Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Obama And The Pope’s Divisions

Obama And The Pope’s Divisions
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”  That question was asked by Joseph Stalin and addressed to Winston Churchill.

In 1944, at a time when the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the struggle against Nazi Germany, it was important to convince Stalin that the Western democracies accepted him as an equal. “‘In the world of the future, for which our soldiers have shed their blood on countless fronts”, the British Prime Minister said in his bombastic style, “our three great democracies will demonstrate to all mankind that they, both in wartime and in peacetime, will remain true to the high principles of freedom, dignity, and happiness of the people. That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighbourly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican…”

“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.

Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to earth from the nebulous heavens.”   …   Valentin Berezhkov, Stalin’s Interpreter. (SOURCE)

Sixty-eight years later, President Obama seems to be dismissing the Pope’s divisions just as Stalin did.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, allow to me state clearly that I am not a Catholic.  In fact, I am a Lutheran … an “old” Lutheran.  By that, I mean that I am of the conservative side of the Lutheran faith.  I have no truck with the liberal side of the denomination.  Just so we are clear.

Dismissing the Pope’s divisions is just plain stupid.  Strong word, you think?  I don’t think so.  If the President has to tick someone off … why the Catholics? 

“About 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholics today, but about 30 percent of Americans would have been brought up in the Catholic faith. The percentage of Americans who call themselves Catholics has remained steady at about 25 percent for over 50 years, but that is because those born Catholic here who leave the church are replaced by Catholic immigrants and by converts to Catholicism. About half of former Catholics join some form of Protestant faith community, usually evangelical; the other half are mostly unaffiliated with any religion, often calling themselves spiritual but not religious.”  (SOURCE)

I would draw your attention to this sentence from the excerpt above: “About half of former Catholics join some form of Protestant faith community, usually evangelical;” (SOURCE)

Notice the word “EVANGELICAL.”  Now, tell me, was my choice of the word “stupid” too strong, huh?

Obama is making the same mistake secularists have made for centuries and, as we can plainly see, continue to make today. A politician with an nth degree of situational awareness never, I repeat, NEVER, dismisses the Catholic Church. And yet, Obama chose to do so. 

Look, I really don’t care what your position on abortion is.  My position is very straightforward and very clear.  I believe that abortion is wrong … except when the mother’s life is in danger.

We conservative commentators warned America of the dangers of ObamaCare.  We told Americans it would be personally intrusive to a degree Americans have never known before.  Now that the evidence is laid bare, it is utterly astounding at how many Americans STILL cannot grasp how their freedom has been eroded by the legislation from hell we call ObamaCare.

It is well past time to question the judgment of the man asking for a second term as President of the United States.

J. D. Longstreet

No comments: