When James “Focus On the Family” Dobson went on his recent rant about how Barack Obama is supposedly “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” you just knew it was only a matter of time before some enterprising journalist found an example of Dobson doing the same thing.
Well, Jon Stewart at The Daily Show found it. Close enough. But much funnier.
Dobson’s argument — and many evangelical Christians would back him up on this, by the way — was that Obama shouldn’t be citing the Old Testament for anything. Obama had cited verses in the book of Leviticus on the legitimacy of slavery, and the “abomination” of eating shellfish, even though Christians believe the Jesus-era New Testament made Old Testament books like Leviticus obsolete.
But just last year, Dobson himself quoted Leviticus on Larry King Live to defend the late Rev. Jerry Falwell’s longstanding hatred of gays. Or as Stewart put it:
“Oh, right, I forgot … it’s okay if you’re talking about the [insert sing-song voice here] ho-mos! Still, I wouldn’t mention Leviticus to Larry King. I mean, he was there. I mean — this is true — Lot’s wife was actually Larry’s third wife. He married her post-pillar-of-salt.”
(Hat tip goes to loyal Deceiver reader Donna)
I’m not surprised. Nope. Not even a little bit.
Just a few things.
I do not present myself as any sort of a biblical scholar, but just wanted to toss in my two-cents worth. Not all Christians believe that the New Testament renders the Old Testament null-and-void. Certain Old Testament-Jewish practices were rendered obsolete, but not the entire text. Having been through three Disciple Bible classes, quite a bit of time was spent connecting the two texts, rather than trying to separate them.
As I am not an evangelical, I can’t speak, in detail, to what they believe, but most Christians are regular folks. I don’t pay much attention to Dobson on a day-to-day basis. And I don’t know enough about the scriptures in question regarding the Dobson vs. Obama fuss to get involved with that.
As for Rev. Jerry Falwell hating gays, disagreeing with certain homosexual practices and disagreeing with the agendas of homosexual activists is not hatred. Repeat - Disagreement is not hate, nor is disapproval hate.
Oh, come on — Falwell hated homosexuals. Hated ‘em. Made no bones about it. I’m not saying he was a typical preacher, a typical Christian, or a typical Southerner. But his views were hardly a secret.
If he didn’t specifically use the word “hate” in regards to gays, then that assessment is a matter of interpretation, regarding his disapproval and disagreement. If you want to see pure, unadulterated hate, just look at Fred Phelps. He makes my skin crawl. I don’t think that Falwell was even in the same league as Phelps.
And I (and many others) groaned over what Falwell (and was it Pat Robertson?) said post 9/11 regarding “God’s punishment”. It is one thing to speculate about such things in private conversations, but to issue public statements such as that will invite misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
So he hated homosexuals? Big deal. I hate Jets fans, Red Sox fans and Gator fans.
There is enough to dislike about Barack “He Will Save Our Soul” Obama to not bother with this crap. We can start with taxes, energy policies, foreign policies, gun control and national defense and go from there. Nobody cares what Dobson has to say, right (Wright?) or wrong.
Hurricane, I’m hurt. I love the Red Sox.
I am not the biggest President Bush fan on the planet, but can you just imagine the outrage that would come from some people had President Bush had quoted scripture like Obama did?
Oh wait he did. I was gonna provide a link but when I typed a search for “bush shouldn’t quote scripture” I got 275,000 examples. I guess you could narrow it down somehow, I guess I just got bored.
Dobson’s argument — and many evangelical Christians would back him up on this, by the way — was that Obama shouldn’t be citing the Old Testament for anything.
Nah, that’s a … oh what shall be say… a lie, playing dumb, ill-informed, economical with the truth.
And not very funny, either. May I add.
Dobson said that Barack Obama was a shameless hack who doesn’t know much about the Bible. That is conflated the Old Testament and the New Testament when it suited him.
And that his “Christianity” did not inforrm his liberal politics; but that his liberal politics seemed to infoorm his Christianity.
Apart from that, you really nailed Mr Dobson. Yawn.
Sorry Chronic. Go Marlins!
Sometimes it’s nice to be Catholic, it’s rare, but it happens. But I’m also an A’s fan, so I feel left out of this conversation completely.
this is so lame. obviously the moral law in the OT was not gotten rid of, otherwise christians would support murder. the ceremonial law was. but its no surprise that the left cannot see the difference, it would require thought.
Dobson is just pointing out what some other prominent Christian was bound to point out sooner or later: Obama demonstrates that he belongs to the minority theological position within Christianity that accepts Universal Pluralism.
I would advise some research before posting such clever and witty “gotchas”. Any self-respecting 6th grade Sunday-School student could probably guide you through an explanation of the relationship of the OT and NT with a bit more nuance than demonstrated here.
The quoting of the OT by James Dobson and Barack Obama is not even the same thing. The rules regarding “eating shellfish…” etc are ceremonial laws which were done away with when the new covenant came into being. However, moral laws which teach against homosexuality never change. If anything, Jesus raised the standard when he said that if you hate your brother you have a good as committed murder. However, standing against homosexuality is not hating homosexuals. It is hating the sin, not the sinner.
Jack Bauer is dead-on correct…unfortunately any time anyone uses the word “Bible” which they almost INVARIABLY know virtually zilch about, and loath it to boot, there is always a wacko liberal Christian-hater waiting nearby to skew whatever was said against the Christian. Truth is NOT what this site is about, and this particular example is par for the course. “Deceiver” is a very good catagorization of what goes on here.
Deceiver.com and Jon Stewart are ignorant of Christianity!
Just like RACHEL said: The prohibition of shellfish was a ritual law that ended with the New Covenant. Moral laws, such as the one probiting homosexual acts, never change. (And to repeat what Rachel wrote, “[S]tanding against homosexuality is not hating homosexuals. It is hating the sin, not the sinner.”)
Jon Stewart is making a fool of himself by making his comparison and not understanding the issue. And Deceiver.com is making a fool of itself with this post.
This silly theological shoot-’em-up is moot. Dobson’s (and Christianity’s) belief that homosexuality is a sin comes from scripture and the fact that the church - as well as the Judaism - has always taught this. The opposition has been a very tiny minority. To try and wriggle out of that by pointing out vagaries in scripture is a tall order to fill. And by “tall”, I mean nigh impossible.
Dobson, I believe, was being careless. You don’t need the OT to know the church regards homosexuality as sinful, because we know it has always thought that.
That’s ok, Hurricane. I can be forgiving, especially for a Marlins fan, as I was born down that way.
As for Dobson, yeah… the fact is, the Bible is only relevant to those that believe in it. It doesn’t belong in American politics and using anything out of it to make a political point makes me lose respect completely. I’m not saying I don’t like Christians or name your faith, but I get a little scared when this sort of thing becomes an issue. It just tells me that they don’t have the whole of the population in mind like they should. I have no respect for anyone that would use their religion to rob human beings of their rights to live normal lives. I’m not gay, don’t really care if a person is or not so long as they aren’t an ahole, and judging them on what they do behind closed doors smells of self righteousness mixed with childlike curiosity and perhaps envy.
Are atheists going to vote for Obama what with his obvious religious bent? I mean it must inform his judgment. What about separation of church and state? He gave a speech at the pulpit of a church. Where the hell are all the atheists, agnostics, etc. up in arms about Obama? But that’s a minor issue. Despite all his faults (hating J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets! fans and not being a Yankees fan) I’m going to go with Hurricane on this one.
You’re out of your element on this one, Deceiver, just as Stewart was out of his.
–Mike
This atheist is up in arms over every religious remark made by politicians, but thinks he could redeem himself by not liking the Yankees.
How is the OT even relevant to our culture? As far as the NT: Jesus was way too liberal. He advocated hating enemies and allowed himself to be killed - he even kissed his betrayer! How conservatives came to use Jesus as one of their own is a testament to the stupidity of the masses. I can’t wait until we have enough real religious freedom to hear a politician say, “You know, I”m just not sure if God exists. Let’s tackle some real problems!”.
The big difference is that Dobson’s was referenced in the new testament and validated.
Chronic…
the great part about reading your comment that the Bible doesn’t belong in american politics is a hoot…albeit one that shows the value of your public education. Without the Bible, the American Revolution and everything that it created, could not and would not have happened. Our entire Constitution is based on biblical teachings and the framers knew that without God (or Supreme Being for those ignorant adolescents who don’t want to acknowledge there is a God), your rights are no more than the latest whim of the party-in-power……..only by showing that man’s freedom came from God does one escape tyranny……go study up before you run your keyboard…… I leave it to the cabal to decide which is closer to the truth: A) Your head is empty, or B) There is a God. (That’s a trick question…they’re both true…….)
hank
Every christian picks and chooses the parts of the bible to which s/he will adhere and ignores the rest.
Therefore…christianity = hypocrisy.
I don’t believe in the Bible but I believe that Obama is still a boob.
Zorg - come on man, that’s such simplistic b.s. Let me ask you a question: do you consider yourself a citizen of your respective country? Lets assume you’re like most people, and you do. Now, do you adhere to EVERY single law that your society has put out there? You’ve never broken the speed limit? You’ve never smoked a joint, or drank under age, or shoplifted? But you’re still a citizen aren’t you?
Seriously, that is the oldest atheist debating tactic in the world. “You don’t follow every single thing in the bible, but call yourself Christian, so you’re a hypocrite.” But only a person who doesn’t understand Christianity would make such an asinine statement. The first thing a Christian is asked to understand is that EVERY SINGLE human being except Jesus Christ, is a sinner. It’s understood from the very outset that you’re not going to live up to the expectations the bible puts out for you. That, in a nutshell, is why your argument doesn’t mean anything.
Again, it’s why I love being a Catholic. I get to be the flawed, spiteful, pissed off person that God made me - and then I apologize, say a few Hail Mary’s and it’s all good.
Actually, hank, in this you are wrong. The Founding Fathers were Deists and atheists who used religion to rally the people but made it clear that there was meant to be a separation of church and state. George Washington was against partisan politics and with good reason as this is the circus that they’ve become. America was not meant to be a Christian or anything country. It was a haven for all people of all faiths. But you wouldn’t want to accept the truth in that because it would ruin your own agenda.
I wish I could travel forward a couple thousand years to see people worshipping Harry Potter and trying to interpret the “ancient texts”.
BAHAHAHAHAHAH
I will leave you with a prayer…
Our spaghetti
Who art in the colander
Hallowed be thy sauce
Thy serving come
Thy strands be wrung
On forks as they are on spoons
Give us this day our daily meatball
And forgive us our starchiness
As we forgive those who are starchy against us
And lead us not into Kraft parmessan
But deliver us from Chef Boy Ardee
For thine is the garlic
And the onion and the bay leaves
For ever and ever.
Ramen
Ramen.
religion= fairy tales for grownups
To Chronic, Congratulations for buying into the false teachings of a liberal society. Read some history of the founders, with the exception of Jefferson and Franlin, most were devout Christians. ALL of the founding states had State Religions. The thought that a person of Jewish or Muslim background would be a major player in the US was a distant thought. The “seperation” cannard that all you liberal brain-washed masses believe in was referring to different denominations and institution of a FEDERALLY MANDATED RELIGION.
Congrats also to Elizabeth for buying even more liberal garbage. Jesus was killed on a cross for calling people to a HIGHER STANDARD not a lower moral standard while leaving room for mercy and grace. While it’s true he was “liberal” in the purest sense of the word, he stated that one must follow the law, advocated personal responsibility and respecting leaders all which are hallmarks of conservatives and anthema to modern-day liberal.
PS - I’d rather be called a “hypocrite” by a bunch or morally bankrupt liberals and actually have standards I believe in than have no standards what so ever and just spent my life finger-pointing.
