Subscribe by RSS 
A little bit of a back-and-forth erupted between Barack Obama and evangelical Christian leader James Dobson today. The basic story involves an argument over interpretation of the Bible and what Dobson calls “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible.”
Story from MyWay:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement’s biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.
The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization’s headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy – chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”
“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.
“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama’s campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama’s speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. “Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together,” DuBois said.
I’m not even going down this road other than to report the story. It all depends on your interpretation of scripture, however, I don’t think Obama is going to win over many traditional evangelicals with his interpretation.
Leave a comment »Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
All saw the Video of him actually saying these things. It’s the kind of Argument or points that Atheist or Deist usually use when pointing out things in the Bible. All I know is even in the New Testament slavery is not condemned. Jesus even gives instructions on how to do it properly.
I really don’t see how to debate this topic with out appearing to attack the bible.
I think the point of all this was to say that people should be careful about what passages from the Bible they interpret literally. I’ll say again that the Bible was written by men, so I would think that it’s best to stick to the broad ideals and not the more primitive societal views that cause hate and discontent.
I watched a documentary called Jesus Camp the other day, and it really opened my eyes to some of the sick ideas of the extreme evangelical right. This Pentacostal minister woman was running some kind of kooky Bible camp (think: an air of Jim Jones), where she had hundred of kids running around talking in tounges and smashing cups with hammers (the cups supposedly recongnized American culture). She stated over and again that her goal was to see these kids “dying for Jesus the same way Muslims die for their religion (i.e. suicide bombers)”. Everyone should watch this documentary, as I think it provides some insight into the workings of this machine. My thought is that Obama doesn’t believe Jesus would have EVER approved of these ideas (I don’t think he would have, either), and that the lasting ideals of his teachings (philosophically) are about loving one another, and peace, and fairness, and promoting happiness and diversity, whatever the societal currents may have been during the time of Jesus.
You may be right Josh and that would make sense.
Because people pick and choose what verses they want to use to support different political agendas. Even Obama has said that his Faith is why he is against Gay Marriage. Someone should call him out on that and ask him what specifically from his Faith brought him to that conclusion. Then they could use his own words against him. But if you are going to point at one Scripture to support you Political Agenda you can not do away or ignore the other things from the same cannon. Many of the Scriptures people use ARE from the Old Testament.
Josh, I hope you realize that what you described from the documentary “Jesus Camp” does not represent the majority of Christians in America, as the Pentecostal Church is an extreme in Christendom that I know Jesus would have decried. The kinds of behaviors associated with demons in the Bible are upheld by Pentecostals as signs of the Holy Spirit. I agree with you, Josh, that we have had some “Christian” representatives in the public eye that have disgraced Jesus by their conduct. Ultimately, a fatal error of the “evangelical wing” of politics is that it attempts to use big government to accomplish reforms in society that churches and individuals would be better at. However, overall, I support the efforts in courts and legislation toward protecting the unborn and traditional family. BUT I also recognize the propensity to violate the Constitution in accomplishing that, and would not support efforts if they were being done in an unconstitutional way.
Regarding this Dobson vs. Obama controversy, I don’t know the whole story, but no one should forget that this is a conflict that’s been building, and thus is not a petty quarrel. It has to do with serious disagreements about what government should be doing. Obama likes to put the word “radical” in a positive light, saying that the Sermon on the Mount has a RADICAL plan, which he would base his policy on. As I recall, he said that the Golden Rule meant that you shouldn’t tell others how they’re sinning unless you want them to tell you the same, and that we should tolerate all kinds of behaviors. If you take his logic, that would mean that you shouldn’t arrest someone unless you wanted to be arrested. But there is an authority structure and government to uphold justice, and the Golden Rule is talking about being considerate of others, NOT that we should let them do whatever they want, no matter how it harms everyone else. Obama’s understanding of Scripture transfers to a radical socialist plan, in which the Golden Rule would signify the removal of class distinctions toward communism, and a move toward anarchy.
No, of course I don’t take those groups to be representative of the majority of Christianity, I was just pointing out that they do exist, and I think that it’s important to realize this fact, because we all know the repurcussions of allowing these extremist types to seize positions of power. In relation to the article, I believe that this was part of Obama’s point in this statement on religion.
