"For according to the number of your cities were your gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem you have set up altars to that shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.

"So do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them;
for I will not hear them in the time that they cry out to Me because of their trouble.

                            And its branches are broken."

God was not impressed with the multiplicity of religious recognition in the nation, and the vast array of pseudo-deities, idols and the like was an appalling exhibit of religious fibrillation in a nation with a diseased heart.  Had they become spiritually insane, as well as inane ? Could they not tell the power of God from the performance of God in their past ? Must they again suck the insipid sweets of make-believe religions, founded in desire, expressive of human pride and lust of one kind or another, and not worship their Creator and Redeemer ?

Such is the danger in many another country, once more firmly embedded in Christian life and teaching, and at this time delinquent, often with relish, or dithering like a Zedekiah, in illicit combinations and aspirations.

Now before we apply this to the Cairo speech of Obama (which simply sums up and essentialises much of what had gone before, and goes further), we must realise that USA is NOT a theocracy. It has NOT dedicated itself unilaterally to one God expressed in the Lord Jesus Christ. It HAS declared itself one nation under God, but not under Christ. The parallel with Israel of old, therefore, is not perfect. However, the matrix of the nation has moved from a substantially Christian one to one now becoming so odd in sect and sexual confusion, in morals and aspirations, in government and in principles of guidance as seen sometimes in agencies of one kind or another, and in international pronouncements, that the parallel is there in substance, if not in form. It is declining sharply in Christian witness and conscience.

Formally, it is not, through the Obama plan, actually reneging. It is however going no small distance towards this. In what way ? In that any President should hallow Islam as if its works were so far different than the maelstroms of history, that a hawk becomes a nightingale. To be sure, there have been times of prosperous thought and action in many nations and regimes; but this, it is famous for war, and for nearly conquering Europe, as a religious force, to provide pre-emptive allegiance for any in the field of religion, or else, startling peril of death or abasement.

That however is merely a side point. The daring of Obama is more important, as it signifies the extent of the degradation that it could even be contemplated.

In fact,  it is not necessary for any President to make religious pronouncements about the joint outcome of the religions in the USA. He can declare, both before and after the election, that he is a Christian. He can even say, that while he will earnestly seek the good of all parties, religious or other, according to law and due care of the people, he will not become a hypocrite in order to be a President. THEREFORE ALL his power to vote, to decide, to use vetos and anything else which in the providence of God, the God to whom the USA is committed (verbally, though the definition varies profoundly), will be used - as he hopes that of every other Christian will be - to implement in a free society those morals and ethics and sensitivities, that grace and that love which is born of Christ. That would be his concern, faith, constraint, while seeking the good of the entire nation with justice.

Here would be a standard of moral reference for his government^*1, while it governed, as far as he could induce it so to act, and this would be the commitment, openly made and clearly provided if election put the Party in power.

THE SETTING IN CAIRO, CHRISTIANITY AND CONSCIENCE

In no way, however is this now being done. In making Islam a good and peaceable religion, Obama is not merely making a value judgment, contrary to Christ (Matthew 7:15ff.), who makes of false prophets what the Bible always makes of those who oppose and delete or defile the word of God, deceitful workers, wolves in sheep's clothing and the like, but a submission contrary to the religious liberty and non-commitment under God, of the USA. He is stating concerning another RELIGION that it is good. Its book is holy. It is a thing to be admired.

Firstly, that is not possible for the faith of a biblical Christian, and to be sure, Obama may not have declared himself to be such, but some other type of religious worker, going to some other kind of church with some other kind of program (and there were questions);  yet the image that appeared projected was not that of someone in a sect, but in a strange but definitely Christian Church.

What he has said proves that his allegiance is not biblical at all; it is far from it. He has made Islam a partner in the religious setting. Let us be clear. In the USA, the Islamic and Christian religions both have a free place. Each may pursue its aims, provided neither breaks the law of order and peaceableness toward the well-being of his neighbour. That is  no mask for not speaking the truth in conscience and with reason, but for the spirit in which it is spoken and intended. Free place, however, though both religions have for expression, that is here beside the point. If an Islamic president arose and declared that Christianity was a good religion and that the New Testament was a holy book, or even that the entire Bible was a holy book, and that Christians were part of a good religion which had done much good on the earth, I do not care to surmise the consequence.

