E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Obama linked his faith to his policies at a speech Thursday, making a reference at one point that some saw as a subtle dig at Mitt Romney.
Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast here, Obama said that he is driven to public service in part by "the Biblical call to care for the least of these -- for the poor; for those at the margins of society."
The president’s remarks came a day after Romney said during an interview that he is "not concerned about the very poor," noting that there is already "a safety net" for that income bracket and that he was focused on the struggles of the middle class. Those comments sparked a firestorm among both liberal and conservative commentators.
Several reporters at today's White House briefing asked press secretary Jay Carney whether Obama's comments were an intentional dig at Romney.
Carney insisted that Obama’s use of scripture was an appropriate way to articulate his policy positions, considering the venue.
“I think if you can't discuss in a prayer breakfast one of the central tenets of your faith which is prevalent throughout the New Testament, I think you're really circumscribing yourself too much,” he said. “He was not trying to engage in campaigning; he was simply talking about faith and how it affects the decisions he makes.”
But this instance was not the first in which Carney had to push back on the president’s perceived motivation for using particular phrases in his speeches.
Wednesday, Obama seemed to make an indirect reference to a past Romney comment when, during an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal, the former Massachusetts governor said the housing industry should be left to “hit the bottom” on its own.
“It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom,” Obama said in a speech about mortgage finance relief.
When asked whether that comment was directed toward Romney, Carney would only say that he had no response “specifically to any comment like that by a candidate.”
During the prayer breakfast, the president also explained several times how his faith informed some of his policies, a departure from his previous two speeches at the annual event.
"When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody," Obama said, making direct references to legislation passed under his watch on financial regulation and health care.
"But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God's command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself,'" he continued.
He also explained the biblical underpinnings of his support for more middle-class tax breaks, while placing a heavier tax obligation on the wealthiest Americans.
"I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone.
“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that, ‘For unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” he said.
Obama's previous prayer breakfast speeches, while not devoid of politics, have included much more oblique references.
In last year’s speech, he spoke about the role of government in society: "Our values, our love and our charity must find expression not just in our families, not just in our places of work and our places of worship, but also in our government and in our politics."
And in 2010, Obama lamented the "erosion of civility in the public square" which he said "makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth."
The politics in Obama’s previous speeches may have been more muted, however, due to the events surrounding those years’ prayer breakfasts.
The 2011 event held soon after the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and had among its guests Giffords’s husband Mark Kelly.
And in 2010, the president was, in fact, fairly pointed on the issue of those who questioned his Christianity or his citizenship, telling the audience, "Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.”
The event that year also happened soon after the tragic earthquake in Haiti.
NBC’s Shawna Thomas contributed reporting.
Leave a Comment:
You know, I am tired of hearing how 'religious and pious' these congressionals are:
Meanwhile (e.g. Jeff Sessions) GOP/Koch wants to cut foodstamps, cut schools, cut Medicare, cut anything - cut the ground from under the feet of ordinary people.
They are just spouting religion while leaving or planning to leave, real, live Americans without support.
Of course President Obama spoke about the poor and marginalized. He cared about them before he got his educational degrees, after he got them, when he was a state senator and U.S. Senator. And he cares now.
Speaking about the less fortunate to the illustrious congressional body at the Annual Prayer Breakfast SHOULD be OK!
Why is it all about Romney-the-Poster-Boy-Job-Eliminator-for-the-One Per-Cent?
I've had enough of the bible bangers for the day - I think I'll watch Bill Maher's 'Religulous' tonight!
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it, if you're in the mood for something that will make you laugh until you cry!
Make sure you make plenty of *popcorn*
Perverse view of Jesus' ministry for sure, Backhouse.
Unfortunately Mr. Obama was using the same religious backing for his points that his opponents do. Terms like faith, god, etc, ought to be absent from political conversation. Obsolete superstition will not help us progress.
What is the President of the United States doing at a prayer breakfast? I know they all do it and it seems utterly inappropriate to me.
One thing I have appreciated about Mr. Obama is he seems to downplay religion, for the most part only bringing it up when he is pushed to do so.
The Prayer Breakfast is an annual congressional event. Presidents attend. Obama has attended every year of his office.
'The Poor' live here, right here in America. And that is what affluent messieurs McConnell, Boehner and GOP/Koch congressionals would like to sweep under the rug. They demonstrate their priorities openly.
You either got $$it, or you are a Leech in their book.
I've had enough of them, period... biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever walk the face of the Earth.