Sorry, Only Comment, but you are wrong in this. The Founding Fathers were pandering to the religious to get ratification. Furthermore, you assume that I am just a liberal. Well, guess what? I have some pretty strong conservative views as well, but do not support either political party because I think both of them are collectively full of it. When I was still living back home in the States, I very proudly had a big N/A on my party affiliation box on my voter registration. Read a bit more closely. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Brain washed? That’s comical. But then, the Christian Right types want to turn America into a Christian version of Islam and just eliminate everyone that isn’t a drone like their followers. That congregation is called a flock for a reason.
What do you even know about morals anyway? Who are you to decide what is morally bankrupt? Are you referring to the higher standards of politicians? None of them know what a high standard is, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on. That’s how they have sheep like yourself fooled into thinking that you are getting something different or better with that vote.
its funny how people who’ve never studied the Bible, who go to church maybe once a year, are experts on the old testiment and new testiment. by you whackos should take some Bible classes before you start claiming Dobson is a hypocrite.
Chronic Malanga, you’re a moron.
Chronic - I get what you’re saying, and you’re mostly right, but you’re painting the founding fathers in exactly the same broad stroke as someone who claims they were all devout Christians. Wasn’t it Adams who said:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And Benjamin Franklin (by all rights an Agnostic) “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
There are hundreds of these quotes littering the annals of history. Not just in public speeches, but private diaries and correspondence too - are you asking us to believe that these people were all pandering to the religious zealots of their day even in their private thoughts?
True, the state and the church should remain separate, but then, just as it is now, something like 85-90% of people in this country acknowledge SOME kind of divine being. You also have to acknowledge that there has been no one single force that has changed this nation for the better than religion. Where did our Founding Fathers choose to speak to the people during the early seeds of our rebellion? Churches. From whom did we claim the rights descended when we did decide to rebel? God. Where was the abolitionist movement begun? In the churches of the north. Where were the suffrage and anti-war movements of post World War 1 America started and primarily run from? Churches. What about the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s? Seems like an awful lot of those leaders were named Reverend, and a lot of those marches started where? Churches.
Yeah, we’re SUPPOSED to keep religion and politics separate, but it’s an ideal that America never has, and never will live up to. To discount the positive effects religion has had on us all though, is to discount a huge portion of our history and development.
We’re also SUPPOSED to keep our bright-colored laundry separate from our whites. But my tighty-(used to be)-whiteys tell me some of us suck at that too.
You said annals.
Wait, wait, wait, George Washington was against partisan politics but alright with using religion to pander to the people?
But that’s a silly question. Here’s my real comment. There’s nothing wrong with partisan politics. People aren’t going to get along. There’s going to be differences. Saying you don’t want partisan politics is saying you only want one side which more than likely means you only want your side which is tyranny. If George Washington was against partisan politics, that’s great but I’m sure he knew it was inevitable. If not he was just naive.
I get what you are saying, Scott, and as a student of history, I know and actually own many of those writings. What is being missed here is that if they did not use that language, we would still be under British rule because no one would have gone for it.
As for religion being the impetus for many a good movement, sure, I can go with that. But there is also a lot of evil caused directly by religion. Remember, just as the abolitionist movements began in churches, in the South, slavery was defended through the Bible. Religion has been used as justification for genocide in both Europe and the New World, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of basic rights and respect for others. Church and state must remain separate for America to maintain a shred of integrity. One can reinterpret the Bible how they choose, but while the Constitution/Bill of Rights are open to interpretation, it’s not as flexible as religious text, nor should it be. I’m not one of those atheists demanding that no one wish me a Merry Christmas. I just want to be sure that no one’s religion stomps on my freedoms as so many would like to do. There are many Fundies out there that if given the chance, would be happy to burn “witches”. They’re already burning books. Just as many would love to run the USA like a Muslim state. Overall, I don’t have issues with religion. I was brought up Catholic before I escaped. However, just as I don’t tell people that they need to be atheist, or treat them as some religious people have treated me (because they’re SUCH good Christians), I will not stand for someone shoving their morality down my throat - especially not a politician or televangelist whose moral record is probably far worse than my own.