It is obvious that ANYONE is expected AT ANY TIME to be true to what is believed to be true and right, on pain of being a liar if the contrary is said as a conviction, and a traitor if it is done, except in the case where there is a slip, a momentary lapse. A slip however is one thing; a sustained commitment and policy document is another!

In England, in the case of Archbishop Cranmer, his error was most temporary and shown to be very painful to his conscience. Thus, he burnt off his right hand that had held the pen with which he had written the false submission, as Rome's power burnt the rest of his body for him, anyway. With him, in any case, he had hoped for a church of and in peace, and his temptation does not appear to have been for himself, but for his nation. THIS did not excuse it, as he himself was so heroically aware, his amazing action showing the depth of his repentance for a lapse of a very short time. He had indeed shown even more courage when, before the burning, when a cowering quietus was expected from his episcopal lips, he denounced from the pulpit the Romanism to which he had for so long been so eloquently opposed; and it was Rome which effectually held the faggots for the burning.

If therefore Obama were a biblical Christian (and not a part of some innovatory substitute, founded on imagination, some new Jesus with a new Gospel and another spirit as in II Corinthians 11), this speech would be an abomination, appalling in its horror, gross in its lapse, making Cranmer's most temporary flop seem almost virtuous by comparison, in its boldness and its panache, some days ago.

Yet in acting in the name of the USA which has many religions, and making this declaration about one of them, and the more so, in doing so as a 'Christian', Obama is defiling the nation, leading it where millions presumably do not wish to go, and doing all those things which have been considered at length in the last Chapter.

There is nothing else for it, but this:

Should he not repent, then those who believe otherwise, and do not consider the work of a false, anti-Christian prophet to be a good one, whatever the religion emanating from such a source, or his book to be holy, are well advised to make a joint declaration of horror at his using the name of the USA in such a way. Since much of its historic foundation of the nation is of a wholly different kind, the use of the label 'Christian' for one making such a speech is deplorable. Its use moreover in expressing the approach of the nation is to be wholly refuted, and that with nothing short of horror.

Those making such a declaration might add this: These people, these organisations, would announce that for their part, they have neither place nor calling in any such policy, declaration or conviction, and protest most vigorously at the name of the USA being used in a presidential capacity to make such characterisations, and to take such actions based on them, as Obama has outlined.

In this way, at last there would be a vocal residue, not a silent rump. We would hear from those who do not want their whole nation to be judged by God on the basis of such fall into a relativistic syncretism and be held responsible for such a betrayal. Betrayal of what ? Why, betrayal of biblical truth and allegiance to Jesus Christ, in treachery to the grandeur of the God in whom they trust: in terms of Jesus Christ as GOD, and not as mere man, as REDEEMER and not prelude to Muhammad, as the ONLY way to God, through incarnation and atonement freely received, and not as some partisan of a pantheon, or a prelude to another.

Should this be done, the wrath of God might be avoided at least in the utmost level, and the testimony of Jesus would be explicitly opposed by those who refused to have themselves via any President - let alone one calling himself a Christian - committed in any such style as this.

	What then is in view of those so committed ? It is this.
	They do not want their nation to be guilty of any such thing as this: what in the days of  ancient Israel was treachery towards God, or such relativistic honouring of such a prophet as Muhammad, and accordingly so vast a dishonouring of Jesus Christ,  even outside a theocratic venue.
	Theirs is no part in this ideology, barren and bleak, the express presidential arousal of a plethora of religions in his own role as leader, a presiding pantheon.
	From any and all such leading, they are detached, a nd in its entwinings, they find no lure.

The Bible, as seen in the quotation from Jeremiah above, uses the metaphorical concept of lewdness for the multipartite religious behaviour of the nation, meaning that it resembles a wanton woman, married but sending her morals to the foul cleaners, to shrink. Here the Christian residue would indicate that the personal convictions of the President are not at all those of many in the nation, and they refuse to be characterised as accepting for one moment any part of his relativistic speech, in which national aims are allowed to include what is entirely abhorrent to them, merely acceptable to some, rather than to what the whole nation might reasonably be expected to be stated as true of them!

