Which person dead or alive to have dinner with? Obama chooses Gandhi
Written by Sep 9, 2009, 9:21 am
22 Comments • Related Topics: Hinduism, Obama, Obamaisms
When giving his speech yesterday to the nation’s school children, President Obama tried his best to avoid any political controversy. He may have for the most part succeeded because his speech wasn’t too offensive and in fact could be considered by some as inspirational. But unfortunately, he said a few things to some school children that left fellow Christians again wondering why he even calls himself one.
He was asked by a student, “If you could have dinner with anyone dead or alive, who would it be?”
This video answers that question.
Last week it was Islam with the White House Ramadan dinner. This week his favorite person to meet was an ex lawyer turned religious leader of India, Mahatma Gandhi (real name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi), a person who was a strong believer in Hinduism. (See Hinduism by Charlie Campbell, of Always be Ready Apologetics).
Obama had this to say why he chose Gandhi according to Associated Press:
“He’s somebody I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Dr. (Martin Luther) King”. “He ended up doing so much and changed the world just by the power of his ethics.”
If that’s why he chose Gandhi, then what has Jesus done as far as he’s concerned? He only changed several nations of people by his mere words and miraculous wonders. He died and then raised himself from the dead! But step back Jesus because Gandhi was more impressive to Obama.
In less than a two week period, Obama has publicly embraced religious practices and/or persons who are complete contradictions to the teachings of Jesus Christ. He has made acceptable false teachers, prophets and teachings…
… but strangely quiet when it comes to Jesus Christ.
““Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-34
© 2009, Carlotta Morrow. All rights reserved.
Tags: false prophet, false teacher, Ghandi, Hinduism, Jesus Christ, Obama
Carlotta
Phil
Neil
Kevin Kaatz
September 9th 2009 on 10:46 am
I suppose that was the “safe” answer for Obama. Nobody gets offended by the mention of Gandhi or Mother Teresa unless you dare to criticize them.
I did a post once asking what criteria we would use to determine where Gandhi’s eternal soul would be and it got a lot of people pretty spun up. I was careful to note that I wasn’t the judge. I was just asking how you would determine how God would judge.
I think the best answer to the dinner question is to pick a mass murderer and note that you would poison him.
Twitter: christocentric
September 9th 2009 on 10:59 am
After reading your comment I realized I spelled Gandhi’s name wrong! Well, I corrected in the title and post but the link I left alone. I hate misspelling anything!
I saw a Tweet by someone that said: “Speaking gently does not mean you are speaking in love. Ghandi spoke gently and he said jesus was not God. Is that love?”
We know how God would judge anyone who rejects Jesus Christ as God.
I’m still trying to digest your last sentence though.
September 9th 2009 on 3:42 pm
Sorry if the last sentence was cryptic — it is a joke from The Office TV show — where if you could meet anyone in history you’d want to pick the really bad guys and stop them from killing someone else.
Great tweet about Gandhi and love!
Twitter: christocentric
September 9th 2009 on 3:52 pm
Oh! LOL! I don’t watch the office (although I’ve wanted to) so I was totally lost with that! I’m just relieved it didn’ t have anything to do with me being slow or senile…as my kids call me when I don’t catch their jokes right away!
September 10th 2009 on 1:46 am
there are other ways you can take what Obama said, who he wants to meet.
for instance, you can think about it how i think about it – Obama doesn’t *need* to meet Jesus, because he *already knows Jesus*
or perhaps it was more of a “which person in *current* history [past century] would you most like to meet” feel with the question. *I* would pick Nikola Tesla
or perhaps Obama wanted to avoid *overt* religious references – to the West, Ghandi isn’t known for his *religion*, but for “civil disobdiance” ideals (saytorana*), for freeing India from imperial rule, imperial fiat, and imperial corruption, for be the father of one of the first FEMALE world leaders (and, arguable, English Queens don’t count, because the reign but can not rule – a Monarchy with no direct power and little authority; it isn’t the Queen who rules, but rather the Prime Minister)
but, sarcasm aside, what is the problem? i have asked this same question of hundreds of Christians, and i can think of less than a dozen who actually answered “Jesus”.
