La Shawn Barber returns to political blogging with a post examining the charge by Dr. James Dobson that Barack Obama misinterprets Scripture to make a political point:
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 [Focus on the Family’s Tom] 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.
Barber explains why Dobson is correct in this regard, particularly withe respect to the relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament. She also notes that John F. Kerry also misinterpreted Scripture during the 2004 campaign, promoting the idea of faith through works (when works are supposed to be the product of faith and individual, not collectivized).
A similar inversion is at the core of the Black Liberation Theology of Obama’s long-time spiritual adviser, the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dobson will be ignored by most on this because of his long history of wearing clownshoes. And the establishment media seems to be happy to be stonewalled on questions regarding Obama’s religion, even as he rolls out campaign material based on it.
Perhaps all will be explained when the Book of Obama gets added to the Bible.
Barber mentioned John Kerry supposedly misinterpreting scripture, and that reminded me of Nancy Pelosi quoting fictional scripture.
I didn’t realize that Dobson and LaShawn Barber had a monopoly on interpreting the Bible. Interesting. Thank God conservatives never use their interpretations of the Bible to make a political point. The world would in trouble of people like Dobson and Falwell used religion for political purposes…. LOL!
B_ook of
I_nterest
B_efore
L_eaving
E_arth
I interpret the bible as allowing me to beat the hell out of insufferable pricks who think themselves more clever than they are. Palooza, would you be so kind as to allow me to practice my interpretation of Scripture on you? Or are you some kind of intolerant reactionary troglodyte?
Palooza: Dobson is right and Obama is wrong. This is a frequent mistake and/or willfull misreading of Old and New Testament doctrine.
Obama should know that Christians were excempted from Jewish law due to Peter’s vision in Acts, when God said to Peter that what he had made clean was no longer unclean. Paul also has written extensively in several books about there being no longer any need to follow the law in dietary or legal matters beacuse doing so will not allow one to acheive salvation.
Feel free to snark as much as you want but a smart guy like Obama who’s gone to a Christian Chruch for 20 years should know this. Instead, he probably willfully threw out this misdirection, a fallacy that any second year Sunday school adult knows is false.
Nice try, though.
Palooza is apparently unaware that this site subscribes to the idea of intentionalism, such that the plain text is usually the best guide to the meaning of the text. Of course, Palooza simply wants to launch an ad hominem attack (as evidenced by the lack of any substantive response) attached to the vacuous “everybody does it” argument that one often hears from small children.
I have to disagree. Looking at his web site, it’s pretty obvious that Obama isn’t afraid to speak of the reverence that he has for the Church of Gore.
Whoa. Sounds like BarryO is a…theist. Quotin’ scripture ‘n stuff. I anxiously await condemnation from the secular left to rain down on his head for forty days and forty nights. Religion has no place in an administration!
It’s only ok to cite the bible if you’re making shit up to support your Left-wing politics. Genuinely religious people who cite the bible to explain their worldview are out of bounds.
James Dobson is correct. Obama’s own statements of faith are in discord with the Bible. This link contrasts Obama’s faith beliefs with those of the Bible…completely objective and teferenced. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EuKbM3SnEiU
Again Dobson misspeaks and asserts himself as the only begotten interpreter of the bible.The Pharasees stood on the corners of the town praying aloud and pointing to themselves as the great examples
of faith. Dobson get off your high horse.
Daniel Morena: You may or may not like Dobson but he’s right in this regard. Obama is wrong when he quotes Leviticus in that context.
According to Palooza:
“Interpreting” the Bible means it says whatever you damn well want it to say in order to advance your agenda.
Apparently, words have no fixed definitions on Planet Moonbat. It must make communication difficult.
In the original Constitution in Article 6, at the end of the third clause: [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. WTF is RELIGION even a topic in a candidancy? Leave religion off the discussion! Let him believe in whatever he wants to believes in, so you can go on believing in whatever you wanna believe in! That is the sum total of what the original founders of the Constitution intended for everyone. So when Dobson asked that question, it was an INVALID question, and Obama shouldn’t have fallen for Dobson’s trap of sensationalization via inference of biblical stories and should have simply stuck to a vanilla restatement of his policy positions.
Log Cabin as in gay republican christian –that makes sense???
“Old Testament texts and dietary codes…no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament”, according to Dobson.
Then why does he CONSTANTLY use scripture from the same book, Leviticus, to justify his hatred for homosexuals??
You can’t have it both ways, Dobson! And here I am thinking that politicians have a monopoly on flip-flopping and distorting the facts.
Daniel Morena,
I don’t owe you jack shit in the way of explanations, but let’s go there anyway:
I want less government spending, lower taxes, strong defense, taking the battle against terrorism to the homelands of the terrorists themselves, secure borders, school vouchers, more drilling for petroleum here in America, open up ANWR.