I’m not so sure that Obama’s definition of the scripture equates to a socialist ideal. Jesus’s philosophy, however, is rooted in ideals like lifting up the poor and healing the sick, and these are the parts of Christianity that should be represented in our political system.
With regards to certain aspects of socialism, such as public healthcare and education systems, no one is saying that Americans shouldn’t have to play the game, but the deck shouldn’t be stacked against them, either.
BTW, Chris, did you watch Jesus Camp? Was it not one of the most sickening things you’ve ever seen?
I have a lot of thoughts on JESUS CAMP. First, the woman pastor Becky Fischer was in the bathroom looking at herself in the mirror and whispering “I get so exhausted from this”, only to come out to this gathering of children with a bundle of energy. It was quite revealing about her level of passion for the “job”. Second, Fischer said on the radio at the end that she had no desire to mix politics with religion, but in her meeting, children were extending their arms towards a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, praying for him to overcome the devil. Third, the basic creationism, pro-life, and pro-family of the Pentecostals in the film are very valid concerns, but the people viewed George W. Bush as the representative of Christianity who would hasten the return of Jesus. As a matter of fact, George W. Bush is into the occult, and I could give you more on that! (Wouldn’t they be surprised and dismayed . . .)Fourth, the Pentecostals shown are acting out such erratic behavior as violence, outbursts, babbling, and excessive weeping, all under peer pressure to conform. They say it’s the Spirit of God, but Gal. 5 in the Bible says the Spirit of God actually produces SELF-CONTROL. Fifth, I have serious issues with these people believing that children should become an army that will hasten the coming of Christ. The terminology is misleading, though, as the Bible talks about fighting for justice and training children what is right and wrong. However, the “evangelicals” who are trying to overcome evil through government and “excesses” such as wailing, are not living in self control. Sixth, the separation of church and state issue is quite simple, as it simply means the government should not try to impose a particular religion on the people (or hinder one). It does not mean religious expression should be kept out of the public eye. Seventh, as far as indoctrination goes, it is good to teach children what is right and wrong based on the Bible, and that it is better to be persecuted for your faith than to disobey your conscience. BUT, the Pentecostals featured on this are told that they are going to become a “children’s crusade” that will hasten the coming of Jesus, since this world is “trash”, as one of the kids put it on the film. This world is being TRASHED, but it does not HAVE to be. I agree with one of the families on the film that stopping “global warming” is a hoax, for it is a socialist plan to ruin our economy. But I do not believe, as they seem to, that this earth doesn’t matter and that we should hasten the coming of Christ by forming a children’s crusade. One of the things I liked that Fred Thompson said on the campaign trail is that we all should leave this earth better than we entered it, and yet he did not justify huge taxation to stop this unresolved controversy of “global warming”.
Anyway, Josh, I was appalled at what I observed on the movie, and it was quite an eye-opener for me. Pentecostalism is perilously irrational. Many Christians in America have lost their way and believe that you must appeal to the youth culture by being like it. Also, many do not realize that a socialist “solution” to abortion, homosexuality, etc., which Mike Huckabee champions, will lead us closer to a dictatorship.
Christopher Swinger and Josh
What do you two think about this?
http://www.jamesdobsondoe.....forme.com/
Christians leaders who support Obama.
The person who put this together was a long time supporter of Bush.
So now we have more of the Story from Obama to take into Context
Christopher
I don’t think he meant it in a way that you shouldn’t arrest anyone unless you want to be arrested. Unless you mean i shouldn’t arrest someone for MURDER unless I want someone to arrest me for MURDER. Which is true. I should be arrested if i murder someone. Therefore I support the arrest of someone else for murder. See how we can spin it in two different ways.
It is not the act of “arresting” but the crime of what the person is being arrested for.
You can not enforce your political belief based on a law in the bible which is taken from the same passage of another law which you do not support.
So in other words we should all be more sensitive of our Religious Beliefs.
The site comparing Dobson to Obama is kind of intriguing, because it gave me a grasp of why Obama appeals to so many people by seeming to remove differences and focus on themes such as “change”, “love”, and “hope”. The biggest objection I had to something he said (as quoted in that site) is that policy decisions have to be in accord with every faith, if I understood him correctly. It’s glaringly obvious what that would lead to. What do you think about his quote, Dreadsen? “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” He also stated that our legal system was based on Judeo-Christianity. So if a pagan religion started a gathering here involving blood rituals and child sacrifice as part of “religious expression”, what then? We obviously should uphold our Judeo-Christian laws by cracking down on them for violence and other crimes. That is the kind of thing Dobson is thinking about, which I think is valid. Obama seems to me to be straddling the fence.
