Obama And The Establishment Clause

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ U.S. Constitution Amendment I

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, has stated his belief that the United States Constitution is "fundamentally flawed". Obviously, now that he has been elected President of the United States he is the unique position of being capable of using his power to correct whatever perceived flaws he sees in America's founding document.

I realize that without the backing of the legislature, he can do nothing more than make firm suggestions, but nevertheless, he is in a much better position to get something done than before the election.

Since Obama didn't elaborate on what parts of the Constitution he considers flawed, I decided to do a little research into what Obama believes, or appears to believe, that might provide us with some insight into what in the Constitution he might change, when and if given the opportunity.

I started with the first amendment. Subsequently, I will research further.

The first prevailing concern of the founding fathers was religious freedom. At the time the Constitution was penned, King George III of England was the head of the Church of England, and as head, had strongly urged all citizens of England, including those upstarts across the big pond, to worship exclusively within the Church of England. Those who refused were often persecuted in various degrees. The pilgrims made the perilous journey across the Atlantic in 1620 to escape religious persecution.

For this reason, the Framers of the Constitution considered it of utmost importance that the citizens of the new Republic be allowed to worship God, or not worship God as they choose. For this reason, the first amendment's first words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The idea was not to keep religion out of Government, but rather, to keep Government from establishing a National Church, such as the Governmental led Church of England.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller in 1808, "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."

I wanted to find out what newly elected President Obama might do to this first statement of the first amendment, the freedom of religion, so I googled "Obama's Christian faith" to see if there was any "Christianity" in Obama's stated faith.

Throughout Obama's campaign, I did not notice any reference to his own personal faith, except for the oft played "gaffe" when he accidentally said, "my Muslim faith" instead of "my Christian faith", in that now famous interview with George Stephanopolis. I will concede that he was responding to charges that he might be a Muslim, and not a Freudian slip, as I had inferred in previous posts. Beyond that, as far as I knew, Obama rarely did more than confirm that he is a Christian, without elaboration.

I found articles by Christianity Today, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The Chicago Sun-Times, and other, not so well known publications. All conclude that Obama is at least a professing Christian, if not so much a practicing Christian by my fundamentalist standards. I will concede also, for the record, that Obama is at least, as much a Christian as many of the self-professing Christians in America today.

I found that Obama is actually very vocal about his faith, but speaks of it in very antiseptic, almost secular terms, as if he fears he might be labeled a fundamentalist.

As if that would be unthinkable.

As if that would be a bad thing.

It is an unconvincing argument in light of what I consider his decidedly non-Christian world view. But I will not declare him to be heretic. That kind of judgment belongs to God alone. I cannot nor will not judge his heart. All I can judge him on is his actions and statements.

My conclusion, from reading the different articles, is that Obama will not significantly alter the first statement of the First amendment. He apparently believes, as I do, that Christians should not be compelled to leave their faith at the door when entering a government building, and he doesn't advocate restricting the practice of religion as each of us see fit.

In short, Obama does not appear to have an agenda of denying us any part of our freedom of religion.

However, I did find an interesting article on Obama's church and the peculiar brand of theology it embraces, Black Liberation Theology. In it, the author concludes that Obama's Christianity stems from Black Liberation Theology teaching, and is indeed, predicated on his understanding of that doctrine.

"Trinity United Church of Christ" , The author writes, "Obama's home church for 20 years, subscribes to and promotes the doctrine of 'Liberation Theology.' Exactly what is Liberation Theology?

Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model, the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

The brand of Liberation Theology promoted by Trinity United Church of Christ is a blend of typical Marxist Liberation Theology combined with a highly charged racial component. This is called 'Black Liberation Theology.'

Obama initially defended his relationship with Rev. Wright, but then later had to distance himself from him after much media pressure. Yet he's never distanced himself from the Marxist Liberation Theology upon which Trinity United Church of Christ is built.

Let's face it, anyone who subscribes to the basic idea of Liberation Theology is a Marxist - at least in principle. There can be no doubt about it, since the doctrine is the epitome of Marxist theory. The real question here is this. Does Barack Obama subscribe to the Marxist Black Liberation Theology upon which 'Trinity United Church of Christ' is built?"

And now, we have come full circle. And with this article, my charge that Obama is a Marxist seems to be justified, as it is not out of line with Black Liberation Theology, as if any brand of Christianity can be compatible with Atheistic Marxism.

It certainly would explain a lot about Obama's political ideology.

But that isn't the point. I just thought it was interesting, and certainly explains how Obama's apparent adherence to Marxists teachings and his Christian faith are interconnected.

While Obama may monkey with the Constitution, and even the First amendment, I am fairly confident he will keep his hands off the establishment clause for now.

And I'm glad of that. Perverting the establishment clause would be the first big step to complete totalitarianism.