If Obama had said this: I am a Bible believing Christian, and as such must as President condemn utterly the Moslem view ... this too would be offensive to Islam. As President, he is not commissioned to commit the nation to this or that in terms of one religion. It is of course true that he IS committed and commissioned - that is, a Christian would be - in all his private views, ethical concepts, evaluations in all things, to see them from a Christian viewpoint because he CANNOT get rid of the Christian seed within him (I John 3:9). When he speaks, one ought to be able to detect the savour of his spiritual position, as one might expect of any leader, who must first be true to what he believes, or be hypocrite. His conviction concerning Christ ought not to be hard to find. Yet this is entirely diverse from committing a nation to action in terms of any one religion or perspective for religion.

In speaking for the nation, you may of course say that you personally believe such and such, and conceive it good to apply such and such principles here, making it clear that though the matter comes from you, it does so from you as a person,  AS SUCH, and not in ANY way as representative of the nation. You need not cease to be a person, to be a president; but there are some annunciations which when in an international speech concerning your nation, are not to be presented on the part of the nation. It would simply be untrue; and short of a religious commission, explicitly made, it would also be gratuitous and distortive.

It may be something about to happen, but the nation is not being led to it on the basis of a formal evaluation of religion on the part of the leader, on its behalf. The code, the ethics, the commands of God he would seek to keep; but the presentation of his religion as a national basis, this is not true to those who do not have it. He may even wish to say this, that though many will not agree with him, and see things entirely differently, and may even abhor what he is going to do, yet he will do it on his own personal basis, being convinced it is best for the nation. In that way, they pay for the election, but are not compromised as well.

The results of conviction, he would of course always seek to apply, and with Christ, this NEVER means force. NEVER means no discrimination against the equity of any case on the basis of religion. It DOES mean that MORALS of the kind announced before the election will of course be pursued by the President with all the vigour one would hope to characterise ANYONE with ANY power in Government. If you believe it, you WILL do it. That is the nature of faith that is not fiction, as James is so careful to make clear. But you will NOT make it appear in ANY way that ALL the people are of your own conviction or that in so acting you represent all or that your nation presents such a face to the world. It does not. Truth is insuppressible by President as well as by any other.

Using your powers to move things in the directions you BELIEVE right is to be understood. Putting someone with various convictions into a high place MEANS that you approve of him or of her, doing whatever is justly within the reach, towards the morals and ways of that religion; but NEVER, never, never may this religion be put forward AS IF it were the criterion of the nation in its approach or its perspective. The reason: this is not so, such an implication would be riotous.

That of course includes ANY religious approach which makes various religions ALL GOOD, for that in itself IS an evaluation of God, of His ways and constitutes a way of regarding things, an overview and a religious perspective called good, in itself. What else it does, we have already seen in the last Chapter. If therefore the NATION, the USA, is to move in terms of this religion, to its appointed end, then this is insult insufferable to those who do not share this religion, this syncretism, this perspective which the Bible characterises in lewd terms for any Christian, this spiritually adulterous perspective.

Leaving the national commitment open is weak; closing it in this way is hard to differentiate from woeful. You CAN have a Christian nation (USA is not one, formally), and this will MEAN equity and grace, kindness and principles, as if the constant leader had been elected on the basis of his or her being a Christian, and thus seeking to implement what may be, on the basis of freedom in a democracy, for thought and speech, on the one hand, and direction of flow of institutional assumed morals on the other. Unless it were made a condition of adult residence that one be a Christian, then of course liberty of expression and formulation, argumentation and application is available to all; but when it is morally contrary to the Bible, then it would be excluded, like a football on a cricket pitch. In totalitarianism, force makes it happen, and thought is policed.

In an open Christian and democratic nation, thought is freely expressible if it is rational and honest, but the direction is not dictatorial, and the mode of dictation is replaced by standards of rectitude on the one hand, and liberty which does not violate moral principles on the other. In practice, such a nation could not allow sexual perversion as legal, but would seek something other than force and fine, to deal with it, while providing for its classification as crime. Love seeks wisely; dictation is bleak. Nevertheless, the USA is NOT formally a Christian nation, and this is presented simply for comparison of various outcomes.

You may in any position in a country which is under God but not specific in definition of the same,  wish to declare that this and that in your religion is apt and fit for a particular purpose, and how would you not ? People KNOW you hold it, and would scarcely be surprised if you applied it for your own small part in any dialogue or discussion.

THE SETTING IN A DEMOCRACY

At that moment, however, at which you speak FOR the whole group or Senate or whatever other body, the nation for example, and evaluate other religions on behalf of all, as if this would conceivably satisfy any but a majority at best, and represents a national view, position or criterion, wish list or basis, in general or in any particular regard, then you are not merely deceived. You tempt, provoke, mistake your mission and distort the demographics.  On the other hand, if you did NOT at this or that time, make it clear that your own thoughts and ideas, ideals and desires, would always flow in terms of the river of your convictions, this too would seem almost to unman you, to make you mere depersonalised operator or executive.

In short, in an open democracy under God, undefined, by all means seek what you value most, to fulfil it, and if this excludes establishment of a religion, then pursue the results and avoid the institution or characterisation of the whole as if your presidential part made such appropriate, because you lead. You could of course speak FOR MY PART, and make it clear in this way what you held and how you felt about this or that religion, if you felt this apt and good for the nation. It would have to be disjoined however from what you were saying on behalf of the Senate or the nation. Of necessity, all CANNOT follow what you do, or the reasons for which you do it. To give them what they do not want is one thing; democracy ensures that will be so. To characterise things as you see them, and apply this on behalf of the nation, using a religious perspective and evaluation of religions as a basis, this becomes a combination of hats which will fit on no head.

Obama, therefore, having presented himself as a Christian, and said this of Islam in a world-heard speech on behalf of the USA, makes two massive errors. Firstly, he becomes an avowed 'Christian' whose fealty to Christ is compromised to the point of contradiction: since the Christ has no more truck with false prophets, or new christs (Matthew 7:15ff., 24:12,24), than did the Old Testament with its contemporary ones (Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 13-14), or with those predicted. Secondly, he becomes a national leader whose standing on behalf of his nation is categorically  demoted to that for a section. For many, it is not that they cannot agree merely; rather they are committed to the exclusion of any such evaluation, overview, perspective on religious grounds, at the source and heart of the matter. They so exclude in heart and by faith; and with reason.

Not merely do they disagree with the approach, the strategy, the appeal or whatever else a national leader might choose to make to other people and nations, they do so on the ground that the stated and explicit basis expressly rests on convictions they neither do nor could share,  and that this excursion into religious evaluation as a perspective for national action, is repugnant not only to freedom, and to conscience, but to life.

If therefore, a biblical Christian leader were to declare this: Because biblical morals are the only good ones, and all else is rubbish, I am going to appoint these laws to deal with immoral people, he might not be accepted. WHO, they might ask, appointed you to judge all when constitutionally we have a freedom of religion, on the basis of your own religious book! If however he had said this: Being convinced in terms of my own heart, religion and survey, that these laws are necessary for public health and safety, therefore I will use all my powers as leader to do this: that involves only himself and his appointed power.

The distinction is not hard to find. It is this. IF you talk religion, like anyone else, you choose the time and the place and the involvement and implications. If you talk personally, there is no problem. If you make your appointment to some office, a place where your own values will be applied, there is STILL no problem. Once however you speak as if your perspective is shared by all, commits all, expresses the Senate or national approach, then you presume. You can fight as hard as you like to establish your convictions in discussion, but you cannot simply legislate or orate on the basis that this is acceptable to all.

You must acknowledge that in so speaking you do not implicitly or explicitly involve ANYONE but yourself. You may apply what you believe, but never let it appear that it is shared by all. You could even make it clear that you think it OUGHT to be shared by all, but not that it is. You may argue that this alone is the truth, but not act as if others had agreed. If there is no answer that can stand, then you stand alone; but still you cannot ever characterise the others as being represented by you in such a case. You might even, in that case, declare that this is the only thing found to stand logically, and they might challenge. If they do not prevail, that simply then remains the position. But even that does not commit them as a group, to being treated as if they agreed with you, or as if any leadership you had was of them all in any such basis as you might annunciate!

