobbly.”
Well, at least the question of his religion is settled: not Christianity or Islam or even Black Liberation Theology.
It’s himself.
Barack Liberation Theology?
Brilliant!!
That actually freaking makes sense. If you try to blaspheme against Obama, just like magic, one of his followers, jumps onto the blog to castigate you for it! Politics becomes religion!
Harumph!
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, he means that for *him* to sin is to be out of alignment of *his own* values (and that to sin in general mean for you and me to be out of alignment with *our own* values, not necessarily with his).
Stupid mutli-culti trash — based on this “analysis”, the Nazis have not sinned since they honestly believed killing all those Jews was the correct thing to do — but not at all the same thing as saying that nobody else should disagree with him.
It’s like the “you didn’t build that” comment. Clearly in context he meant that you didn’t build it absolutely on your own, but used government-build roads etc.
The real problem isn’t so much in the substance, but in the rather bone-headed way he says things that can so easily be misinterpreted. I guess that comes from years of having the media treat him like delicate china.
Skeptic you are out of your mind. He means exactly what he says. The only thing he is good at, is talking.
First on this example – even if we accept your premise that he meant, “being out of alignment with his own values”, really? That is the only way he can sin? There is no acknowledgement of God, of any deference to a higher power. Anything is possible if there is no outside frame of reference. That is psychopathic thinking.
On the “you didn’t build it” fiasco, he told us all exactly what he thought. If you read the whole transcript, it is completely damning. Nobody deserves their own success. The only successful people are lucky people, people who owe it to luck and/or government.
This guy is an un-American asshole who thinks government creates prosperity, and that elite bureaucrats know best. And that ties back to his “own values” determining right and wrong. “They”, meaning the liberal elites, know it all. Completely opposite to what our founders believed.
As Clint says, “we gotta let him go”
Perhaps I was unclear — from the context it seems that he understood the interviewer’s question as “what is it FOR YOU to sin”. So he said that to sin is for *him* to be out of alignment with his own values.
I don’t he meant everybody needs to agree with him.
My interpretation is based on what we know about Obama: it fits his multi-culti vague “morality”: there is no moral truth, only one has to be honest in “doing one’s own thing”, and hypocrisy is the worst possible crime — far worse than, say, being intolerably rude and totally narcissistic about everybody else, since that is being “honest with yourself” or something.
You are greatly mistaken. The question wasn’t “In your mind, what is sinning?”. The question was, “What is sin”. The noun. You are explaining it as though it was a verb, and asked of Obama to explain it in his personal terms. There is nothing in that question to believe either the interviewer or Obama took it to mean how he defined his own act(s) of sinning. It’s pretty clear that the interviewer meant sin, for all of us, and Obama meant the same thing. It is a sin for mankind to be out of alignment with Obama’s values. If there has been anything at all in Obama’s history to make such a statement seem absurd for him to have made, I’ve missed it. Most of what I’ve seen of Obama makes it pretty clear that he believes sin for mankind is being out of alignment with his values.
Technically, you are correct. But I propose to you that Obama obviously undestood the question as “what is sin to you” or “what is sinning for you”.
There *is* a warped sort of absurd thinking here, but it is not where you think. It’s in the fact that for people like Obama, the very idea of the existence of things like honor, shame, sin, holiness, and even objective truth itself, is inconcievable. Honor is “being honest with yourself”; sin “not living up to your values”; holiness “having an occupation that helps people”; truth is “what your worldview is”, and the like.
So the answer is, in fact, Obama does NOT believe in sin. He only think he does. As you correctly note, he replies as if the answer is “what is sinning”. But that’s precisely because the only thing he believes in, is that everybody has their own little definition of sin of not acting according to their own values, and that there is nothing more to say on the subject.
Being out of alignment with My values.
FTFY.
Pope Obama I
This story is get funnier by the day.
In which of the 57 states will the Holy See be ?
It’s the capital of Oiho.
Roger – Don’t fall for the “Left-Liberal” appellation. They’re just Leftists, and in no way liberal.
Jack,
Right on with the terminology. I’ve made a point of only calling them ‘leftists’, because the policies they promote are neither liberal nor progressive- terms that are related to words with fixed meanings.
Likewise, I don’t use the term ‘conservative’, because at this point, it’s radical to want to gut our overgrown monstrosity of a government. I usually end up using ‘right-winger’ for simplicity’s sake.
Colossians 3:5-6 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world. Because of these sins, the anger of God is coming.
I wonder how he would define blasphemy.
Without his teleprompter to help him I think obama is actually Dumber than Biden.
This is a big reason why Christians should not vote for Obama. His view of Christianity is incoherent.
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/02/jesus-love-for-the-disciples-means-he-would-not-support-obama-and-neither-should-you/
I don’t think Jesus would like Obama’s sin affirming politics either.
This is it? The greatest intellectual president gives us this drivel? This guy don’t know crap. Your typical fourth grade cathechism class student knows more about sin than the POTUS.
An empty chair inhabited by an empty suit. C’mon Dems you are going to have to try harder!!!!
You may be misreading it. I think he meant “When I do what I know/feel is wrong, I am committing a sin.”