and in those surveys where the point was finding out *why* Christians don’t want to meet Jesus (and, interestingly, Muslims don’t want to meet Mohammed, Jews don’t want to meet Moses, Hindus don’t want to meet Krishna, Bhuddists don’t want to meet Bhudda, in almost the identical statistics) the answer always came back to something along the lines of “I know Jesus (or Moses, or Krishna, etc)” and either “Wouldn’t it be blasphemous* to want to meet Jesus outside of Heaven?” or the person being afraid that they are not worthy of such individual attention, at least not while alive. it takes a high level of narcisim* to honestly believe that an Omni-everything God is going to take the time to have lunch with you, and an even higher level of narcisim to believe that such an event wouldn’t change you so much that you are no longer recognizable, on a personality level, to anyone you know. *ANGELS* are so fearful that, before they physically manifest, they warn mortals, yelling “FEAR NOT” and similiar things. if Angels are this terrifying, how much more so their Maker?
Obama almost definately falls into one of these two camps – in fact, i would guess it’s a combination of *both* of those reasons, but its logic that is computed at so viceral* a level that most people don’t even realize they have made this sort of decision, and *why* they made this sort of decision, until they are confronted with it and forced to examine their thought process.
*my spell checker is on the fritz, i cannot make it work, i had surgery on my hip not quite two weeks ago and am still on lots of pain meds, and i can’t find my dictionary. i’m sorry that i can’t spell correctly right now.
Twitter: christocentric
September 10th 2009 on 6:54 am
Don’t worry about your spelling – I started this off on the wrong foot by misspelling Gandhi’s name and had Twittered it all over the net! (I originally had Ghandi).
Anyways, your comment was a good one and I’ve actually had some similar thoughts. But I chose to question a man who rarely mentions Jesus’ name in public. Gandhi was a man that although peaceful, he disputed every major belief of the Christian faith.
If Obama had chosen Gandhi to have dinner with because he wanted to talk to him more about his relationship to Jesus Christ, I would have been thrilled at that answer. But instead, he chose Gandhi because he was very inspired by him? There is no person on earth that inspires me who rejects the Son of God!
I tire easily of Obama’s lifting up of everything that goes against our faith, while putting our own faith down. Please tune me in on anything he does positively in the name of Jesus Christ.
September 10th 2009 on 7:02 pm
I almost share denelian’s comments. I think most of us would forget Jesus and would pick somebody else. I would’ve picked probably a Beatle (lol)
i also agree with Neil. Gandhi was probably the best choice. I think Obama over thought his answer perhaps and like always – over thinking gets you in trouble.
September 10th 2009 on 9:55 pm
i know many, many Christians who never talk about their faith. i mean, if they are directly asked “what religion do you follow”, they’ll answer, but otherwise?
this is a paraphrase, but: it is better to hide in a closet and pray with an open heart and pure intent, than it is to pray on the street so that everyone sees that you are Pious. Jesus said that in one of the Gospels, i want to say John but i don’t remember for certain.
i think that this is a lot of the explanation for Obama’s actions – his faith is private, between him and God and no one else. i also think that he, specifically as a “famous, trend-setting, person-looked-up-to” feels that he needs to go out of his way to *not* shove his faith down the throats of those who don’t follow it. after all, less than 70% of USians are Christian (and at least half of the Christians in this country don’t like religious talk outside of church), and the other 31% or so who aren’t Christian get really, really tired of Christianity forced unto the country as a whole.
the US Constitution was specifically written to make the country *NOT* Christian (or any religion); it prohibits, among other things, anything that can be construed as a “religious test” to hold office (as in, there can be *NO* religious requirement to hold office – according to the Constitution it does not matter what religion one has, or if one has no religion at all, and requiring a religion, a specific religion, or even just a generic “belief in a higher power” is completely UnConstitutional)
brass tacks, though, i don’t *care* what religion Obama follows; it is UnConstitutional to expect him to have any, and it’s none of my business. arguably, we have had presidents who, if they were alive today, would be considered at best “agnostic”.
it just really bugs me that here, in the country that was specifically designed so that religion would not matter in politics, the thing people keep poking at the most is the President’s private religion.