I am against ‘taxing the rich’, illegal immigration, socialized healthcare, more environmental regulation, teachers unions, public employees unions, tree huggers, more taxes of ANY kind…
I could not care less about “gay marriage”
Not one fucking tiny bit.
So which party do you think I should support?
Duh.
rmed:
You blew the interpretation of the Constitution. That article refers to a legal qualification for holding office. That article does not prohibit, nor should it, polite inquiries from the electorate about a candidate’s religious views because the electorate can ask any damn thing they want and the candidate is free to answer or tell them to get bent as is his/her want.
I’ve seen this argument before and it’s deeply flawed. We are free as voters to judge our candidates by whatever metric we choose. You don’t get to tell me that I can’t apply a “religious test” just as I can’t stop you from applying an “environmental test” or a “right to choose” test. Once he’s elected the government is forbidden from religious tests of any kind in day to day governing and policy making. That doesn’t, however, stop Presidents and Congress from holding prayer meetings and invoking God at assemblies and other functions.
Daniel: What’s it to you? You don’t like you the xtians? Log Cabin is free to associate or not associate with whoever he wants without your permission.
Obama is as ignorant as Dobson is nasty. One of the basic tenets of christianity is that the levitical laws regarding clean and unclean do not apply to Christians who were freed from these laws by Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Galatians makes it perfectly clear that circumcision is no longer necessary for Christians, and Acts (mentioned above) makes it perfectly clear that the clean/unclean distinction is no longer operatives for followers of Christ. (I mean how many ways are there to interpret “Kill, eat.”?) And as far as homosexuality, it’s condemned in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It’s condemned in Romans.
There are a lot of “tough passages” in the bible — Old and New Testament that clearly contradict Obama’s political agenda.
The problem that Obama has not figured out is that when it comes to invoking scripture, conservatives always win.
Log Cabin: Well said, polite applause.
Comment by rmed on 6/24 @ 2:50 pm #
“Let him believe in whatever he wants to believes in, so you can go on believing in whatever you wanna believe in!”
Ummm, it’s not really a religious issue. It’s a reading comprehension thing and a talking out your as* thing. Furthermore a question of judgment. Here is a man willing to possibly distort the meaning of an important book.. to subordinate it to his politics. I generally don’t trust people that put everything beneath their politics.
Dobson is in the same boat as Rev. Jackson, he is not a spokesman
for all Christians or theologians. Republicans have no monopoly on
Christianity.
Isn’t wonderful that we are about to elect a great president. If the worst thing Obama has done is mis-interpret the Bible, I say keep mis-interpreting. People like Dobson need to get a life. I wonder how much money he got paid to bring up this issue. When we go to hell, if hell exists, Mr. Dobson with the rest of his clan will be there with me.
BTW, for the pro-O commenters:
You might want to click on the link in the original post for “stonewalled,” and perhaps a few links in that post as well. Obama has from the outset been selling himself with faith-based appeals — usually below the media radar, so the secular proggs won’t get wise. Obama opened the door to this sort of criticism, and while (as noted in the original post) I think Dobson is often a jackass, he does happen to be correct this time.
Election season ’08: Dems nominate a hard-left but visually appealing candidate with virtually no experience or record but attended a “church” espousing radical racial theory and, evidently, bears no compunction about citing Biblical scripture and is treated as a latter day messiah.
Reaction from the left: SWOON!
Election season ’00: GOP nominates middle of the road Methodist who answered, “Jesus Christ,” when asked who was his favorite philosopher.
Reaction from the left: THEOCON!
Baracky is just scoffing at the stupid Jews and their crazy laws is all. This is for real what his church believes.
Daniel,
I totally agree. OTOH, I also believe that it would be incorrect to claim that the New Testament is actually a story about Francis the Talking Mule. Obama got something pretty basic pretty wrong — and if he’s going to market himself to evangelicals, he should expect that they will call him on it.
BTW, as you’re new here, I will disclose that I haven’t set foot in a church for years, and probably no more than 3 or 4 times in the past 20 years. I’m no zealot. But I would notice if Obama suddenly said the world was flat.
*sigh* I’m going to be working overtime on dealing with ignorance on this thread.
a reader got it right above (nice catch on Galations, BTW.) Dobson can be nasty and there are times that I find him less righteous and more mean. That having been said he doesn’t constantly invoke Leviticus and when he does, it’s only to buttress the New Testament mentions of homosexuality as sin.
Let me cut something else off at the pass. Log Cabin is an infrequent but intelligent commentator on this blog for quite some time. He knows that the religious views on this site run the gamut from aggressive atheists to conservative Catholics to Evangelicals (moi) and everything in between. If I were to value judge Log cabin as a homosexual and sinner then I would be a pretty lousy Christian. LC doesn’t talk about that and I don’t want to blanket categorize anyone. If I believe, based upon my own, freewill attachment to the Scripture as authoritative then I’ll end up seeing homosexual activity as sinful.