Chris, the quote you give here was one of the first opinions by Obama on the subject of abortion that I read, and I could only scratch my head over the ramifications of it if taken literally. I’ll be interested in hearing your analysis, Dreadsen. It just sounded like a hedge comment to me, or straddling the fence, as Christopher says.
It basically means that we have to look at the issue in broad societal trends, rather than narrow definitions that are very apt to vary from religion to religion, and even from sect to sect in some cases. I’d say that at least HALF of the population (ballpark) of America supports abortion rights. Something like 70% of Americans are Christians, however, so you can’t even say that all Christians are against abortion. What you are left with is a large, possibly a majority, group of people that can’t be marginalized simply because they don’t share the same views as others within their religion, or because they interpret the dogma differently, or even because their faith might not be as strong as yours.
Furthurmore, we also must accomodate those with no religious beliefs because the constitution provides that they should not have to accept the tenets of a particular religious idealogy, beyond the obvious moral values that reflect the general idealogy of society on issues of justice. The litmus test here is simple. If there is no argument against something that exists wholly outside of scripture, regardless of whether or not it is reflected in scripture, then there should not be a law, claiming to reflect the mass attitude of society, against it. An example of this test is the question of gay marriage. Is there a completely religiously-extrinsic argument against it?
Dreadsen,
The site you directed Christopher Swinger and Josh to is extremely poor in the way they executed their message. First off I trust NOTHING that has no sources. How do we as readers know where the information came from and if it’s factual? Because these people are pastors we’re suppose to be impressed? I think not. Most pastors that I know or come in contact with are educated in a formal setting meaning undergrad, graduate, or have a Doctoral degree in ministry of some kind, so why didn’t this “coalition of pastors” realize that in order to seem creditable they MUST list their sources? Must have skipped that day in seminary when they showed everyone how to properly source, but then they want you and I as Americans to believe they’re credible. This is just another smear site that is asking people to partake in their “jump on the Obama band wagon”.
I will add that I am not a Dobson supporter. I have my own issues with James Dobson.
This ridiculous quote from the site in question says:
“He(James Dobson) doesn’t speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone;”
Religion aside, you kill a baby and you will have to live with that act for as long you live, that is if you have a conscience. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
The lack of citations is indeed another valid point . . .
The reason for the blur in all of this is simple. When people refer to themselves in America as “Christians”, that is completely orthogonal. They are identifying with a culture. James Dobson and others are talking about people who have a personal ongoing relationship with Jesus Christ. The other 69% are just playing church when it is convenient for them, thinking that if they say they are Christian, then it must be true. They have no conviction or even basic knowledge of scripture on what a Christian is. That is very clear in the New Teastament as well.
The bible says you should not kill (meaning premeditated murder). This is pretty clear…there are no “special allowances” here.
If someone says they are Christian and supports abortion, they should argue with God about why HE is wrong. Since God controls life, they won’t get very far.
Faith of partiality (I’ll belief what I like and avoid or ignore the rest) isn’t any more Christian than someone working at a company saying they will obey only company policies that they agree with, and ignore the others. No conviction, no understanding, wrong culture, and certainly not who they claim to be. Actions and words are usually very different, especially in politics.
Bravo, David! Strong words of truth! I concur wholeheartedly!
Perhaps of more gravity would be how your litmus test applies to self-described christians who support the death penalty, because abortion laws do not actually endorse the destruction of human life so much as allow for it, while obviously the death penalty actively calls for it. Is it, therefor, that much more a violation?
I’m not sure how valid I believe a litmus test of faith can be, personally, but I’m curious as to your perspective.
I agree, indi. There is no actual law that says we should have abortions, it’s a personal decision. The death penalty, on the other hand, is a widely agreed (by conservatives, especially) to, public system of law that flat out requires the killing of another person. Did God appoint death penaly proponents as his personal executioners?
Is it wrong to support a decision that allows a person to make their own personal decision on an issue like this? If that is so, then it must be wrong to support gun-rights as well, because the sale of guns effectively does allow people to kill other people with those guns, thus he who supports gun-rights supports murder as much as one who supports abortion-rights, if we are, in fact, defining a person by what they support, rather than what they actually do.