Side Note: Ghandi didn’t dispute every “major belief of the Christian Faith”. the Christian faith has two, or maybe three, “major beliefs” – these are 1) love your neighbor as you love yourself, 2) accept Jesus and ask his forgiveness and 3) do NOT judge. Ghandi was all about #1, and was mostly into #3 with the exception that he wanted his country to *NOT* be destroyed by Imperial Fiat. the only one he had a problem with was #2, which anyone who isn’t a Christian is going to have a problem with…
Ghandi famously once said “I like your Christ; i don’t like your Christians” – complaining about people who tortured and beat and killed Indian people in the name of Christianity.
Twitter: christocentric
September 10th 2009 on 11:23 pm
Let me say that first I’m very happy to have the freedom to express my beliefs – even if those beliefs are talking about somebody else’s beliefs. The thing about President Obama choosing Gandhi was just me expressing my own personal dismay. It was not a definitive sealed opinion on Obama’s faith in God. Just me expressing my disdain on his choice of whom he’d like to sit at dinner with and questioning what Obama believes about Jesus Christ. Glad I can do this!
Now obviously my freedom of speech has you a bit irked because somehow, somewhere someone has told you that what people believe is best kept quiet and private and that even the writers of our constitution would not want anyone to talk about their beliefs or have religion matter in our government. Denelian, you couldn’t be further from the truth! The Constitution was specifically designed to allow the freedom of practicing one’s religion! Not the silencing of one’s religion! Religion mattered greatly in the forming of our country. I will refer you to the website of one of our foremost Constitutional experts (who is one of my referenced links on my resource section) David Barton: The Separation of Church and State. I won’t get into it here as it would take this completely off topic. But definitely a topic for another post!
This mild mannered peaceful man, Gandhi, was still an enemy to Christianity as far as his beliefs were concerned. He disagreed with more than the three beliefs you mentioned above and here are a few: salvation, Jesus Christ, sin, proselytizing (that is where you got that belief from that religion is private – that’s what Gandhi teaches where Christianity goes out and shares the gospel), pluralism – the belief that there are many paths to God where Christianity teaches only one way to God. Oh there’s more and if you are truly interested you can find any info you need on the Internet that describes what Gandhi believes.
It’s amazing to even see how Gandhi’s philosophy has influenced so many people – such as yourself!
Now Obama’s faith matters and it should matter to anyone in this country because his faith shapes his policies whether he talks about it or not. Besides, Obama calls himself a Christian and any Christian knows that our religion is NOT a private religion at all!
It’s late. Perhaps more of this later.
September 11th 2009 on 2:32 am
it seems i can’t reply to your reply – i hope you will be able to see this.
i think you misunderstood what i was saying. i feel that a *very* important part of the concept of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment isn’t just freedom to express your religion – it is ALSO freedom FROM religion – as in, no one has the right to try and force anyone else to practice, by word or deed, a religion that they don’t want.
for an example of how we, as a country, are not a religious country, i refer you to a Treaty this country made – and, as per the Constitution, Treatys take the force of law: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
specifically article 11
as for the “Laws of Christianity” – so far as i have been taught, those are the only 3 main laws or rules – love everyone, accept Jesus (although one could assume that this one includes things such as “everyone sins, Jesus forgives you that sin if you ask, which is what makes you eligible for salvation and heaven), and do not judge. that’s it, according to every teacher of Christianity i have spoken too – the rest is just window dressing.