It's all about them republican bible bangers, How Horrible! But when the Democrat President does it, he get a pass, or he's "Forced to do it"
Can any one reconcile this for me?
Why does it matter, Bible Bangin is bible Bangin no matter who does it.
Stirring the pot, Egilman?
Egilman, there's a difference between a politician discussing their faith and how it informs their values and a politician trying to force their faith on others or enshrine its rules and tenets into law. That's the difference between Obama's mostly innocuous religious platitudes and the aggressive social agendas of Santorum/Perry/Bachmann and the like.
Gingrich is another matter. He just likes talking about religion because it's divisive and he's manipulative.
And then there's Ron Paul, whose libertarian ideology takes a back seat to his religious ideology and who actively works and partners with social, religious conservatives who are far more of a threat to liberty than any of his economic boogeymen. He won more votes in Iowa by vowing to end abortion that by vowing to end the fed.
Finally, there's Romney who is afraid to even talk about his religion, hoping that if he ignores it hard enough, the evangelicals in the conservative base will forget that he's a Mormon, even if it reinforces the image that the only thing he really worships is the almighty dollar.
egilman - well said. I to notice a distinct silence from the left
Nathan - Care to rephrase your observations? With obama it is innocuous, with others it is forcing religious rules into law. For romney you castigate his silence on being morman as being bad or that his only religion deals in money. How droll...
Phine,
Not intentionally.
Nathan,
Dr Paul has never brought up his religion in any context in his campaign, to claim that he's guilty by association in the manner you are means everyone in Congress is guilty of being a religious bigot. The only ones that aren't are the people that profess no religious leanings.
The divisions in this country are a lot deeper than religion, poor/rich, liberal/conservative. There is an undercurrent of hate fueled by anger. It seems that it doesn't matter anymore that we are all Americans, we only have our own sick individual greed's that need to be slathered. Small selfish desires for moral superiority over all others.
I have a brother who has been preparing for the country as we knew it to finally explode as the factions today lay claim to the self righteous rightness of their own little world. He as told me that there is no point left in trying to make it all work, make it all come together as one. His view is that the animus between the factions is to great to overcome.
I had a different view and sought to establish for myself that he was wrong. I see people trying to be what the nation once was, but are too blind to see the overall picture. Blinded by hate. I have to admit, my brother is right, love of country that I grew up to understand doesn't exist anymore. It has been supplanted with what a fraction of the country wants the country to be.
Marx was correct when he predicted that a country founded as a representative republic would only last for 200 to 250 years before the avarice's of it's own freedoms brought it crashing down. I may be being too cynical, but I see it before my eyes.
There is no point in trying to save what nobody wants saved. Thank you for being patient with me. You can now ridicule me as an idiot, because lashing out is what is specialized in here. I brought nothing in and take nothing away, just my time..
To the people I consider my friends here it was fun, enjoy yourselves have a good time...
First of all, given your knee jerk reactions, one would think that you are all part of the lowest 1% of the population in terms of wealth and that it is you personally who will suffer if social programs are cleaned up and the abuses and duplications eliminated. I seriously doubt that is the case considering that reading your messages day after day leads me to believe that many of you have middle class, suburban backgrounds with more than adequate education, not to mention a computer and access to the internet. That being said, if you are so concerned about the well-being of the "poor" (and I would also appreciate a definition of what poor means, exactly, for this discussion), how much of your income is dedicated to their well being, or are you all about spending everyone else's tax dollars? While everyone one of us, myself included, can think about people in financial difficulty, through no fault of their own, that is not the universal definition of the poorest among our society. There are many who have chosen to drop out, to stop trying, because they can get by without having to expend any efforts on their part. In that, it is correct to say that our government has already made many provisions in social programs to address the poorest of our nation. It is also correct to say, that unless something is done to assist the working middle class, they too, will be broken down into the lowest income level. What most of you don't get, while you are on your soapbox protecting the poor, is that our present administration has absolutely no problem with all of us (excepting those in positions of authority, either elected government officials or appointed government functionaries) being the 99% and equally sharing the poverty. Under this scenerio, nobody is uplifted to a better future, but rather given just sufficient to get by, and then told to be grateful for all that is done for them and display that gratitude with their votes. Interfering with the ebb and flow of business by the government serves to only lengthen and deepen the recession/depression (whatever we all are calling it this week) and making for the double dips and triple dips....There is a large body of materials, retrospective in nature, that demonstrate how FDR's social policies extended and deepened the Great Depression and if things had been let alone, the chicken in every pot would have come about a whole lot sooner rather than being campaign rhetoric. Prosperity would have been "just around the corner" instead of requiring people to walk the length and breadth of the nation looking for gainful employment and a soup kitchen. Nobody wants to appear unkind, insensitive, cruel, selfish, but at the same time, you aren't the ones jumping forward to save the poor, but rather demanding that your government do so on your behalf and drag everyone else along with you through irresponsible spending and increased ways to tax those who work
american,
Not to rephrase, but perhaps to elaborate. And please note that I said "mostly innocuous". The modifier is significant.