You may even argue that no other truth exists finally, but you may not so act as leader as to imply in ANY way that others are bound by, or to your conceptions.

Obama as President could have made it clear that he has personal views about Islam and Christianity, and that he plans to implement things in accord with these evaluations, but he cannot rightly as a leader of a multi-partite nation, act as if what he says in any way might be assumed to be acceptable to many, or representative of the nation Moreover,  when his words go beyond his election presentation, or even contrary to it, then he might well expect a sense of betrayal. Many leaders do that, and Hitler was perhaps the chief. As the actual meaning of his ideology became clear, it was appalling.

It is necessary at all times to be clear on convenient machinations and declarations, that they are only that, and that any attempt to institute them as principial grounds for the national approach, just as surely as they touch religion, generic in some synthetic style, or individual is mere wantonry with wisdom,

In characterising what the USA would or would not do, therefore, as if he spoke for it, rather than merely expressing a personal opinion, he erred. To lead, you need to persuade, and it was obvious that as far as any residue of Bible-believing Christians in the USA still exists, there was no persuasion, but rather the mere announcement of religious evaluation. This is no leadership, but direction.

Had he said this:

My nation is religiously multi-partite, and while we are as a people committed to trust in God, we do not determine things beyond the law, in any national pronouncement. Each of us has convictions which, we hope, none of us is afraid to acknowledge and even urge; but as political leader in this nation, it is no part of mine to define the religious evaluations of this people. I define my own, and I hope that many will see the point and advantages of it; but I CANNOT speak at this level for all, since it is a known fact that many do NOT agree, and would in fact regard it as an inglorious and evil imposition, to dare to characterise the entire nation in this way.

You see, it is not so easy to do this; and that, no doubt,  is why many would not have attempted to do it anyway, not caring to bring up explicit religious commitment and evaluation between religions, as part of a national policy presentation. This CANNOT lead the nation. It is therefore not a POSSIBLE proper, political ploy for a free, democratic people, that its leader do this.

Was Cairo then a sort of soliloquy by Obama about his personal religious life and approaches ? if so, it is possible. People can talk about their religion if they want to do so. It is free. Some might find the emphasis on it, in that case, extraordinary in a speech on behalf of the nation, to an international group in a sensitive setting. It might seem amazingly overdone, and rampantly and even riotously presumptuous. A personal testimony in this depth is NOT going to represent anything like all the USA, and its extensiveness in view of the call of the day would seem overdone.

Or on  the other hand, was it an act of COMMITMENT of the USA to certain approaches as the basis of its actions ? If so, then it was illicit. You can commit to action, but not to evaluation of religions as its basis, since you were not elected on that basis. Your personal groundwork in thought is one thing; your presentation of the estimate of religions as a basis for your policy is another.  We are all moved by what we believe; and some believe foolishly and some wisely, so that nothing CAN and there DOES overthrow that faith. To say this is not offensive in a free nation. To speak however FOR that nation in terms of the OUTCOME of such faith on the BASIS of such evaluations, is to divide and lead only a part at the cost of the rest at the outset. Do you speak as Obama insisted he did, for ALL the people ? then as President, for all he must speak, and not for a section, including himself.

To say, As a Christian, I am moved to this outcome is one thing. To say, As leader of this nation, I say this is the sound evaluated approach, for it brings this and that religion into accord, and draws from the wisdom of each: this MUST mean you prresidentially are dismissing all who hold only to the one, or only to the other, or against any combination, as if they did not exist.

Here you act as a synthetic religion expert, hireable perhaps by those who want your facility for such outcomes, but not electable by those who want a President to lead the nation AS a nation. The "for"  eliminates all propriety. IF you bring in a religious evaluation as the ground of action, and not a personal basis for your consideration of all the aspects of the case, you move from the personal - where it is legitimate and proper at all times - to the public, where it is in this case not so, for IN public you represent ALL! You could even say, I am persuaded that only the Christian faith is logically sustainable, or even that it is demonstrable, provided you were willing to show this, for it commits no one else, and draws on no group but only on yourself, for its statement and defence. You could add this: With this in mind, I survey all the aspects of the national case and conclude that all will be best served by this and that!