on the other hand… i’m probably a bit closer to Ghandi than you are, when it comes to thoughts – i think the only sin is trying to hurt someone, for instance. but, my beliefs aside, just because Ghandi didn’t agree with everything that Christians claim, does *not* mean he was an “Enemy” to Christianity – he did not try to overthrow Christianity, for instance, except insofar as he wanted corrupt priests to leave his country, and he wanted his country to be an independent country that ruled itself. ., which is still not acting as an “Enemy of Christianity”. he spoke against hypocrites in the church, and there are many many many hypocrites who call themselves Christian but who act as anything BUT; those who were Christian both claimed and acting, he didn’t mind.
i did not get my belief that proselytising is wrong from Ghandi – that i learned from my entire family, especially those member of my family who still live on the res. i believe, i was taught to believe, that you “preach” through your actions, not your words, and that to approach a stranger and assult them with your words is beyond rude, and is actually almost a sin, because who am i (or anyone) to judge whether or not someone needs or wants to hear it right now? who am i to impose and take up someone else’s time?
but… your first point: it was not, as you put it, your “freedom of speech” that “irked” me. one can say whatever one wants, up to a certain point, and no you didn’t cross that point.
i was more doing what i was “irked” at you for doing -
you were judging Obama, and implying (almost outright stating) that he is not a Christian. *that* is what bothered me, because it states *very* clearly in the Bible (New Testament even!) that *no one* has the right to say someone else is not Christian. that *no one* has the right to judge anyone else.
so, of course i judged you for judge Obama, because it’s impossible to not judge. but it *is* possible to not compound the first sin of the chain (judging) by refraining from making the judgement public. does that make sense?
September 11th 2009 on 2:37 am
one last thing, i forgot it in the last post.
you said ” any Christian knows that our religion is NOT a private religion at all!”
which directly contradicts other things that Jesus said, expecially that bit i paraphrased, that you did not reply to at all. as far as i can understand, from my readings of the Bible, while it was ok in many instances to say you were Christian, it was considered *better* to *NOT* flaunt your faith – again, better to pray in secret, than to pray on a street where it looks as if one is *bragging* about their faith. it is actually stated multiple times, in the Gospel, that one of the major things to avoid is public displays of religion, because they can very quickly lead to ostenteious displays that are not glorifying God, but instead glorifying the person who paid for the display, and the people who created the display – that public displays quickly stop being about worship and communing with God, and become just another way to compete between men…
Twitter: christocentric
September 11th 2009 on 5:37 am
Denelian, I am in agreement with you that no one should be forced to practice anyone else’s religion. That is also the purpose of the Constitution. But who’s trying to force anyone’s belief here? Sometimes people confuse “disagreement” or “judging” with trying to force one’s religion.
Gandhi was friendly with Christians, but not a friend to Christianity – our beliefs. One doesn’t have to be physically abusive to be an enemy to anything. Philosophically and spiritually Gandhi’s beliefs were at odds with Christianity and he greatly influenced many to not believe in Jesus Christ as God. That’s my definition of being an “enemy to Christianity.”
Another point that I agree with you is that to assault a person with words is rude. Where I disagree with you above is when you said preaching should only be with actions only and not words. I don’t know if you are familiar with Christ’s great commission He gave Christians and it is this:
In the book of Romans, the apostle Paul reiterates this when he says, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 It is essential for the Christian that our preaching be done with words as well as our actions! Otherwise, how will one know what to believe? Also, in proselytizing, in order for a person to reach out to another they have to know first what they believe.
If this was just one isolated incident, I would not be judging whether or not Obama is a Christian. Choosing to sit down with someone for a dinner is not ever enough information to judge a person’s relationship to Christ. Not even participating in Ramadan is something that would determine a person’s relationship to Christ alone. It was Obama’s praise and honor of other religions that obviously contradicts our own faith that cause me to question him. If Christ gives us the great commission to make believers in His name and we are turning around and praising things NOT in his name then yes, that causes great questions.