Rick Santorum: worked with the Discovery Institute to pass the Santorum Amendment, intended to sanction teaching the non-scientific Intelligent Design in science classes. Opposed the Supreme Courts decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws. Still opposes equal rights for homosexuals. Has said on multiple occassions in this campaign that our civil laws must comport to God's biblical laws.
Bachmann: summed up pretty well by The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Perry: you saw the "Strong" ad, right?
Ron Paul: Among the few issues on his campaign site, he includes abortion and home schooling, both issues intended to appeal specifically to religious Republicans. Says President Paul would be " Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction" and "Defining life as beginning at conception." Nothing libertarian about that position.
Are there concrete examples of Obama stressing that type of religious sentiment? Of placing biblical law over American law and the Constitution? If not, then there is a clear difference in kind. The most glaring example I am aware of was his initial rejection of the legitimacy of same sex marriage, though in favoring civil unions that was far more a pragmatic compromise position than a religious imposition, and Obama's central character trait is that he loves pragmatic compromise, even when they make no logical sense. His position here has evolved because the pragmatism of legalizing same sex marriage has improved politically.
With Romney, I am more castigating the conservative evangelical base that actively opposes him not because they disagree with him on anything policy-wise, but simply because they don't agree with his religion's theology. His refusal to engage the topic is wise politically, but just one more example of his chameleonic persona as a candidate, something Obama shares to a lesser extent. This is not so much a difference in kind, but one of degree. It reflects not a true difference between Obama and Romney, but rather the differing importance of religion to their relative bases.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
"I've had enough of the bible bangers for the day"
You mean you have had enough of Obama banging his bible?
Whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me.
Obviously Romney doesn't really care about the poor. If his party had their way there would be no safety net. They are against any and all entitlement programs and make sure they let people know that at every opportunity. Romney is the poster child for non-caring rich people. While he is not necessarily greedy he supports programs and ideas that promote greed for those who are so inclined to be that way.
Romney's religion teaches that one should look out for the least among us but apparently Willard Mitt Romney is not as strong in is faith as one would like. Throwing money at the issue isn't the only way to do it. He seems to forget his missionary work in France and the people he worked with there.
President Obama, although wealthy, has not forgotten the people he served as a civic organizer, something he didn't have to do. He could have joined any of several top notch law firms in the country but decided on community service instead. He didn't throw money at the situation but rolled up his sleeves and worked to help the least of our brothers and sisters.
Baldeagle11:
Excellent post!
Isn't time for supposed Christians to understand their own religion? Obama's comments are in support of the most important command of the New Testament but the ignorance is so vast. I'm afraid most of the religious right are the "noisy cymbal or the clanging gong." They forget that Jesus equated service to one's brother (or sister) as service to God. I am told that Gandhi once said, "Jesus nearly had me but then I met a few Christians." His apparent reference was to the white South Africans that knew so much hatred. In this country, I find that the right wing Christians ironically are full of intolerance, anger, and greed. And they are prone to value clean language and chastity more than kindness. They are also very fond of guns (and even war). Jesus would not know his team.
People are fond of the spouting Scripture with regards to our duty to care for one another and share our blessings with the poor, the handicapped/disabled, but everyone chooses to forget and look the other way when Scripture mentions the fact that those who do not contribute anything to society are not deserving of being taking care of by society. Choosing not to work, choosing to accept a dole instead of using talents and abilities is wrong under Bible teaching. Failing to accept opportunity is like throwing a potential blessing back as not good enough. It is not a kindness to provide social safety nets if those social safety nets only serve to keep the poor in the ghettos, in the public housing, away from successful people and quality education which would result in a potential for real opportunity for advancement.
Sue:
I get that you think the poor are lazy. You might be surprised to know that over 50% of the people receiving food stamps work. They just get paid very low wages. And children should be fed, regardless of any sloth on the part of their parents. But what about war and guns, Sue? "Blessed are the warmongers and the gun toters." "Blessed are those who kill ob/gyn's that perform abortions." I don't think so.