Again, it is your survey. There is nothing a priori against it.

A nation might elect a Christian President and be not in the least concerned if he were to indicate that the morals and ethics he holds will move him, in application, where observation and empirical evidence joins, to move against all legality for sexual perversion. He might equally declare that within the law, he will use whatever power has been accorded him, to seek to fulfil this for the nation. He deems it best for all, whatever may be their own personal views on the topic. They are not implicated in his speech, but as always, are met by his action. For example, this would equally be the case if war were declared!

You pay the price of your election when he takes an ethical or military step (biblically, you keep the moral perspective intact), but nothing untrue is in view, unless his statements are directed to presuming the approach of all. He is elected, and he chooses. Here the case is relatively simple. Next time, you can choose something else, if you want it.

What then of a Christian President, so elected ? You have to make it clear that these are your convictions, that you plan to apply them as best for all, that it is your considered opinion that this IS best for all, and do so NOT on the basis that the nation is a Christian one, or has such an approach to this and that religion or view, but on the basis that you conceive, as a Christian, that this is now the best thing for all. ALL will not agree; all CANNOT agree in this case; many would be horrified were it suggested they even COULD agree to it; but it is simply what  this President in his whole personality, committed as he is and has been known to be, believes is best for all.

If you elected an Islamic President on the same basis, he too could say that he had resolved that the best approach to such an issue, for all the nation, in view of its specific features and complexities, position and vulnerabilities, within its law, and with his well-known convictions, was that this or that must be done.

If this were so, it would be no breach, since his position had been known, and provided no law was made which conflicted with the Constitution, it could happen, not riotously but in the merely political domain, rightly. However if such were done, then the whole nation would need to consider something.

It is this.

It does not politically matter what you believe: in a democracy, you are free to do so if violence is not your short-circuit for others; and God is free to act accordingly. That is what is part of the very core of history, of Christian historiography if you will. Do it, and gain the response. Know what you are doing, for it will come. If IN freedom, BY election of a known person with a known religion with a known character, you gain a President WHOSE RELIGION pours contempt on Christ's claim to be a) deity b) redemption for all who come to Him c) the last revelation and the finale, the definitive criterion for all revelation from God: then you are asking for the wrath of that God who has the advantage of existence ^*2.

You are free to choose as an individual, a nation, and to gain results accordingly.

If you elect   a person of a given conviction, belief-set and warp, and put him where his principles, morals and religious life are defined before election, and he then within the law, without misrepresenting the nation or anyone in it, acts in the scope of the field of his faith, then it is not illegal that he does so. Nor is it unspiritual if God THEN AND THEREFORE ELECTS to give you what you are asking for: exposure for breach of truth and contempt of primary things, in the interests of secondary ones. If however you say, But I have not changed my faith, this simply seemed the best man: what then ?

Then 'best' being the superlative of good, you are deeming his total presentation more like God than that of another. You protest: God did not come into it. THAT then is your judgment. You are in contempt of God. If you go fishing, and all is well except the sea-worthiness of your vessel, it is quite useless to explain that everything else was better than was the case in any other boat. The boat sinks and removes those benefits. If God is not your chief love, so that you would not under any circumstances give vital powers for your nation to anyone who does not love Him, that is understandable. It may limit you and your comfort; but it would not deny either your faith or your sanity.

But now the USA has in the presidency,  a 'Christian' whose church was made the subject of enormous question; but they took him anyway. He had various views about religions expressed earlier, but this did not move them. He has taken things much further, but this is now the result. It must be faced.

You need care, not for the party but for the results of political partying, parleying, when the morning comes, and the night before is over. Thus Obama was wrong to leave his evaluation of religions as a base for his nationally significant action in the international arena. It COULD not be acceptable conduct for a leader of the nation, for it COULD not lead many, not because of developments, but because of their continuing faith and values to the contrary. ANY expression of such things, as at Cairo, as the position of the USA would harrow the faithful and harass their conscience. It is the position of some in the USA, and not of others.

The USA IS NOT of this kind, they might say, abd so cannot faithfully be so presented; and it is the very essence of presumption to act as if this did represent that nation. Unelected for religious evaluation, Obama is not to present it as the basis of his actions in the name of the nation. Such views may enter into his personal conclusions leading to his decision, but they cannot be made the stated grounds for an action in the nation's name.

The nation CANNOT think or hold this, and it is presumption even to imagine that most of it does. HE thinks it ? fine, that is his affair, it is his life, and he acts thus. He thinks it is right: then to that extent he has a clear conscience, but it does not clear the decks for so acting IN THE NATION'S NAME. He acts as President with power, to import ideas and apply them to the people. If it is legal, then only the Congress can overthrow the thing. That is understood. It may (but probably will not) try. If it did, then that body, this too, would free itself from all the implications of what biblically, is his Christ-betraying speech. If it does not do this, then it does not have this result. Morals have meaning, results and effects, both with man and with God.

But all this does not alter the case for himself. If, however,  in the nation's name, he does so act, then he is giving out what is not so. That is the problem. It falls at the feet of fact, as an oral feat, misfeaturing the faces of many, who shudder to have their land presented in the light of such darkness as this.

You pay for your choices. When they go beyond their mission, then you need pay at least in heart, and in testimony to God and to man,  no longer, by making your formal contradiction of such innovative prongs for the nation, and in this case,  your detestation for the treatment of Jesus the Christ, which has occurred in this way, on the part of one who represents a nation of which this is not at all representative. In so declaring rejection, you become one of those fearing and loving God, whose contempt for such treatment of the nation is on record. If it is an organisation or church which considers it, then AS that Church it may so act, and should make clear declaration against this thing.

You don't have to be theocratic to have faith, to apply it, to protest at its distortion or default, or to separate yourself in strong speech from what is being done, or even the propriety of the way in which it is being done. HE spoke of the "this truth which transcends all nations and all people, a belief that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that has pulsed in the cradle of civilisation ... It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today."

That is a declaration, a moral writ, a mini-Mosaic assertion, a distortion of Christianity, where the CONTEXT of loving your neighbour as yourself is the second commandment, where loving the God whose word is given in the Bible, with all your heart and soul and mind and strength is the FIRST. To act in terms of the SECOND, without this, you are  fundamentally astray, inadequate, mere talkathon exponent. You give the street but not the city.

True that is all that is needed, ASSUMING that the word of the God who says so is implicitly AND explicitly taken as its ground, is first in place, that the THIS authority is the REASON why you accept the second commandment. Do this, have this perspective, listen to this authority, then all is well to apply the second commandment. Thus, defining context and spiritual basis by which you refer to the second commandment, you have it in its perspective and place. However, avoiding the first commandment of Moses, in the ten commandments, and of Christ, in this twofold aggregation, has a result. It becomes like wool without a sheep, without life, just a lift-out or in this case, cut-off.

Such assumptions of common interest with other religions, as Obama gave concerning the second commandment,  presume on the varied contexts and illustrations of each religion. He characterises the situation for a new truncated religion, where God is undefined, while certain wisps and ideas, taken brutally from context and in themselves by no means characteristic of both religions, are waved about like incense. This new religion, which he takes as granted and in which he calls for all to act ,is not something any leader of a free nation can do, unless appointed for the purpose, which in itself, would make that nation no more a free one.

The idea, accordingly, which Obama takes, that doing to others what you would like them to do to you, is extended from no base. It is not a fact that joins the various religions, since many of them have ideas which make the love of their neighbour simply to kill him, for they might esteem it better for him to die, than live the life he does; they might even deem it better for themselves, were they to be in the position now occupied by their neighbour! and similarly deluded. People can think almost  ANYTHING, in the obfuscatory oblivion of mindless rovings. It is like saying, Now this, E=MC² is not realised by all, but we all agree on the E=M part, so let us enjoy this in common.

Words are not to be waved around like wands, but realised in their meaning. Thus, Christ ALSO said this, not only that what we would like others to do to us, do to them, but LOVE your neighbour as yourself, and LOVE GOD FIRST OF ALL. His FIRST commandment is not to be assumed deleted in the interests of the second, but to be operative in its composition of its understanding.