So what? I sin every stinkin’ day, whether it be lust or gluttony or pride or some such thing. It’s just one of many sins under that concept. That’s what the small minority of idiot “Christian” gay haters refuse to get (Fred Phelps, are you listening?) I have a sister in law who is gay and we don’t agree on much either politically or sexually. I love her unconditionally asdI would anyone from my assocuates and family, regardless of sexual orientation.
Log cabin is a political policy brother and a stim,ulating commenator. The rest of it God gets to sort out.
Who said they did? Still, you don’t get to interpret the Bible contrary to nearly all Biblical scholarship.
Well, maybe you do. Have you published?
BTW, for all of my documentation of Obama’s faith-based appeals, I have not mentioned that he also voluntarily took part in the Faith in Public Life’s Compassion Forum at Messiah College.
Except that, as Karl mentioned, he has made faith based appeals to evangelicals as well as policy and religious overtures to Jews (much to rmed’s disgust, I imagine) so he does have to answer for his responses on those topics. Also, we have many more problems with Obama not related in any manner, shape or form to religion. Cruise the site and you will see.
And, yes, I’m a self described conservative Christian, cast somewhat in the Reagan mold. While you may find Dobson loathsome (and Dobson doesn’t help himself in that regard) the question is one of scholarship, not personality. He got it right, this time.
I love how “Evangelicals” pick and choose which scriptures are literal and which are metaphorical as if they have any objective evidence to base it on. If the Jewish laws of Leviticus do not apply to the Christian teachings then why do they use them to condemn homosexuality. And I still am not sure why christians are Republicans. While I understand they agree on abortion, there is so much more about which they disagree – Like “turning the other cheek”. The current state of the Republican party is the most vindictive party in our nations history. If Jesus were alive today he would be called a socialist! He was about helping each other and those who are less fortunate and oppressed – not about individualistic prosperity and foreign wars. He would be against Afghanistan and Iraq and every other war we have ever been in and would promote diplomacy (sounds a lot like Obama’s position). He was the biggest pacifist the world has ever seen. Far cry from the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Obama is right – Christians need to read their bibles more – or at least practice what they preach.
All Christians value judge aloud or silently. We are all human and not there yet. It is the anybodys right to preach the word of God.
First amendment Constitution.
Kind words, Tex. Thanks.
I have gotten less condemnation from conservative Christian friends and family for being gay than I have gotten from gay friends for being conservative and Christian. Weird, isn’t it?
Now let’s get this thread back on track!
The problem with Obama is that he is trying to have it both ways. He may bring up anything he wants when it comes to scripture.
“But don’t you dare do it, Theocons!”
The MSM, of course, will provide the necessary cover to get him past this until November. I am sure McCain won’t go there. It’s too much of a ‘personal attack’.
Well I mean Baracky’s point in delving into scripture is to say hey you stupid Christians you shouldn’t get to be a part of politics because you are so stupid and your stupid Bible, it is stupid. Ha ha. It was funny. The audience thought it was funny anyway. Y’all just have no sense of humor.
Josh,
See comment #28.
C’mon, just admit it, Josh: Obama = Jesus. You know you want to.
Daniel,
Does the First Amendment extend to debating scripture? If so, is there some rule I missed that excludes Dobson?
“He was the biggest pacifist the world has ever seen”
Just ask the money changers at the temple.
Why so much habaloo about a book of fiction written by cavemen two thousand years ago and changed by a brutal English warlord a sixteen hundred years later?
Karl,
I see comment #29 and that’s fine if you want if other passages are used to condemn homosexuality. However, Dobson and many other’s still quote Leviticus as well on this issue and Christians don’t attack them for “misinterpretting” scripture.
Good one, PH. Keep ’em coming.
Got any good ones about Mohammed? Those are a real scream, huh?
Christians don’t attack them for “misinterpretting†scripture.
Dude, Christians have done just that on this thread. If you can’t read go find a blog with pictures to look at.
Karl,
No one says Dobson doesn’t have the right to speak freely, but there are consequences to everything and he must be held to the fire when he spouts hateful divisive speech – not so christianlike.
Yes, Josh, and Baracky has properly told those stupid Christians to shut the fuck up and stop waving that stupid book in his face.
It’s pretty bad when the parodist sounds more serious and reasonable than the real dissenters.
“No one says
DobsonObama doesn’t have the right to speak freely, but there are consequences to everything and he must be held to the fire when he spouts hateful divisive speech – not so christianlike.”There.
You’re new here, aren’t you. Search the archives for “Dobson.” You’ll pass many a delightful hour.
“but there are consequences to everything and he must be held to the fire when he spouts hateful divisive speech”
Like Revs Wright, Sharpton, Jackson?
Let see Dobson is one of those that has bypassed the laws in non-taxable status while endorsing political candidates. Let see if he get away from courts when the Dems get into power.
Dre: D’oh! Beat me to it.