I am very thankful for our presidents leadership. Prayers answered daily. The unwarranted dishonor Barack has had to endure is historical. Truly.....the republican party is lost and self loathing.
I think so too. The President should be commended for coping so splendidly with all the pettiness and hatred that has been directed at him...simply because he won the election in 2008.
History will accord him the status of a great man.
Yep, most of which he creates for himself. First president in our history that couldn't work with congress or business. To bad he has never read dale carnegies book on "how to win friends and influence people"
I agree that our president creates alot of his own problems. First of all, he seems to thrive on speeches that are by design divisive rather than unifying. Working people should hate those who own companies, who own banks. Those who don't work and are dependent are supposed to hate everyone who believes that the real good for everyone would be to get these folks to be independent rather than fostering continued subsitance level and further dependency. He engages in the blame game with fingers pointing in every direction, and as the leader of our country has fostered that same attitude among our other elected officials (you can do whatever you like or absolutely nothing at all, so long as you firmly affix the blame anywhere else) And when our president has a "scathingly brilliant idea" and everyone doesn't jump on board immediately like a syncophant's convention, his speeches are derogatory, inflamatory (basically reminiscent of a five year old having a temper tantrum for not getting his own way) I have heard the rhetoric of compromise, but in our present administration, compromises are only a one way street, but the finger of blame is fimly planted going the wrong way on the one way street. So, to sum up and simplify
Our president feels that he is the only one who knows how to solve any problem facing humanity.
If you don't believe him, then the problems facing humanity are squarely on your shoulders, your fault.
He will actively support the poor as long as the poor support him In fact, he will happily grow and expand the population of poor to insure more votes for himself, for his policy, for his cronies.
All big business is evil unless it makes huge contributions to the Obama campaign. The same is true of banks (mind you, all politicians are dependent upon large cash cows, but most do not condemn the herd too loudly)
Government is transparent as long as we all agree with and understand our president's agenda....all other agendas a murky and clouded (Like all the bills sponsored by conservatives that don't even get to be seen, let alone discussed or passed)
What everyone who is on the bandwagon forgets is that President Obama won the last election, but it was far from a landslide, lopsided win and came down ultimately to the electoral college. That means that perhaps almost half of this country didn't support him or his policies from the start. The anger stems from the fact that half or more of the population is tired of not being represented, not being heard, not being accounted for in our present government's plans.
Where in the world do you get this stuff? Obama has NEVER said anything even faintly resembling this nonsense. What he has stated repeatedly, is that it's time for the playing field to be leveled and for those people who have profited GREATLY from tax laws to give back to the community and the country that has provided such opportunity for them.
All big business is NOT evil unless it makes huge contribution to the Obama campaign. However, those big businesses who chose to buy politicians and spend money to influence policy should be restricted from doing so.
If you're not seeing the bills sponsored by conservatives, perhaps you should ask the conservatives why not.
Far more people actually voted for Obama than voted for Bush's second term. If you're tired of not being represented, imagine how the other side felt when they were called traitors and un-American during Bush/Cheney's reign when they watched the economy sliding off a cliff. The truth is that Obama came into office with his hand out to the Republicans - he has been right of center on almost every single things he's done. Many of the things he's supported were Republican ideas. As long as the GOP continue to make "one term president" their rallying cry, Americans (at least most of us) will understand what motivates them, and it isn't moving this country forward.
I am sick of these religious cult members saying one thing. Then we find out they are diddling each others wife's and children !
It kills me that some voters who claim to hold high moral values support Gingrich, despite ample evidence that he is NOT a man of good character.
All because he mouthed the same words over and over about how he had gone to God for forgiveness and reconciliation. How gullible can these people be?
Actions speak louder than words, and Newt's actions show him for what he is: a man who cannot be trusted.
Use some common sense, America. Look at the records of the candidates. Who they are is in their history, not in their pretty words.
I believe it comes from the Bible "Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone." I believe in a moral code of ethics strongly, but that doesn't mean that I don't make mistakes in my life. I can believe that cursing is wrong and still utter the expletive when a hammer mashes my thumb. I am not minimizing anyones' behaviors or calling them right or justifying anything by circumstance, but I am pointing out that nobody can be a perfect human being, and yet everyone can still hold to the importance of morals, values, ethics....If morality and ethics were the prime motivating factors in who we selected for offices, I would imagine that Washington DC as a whole would be a ghost town, complete with tumbleweeds...I would imagine that you might well find many pro-life supporters had experience with abortion that led them to that value or belief, even though some might suggest that the belief is hypocritical based upon their previous experiences. People do not seem to learn things well vicariously, but rather through experience. Beliefs, morals, ethics are learned and not inborn, and as such can be modified and changed as maturity and experience warrant. Values are a goal, something we strive for to make the world a better place, but if we had to be absolutely sinless with regard to our value set or we couldn't support the value, unfortunately, we would become a society of no ethics or values at all.
