Skip to main content

Obama is an Atheist Clothed in Humanist Philosophy

By Thomas Roeser

Obama's Creed

When asked why I am outspokenly anti-Obama, here is a main reason. Last April 9 at a news conference in Turkey, he said that while there is a great number of Christians in the United States...

"... we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

You can check the quote for accuracy on the Internet. It's verifiable. Well, as reader Joan Solms (and conservative activist) says: who are "we"? And what "ideals and a set of values"? What are they?

Here is the closest affirmation I can find of what this 3rd World-indoctrinated mystery man of murky genealogical background really "believes" if in fact belief is the right word. He is really not very smart. He poses often with his forefinger dug into his cheek with a faraway look in his eyes from which we are to deduce he's an intellectual. He's decidedly not (take it from me who was the first to interview him on radio after he became a state senator).

Some say he's a Deist like Thomas Jefferson but the above statement contradicts that. Jefferson who first postulated (in a private letter) the concept of "wall of separation" between church and state first suggested that members of Congress go to church in the Capitol itself. That's not Obama. His statement above is humanist and intrinsically atheist. His 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was no test. How can one sit there for 20 years hearing Wright rave against whitey and believe that's Christianity? Obama did it because he was a young man on the make and he decided the folks there could be put to good use as volunteers for him. Period. If he ever believed anything Wright said he should not have tossed him aside when the heat came on... because Wright was a detriment.

No, essentially Obama is an atheist clothed in humanist philosophy. His declaration above certifies it.

Religious historians commonly trace the origins of modern atheism to the 18th century "Enlightenment" [sic] or humanism, spawned by the fight by materialist philosophers and the encyclopedists (among whom was one Francois-Marie Arouet who signed himself "Voltaire") who sought to collect the sum-total of human knowledge within two covers. The original motivation was correct-to change the Old Order of ancient states which sanctioned their rule of "Divine Right." But it soon changed as the masses were told in books and pamphlets that the Christian religion contradicts "the political health and well-being of nations." Thereupon the encyclopedists invented their own god-the state... to which Obama obviously subscribes as substitute for God. People of Voltaire's time believed Christianity is "the art of making men drunk with ecstasy in order to divert their attention from the evils heaped upon them by those who govern them."

It's notable that since he's been president, Obama has never found a church or belief to which he is sustained. Jeremiah Wright was a useful tool and nothing else... no church, no minister... can supplant. So Obama lives a life as president identical with his life before being president: rootlessness but at bottom his religion is the state. It translates practically into humanism-atheism... which comes down to a variant of Marxism.

Marxism which started in the 19th century is essentially humanist, affirming the towering domination of man. Marx like Obama believed in essential economic rationale meaning that the production of goods and services form the real basis of society. Economics is totally under man's control and he need not look to any god beyond his own collective genius to achieve happiness. Among intellectuals there are two ways of looking at the purpose of human life. One is to begin with the world and allow one's intellect to soar after that to God. That is what's called philosophy. The other is to begin with God and allow one's intellect to explore the world. That's what's known as theology. Obama follows neither route. That's why he has tried to redefine what we believe as "ideals and a set of values."

It boils down to the state. Obama is a pragmatic materialist, an atheist-humanist who has placed the totality of his belief in man and the state as created by man. That's what I believe he is. Tell me if you agree or disagree by writing me at thomasfroeser@sbcglobal.net





You are subscribed to email updates from TomRoeser.com ::
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...