There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:
Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm
And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone
It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:
Genesis 4:5-9 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. (6) And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (7) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (8) And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (9) And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:
Genesis 4:10-11 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. (11) And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.
This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).
Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.
Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…
This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/
Many of you have probably seen or heard about Obama’s performance in Rick Warren’s debate. I would like to draw attention to this part of that. Did you know a similar exchange occurred in the Bible? The context may be different but it is the first thing I thought of after I read Obama’s beautiful dodging maneuver (reminiscent of his dodging of votes on important or controversial issues…)
(Matthew 21:25) The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
(Matthew 21:26) But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
(Matthew 21:27) And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Now let me give you the BSV (Barack Substandard Version)
Obama 1:1 And the mediator asked: The rights of a child, from whence to they begin? And Obama reasoned with himself, saying, If I say “sometime after birth” I will lose the moderates and conservatives?
1:2 But if I shall say “at conception” I fear my party, moveon.org, the clintons, NARAL and NOW.
1:3 And He answered and said, “It is above my paygrade to have an opinion on such things.”
And thus it was continued, not in the so-called “new politics,” but in the politics of the old, for behold the answer given a controversial topic was like unto nothing, and it was.
I have recently began to read Obama’s book Dreams from my father and, though I am only a few pages into it, I feel some interesting observations can be made.
He has melded different characters into one (p xvii), changed the names of most people he knew, and some events are taken “out of precise chronology.” Such things are perfectly fine for historical fiction, but for someone writing an autobiographical book, one has to wonder how much the truth has been compromised by such actions. Of perhaps greater importance, is that any changes he has made were his choice, and will show us how he views such people and groups and beliefs.
Another unusual feature has been that, only 13 pages in, he has twice made reference or comparison to Communists and socialists. Neither reference was necessary, and is perhaps awkward.
The first reference Obama compares his state of hopelessness to that of the Communists:
“…well, I suspect that I sound incurably naive, wedded to lost hopes, like those Communists who peddle their newspapers on the fringes of college towns(xv).”
The “lost hopes” Obama is referring to seems to be a personal and national racial identity crises, and he feels it is naive to hope that it will be solved. Racial equality is a good thing to strive for, and is indeed true from a scientific and spiritual (Biblical) standpoint.
However, his comparison indicates that Communists have the same sort of hopelessness over their (as of yet) failure to bring about a socialist society. Obama could have picked any other down and out group of people to compare himself to, and yet he chose Communists to sympathize with.
Again, on page 12, he interjects a favorable reference to socialists where it was unnecessary, and perhaps somewhat awkward to do so. It also shows a relatively concealed belief that whites are always racist(a central tenant to Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology as taught at Trinity United Church of Christ), and his attempt to reconcile white grandparents from the age of racism admitting freely that their daughter married a black man.
Sure–but you let your daughter marry one? (Black man)
The fact that my grandparents had answered yes to this question, no matter how grudgingly, remains an enduring puzzle to me. There was nothing in their background to predict such a response, no New England transcendentalists or wild-eyed socialists in their family tree.
Again we have a good thing (interracial acceptance) married to socialism, the foundation of a system that takes away freedom and paycheck.
It is clear to me from this brief portion of Obama’s book that he considers socialism a good thing, and that he has sympathy for those Communists’ lost hopes, the hopes that generations of Americans have fought against for the preservation of the freedoms and values upon which this Union was founded.
Now the New Black Panthers are denying they have any connection to Obama other than skin color. This group also has the audacity to claim the tea party is racist!
Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego. SOURCE
See the original release here, at the New Black Panthers’ website.
The New Black Panther Party for Self Defense has officially endorsed Barack Obama as the “ONLY choice” for the militant racial separatist in their magazine. This group openly longs for the killing of “white folks.” You might think that it is because he’s the first seriously possible Black candidate for the US presidency. You can be assured that if this distinction were to go to someone like Condeliza Rice, Colin Powel, or Alan Keyes, that they would protest them with even more tenacity than they did Bush (you know, the Nazi). They would only come out and support a main stream candidate if that candidate was likely to advance in some way, their views on “whitey”.
After reading about the deletion of a supposed Black Panther Endorsement on Obama’s official website, I decided to check it out for myself. The endorsement was in fact real, as verified by The New Black Panther(TNBP):
In this same issue, here is the full page endorsement:
10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! “UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL!” BLACK POWER! History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man’s wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
Therefore, to the Red Man and Woman, to the Yellow and to the Brown, we say to you
“THE SAME RABID DOG THAT BIT YOU, BIT US TOO!” ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
This sentiment is shown nicely in this sample of a CD review from the April/May 2004 issue of TNBP:
There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for President of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white
Barack Obama continues to “denounce” things his pastor said, and doesn’t consider him political. Maybe he should have told that to Dr. Wright. Wright claims the US ‘s attack on Japan in WWII was terrorist, and that we brought 9/11 on ourselves.
Would you continue to go to a church that constantly said and supported things you opposed? Would you trust such a place to nourish your soul? Train up your children? Baptise them and marry you? Obama did all these things.
Could you imagine if John McCain or Mike Huckabee went to an Aryan Nations church? Could you imagine them saying that they “denounced” “some things” the pastor said, but that he was a personal friend?
Barack Obama’s pastor hates America, regrets that she won WWII, and continues to hate her. This Rev. Wright has fed and directed Obama and his family spiritually for years. If a little leaven leavens a whole lump, and birds of a feather flock together, how far removed from his pastor’s hell-inspired racism and noxious anti-Americanism can Barack be?