However, gun rights (2nd Amendment) grant ANYONE the ability to defend themselves, while the “right to choose” to abort a baby gives the baby no defense at all. Speaking of gun control, the airport regulations after 9/11 are no more effective than No Child Left Behind, because if a person successfully carries a weapon that no guard recognizes as such, all the other passengers can’t stop the ruffian because they had their weapons taken away! Why should some people be licensed to carry weapons and others have them taken away? If citizens carried them everywhere, we would be safer than under the police state we’re entering.
I’m not sure how it’s related to no child left behind, but I agree with the basic thrust of what you’re saying, Chris. I was elated to see the handgun ban overturned in DC for instance, for similar reasoning. DC is only a city, so regulation of illegal handguns from MD and VA isn’t so easy, and the result is that DC is probably the easiest place in the country to get an illegal handgun! So any badguy who wants a handgun basically could basically be carrying one around, but any law abiding citizen who wants to own one for protection is denied.
Though on an airplane, I think if a gunfight breaks out it’s seriously bad news no matter who wins. That should be avoided at all costs.
But toward your reasoning Josh, I would say that owning a gun doesn’t necessarily imply that death will ensue. A person could buy a gun, but not a bullet, and have that gun save his life on multiple occasions. The hope is that the threat it carries will be enough to avoid bloodshed. I think few gun owners truly expect to kill someone, but they expect to maintain control over their lives come hell or high water.
I don’t actually think that that’s the case either, I’m certainly not anti-gun (I live in Maine, even the most liberal of the liberals here believe in gun-rights!), but if it’s true that a person is guilty for “crimes” that they enable others to commit in terms of broad policy advocacy, wouldn’t someone who supports the sale of guns of any kind be guilty for crimes people might commit with them?
All I’m saying is that it’s dangerous to try and suject one’s votes to a strictly religious system of dogmatic “tests” dreamed up by guys like Dobson.
I say this because I had a boss (her husband was a nazarene minister, not sure where that lies in relation to other iterations of Christianity) once who explained to me that when the rapture came (which she said would be soon, of course) that only Republicans would be saved, and all Democrats would be left behind because of abortion and evolution (pretty sure there’s probably a pretty good number of Republicans who accept evolution). I didn’t report it or anything because I didn’t want her to get in trouble, but it really got me thinking about where this kind of thinking comes from. I have since come to understand that it’s people like James Dobson who put these ridiculous notions out there. I, for one, think it’s a little dangerous, to polarize politics to the point that it demonizes entire swaths of people.
I mentioned No Child Left Behind because it’s socialist education, which I think abysmal; I agree with you, IndiMinded, that fighting on planes should be avoided
! Putting regulations on passengers because a passenger COULD be a terrorist is the direction of a police state, though, and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Josh, I think that is wretched that some people think all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad. I am sick of conservatives demonizing all liberals as “ungrateful Marxists” and liberals demonizing conservatives as “intolerant bigots”. I’d always considered myself a staunch Republican before John McCain became the “presumptive nominee”. I think some Christian leaders have made “religion” seem putrid to a hoard of Americans, which is very unfortunate. Having listened to James Dobson many times (though I’ve fallen out of it in the last few years), I can say he’s not one of those arch-fiends, but that his forceful style can make him sound like a hatemonger, when he is not. His primary focuses are on protecting the family and Constitution, and those are the reasons for his harsh words toward Obama. I would like to know what Obama has said to indicate that he DOESN’T want a socialist dictatorship. His platform features a hope for a better tomorrow through something “new”, so I’m inferring that he doesn’t think the Constitution is sufficient.
Obama’s mantra is “Change” so I can see why you expect him to bring that to the table in some form. But Ron Paul’s advocated “revolution”, and of course he was a constitutionalist by nature. Change doesn’t necessarily mean moving away from the constitution – we’re woefully far from that document as it is.
Personally, the “big brother” civil liberty violations that our current administration has taken these last 8 years are simply some of the worst aspects of soviet-era communism that I could come up with (short of people actually disappearing). We’re not being asked to choose between small vs big government anymore. These days the questions are more about whether we would prefer our tax dollars to fund our neighbor’s healthcare or their warrant-less surveillance.
Interesting perspective, IndiMinded. I do agree with you that Bush has violated the Constitution to horrible degrees.