Josh is arguing through a progressive filter of Christianity. Jesus was not a pacifist, as evidenced by his reaction to the money lenders and sellers of sacrifice animals (who were not only debasing the temple but charging outragious fees and ripping of the faithful.) The difference in all of Jesus’ teachings with regards to violence was the fact that he arrived at the temple, surveyed the scene and then left to spend a night in prayer. The temple smackdown was a calculated move designed to make s strong statement about holiness and how you treat your fellow man.
Jesus didn’t hate wealthy people, only those who loved money more than God or their fellow man. Many of his followers were wealthy, especially Joseph of Aramathea, who bought Jesus’ tomb and arranged for his burial. He also talked about rendering to the government what was theirs and never, in any sciptural passage, talked about collectivising or any other system of “socialism.” He laid it upon each individual to do charity and take care of the “lost and least”, not forced taking of everyones money and have the government take care of them.
Finally no Evangelical worth his Biblical salt “picks and chooses” scripture to suit their purposes. That is left for liberal biblical scholars who do backflips and high kicks to refute the plain meaning of passages that done’t suit their modern, humanist view of “social justice” or some such.
In conclusion: Josh, you are utterly ignorant of Christianity as it is practiced by those who choose of their own free will to put themselves under the authority of scripture as the revealed word of God. Next time, try talking to a believer rather than sneering at them with specious statements and flawed arguments.
rmed: Pleas look at history, especially as the Founders knew it. To hold office, any public office, in the UK meant you had to be a communicant of the Church of England. No matter how loosely or tightly that was interpreted, you had to be an official member of the national church to hold a public office of any kind.
That is a religious test. That is not an official requirement to hold public office in the United States – any religion or no religion is not a legal impediment. Your faith and/or lack of it may be an electoral impediment in that voters may not favor you, but that is cultural, not legal. Please learn the difference.
Josh , you are not getting it. Try to look up the difference between a law and a sin. then get back to me.
I sense a Christian outpouring of love in this blog towards those that don’t believe. #51
Who would Jesus bomb?
Keep your laws off my body!
Simple reading skill advice… when something is mentioned in an opening chapter and then repeated and refined in the closing chapters, there is usually a reason. So referencing the opening chapter is a basic reading comprehension skill.
It might also be instructive to see the projection of ever more ridiculous and restrictive laws in the light of the later chapters and realize that the whole point is the “law” never works. People need to change their own behavior.
I’ll be back in a minute to talk about the “turn the other cheek” who would Jesus bomb idiocy
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he’s right about this issue!
Geez, did you, Josh and rmed flunk some “Religion in Society” class and the punishment was to come hear and embarrass yourselves?
Mission Accomplished!!
Proggie, baby! Your hopey changey candidate believes that the “book of fiction written by cavement 2000 years ago” is the inspired word of God. How does that make you feel?
“Baracky has properly told those stupid Christians to shut the fuck up and stop waving that stupid book in his face.”
Guess what happyfeet, Obama is just as qualified to interpret the bible as Mr. Dobson seeing as how these interpretations are completely subjective and have no supporting objective evidence. And Obama is not telling them to “shut the fuck up”(very christianlike language there). In fact, he is telling them to actually study the teachings of Jesus and see that he believed in acceptance and love of all (includes homosexuals, muslims, atheists, women who have abortions, etc.) – stop judging. All sin is equal right? You are just as bad as the ones you attack.
And again, why are so many christians Republican. Jesus was a socialist.
If the worst thing Obama has done is mis-interpret the Bible, I say keep mis-interpreting.
One thing he did was stress his twenty years at Trinty United Church of Christ, until the teachings of that church and the preachings of its reverends became too problematic. Mull over that a bit and come back to us on his biblical scholarship, eh?
Log Cabin, I hate to be the one to tell you, but you are obviously an “inauthentic gay man.”
Jesus was a Christian? Really?
Somehow I doubt it. Just look at that schnozz…
He would be against Afghanistan and Iraq…
I don’t think Jesus ever spoke for or against the secular powers of his day removing a tyrant. And I still cannot see how removing bloody-handed dictators from their thrones and hanging them is a bad thing.
Can you help me with that? Hanging a bloody dictator is bad – why?
“Jesus was a socialist.”
Dude Jesus was apolitical!
Oh, please, Daniel, get over yourself. My Christian love is not determined by your impression of my writing. You don’t get to waltz into the discussion, spout some smack and then complain that the Christian commentator is showing you insufficient Loooooovvveeee maaaaaaaan!
I love those that come to the table contemptuous of ones faith but determined to hold one to their perceived tenets. Even though they sneer at those very tenets.
It makes me giggle like a schoool girl.
Ok you stupid Christians you have some studying to do. We can meet back here later but don’t come back if you haven’t done the reading.
Obama has every bit as much right as Dobson to interpret Scripture. I don’t know how qualified he is though, because for all of his faith-based appeals, he really doesn’t want to talk about what he learned for 20 years at the Hate Church.
You more secular proggs might want to click on the post link for Black Liberation Theology to find out just how much it is based on fusing religion and politics.