Do we want a person leading this nation who may very well hate it? (Hence the constant hammering of the “change” theme?)
Found on Obama’s Website. Rolling stone even had the disgrace to use the title of the original star wars (A new hope) to describe a man who’s bitter defense of late term abortion, and sickening regret about trying to save a starving woman would make a dark lord of the Sith Jealous. Utterly sickening messiah style worship here:
A New Hope
| March 06, 2008
By JANN S. WENNER
The tides of history are rising higher and faster these days. Read them right and ride them, or be crushed. And then along comes Barack Obama, with the kinds of gifts that appear in politics but once every few generations. There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline. It’s not just that he is eloquent – with that ability to speak both to you and to speak for you – it’s that he has a quality of thinking and intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary. (if you like mega spending-americana83)
…Throughout the primaries, and during a visit he paid to our offices, we have come to know Barack Obama, his toughness and his grace. He would not be intimidated, and he declined to back down, when Senator Clinton called him “frankly, naive” for his willingness to meet leaders of hostile nations. When one of her top campaign officials tried to smear him for his earlier drug use, he did not equivocate or backtrack. On the matter of experience and capability, he has run an impressive, nearly flawless campaign – one that whupped America’s most hard-boiled political infighters. Indeed, Obama was far more prepared to run a presidential campaign – from Day One – than Senator Clinton. And at no point did he go negative with personal attacks or character assassination; as much as they might have been justified, they didn’t even seem tempting to him.
In his continuing quest to “unite” America, Barack has indicated he would work to undermine on the federal level the Marriage protection amendments, laws and acts that have been passed by nearly every state.
From his website, you can get a sample of the “change” he would bring to America, and it certainly would not be limited to redefining marriage
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise
on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
-Barack Obama
His mind is already made up, from this it is clear that he will not compromise on this stance, and his only reason for listening is to CHANGE the minds of “those who still need to be convinced.” The only way we will “move forward together” is on his terms.
You may have seen his obstinate unilateralism unintentionally revealed in one of his campaign ads where he said lobbyists would have no place “in MY whitehouse.” It may seem like a good concept, but just the way he said it. Just about every issue, whether gun rights, marriage, pro-life, free trade, abortion, gun-control, civil rights,(whether good or bad) these are all special interests.
It sounds like Barack would work unilaterally to change America.
As we near the end of Black History Month, let us consider the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
That is the dream, whereby man would look beyond the surface and judge men by their values, beliefs and standards. Much progress has been made in that direction in America.
We have gone from a time where the legal system looked another way when a black man whistled at a white woman. Racism has been evicted from America’s public square. By and large it only finds refuge in the hearts of men (and women) who’s hearts are hardened, who’s minds are narrow, who’s only claim to self worth is the putting down of another based on the color of their skin.
Today, however, skin color has again returned to America’s public square. As we race towards the 2008 presidential elections, change has become the buzz word. In many circles the prospect of a Black or woman president has trumped all other issues.
McCain, Bush, the Clintons are painted as stogy old white establishment types. Relative youth and skin color are trumpeted as the best assets of a candidate this year, in 2008.
The truth of the matter is this: once you peel off the surface, there is no substantial difference in the agendas that will be pursued by a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
There is a song that has been co-opted in some areas as a sort of theme song for this years election season: Matchbox 20′s “How far we’ve come.” The music video to this song seems to attempt a historical chronology of the women’s and civil rights movements, cumulating in cheering images of Barack Obama’s and Hillary’s supporters.
There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Movement and certain aspects of the women’s movement have legitimately leveled the social and economic playing fields. However, the problem comes when the cumulation of these efforts is presented as Hillary and Obama. The Euphoria over the potential of a “first” black/woman candidate has completely hijacked democrats and would be social progressives. Any attack that would be directed at Obama’s policies or values can, and sometimes is, twisted into racism. Gender and skin tone becomes a defense in liu of answers.
Barack Obama himself says he is gaging racism by whether or not whites vote for him.
“If I do well in Iowa, and if I do well in New Hampshire . . . then by the time we get to South Carolina, I think we will have dispelled the notion that somehow whites won’t vote for African Americans.” -SOURCE
This is audacious in every sense of the word. Ignoring the issues and diving straight for the cover all. I would vote for the President regardless of his or her color, that stands closest to what is best for America.
It will send the message: Skin matters more than issues.
It sure seemed like we’ve come along way since Dr King’s famous speech. However, here we are as a nation still judging people by the color of their skin.
It will only be a matter of time before we are all judged for our actions this year. This election has the potential to change the heart and soul of a nation.
If you LOVE America, if you sincerely want the best for this country look behind the smooth talking, the glitzy publicity war, the buzz words and rock concert style slogans and chantings.
King was murdered for his bold position, that all men are equal. If you love civil rights, if you support on any level the legacy he has handed us down through the civil rights movement, then reject the politics of “famous firsts.” Focus on the issues. Focus on America.
Mr. Giuliani’s road map to the Republican nomination has never depended on securing the votes of even the majority of social conservatives, who tend to be most dominant in the early nominating contests like Iowa and South Carolina. Instead, Mr. Giuliani is betting on strong performances in more moderate states like California, New York and New Jersey in the nation’s superprimary on Feb. 5.
Only a paper like the NYT could consider California “more moderate” If you believe that California is moderate, please check out my previous blogs most notably the one about Schwarzenegger and his signing of SB777, which basically makes discussion of the traditional family as normal or desirable a hate crime!
If the presidential election comes down to a Giuliani verses a Hillary or Obama, then there will be no candidate for true social conservatives or Bible believing Christians.