“…soviet-era communism that I could come up with (short of people actually disappearing)”
Indi, what about the taser kid, whatever happened to him
DON’T TAZE ME BRO!!!
What are your thoughts on universal health care (monopolized), IndiMinded? Do you think the restrictions from the HMO system, etc. should be abolished?
The litmus test for killing is quite simple, it is the taking of another life with the intent (pre-meditated). As for capital punishment beliefs by the real Christians, most opponents have never read the Mosaic laws in the old testament. As you read it, there is differentiation between pre-meditated killing, and accidental death, and the retribution (punishment) is quite different as well.
Therefore, the gun-rights of murder versus self defense are quite distinct and quite clear in terms of definition and punishment. This general issue is people not understanding the difference. For instance, people often quote “Thou shall not kill” as reasoning against capital punishment. Those same people are speaking from the culture of Christianity, not as a Christian who understands the biblical word and application. Again, in the Old Testament, the Mosaic law is quite clear about capital punishment and when it should be applied. Most people speak without knowing the laws instituted. Now, we are not operating under Mosaic law, however, our constitution is based on that law and the law in England at the time, which have the same foundations.
The mantra of “Change” should be investigated and looked into. Most people want change…the issue is what the results of that change are. Without understanding where we really are and the “action/consequence” of the existing environment, they are ill prepared to understand the consequences of any proposed changes. People tend to be lazy about looking into what any candidate proposed, and assume that they will like the results. People are like sheep and agree with the sound bites, without realizing what the consequences, risks, and potential results will be.
It takes time and effort to dig that out. Just as in the biblical record, it takes some effort to read and understand. Most people don’t take the time.
President James Garfield said (I’m paraphrasing) about 100 years ago that if the generation 100 years from the time he spoke were frustrated with their representatives, and frustrated by the body of elected officials, and that they are corrupt, only have themselves (the voters) to blame. If we get into that situation, then the voters who tolerate them and do not vote them out of office are to blame. His clarity 100 years ago is where we are today…voter apathy and high tolerance for the status-quo.
It all boils down to taking the time to understand the issues and people. Nothing more and nothing less. The culture we are in is more like sheep than leadership (my opinion only). We have a government that continues to erode the core values within our constitution, that the founding fathers gave their lives for, and today’s generation (as a mass) are too busy to create the change necessary, and try to push the momentum the other way.
Just my 2 cents worth on this.
Again those are very good thoughts, David, and you have communicated what I have wanted to be able to say!
http://www.petitiononline.....ition.html
McCain is a threat to America.
Ok, Christopher, how is McCain a threat to America, and aren’t you using the “politics of fear” here that Club Howard Dean accuses McCain of?
And if you’re going to answer this, please give specific threats, not this general rhetoric of just “McCain is a threat to America”. You make him sound like a frikking terrorist. *L*
Well, what I am saying is that he has a track record of violating the will of the American people and pursuing socialist ends. He was just in Canada saying that the people who opposed NAFTA need to get a life. He tried, with Ted Kennedy, to push amnesty through, against over 3/4 of Americans’ loud objections. When the next President is asked to finalize the merging of the US into a North American Union, which overrules our Constitution and subjects us to a new one, would such a globalist as McCain object, even though he knows it would eradicate our Constitution? He’s really good at saying one thing and doing another, and somehow sounding like an advocate of faith and family. He’s broken his own law of McCain-Feingold. He met with Lord Rothschild on his international tour in March, but the McCain campaign ignored Judicial Watch’s inquiry about what transpired. The Rothschild dynasty has enormous clout over politics and has actively sought to create the League of Nations, then the UN, and now the upcoming “unions” of all the countries on continents. It is more than McCain’s lack of honesty even; it is his glowing remarks in favor of a “league of democracies” akin to Wilson and Roosevelt, who wanted to bring us into “international unions”.
Chris,
It’s an area I have mixed opinions on. Like food and shelter, I simply cannot imagine an idealized society in which we do not care for all our sick and dying. I think, on some level, we cannot truly be called a society unless we are willing to support our fellow man with the same basic love and respect that we would afford the people in our social groups. So I feel very strongly that we as Americans should care enough for each other to see to it that our sick are cared for.