Now you believe as many many people mistakenly believe that we aren’t to judge people. As I shared before, in proselytizing, we have to judge whether a person is a Christian or not before we try to preach to them. Judging is required there. But look at what the bible really says about judging:
The last part of this biblical passage is always left out. Most people repeat the “judge not that you be not judged” part. But the rest and the most important is neglected. This passage is telling us that BEFORE we do any judging, make sure we have judged ourselves first. In other words, not to be hypocritical in our judging. Other scriptures seem to report this as we ARE commanded to judge one another such as in 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 where we are commanded to judge our Christian sisters and brothers when they continue to practice sinning. The bible is pretty clear that we are to judge, but it makes distinctions on what type of judging we are to do. So in disagreement to what you said, yes, we do have the right to judge!
Obama being the president of the United States is a highly influential person. I may never be able to directly speak to him about his actions, but I can write about his actions as many many other Christians also do in order that people can learn more about believing in Jesus Christ.
So hopefully, you and other readers have learned something new in the process of me “irking” you.
Twitter: christocentric
September 11th 2009 on 5:45 am
I also agree with you here about prayer. Praying is private as it’s conversation between a believer and God.
Christianity is a very active religion in proselytizing but private in people’s one on one communication with God.
So yes, I probably shouldn’t have said that Christianity isn’t private at ALL, there are elements of privacy within this very public religion.
September 12th 2009 on 4:47 pm
It was also Gandhi who said, “I love your Christ. I do not love your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Twitter: christocentric
September 12th 2009 on 5:34 pm
Gandhi knew enough about Jesus to know that he was blameless, yet he still rejected Christ as God. The same information available to let him know about Christ’s goodness, the same was also available for him to know that Christ claimed to be God.
In other words, Gandhi was without excuse.
September 13th 2009 on 6:13 am
Gandhi was very prideful in saying that. He thought he was better than Christians and didn’t need Jesus.
Think how easily I could say, “I like teachings of Vishnu but don’t like your “peaceful” Hindus that burn the homes of Christians, beat them and jail them for their beliefs.”
September 13th 2009 on 10:56 pm
i wonder if you understand just how accurate your analogy here is.
i am Cherokee. my ancestors were kidnapped from their homes, their parents, and forcebly converted to Christianity.
many Hindus, in India, during the period where Britain was trying to rule India, were forcebly converted, or were killed. in manners just as, if not more, horrific than the ones you deliniated.
this is another of those places where the most applicable thing to say is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Christianity is, in NO way, innocent of crimes of this nature – and never has been. even just looking at Europe – do you remember being taught about the Inquisitions? the Crusades (against Europeans, i mean, not the ones to the Middle East)? the Pograms against Jews and “Moors” and “Heretics”? do you remember the “witch” burnings?
Gandhi meant that he thought Jesus had some really great ideas and that he thought people should try and do those things, like loving their neighbors and not making war and accepting people – but that, so far as he *HAD BEEN SHOWN* by the Christians he knew, Christians *did NOT* follow these teaching and had no problem hating those who weren’t just like themselves. that, in short, many Christians (and probably almost all the ones Gandhi himself had met) were hypocrites.
i don’t like Christians like that either. and i know way too many of them.
September 15th 2009 on 7:29 am
Yes, there are bad examples of Christians. But you don’t judge an ideology based on those who violate its tenets.
Forced conversions are not taught in the Bible. It is wrong to attempt such a thing.
Then again, widow burning and the caste system are horrific. Perhaps Gandhi was equally vocal against them.