You’re right, Dan. Obama simply means to let his conscience be his guide, but when filtered through a prideful mouth it comes out as haughty.
And what is the biggest sin?
Not voting for me!
Neat trick: As long as you constantly adjust your values, you never sin!
Let he who is without sin hide his records.
A joke especially (but not only) for Catholics:
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
[Whack! a stone from the crowd hits the adulteress right in the face]
“Mom. sometimes you really piss me off.”
This quote could be read somewhat generously to mean, “sin is when my behavior is out of alignment with my values” or more cynically as “sin is when your behavior is out of alignment with my values.” Gathering the context from the interview transcript doesn’t give clear indication of Obama’s meaning, but in either case his values are the reference point for moral evaluation. Narcissistic indeed.
I guess when you are the lodestar everything, including the definition of right and wrong depends on you. What a load he must bear. What a load…
Well, the guy does think he’s God…
There was a fairly large number of Christians trying to bring attention to this interview and trying to get people to read it prior to the 2008 election. It was after a bit of time after the brouhaha over this interview that Obama cleaned up his “testimony” and started presenting more orthodox statements in public. Huckabee pointed out in his speech at the RNC, Obama is a self-professed evangelical. The truth is that Obama spent 20 years learning liberation theology (that dovetails with anti-Colonialism) and belonged to a denomination (UCC) that openly supports gay marriage, abortion, and is anti-Israel. Many of us saw the handwriting on the wall before Obama was elected. His presidency was even worse that we thought it would be.
I think it simply means he doesn’t believe in God. As far as the context of “you didn’t build that”. What I took from it relates to his philosophy that jobs and prosperity are provided by higher taxes and larger government. I think once he made the now infamous statement he caught himself and tried to wiggle out of it. But, look at his references next in the speech. A teacher and fireman. both noble and needed professions..and both government provided.
Well he is out of alignment with my values so therefore he is an abomination.
I hear he’s building a chapel to himself on Hawaii. Other Presidents built Presidential Libraries, but since all his documentation has been sealed away, he just making his a chapel.
I expect the President meant something like this Shakespearean advice from Polonius to Laertes:
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
I was always struck by Obama claiming that Jesus Christ was a “historic figure” in the same interview.
GG: Who’s Jesus to you?
OBAMA: Right. Jesus is a historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
I have never met a Christian that would lead by calling Jesus a “historic figure.” “Son of God,” “Saviour,” or “Prophet,” but “historical figure” OMG.
I was left believing that Obama uses religion like one would wear a suit coat; he puts them on to please those who he meets. You know, a recreation opiate.
So let’s imagine how Obama’s concept of sin as two people, let’s call them Alan and Charlie, might apply it.
Alan believes adultery is wrong, but nevertheless he gives into temptation and commits adultery anyway.
Charlie does not believe adultery is wrong, and he commits adultery.
Under Obama’s view, apparently, Alan would have sinned by acting against his own values, but Charlie would not have sinned because his values allow adultery.
Does that make sense?
**In which of the 57 states will the Holy See be ?**
Oiho.
So, I guess he cannot sin against God. He cannot sin against another person. He can only sin against himself.
So, he confesses his sin against himself to himself, and then absolves himself of sin.
Neat trick.
What is wrong with that? God has the same definition.
…having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Since he is so out of alignment with the values of most Americans……
What Obama’s describing (which I’m sure he doesn’t realize) is called “situational morality.” It’s almost always employed by individuals with BPD (borderline personality disorder). He’s a narcissistic sociopath with BPD. So it’s no surprise that the only allegiance he feels is to himself. No one else is relevant, though he’s a master at feigning concern and caring when necessary to get himself what he wants. Because, in every situation, whether personal, governmental, business, political … It is always all about him.
For context, I think what he said right before that part illuminates what he really means.
OBAMA:
What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.
So basically, if he’s out of sync with his own personal values, which are informed by his faith, he’s in sin. It doesn’t mean that if someone else differs from his values, they’re in sin. This is a whole lot of nothing.
There are at least two ways to interpret Obama’s statement.
The more outrageous one would be that sin (for anyone) is being out of alignment with Barack Obama’s values.
The less outrageous one would be that sin (for anyone) is being out of alignment with the person’s own values. But even the less outrageous interpretation is still problematic, because it implies that everyone gets to make up their own values and define for themselves what is sinful and what is not.
He responded,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
that was the heart of today’s Gospel.
there are eternal laws and truths
we can live outside them and without them, but our lives will not be worthy
No one here has parsed the statement itself enough, in my opinion. What exactly did he mean by this? Whose sin is he defining? Is he saying that everyone is a sinner, if they act out of alignment with their own values (plausible)? Or is he saying that *everyone* sins if they act outside Barack Obama’s values (slightly less plausible, but this guy does have a healthy ego, even for a President)? Either way it’s an arrogant statement…
Actually… that is a bizarre question. Who asks someone a question like that? I mean, sure, if you’re having a religious discussion, maybe.