Rocko, meant to include this in my other comment… partisan politics wasn’t part of the plan. At least not on the level it is now, where all you get are two bad choices and a bunch of specialty choices that focus on one issue. Washington was not a politician at heart either. He knew how to rally the people with his presence, military record, and charisma, but he would have been very disappointed to see what America has become were he alive today. Of course you need different groups and opinions for the people to choose from, but this set up is lame and doesn’t give us much choice, does it?
here’s my 2 cents: Most prominent Christians, like Dobson, are doing it wrong. People get the impression all Christians think like evangelicals. No so. It’s an individualized process for some, others are sheeple being led. God is a highly individualized concept as well by whatever name you use.
As for man’s sinful nature as pointed out above, I can now say atheists really piss me off and not feel like a “bad Christian” for saying it. Not all atheists, just the ones who make blanket statements. And the ones who are too lazy to think. And the intolerant ones. And the ones who don’t know the difference between Christian and Catholic and religion and faith and other simple words. Did I leave anyone out??
For those who didn’t know, Jon Stewart is a (gasp) Jew.
As far as I can tell, the “christians” on this blog can’t even agree on who they should hate. Aren’t you guys supposed to love your neighbors? There’s an awful lot of judgement and name calling. But, maybe that’s from the part of the bible that sinners can ignore.
Just like Barak borrowed his title “The Audicity of Hope”, he “borrowed” his scripture context from an episode of “The West Wing.” When is someone going to call Barak on that?
Zorg the Destroyer- You’re right, Christians are supposed to love everyone. And I try to do that everyday. The reason we can’t agree on who to hate is because no one is supposed to hate anyone. And even though I am a Christian, I know that not every Christian is a perfect person; no one is perfect. But I will not tolerate it when people insult others just because of their religious beliefs.
It’s funny how people say that a lot of hatred had risen from relgion. That is NOT true! A lot of hatred has risen from people who refuse to respect other people’s beliefs. So by insulting Christians or any other religious belief, you are helping support the very thing you supposedly are fighting against-hatred.
Oh, and from the earlier comments: Yes, religion was an infulence of the Founding Fathers! You’re talking to someone who has heard this arguement for years. You do realize that Diests believe in God? And what of John Adams? Was he not a DEVOUTE Christian?
But what bugs me is how people think that Christians hate people who do not aline with their beliefs. Some Christians might, but they’re not supposed to. God and Christ taught us to love others, even if we disagree with them.
Nicely said, learntoplaynice. If you say you’re a Christian, people look at you and say OH, you’re not perfect? Guess that makes you a hypocrite. They hold others to a much higher standard. As someone else pointed out, if you say you’re a law-abiding citizen, then you better not ever have broken a single rule or law or even thought about it or you’re a totally fake person. Whatever….. don’t EVER hold others to a higher standard than you can uphold and remember when you are judging others for being judgemental, you’re being judgemental. People just like to pick on other people and think that they make sense doing it but they’re just bullies who don’t really care what others think. They just like to pick on people. What-ev…
Dobson is a self-proclaimed Christian; he doesn’t speak for me or millions of other Christians. Remember that, too, haters, when you lump millions of people together and speak as if they all think exactly alike, have all the same traits, you are the one who looks ignorant. Dobson needs better people skills period. you can’t ram your beliefs, whatever they are, down others’ throats.
And to others, an elected official saying that they are a Christian, Jew, spaghetti monster in the sky worshipper or whatever, that is NOT mixing church and state!! The more public the service or job, the more they teach you from the beginning to do the job, not to let your personal beliefs or feelings affect how you do your job or treat others. Some people are so simplistic, it would be sad if it weren’t so pathetic.
The anti-Christian hatred here is absolutely fascinating.
Not surprising, but fascinating.
–Mike
The point about Deists is not a claim that they didn’t believe in God. They were not a well liked group because they weren’t necessarily Christian. Intolerance has always been alive and well.
I’m anti-everybody if that makes anyone feel any better.