I would go so far as to say that if Americans do not see eye to eye in believing every American should be be cared to in illness – something everyone dearly wants for their own mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends (in short, anyone dear to us) then I’m not sure we’re even a society so much as a group of individuals who happen to live in the same geographic area.
On the other hand, the limited systems we have in place to provide healthcare to those in need right now are just terrible, a multi-tiered disaster. I know a man who should have been entitled to medicare years ago, absolutely needed it – needed as in he was penniless, living on the charity of others, and dying from chronic illness because he did not have it – but they would not grant it to him until very recently for bureaucratic reasons.
I know a man who’s company went belly up because Medicaid stopped paying it’s bills, and his mutual friend who owns a small company and he learned from our friend’s lesson, and does not accept medicaid. It’s all too easy to imagine universal healthcare becoming an extension of our current disaster of a system, so I’m a little bit skeptical of how this could all turn out. But there’s nothing to be done about it but wait and see I suppose.
Thanks for the clarification David. I actually am somewhat familiar with the mosaic laws, the old testament has just always been somewhat confusing to me, because I know much of it is no longer considered to be valid in the wake of the new testament, including much of what is written in mosaic law (or so I thought it had been explained to me). That truly complicates things for guys like me without a strong christian background.
The Rothschilds were also really big in the eugenics movement in it’s heyday.
I’m understanding where you’re coming from, IndiMinded. The current system is an abomination, and “universal health care” the proposed solution. I really hadn’t thought too much about the health care issue until just a few weeks ago. The paperwork, insurance issues, bureaucratic standstills, etc. have really created a mess. One thing that makes complete sense to me about a solution, though, is that a competition-driven economy, rather than a mandated socialist health care system, would improve the situation. To have poor people relying on government funds for low-quality health care, or troops having to wait extensively for medical assistance, is the opposite of what we’re supposed to be. Citizens and churches traditionally cared for the needy, setting up ways to get out of poverty and get medical assistance without government funds. I think it could happen again if we were unfettered and not under so many restrictions. Free enterprise with solid supportive families is the solution. Millions seem to be doomed to eternal debt, though, thanks to the Federal Reserve, and many are drug addicts with broken families. Getting citizens back on their feet will require a restoration of the traditional family as the supportive societal infrastructure. Without illegal immigrants, also, Americans could have more priority in health care. It’s a two-fold thing of restoring the societal infrastructure to care for the needy, as well as not having illegal immigrants.
You may be right about this. I think that it may be a mistake for the Federal government to attempt to take one system and implement, regulate, and manage that system nationwide. But there’s been a strong movement away from the rights of communities to govern and manage themselves, as the diversity involved is too messy for the men in DC. Unless Ron Paul had been elected, that was going to be true.
It strikes me that this is the problem at issue for things beyond health – that’s basically the same problem that’s brought us to No Child Left Behind too. I do long for the days that “states rights” was anything more than a nostalgic phrase.
It sure is incredible how much the American people have tolerated, to the point that dishonesty is softened into “he made a gaffe”, like it was an accident. I think it’s really interesting that all kinds of people are abandoning the traditional “us vs. them” Republican vs. Democrat battle because both parties have lost touch with the American people. People such as you and me. I’ll vote Chuck Baldwin if McCain is nominated because he believes in states’ rights
.
Obama identifies as a Christian at best. Former US Senator Tom Daschle coming on television in the South Dakota viewer area, and saying Obama is a Christian, is not enough for anyone to believe. Tom Daschle was unelected because he was a sell out to the DNC and their ethical standards.
Barak is very well educated, but brain dead. He can NOT make a statement like “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby” and have the ability to think about his statements before he makes them. This is the dumbest thing i have heard anyone say that made national news since the Dan Quayle history debacle. He is more worried about keeping people happy and saving face rather than thinking far enough ahead about killing his own grand kids off for the sake of his daughters sex life.
This Bible verse sums up Obama and McCain it is 2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their ithcing ears want to hear.
Barak Obama has the idea that if we are all bad, no one is bad; this is his version of Christianity.
With the exception of those Judeo-Christian Bible believing born again folks of any people group that say there is sin. In Barak’s mind the only sinners are the ones that point sin out to others and call it bad.
Moral relativism, postmodernism, pragmatism, whatever you want to call it–that’s what Dobson is objecting to about Obama. It is unfortunate that Dobson has been portrayed as a hatemonger for saying there is one kind of healthy family and one healthy sexuality (between a married man and his wife). That wouldn’t resonate with Hollywood! The media sure does make that look bad–but if one breaks out of the media’s influence and thinks for himself, it would make sense and seem completely/entirely different.