Cathleen Falsani, the interviewer, was the religion reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times. The whole interview was about religion. http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html
JUST. WOW. Almost as revealing as his statement that he didn’t have time to meet with Republicans because he was too busy with his wife and daughters. WTH did he think “presidentin” involved???
This reminds me of the flaw with Covey’s popular “Seven Basic Habits.” Namely, that the reference of those Habits was the person’s *own* values.
My friends who loved Covey never understood my argument that Josef Stalin was the very embodiment of the 7 habits. Obama’s no Stalin–and 30 million dead would agree–but you get my point.
PS well, except for “think Win-Win.” Stalin wasn’t to good about that one, especially with his inner circle.
Don’t get me started with those self-help positive-psychology books about “how to be rich, think, and sexy in 10 easy lessons”. They are books for losers, for mice who would be supermen, who think there are some psychological gimmicks or tricks that make it possible for one to have power, sex, or esteem without actually having the character and abilities that make one worthy of others’ love, respect, or esteem.
As for Stalin, as Eddie Izzard says, we must have some grduging respect for people who managed to executed thousands every day — how did their day go?
Killing
Killing
Killing
Killing
Killing
Light lunch
Killing
Killing
Early dinner
Killing
Killing
Killing?
When Obama seeks a higher power, he need only look in a mirror.
This was highlighted in Mark Steyn’s book “After America”. Yes, it’s disturbing that America gave someone with that mindset that much power.
The GOP and other critics have basically said that Obama is a nice guy but a lousy president.
They are wrong on the first aspect. He is not a “nice guy.” He is a man who has no use for the Christianity he pretends to practice — he’s an adherent of the religion of Secularism, which professes that God is dead and a certain group of people know what’s best for everyone and should be allowed to rule as they see fit — to the benefit of whomever they please,
He and the people around him are doing their best to destroy the Judeo-Christian beliefs that this country was built on. His thin veneer of decency is wearing down to the inner core of his anti-Christian and anti-American beliefs. If he is returned to office, this nation is headed for a major crackup — either via an attack from an enemy that thinks he’s a wimp or internally from thousands/millions of Americans who feel he is ruining the nation they grew up with.
sounds like a malady easily handled by a chiropractor.
Fookin’ ‘ell!?
Jonah Goldberg mentions this quote in Tyranny of Cliches.
Not an Obama fan, but a possible cheritable explanation might be that he means that he means that sin for him would be actin out of alignment with his own values, (which by virtue of being ideals are thus directable), are inline with that of a higher power. So it is implicit in the statement that the value se to be compared to ultimately was not his own.
I’m glad someone brought this back… it was so bad it did not deserve to die in the course of a news cycle… so wrong…
@Skeptic I’m not sure what the larger context of his ‘against my values’ definition of sin actually is other than what sin is for him. But I think your suggestion of multicultural moral relativism is a a very canny inference. I find myself thinking – I’m not sure if voting for Obama would be a sin, but it would sure violate my values!
On the ‘You didn’t build that’ quote I don’t think the context lets him off. He clearly intended to privilege (if I may use a Pomo term) the role of the government over that of the individual. Add the words ‘by yourself’ to the statement and it leaves the relationship between the individual and the group an open question. The way he said it made his preference for the primacy of the group obvious. And I think that is a tell. I think it shows that Obama is on the left of the Democratic party which genuinely sees itself as an on-ramp for Social Democracy.
One of the great curiosities of this election is that the American people have already said NO to Obama in 2010. I don’t think Americans are going to buy into Social Democracy. Is there much likelihood that they are going to let him loose again with a Democratically controlled House? I think not. So I think the best a voter can hope for by voting for Obama is to try to restrain the Republicans.
Also not an Obama fan but, in all fairness, reading the quote in context of the entire interview, I understand his remark to mean ‘When I am’ out of alignment with my values.
The saddest part of this is the sick feeling I get that America is no longer smart or righteous enough to vote this narcissist in chief out. His definition for far too many people is the definition of sin. We came close to biting the bullet in 1980 and we might just lower the coffin this time around for the Republic.
We need to pray for the Big O, I suggest Psalms 109:8.
There is no God, and no law, above Obama.
By O’s definition of sin, if a klansman refrains from lynching a black man, the klansman is sinning.
Obama is in agreement with the Bible on this one:
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” James 4:17
If someone does not know it is a sin, it is not a sin. When Adam and Eve pooped and played in the Garden of Eden without shame, they did no sin, because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. If someone does not know something is evil, they cannot sin. Sin comes from the law. When there is no law given, there is no sin. You cannot judge a man who does not have the law the same way you judge someone who does have the law. Unto whom much is given, much is required. Unto who little is given, little is required. Every man is given a different degree of light and truth, and according to the degree they have been given, they can sin against it.
“But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong…let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5,15
Paul said that for those who believe eating meat is a sin, it is a sin. For those who believe it is not a sin, then it is not a sin.
What Obama said was eloquent, true, and perfectly Biblical, even when it is taken grossly out of context as it was.
Its already narcistic enough for him to say he sins only by violating his own values. But I am wondering if it goes even further, and whether he thinks WE are also sinners if WE violate HIS values.