September 16th 2009 on 10:50 am
he *was* against widow burnings, and abuses that rise from the caste system. while he had to accept the system itself as part of Hinduism (as everyone has to accept things that they don’t like as part of their religions) his FIRST teachings had been not about “rebelling” at all, but rather he came to light as a person trying to reform the caste system, and make it something that was ONLY applicable in the religious sphere – he thought in day-to-day life, one’s caste should not dictate anything (let alone everything)
and he hated widow burnings with a passion, when they were forced – i remember a passage i read almost 20 years ago, a book written by a British person who admired Gandhi and spoke with him several time. Gandhi was going to a funeral, and he stopped the family from burning the widow – but the widow threw herself on pyre. and the Brit asked Gandhi why he didn’t do anything to “save her”, and Gandhi replied (i’m paraphrasing, don’t remember exact quote) “All i can do is allow them to make their own choices – i can do my best to prevent people from burning unwilling widows, but those who wish to go with their husbands? that is their choice. who am i to tell them what is best for themselves”
Gandhi was a very awesome man. he worked really hard to ensure everyone would be allowed free choice, in matters great and small. he encouraged those of lower caste to work towards bigger things, while convincing those of higher caste to not fight the mobiity…
you said “You don’t judge an ideologu based on those who violate its tenets” i wonder, though, if you actually follow this. certain many people who get mad at non-Christians who think all Christians are like those who forceibly convert, then turn around and paint all Muslims with the same brush strokes, and refuse to hear when people who KNOW try and explain that the extremist, the ones who might become “terrorists”, are a VERY small minority – that most Muslims are good people, just as most Christians are good people.
i hope you think about that – there are still large areas of the world who have ONLY seen Christians as conquerors and punishers, who have never seen Christianity when it wasn’t attacking them (as people), and so hate Christianity for the evil that as been done to them in Christianity’s name. this is not the fault of the people who suffered – it is the fault of people who, despite your claim that forced conversions are not taught in the Bible, attack and hurt and kill and torture and anything else necessary to “convert”.
so it’s really no wonder that so many people have a skewed view of Christianity – i know *I* hated Christianity as a child, because i had been told the stories of those who came before me, kidnapped from their homes and parents, forced to attend schools on the other side of the country, *forced* to convert to Christianity, their parents (and other family members) held hostage, and in some cases killed when a particular student was too rebelious – and then, even after enduring the “school” and going through the “conversion” many many many of them weren’t allowed to go home… that was my first experience with Christianity, being warned. i grant that i WAS told that it wasn’t all Christians who did this, and that it rarely happened anymore (and probably wouldn’t happen to me) and that i should personally learn all i could about Christianity.
bu the fac that my felt compelled to warn me about those who might try and force me, even in the 80s, says things.
September 16th 2009 on 3:51 pm
Denalian,
Good question about Muslism. Post 9/11 I was quick to point out that we must distinguish between what Islam teaches and what some Muslims do.
Unfortunately, Islam does teach violence.
I encourage you to engage in some Bible study and see for yourself what Jesus has to say. I concede that many have spoken in his name in false ways and actions.
December 17th 2009 on 5:31 am
Sidebar: I can understand some of the religious issues with this story. However our president seems to be one that will avoid conflict on any level. People that voted for him stated that he appeared to be one willing to work with others. However many of them are now saying that he is not one to take a stand which is causing some trouble for him accomplishing anything. I just see him as one that is not willing to make waves. Whether he is truly a Christian or not, the Lord knows. However the fact that he is not willing to stand for Christ shows WHAT I FEEL to be a weak area in his character. This is one of many times where I feel at least he should have taken a strong stand on something, even one that I might disagree with, but instead he has given safe answers. That is really bothersome to me.
Twitter: christocentric
December 17th 2009 on 5:44 am
Pamela, I was just talking to a relative who voted for Obama and even they are seeing the same now! It bothers them that Obama is trying his best to please everyone and is ending up pleasing very few. His lack of taking a stand is making him appear very weak.
But I’m with you as Obama bothers the heck out of me with his people pleasing tactics.