I sense a Christian outpouring of love in this blog towards those that don’t believe.
I would agree with you, I am a non-believer, and I feel very welcome on this blog.
Well, most of the time.
And also of course all sin is not equal. Gluttony is ok if you promise to go to the gym tomorrow. This is different than murder.
Josh,
Well, my interpretation of your comment is that you totally agree with everything I say.
Or, you could use the site search for “intentionalism” to figure out what a wrong turn you took preaching subjectivity in interpretation here. And not just as regards the Bible.
I am a lousy sock puppet, however.
The problem with Josh’s screed in 31 is its total ignorance. Christian rules and behaviors are necessarily individual rules and behaviors. When a government official turns the nation’s cheek, he is turning every American’s cheek, not just his own. I can’t forgive people for you, and trying to do so doesn’t make me a better Christian.
Likewise, Jesus asks us to be charitable with what we have. If I take stuff from you and give it to charity, neither of us are being good. Neither of us have sacrificed anything to help anyone else. It’s not their own money politicians are giving away, but other people’s money.
BJTex, What makes you or anyone qualified to say Dobson is right or not? The point is, these interpretations are based on little historical fact or evidence and therefore have no objective basis. There is little fact that even suggests Jesus existed other than a few manuscripts written after all the “characters” of the new testament were dead. They are stories past down verbally through generations. Much like the Scottish common folk claimed William Wallace was 8 feet tall during the 13th century. And as for how I feel about Obama being a Christian – I am tolerant of his beliefs whatever they may be. I could care less about what religion is. The great thing anout the separation of church and state is that specific religious beliefs can not be forced upon those who disagree. Even if a majority agrees with that belief. We are not a democracy but a republic that protects from a “tyranny of the majority” – we give the minority a voice in this country. And that is emedded in the philosophy of our constitution and its author James Madison.
Again:
Why is it bad for a democratic Republic to depose and hang a bloody-handed dictator? Why is it bad for that same democratic Republic to depose another theocratic torture-happy, burn-’em-at-the-stake-or-bury-’em-to-their-shoulders-so-you-can-stone-’em regime a bad thing?
I know it is a tough question, but try and provide an answer that can also keep you on your moral high horse. If you can do that you get some serious props.
This Jesus had a lousy agent, sounds like.
If the worst thing Obama has done is mis-interpret the Bible, I say keep mis-interpreting.
Right, Dude. It’s just words. Like the words in the U.S. Constitution. What’s to worry?
Um, except for the text itself that is being interpreted.
You seem to keep missing that point despite its being made to you repeatedly.
Weirder still, you’re gay yet OK but BJTejas condemns me for worshiping Obama’s Hopeshaft when I say I like Obama.
I can’t help it, BJ, I was born this way! Whatever happened to I’m OK, you’re OK and it’s OK to be a Hopeshafter! Hopeshafter and proud!
Josh,
Given your commitment to the separation of church and state, I wonder what you would think of a candidate whose campaign literature pictures him at the pulpit, with the following quotation:
If it helps, add in that the candidate has publicly stated that his church has to “serve as the center of the community’s political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life.”
“The point is, these interpretations are based on little historical fact or evidence and therefore have no objective basis. ”
What’s that have to do with understanding the teachings contained in the bible?
Whatever happened to I’m OK, you’re OK and it’s OK to be a Hopeshafter! Hopeshafter and proud!
I think PW should adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” in regards to believers in the Lightworker. I honestly don’t want to hear about his shaft.
Mikey,
For one, what gives us the moral authority to make that judgment? From the eyes of our “enemies”, we are the tyrants. So who is right? Are we right simply because we say we are? Jesus made it quite clear that God is the judge of all things not man. And even if we are right, why do we pick some tyrants to depose and leave others in power. Even those who are far worse. China has a tyranical leader who has killed far more people than Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden combined yet we continue to have a friendship with them because it benefits our lifestyle. Where is the morality there? We went to Iraq because we thought it was the easiest way to get a stronghold in the middle east, not because of some threat to national security or link to terrorism or the fact that Saddam was a tyrant. Was Saddam really worth all the lives that have been lost? If so, we are giving way too much credit to him!
Those parties sound really gay.
“Where is the morality there? ”
Morality? Dude there’s only National self interest.
SO F*CKING RACIST, YOU RACISTS.
RACISTS.
O!
But that’s me. What’s your favorite part about how Obama relates to your spirituality?
Well McGehee, the biblical text is not objective evidence because it is strongly biased and was written by unknown author’s who were simply retelling stories they had heard. There is no physical evidence that the words of the Bible are accurate. Christians believe they are the truth based on pure faith. Faith is not evidence and is certainly not objective.
China has a tyranical leader who has killed far more people than Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden combined yet we continue to have a friendship with them because it benefits our lifestyle.
Cite?
How fast you think we can get Josh spinning if we really try?
