Listen

Here’s a question for all of the arbiters of intellectualism on the left: why does Obama get a pass when he speaks to his belief in the miraculous work of Christ, but conservative Christians do not?  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m heartened to hear expressions of faith from President Obama like the one he shared just days before the Easter weekend:

"The struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us," President Obama said at a White House Easter event to several religious leaders. “We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us, but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph."

"Jesus told as as much in the Book of John when he said, 'In this world, you will have trouble," Obama said.

"I heard an amen," Obama said to laughter.

"Let me repeat, 'In this world, you will have trouble,'" he said a second time to emphasize the importance of the quote to him.

“‘But take heart!’ Obama said. "'I have overcome the world.’ We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers and as a nation."

It’s a great message.  It’s heartening to hear from the President.  But I do want to know why it’s acceptable, why it doesn’t engender the kind of acrimony, criticism and mockery from leftist quarters when Obama says these things than when someone like Santorum or even former President George Bush says them?

I’m serious.  Is it because the left assumes Obama doesn’t mean them?  Is it because they think he’s just saying these things to pacify and win over all the ignorant boobs out there that really believe this stuff?  Why is it?  Why is it okay for Obama to talk about Christ resurrected from the dead and liberating mankind to the possibility of eternal life, but that’s a sign of the lack of scientific responsibility on the right?  I’d like to know the answer.

Or maybe it’s because Obama puts a hip, cool, liberal spin on the message and teachings of Scripture?  Take, for instance, Obama making the mistake of once again citing Cain and Abel in his explanation of good Biblical values:

In a campaign speech in Vermont on Friday, President Barack Obama referenced the biblical story of Cain and Abel in condemning what he called "you're-on-your-own economics" while arguing for a number of policies that involve government transferring wealth from one group of citizens to another—including providing public schools with more money for teachers’ salaries, freezing the interest rates on government-backed student loans, supporting companies developing biofuels, electric batteries and wind and solar power and funding scientists who are doing research on stem cells and climate change.

“I hear politicians talking about values in an election year,” Obama said. “I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility--those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. That’s a value.”

In Genesis, Adam and Eve’s first-born son is Cain and their second-born son is Abel. Cain becomes a farmer and Abel becomes a shepherd. When Cain offers the fruit of his farming to God and Abel offers a lamb, God is pleased with Abel’s offering but not Cain’s. Cain then kills Abel. When God asks Cain where Abel is, Cain says: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

So is that it?  Is it because Obama doesn’t really cling to the fundamentals of Christian Scripture that he gets a pass when he says these radical ideas like Jesus raising from the dead?  Whichever it is, I’m glad Obama testified to the truth, but it is a bit curious the reaction he gets compared with the rest of us.