Obama, Warren, and the Law of Unity And Struggle

Pres. Obama, in a speech to the UN today that sounded more like Ricky Warren and his P.E.A.C.E plan, than the president of the United States of America, spoke about differences among the nations, and a "hope" for "change" in a new direction. This has echoes of the Marxist idea of the Law of Unity and Struggle of Opposites.
Quote:

"I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted - I believe - in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope - the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change...Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 - more than at any point in human history - the interests of nations and peoples are shared."

"That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace. The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world."

End quote.

As Ingrid Schuelter noted previously when discussing Rick Warren's position on the social gospel:

Quote:

...key part of the Hegelian dialectic method so foundational to the very Marxism he decries. It’s called the Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposites. I quote:

Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.”–Chairman Mao Tse -tung

End quote.

This notion is more thoroughly explained at Crossroad:

"Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal.

The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave."

Barrack Hussein Obama wants to change foundational principles so that we all move in the same direction. However, his direction is toward socialism at the very least, and the terrorists' is toward Muslim dominence of the world. Neither of these directions can harmonize with the American principle of individual freedom and liberty within a democratic republic.

Good principles and values should never change, but that seems to be what he wants. When two idealogies clash, the right one should not ever capitulate to that which is wrong. Fundamental differences can never be smoothed over, rectified, or ignored---unles they were never truly there to begin with. Differences can be VERY GOOD when we are opposed to things that are evil, false, or just plain wrong. Unity at the cost of truth is not unity: its comformity.