Happyfeet, I have no spiriytuality and I don’t use someone else’s to determine whether I like them or not. I look at the issues, think for myself and use rational judgment to pick my candidate. Whoever makes the most sense to me gets my support.
Josh,
Why not answer the question at #77?
Ok, well no house party for you, Josh. That’s not the vibe we’re really looking for here. But we’ll save a square on the faith quilt for you if you change your mind.
It amuses me the way some people wave the word “subjective” around like a magic talisman whenever they start to lose an argument involving scripture. Obviously, there are some poetic and ambiguous passages in the bible, and there are some religious people who view the whole thing as an inspired fiction, but within the narrative of the biblical story there are also many themes and principles which are conveyed unambiguously.
I doubt that any of the regular commenters here at PW would object to Obama if he were an agnostic or an atheist (on those grounds). The thing that is galling is that Obama claims to be a faithful Christian, cites scripture to support his political positions in a way that is off limits for conservative Christians, and then gets basic doctrine wrong. Again, it reminds of of Pelosi getting away with citing made-up biblical scripture to support her positions on environmental policy in a fashion that conservative Christians are ot allowed to do with accurate srcriptural quotations.
If Obama and Pelosi are not religious they should be up front about it instead of cynically using bogus bible references to try to dupe Christians. Have a little respect.
I love Happyfeet. And, no, I haven’t been drinking.
Aldo,
How can you say Obama is not religious? He spent 20 years in Hate Church.
>From the eyes of our “enemiesâ€Â, we are the tyrants. So who is right?
In the eyes of me, you beat your wife. You say you don’t. Who’s right? Only perceptions matter.
>China has a tyranical (sic) leader who has killed far more people than Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden combined yet we continue to have a friendship with them because it benefits our lifestyle. Where is the morality there?
You tell us, supreme moral arbiter. They’re only following the left’s ideals to the degree that our cowardly Democrats don’t have the stones to.
It’s called the morality of rational self interest. China has no use for, nor does it tolerate, Islamic terrorism, nor does it pay alms to suicide bombers in Palestine, nor does it train legions of suicide murderers to slaughter children and women walking down streets in marketplaces or to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers.
If you can’t tell the difference between an economic ally and a sworn enemy, then you need to go back and pass history 101 again. The United States and Russia were allies against Hitler, and the US and USSR were enemies within ten years following WWII. Guess we should go back and demand everyone reach your standard of absolute moral utopia before we do anything.
‘>>We went to Iraq because we thought it was the easiest way to get a stronghold in the middle east, not because of some threat to national security or link to terrorism or the fact that Saddam was a tyrant.
Actually, yers because it was in the interest of national security, and yes because Saddam Hussein was a fascist totalitarian murderer who had invaded his neighbors and destablilized the region several times within the past 20 years, and that he had violated a dozen UN resolutions calling for him to disarm, allow UN inspectors full and unfettered access, and that he shot at UN-sanctioned US planes over internationally recognized no-fly zones, and that he met with terrorists like Abu Nidal and others over the years, and that he violated his last UN resolution with 1441 and the world said (yes, they did) enough. Other than that, he was just being the most chilled-out, most innocent tyrant the world has ever known until big bad BOOSH ruined the rainbows and chocolate rivers of the middle east to get oil for Cheney’s buddies.
>Was Saddam really worth all the lives that have been lost? If so, we are giving way too much credit to him!
Tell it to the men fighting to honor their memory, and the parents of the fallen who honor their sacrifice, and to the millions of Iraqis, Kurds, Christians and others who won’t be thrown into a mass grave for not allowing Uday Hussein to rape people in front of them. Go ahead. Tell everyone it wasn’t worth it. You’re the expert on what’s “worth it,” after all.
>The thing that is galling is that Obama claims to be a faithful Christian, cites scripture to support his political positions in a way that is off limits for conservative Christians, and then gets basic doctrine wrong.
Jeremiah Wright claimed to be a devout Christian. Then he started ridin’ dirty. Then he got thrown under the HopeChange express. All for expressing the views of Obama’s devout, mild-mannered church. For 20- years.
Well Karl,
First of all, I’m curious about the context of the second quote. But even if that is an accurate representation of the context, I have already stated that religious and spiritual belifs do not influence my vote. I look at the positions of a candidate on issues that are important to me and I make a rational judgment as to whether I support that candidate or not. As for the separation of church and state, I am very familiar with the positions of Obama and his ideology and I have found that it does not push for the implementation of a theocracy. Obama understands that the office of President is bigger than any individuals personal beliefs and that all people must be considered when making decisions. That is the foundation of our constitution. The Bill of Rights does not only apply to American citizens, they are inalienable. They apply to all mankind (including terrorists, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, women, etc.)
“The Bill of Rights does not only apply to American citizens, they are inalienable. They apply to all mankind (including terrorists, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, women, etc.)”
Bullshit you tranzi loser
The Bill of Rights does not only apply to American citizens, they are inalienable. They apply to all mankind (including terrorists, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, women, etc.)
uhm … ok … Well, then, don’t we have the obligation to go in a depose any leader who doesn’t allow his people those right?
