No, it's not a new band; it's how Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family describes Barack Obama's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: fruitcake.
I would have to agree, and add that while Obama's may be among the most extreme in the Democrat Party, many Democrats at the national level have a severely distorted view and interpretation of the Constitution.
Word that Dr. Dobson's radio program today would deal with this issue came from ABC News yesterday.
The ABC article says Obama
is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," and calls Obama's views "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
Dobson responds to some of Obama's distortions of the Bible and the Constitution in the Tuesday radio program.
Click here to listen.
The Associated Press (which has declared itself autonomous from the Fair Use doctrine and no longer allows excerpts of it's material) contains some excerpts the Obama's speech to which Dobson refers, in which Obama misinterprets and misrepresents the Bible (much as his former pastor Jeremiah Wright did).
One of Obama's misinterpretations come from his attention to parts of the Bible which do not specifically condemn the things he promotes, while he ignores other parts of the Bible which do condemn some of the despicable things Obama supports.
Obama's Bible is like a magician's stage, where he says "look over here" while he hides what's going on over there.
Barack Obama is one of the most radical supporters of abortion, defending even the killing of babies who are born alive, having survived a failed attempt to abort them.
Obama is also a radical defender of homosexuality, and even spells out his support of the homosexual agenda on his campaign website. He also pledges to fight for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may be the only thing standing in the way of one state forcing homosexual "marriage" on other states.
In addition to Obama's immoral stance on these clearly moral issues, if he becomes president, Obama pledges to gut the U.S. military and endanger national security.
And we are all familiar by now with the racist, anti-American rants of his former pastor, and the fact that his wife Michelle says that only now is she "really proud of her country."
With a wife and 20-year pastor who bear such disdain for the United States, can Barack Obama's sentiment about his country be that much different?
And should such a man be elected president of a country if he loathes that country?
14 comments:
Mr. Ellis,
I would like to point out that your accusations against Senator Obama are somewhat flawed. You claim Obama has distorted the text of the Bible, so let me point out exactly what Obama said, and what the Bible says.
Obama said, "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"
Now let us look at what the Bible says:
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Leviticus 11:9-11
Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses.
Deuteronomy 13: 6-9
If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
The first passage clearly supports slavery, particularly the phrase, "from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus also clearly states you are not to eat shelfish, as they do not have fins or scales. Deuteronomy, just as Obama said, authorizes you to kill your children should they stray from the faith.
Now Dr. Dobson, and I believe quite correctly, points out that Christians are no longer required to follow these Jewish laws of the Old Testament. However, this is the same Old Testament Dr. Dobson uses to denounce homosexuality! Somehow the laws Senator Obama referenced no longer apply in modern times, but those covering human sexuality still do. Perhaps you can explain.
Respectfully,
Braden Hoefert
Thanks for your thoughtful inquiry.
Dobson didn't say the ENTIRE Old Testament was no longer applicable, only the ritual and dietary laws of the Mosaic Covenant.
When Christ came, he established a New Covenant. The old one made peace between God and man by means of ritual holiness and sacrifice. With the new one, that is paid for by Christ himself when he died on the cross; his sacrifice as a sinless human replaced the need for all the animal sacrifices that were being done under the old covenant. God even specifically told Peter in Acts chapter 10 that the old dietary laws were no longer applicable.
The moral requirements, however, never went away. What was morally wrong for humans to do in the Old Testament is still morally wrong for humans to do in the New Testament. Murder is still wrong, theft is still wrong, adultery is still wrong, and homosexuality is still wrong. What's more, most of these are specifically reiterated in the New Testament as being wrong. For instance, God's design for the expression of human sexuality is reiterated in Matthew 19 as being between a man and a woman in marriage, and homosexuality is specifically condemned again in Romans chapter 1, 1 Corinthians chapter 6, and in 1 Timothy chapter 1.
Obama proffered this deception because he knows America has become Biblically illiterate (a Barna survey showed that only 4% of the general public has a Biblical worldview), and he knew most people would buy it, enabling him to deflect attention from the fact that, in supporting homosexuality and fighting against marriage, he is clearly in the wrong on this issue.
Obama is also in the wrong on the killing of unborn children, the legalized theft of heavy taxation, the diminishing of parental rights, and several other issues. With this deceptive misuse of Scripture, he not only deflected attention from his sinful position on homosexuality, but on pretty much any moral issue.
He knows most people will never know the difference, and sadly he's right.
I hope this helps.
Only 4% of the general public has a biblical worldview? Funny how you never mention that every time you proudly use your "82% of Americans identify as Christian" statistic in support of your opposition to gay rights.
It's a sad irony.
Yes, a sad irony that YOU create every time you choose not to qualify the "82%" with the mere 4% who have a biblical worldview.
Just goes to show you that "82% of Americans are Christian" means nothing unless you look at what that percentage really means. It can range from hardcore Christians like yourself to people who attend church/open the Bible only on holidays.
The point is, they're not Muslims or Hindu or some God-hating atheist. Which means the myriad attempts to sanitize public life of Christianity and our Christian heritage are improper, unfounded and unreasonable.
How dedicated a Christian they are is a different matter, but the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans say they hold to general Christian principles--not secularism.
"God-hating atheist"? Shows how many atheists you know. First, many atheists are loving, moral people. Second, how can you hate something you don't even believe in?
And again, Bob, if only 4% of the general population, as you report, rely on the Bible for their worldview, then how do the "vast majority of Americans" know whether or not they're really living according to general Christian principles?
I've known quite a few atheists over the years, and ironically, most of them actually believed in God, despite their claims; they just hated him and didn't want to admit that he existed.
You are correct in your supposition that most Americans don't know if they're living according to general Christian principles. But the profess allegiance to Christianity, and they live in a nation and society founded on those principles.
And as long as we don't live in a country where most people say they believe Islam, Scientology, secularism or whatever is the way to go, we can and should stick to where the majority sits, and with the belief system that created the greatest nation on earth.
If these "atheists" you have known actually believed in God, then they weren't atheists. Sort of goes against the definition.
If you agree that most Americans don't know if they're living according to Christian principles, then why do you oppose marriage equality for gays partly on the grounds that it goes against what most Americans (your 82%) are taught to believe from the Bible?
It just seems like you're saying, "82% of Americans are Christian, therefore they know that the Bible condemns homosexuality."
I agree that the status of almost every atheist I've ever run into is actually contrary to the definition; they call themselves one, but if you work at it and take the time to pin them down, they actually do believe in God, they just hate him too much to admit it readily.
I'm not saying "82% of Americans are Christian, therefore they know that the Bible condemns homosexuality," though they should. But 82% of Americans profess allegiance to Christianity, which condemns homosexuality.
The percentage is still misleading, Bob. That 82% also includes the many, many gay-affirming Christians out there. I think you should find a percentage that represents the number of American Christians who *also* believe homosexuality is wrong. That would be a more accurate and honest statistic to use in your anti-homosexual articles.
That may be correct that some of that 82% don't understand what the guiding document of their religion says about homosexuality. But the fact remains, they profess allegiance to Christianity, and Christianity condemns homosexual behavior.
Right, so does this mean you'll start using a number that accurately represents what you're talking about? Probably not, because it will be lower than 82% and let's face it, higher numbers just look better for one's argument!
82% of Americans say they are Christians, so when we're discussing general Christian values for the direction of the country, that's the figure I'll use. When 82% say they're secularists, I'll use that figure.
Post a Comment