Hence Obama has indeed presented a world view, a world religious orientation which defiles biblical faith, denies its assertions and even misuses them; and he has appealed to all to follow it, as if this were some RELIGIOUS FACT to which all must be subject, in any kind of conscience or commitment.

In such things, he has greatly defiled the USA.

Therefore a form of condemnation of this posture is needed, for those who in the USA wish to declare their faith and their opposition to any kind of religious re-orientation course made basic to national and international dealings.

In this way, like King Josiah of old, you separate yourself from this seduction, and apply yourself to the testimony of Jesus Christ, despite what the nation is doing, which it ought not, and the way in which it is doing it, which it ought not. Unable to change it, you are nevertheless by no means unable to state your case, and exclude all involvement, while praying for the nation, if by any means God might delay judgment while repentance manifests itself for a while.

It was one's sad but pitiful task, as a friend,  to warn America some little while before the horrid attack on the Twin Towers; for it was clear that the way it was treating Israel was by no means the way it would like to be treated itself ^*3. It hit home like the missile airplanes, when it happened. It was eminently sad.

It was grievous, but the erratic religious movements of decades before were even more so.  Again, one makes no prophecy here, and would lament if one had to; but this sort of thing, this Cairo approach,  NEEDS declamation against it by many in the USA, by churches and those who love Christ. Without it, the pollution would be greater; but this way, it is like at least trying to remove the pollution of thousands of tons of oil in the ocean, showing good faith for good things, and standards that are not variable.

Jeremiah besought, pled with King Zedekiah to surrender to what God required of him, so that all might be well; but he would not. Far worse came to him than any surrender could have called for; but he would not. Is it not the throbbing theme in so much of the tragedies of history, that people are called in vain to follow the Lord, when fortune or misfortune either inflates or depresses them, and THEY WILL NOT. If then some cannot direct the nation, they can direct their tongues, and pens! Do what one can is a good message for conscience.

It is one's hope, that the USA will take eloquent and clear action in those who believe in the Lord, to denounce the Obama Cairo declamation on religion as beyond his role, short of the truth and a synthetic substitute for truth. What dishonours Christ is a shame to any people, and this goes out of its way in what appears all but a sell-out, or a distortive propaganda haul, filled with worldly wisdom, but contrary to Christ. This is no private confessional; it is a national declaration! There should be contrary declarations: it is a free country, and freedom is precious while it lasts.

What defies and defiles, distorts and departs from the biblical faith in Jesus Christ, reconstructing and aborting truths in the name of shallow synthetic substitutes, this is not for the Christians of the USA. While violence in such matters is to be detested, when the Christian faith has violence done to it in this way, SPEECH must be clear and NOT delayed, to denounce the action, to dispel any concept that it has ANY relationship with the nation which is being subjected to such synthesis and aspiration in an international setting. Those who wish to be separate from such things, in a country still free, need to make it clear that this is the case. It is just this that was done as you see in  Malachi 3:16, so that a "Book of Remembrance" was written in their names, setting them apart and their testimony publicly in view.

God was greatly pleased and blessed this action (Malachi 3:17). Faith needs to declare itself, and connivance needs to be removed even as a possibility, when a great nation is so treated to such things as these.

Faithfulness leads to faithfulness; as does slackness to sedition all too readily, first of the pronouncements in the podium, then of the heart.

NOTES

*1

*2

See Swift Witness  6, Barbs  ... 6  -7, Repent or Perish Ch. 7, It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, SMR,
TMR , for example. See also Design and Deity ... and Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ

Who Answers Riddles,
And Where He is, Darkness Departs

*3

See: Lord of Life Ch. 3, for an earlier presentation, including biblical grounds for concern for the USA, citing what was said about one month before the Twin Towers tragedy. This with More Marvels ... Ch. 4, and Divine Agenda  Ch. 6 speaks of actuality as distinct from fantasy, apparently at least in part induced by diplomatic hopes. It is best to face the facts, not only in science, but in politics and religion. The end of THAT matter (as in SMR, TMR) is glorious. The word of God, the Bible written, Christ eternal, IS glorious. Defilement is worse than error; it is occlusive of vision when vision is most needed!