Whooosh!!! Did you see those goalposts as they went by? Damn they were moving fast!
Obama’s about as Christian as Howard Dean.
Obama’s political agenda is indistinguishable from his theology, so I’m curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Indeed, you refer to his positions and ideology, but not his theology.
As for the separation of church and state, I am very familiar with the positions of Obama and his ideology and I have found that it does not push for the implementation of a theocracy.
Who has advocated for the implementation of a theocracy?
uhm … ok … Well, then, don’t we have the obligation to go in a depose any leader who doesn’t allow his people those right?
It is all so obvious to me now, we should have just said Saddam Hussein was Arabic for George Wallace.
Why do anti-American Lefists believe that unlawful foreign combatants have a claim on our Bill of Rights? What could be more imperialistic than that? Turns out these hippie isolationists were really American universalists all along.
Given Josh’s WWJD screed above, I be he’d have no problems with a Progressive theocracy.
So the people of Cuba have Freedom of Speech? So the people of Iran have Freedom of Religion?
Good Lt., You are obviously missing the point. I was asked:
“Why is it bad for a democratic Republic to depose and hang a bloody-handed dictator? Why is it bad for that same democratic Republic to depose another theocratic torture-happy, burn-’em-at-the-stake-or-bury-’em-to-their-shoulders-so-you-can-stone-’em regime a bad thing?”
You are absolutely right when you say perception is everything. I f we really had national security in mind, why not go into Iran? They were/are far closer to have WMDs then Iraq was and we knew it. They also were destabilizing the middle east with threats of invading Israel. The reason is because Iran has a much larger and more powerful military then Saddam Hussein had.
And I absolutely have my history correct. You are right when you say that we allied with Russia in WWII against Hitler. But NOT because Hitler was killing all the Jews. It was because hwe was invading our trading partners in Europe. We allied with Stalin while he was killing over 40 million of his own poeple in the Gulags of Siberia. I’m talking about whether these wars are moral or not. It is not for us to judge another leader’s morality. Especially not before we question oour own leader’s morality.
Who are you to judge Obama and his church? You do not see Obama going to redneck churches in the midwest and telling people to stop having snakes bite them do you? I thought you righties were all for freedom of religion? I guess that is only true of other people that think like you.
Pop quiz:
Which candidate did a campaign swing through South Carolina MC’ed by the notoriously gay-bashing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (who touts “ex gay” ministries)? And issued a three-page memo defending it when people complained?
A world where tv shows are never canceled. We’d all still be watching Leave it to Beaver.
Jesus certainly decided to take a beating…. but in normal life, when is it OK to fight back?
Can a woman fight off a rapist?
Of course she can…
Could I use violence to assist her?
Of course.
Those rights are assumed throughout the whole book.
Jesus gives a lesson where tenderness and humility win the day, that somehow is twisted into Jesus saying you should never defend yourself, never wage war?
The bible is full of battle imagery and the author assumes again and again that everyone reading knows what’s up with battle, war, and weapons.
Jesus talks about war and killing pretty off handedly in his parables.
There is a vineyard owner that is assumed to have an armed staff and a king who ponders whether to go to war with 10,000 fewer men than the other king.
Jesus assumes property owners have rights and means to kill when their emmissaries are murdered; that kings wage war.
Jesus doesn’t lecture the Roman Centurion warrior about putting down his sword and foregoing the oppression… he instead favorably compares the centurions understanding of the power in the chain of command with obedient faith. (The Roman warrior’s position basically boiled down to: you are God and I am not)
Obama evidently was present in church, got the attendance pin… (kinda like his legislative record)… he doesn’t seem to have heard much or done much. But he sure can speechify about almost anything.
I’m actually really irritated at the Democratic Party today. I voted for Carter, Clinton. But the last three knuckleheads the Democrats have sent us to vote on have been worse than idiots. Democrats bash the crap out of Bush, but how bad do the Democratic candidates have to be to lose to the guy?
Gore? Please… one issue global warming honk honk honk
Kerry…. superciluous doche with completely fake Edwards Barbie doll running mate. Awful.
Obama? Some kid from Harvard Law school who doesn’t know wtf due process means, and who had no idea what happened at Nuremburg and the military tribunals after the war.
Obama is lawyer who doesn’t know the law, a Christian who doesn’t know his own religion
Obama is not as functionally illiterate regarding Christianity as most Democratic party candidates, but he still doesn’t quite get it. He’s like someone who watched a couple of football games with people who know the game and can get the terminology down most of the time, but not exactly where or when it belongs and doesn’t understand why the game works the way it does.
PH,
Tolerance for snake handlers does not necessarily mean I would support one for president.
For me the issue is whether a candidate is involved in a church that fuses politics and religion. Andrew Sullivan calls such people Christianists. Unless it’s Obama, in which case he ignores it.