I'm not sure I get your point, Sue. Gingrich may well be forgiven for his transgressions, but that is not the same as trusting him going forward.
I don't trust him, no matter how many times he says, "I have had to go to God for forgiveness and reconciliation."
Would you let a convicted pedophile from your church babysit your children?
Be ready to bend over for four more years independents voters if chimpboy get re-elected
bravado boy,
Are you rehearsing to be a pratt, or is it just the way you look?
What a vulgar comment, marco.
Marco,
In today's world it is usually the Bigots that get bent, are you sufficiently bent yet?
Your comment is reprehensible Marco. You are so 'brave'. And so
Easy to write from behind a moniker or.... a white hood.
America was founded on separation of Church and state with freedoms the rest of the world envy. Politicians who blatantly put forth their religious-tainted legislation should be re-called onto the carpet. Make no mistake, the TEA party has attained greater control locally and at the state level by getting involved and going to meetings and voicing their opinions. They have a greater control at the state level now than ever before. when people hide behind the "Conservative" mantra protesting taxes which pay for a multitude of programs they deem unnecessary, in-effective or not allowed by the constitution. These same individuals then turn around and want to do away with those Social programs, while candidates say "I'm not concerned about the very poor", speaks loudly to their character. Those people at the edge or margins of society should be addressed in a humane way and assisted back into mainstream society. Our candidates should be held to a higher standard and those who fail to keep high standards should not be allowed to attain national leadership, and religion should not be the standard on which to measure.
guess obama slipped through, lets correct this error come november.
A very well thought out and expressed comment, Rudy.
I don't care if you are open about your religion or silent, I just don't care what religion you are or not, and if your one of these nutjobs who think "if we elect this guy we will all become Catholics or Muslims" then you are not in touch with reality and have no business voting...
Religion is a private matter, period
This is what I'm sick of hearing...
It's Bush's fault, it's the republicans obstructing everything, I inherited a mess, it takes time to clean up the mess the republicans left, blah blah blah...
What we need is a leader not a whiner!!
And that is exactly what we have in Mr. Obama--a leader. The Republican candidates only claim to be leaders. The reality is that they are in thrall to Grover Norquist, big business, and right wing conservatives.
President Quatro delivers the sermon and then asks for the plate to be passed for the offerings.
Perhaps it is appropriate to refer to faith at a prayer breakfast rather than the Super Bowl. It is certainly timely to be reminded of the gap between "In God we trust" on our money and in money we trust on our morals vs. the Bible. Jesus is not part of Wall Street or the Republican Party.
When Jesus made this statement:
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 13:10 ¶ And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Jesus was speaking about the Word of God...he was not speaking about money...O ba ma is using the Bible verse to falsely teach God's Word, God was for taking care of those that need taking care (the real poor), but he also said if a man does not work, he shall not eat....All of God's children have the opportunity to be exposed to his Word, but we must pray for our eyes and ears to be open to the Word's meaning....it is a mystery unless we pray for open ears and eyes.
Now obama is a biblical scholar, LMAO!!!
Shout out to ole rev. wright
obama is doing a great job of Damning America!!
When Jesus made this statement: (From King James Version Holy Bible)
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matt. 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Matt. 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matt. 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Matt. 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Jesus was speaking about the Word of God...he was not speaking about money...O ba ma is using the Bible verse to falsely teach God's Word, God was for taking care of those that need taking care (the real poor), but he also said if a man does not work, he shall not eat....All of God's children have the opportunity to be exposed to his Word, but we must pray for our eyes and ears to be open to the Word's meaning....it is a mystery unless we pray for open ears and eyes.
When Jesus made this statement (For whosoever hath,): (From King James Version Holy Bible)
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matt. 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Matt. 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matt. 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Matt. 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Jesus was speaking about the Word of God...he was not speaking about money...O ba ma is using the Bible verse to falsely teach God's Word, God was for taking care of those that need taking care (the real poor), but he also said if a man does not work, he shall not eat....All of God's children have the opportunity to be exposed to his Word, but we must pray for our eyes and ears to be open to the Word's meaning....it is a mystery unless we pray for open ears and eyes.