Irv, as Obama himself pointed out, his daughter is 6 years old. Perhaps it would be a misspeak to call a child birth on her part a punishment, but any rational person can tell you – it would not be a wise decision for a 6 year old to seek pregnancy.
Yes, pregnancy is always a miracle. Perhaps it is the greatest miracle we have the privilege to regularly bear witness to. But if you are ever so fortunate to be “blessed” with a 6 year old who becomes pregnant, I wonder if you won’t see it as a mixed blessing at best.
When a 6 year old tells their mother “mommy, I got a baby in my tummy” is the proper response “Well honey, that’s wonderful!”? Because were I a parent in that situation, that’s not how I’d respond.
IndiMinded, the old testament laws in Leviticus are very wide in scope. Their were laws of justice, conduct, laws for the priests, dealing with leposy, sacrifices, etc. The new testament abolished the ceremonial laws (sacrifices, offerings) and the shedding of blood for the atonement of man. This is not a complete listing, but just to make the point that the sacrifice to God is no longer needed since Jesus Christ paid that price. The ceremonial dietary laws were abolished as well.
The key point here is that the civil laws were not abolished in that time of the new covenant. That was pretty much done when the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D.
Therefore, the civil laws were usurped by the Romans, not abolished by God Himself. Those are the laws that we started discussing, and many were resurrected by our country’s founding fathers.
I hope this helps.
BTW, I do enjoy reading everyone’s viewpoint here, and on other new posts. Irv made some excellent points.
Thank you all.
IndiMinded, come on. Obama wasn’t referring to his daughter becoming pregnant at 6, and you know it.
Babs, I really do think that when he made the statement he was picturing his daughters, not 20 years from now, but his daughters that he knows today and takes care of. Whose daughters do you think he was referring to, and at what age?
Because when he was confronted on this topic, his response was “You have to understand, my daughter is 6 years old” (I paraphrased it, but it was something like that). I do think he was using his daughter as an example to speak on cases in which women who certainly should not become pregnant do, because they have made poor choices that they could not have fully understood the consequences of.
Well, Indi, maybe the entire quote will clear it up for you:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. . . .”
Come on now, if you take this that literally then we have to assume he has taught them nothing yet because he also says “I AM GOING TO TEACH THEM”. So if he’s concerned about his 6 year old becoming pregnant at 6 (impossible) then he’d better hurry up and start teaching her something. See how you can interpret things? I think if you asked him, he would tell you the same thing I’m saying. You can defend the principle if you want, but another angle might be more accurate than a 6 year old becoming pregnant.
He says “BUT if they make a mistake”, as if to say the values and morals about not aborting a baby can be dismissed if the girls get pregnant. “No integrity or principles” is the warning sign I’m seeing.
Alright, I give, you’re right on this babs, obviously a 6 year old can’t get pregnant. That’s an interpretation taking it so extreme as to be kind of silly. But I do think he mentions their ages for a reason – I think he was trying to speak specifically about very young mothers.
Chris, he didn’t address the morality of aborting the child should that occur, but I think jumping to a “no integrity or principals” conclusion is a swift jump. The fact is he’s asserting his principals here – that in some cases he feels the life of the mother, and the quality of life that her future holds may take priority over the life of an unborn child being delivered into harsh circumstances.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I think the principal he’s asserting is clear enough.
I think he was talking more along the lines of 16, as his next statement was that he didn’t want either of them to get HIV/AIDS or an STD at 16. There again, as Chris says, it’s a moral issue. And moral issues are steeped in integrity and principles, and I agree that the principle he’s asserting is clear enough. I don’t agree with it either, and think it shows more of a lack of principles.
Indiminded
Very interesting I might add , an 8 year old could beome pregnant. Her life would be in danger ~
We never know till it happens to us ! God Gives us choices~
G’Day! Youdecidepolitics,
Along the same lines,, It was so wonderful to hear President Obama give a beautiful speech about innovation in is 2011 State of the Union Speech. As the coordinator for a think tank, one which operates online, it made me smile, but then I realized that this was nothing more than another speech. Now more than three weeks later President Obama put forth his budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
Keep up the posts!