In a perfect world no politician would use religion as anything other than something to ridicule.
Christopher Taylor,
It’s not that Obama doesn’t get it. It’s that he spent 20 years in a church based on orthopraxis as opposed to orthodoxy.
You really convinced me, Josh. Since we can’t or haven’t deposed every dictator we shouldn’t depose one.
I’ve got an alternative plan – how about we depose dictators when we can? We start with one and try to get down the list at some time in the future? Sound good to you? One step after another and don’t overreach ourselves?
As an advocate for human liberty against the evil empire, you could do worse using the Taliban and Saddam Hussein as your poster-boys for non-intervention; but I really can’t think how.
You are an anti-American, pro-fascist, pro-totalitarian, pro-theocratic, twit. No matter how brutal your champion is, if he opposes the USA, you are for him. I hope you can sleep well with that thought; I know I couldn’t.
PH,
But you will be voting for someone who talks about his AWESOME God, won’t you? After all, if you’ll vote for a progg crook, you’ll vote for a progg theist, won’t you?
It is the position of our constitution that these people are covered under our Bill of Rights. It is not, however, our duty to militaristically enforce these rights in other nations. It is the responsibility of those people to demand theior own rights. Just like we defeated the world’s most power nation to gain independence, so can they revolt against their government’s. Our constitution makes it clear that even “unlawful combatants” are covered by our Bill of Rights. It doesn’t mean that they are innocent but it means that they are human beings too. The real isolationist imperialistic ethnocentrists are the ones who use symantics like “unlawful combatants to break our own national laws for dealing with POWs. If you are going to call it a War on Terror then the people you imprison in that war are “Prisoner’s of War” and are have right’s under the Geneva Convention which was agreed upon by OUR Congress and signed by OUR President!
I am sorry I have to agree with you on that one Karl, it did seem that in the Youtube clips that the “sermons” were more politics than religion. I have to say if bush had videos of his church demonizing the other primary candidate, let’s say McCain, I am sure that I would be much more up in arms about it. It is just hard to care though when these people have been oppressed for so long that it becomes a natural for them to lash out.
“Comment by Josh Cunningham on 6/24 @ 5:26 pm #
It is the position of our constitution that these people are covered under our Bill of Rights. ”
Site a source. Or is this just another prog penumbra?
So, no opinion on Mugabe, then?
“It is just hard to care though when these people have been oppressed for so long that it becomes a natural for them to lash out.”
mmmmmmm victims
In response to voting for a Progg Theist, I do find it hard to reconcile on one hand saying “I love god and attend this church for the last 20 years” then the next day saying “when people get bitter they cling to religion”. If you think about it though it is obvious he is for a firm seperation of church and state, so much so that people do not use it as a reason to vote for or against any candidate. The clinging is part of a greater template that points to the right wing shoving christianity down all our throats and using it as a means to scare us all. It has kept them having a firm hand on the middle of our country, the ones who attend church overwhelmingly vote repub. They seem to believe the Repubs are the party of god. I mean noone wants to vote against god do they? Oh heavens no.
You really know very little about the US Constitution as it has been applied to prisoners taken during a war (whether declared and ‘perfect’ or undeclared and ‘imperfect’) do you, Josh? You do realize that the Congressional power to declare war runs from full and formal to much less, and is legal no matter how force is authorized? And that applies to prisoners taken in those conflicts? You do understand that the US Constitution mentions ‘citizens’ and ‘people’ and that neither definition has ever been applied to enemies captured in any level of hostility?
No, I do not htink you know that; nor do I think you can cite to one case earlier than this year that supports your postion.
And BTW: Try using paragraphs to seperate your thoughts – such as they are.
How can you say Obama is not religious? He spent 20 years in Hate Church.
I don’t claim to know whether Obama is religious or not, but he shouldn’t get to have it both ways. If he is going to spout scripture in support of his politics then the people who believe in that scripture are entitled to point out when he gets it wrong. They Left thinks Christians like Dobson are clowns. Well, Obama claims to be a Christian, so by the Left’s standards Obama is either a clown or he’s lying. If Obama is truly a Christian, then there is nothing wrong with Dobson treating him like one, and calling him out on basic doctrinal errors. I suspect that the reason this infuriates the Left so much is that they don’t really believe that Obama is a Christian. They think he’s just playing one to dupe the rubes.
Our constitution makes it clear that even “unlawful combatants†are covered by our Bill of Rights.
Please state where in the Constituition that “unlawful combatants” are covered by our Bill of Rights!
#118: PH, I thank you for your honesty. I am a bit saddened that you condescend to black community at large by excusing Wright, TUCC and Pfleger, however. I have written several pieces here marshalling the evidence that TUCC is not a typical black church. I would not excuse a lower-class rural Klansman for being virulently racist just because the local blacks were the group he had the power to intimidate.
It seems losing an argument or failing to persuade on the internet always makes someone resort to pointing out punctuation or spelling errors. I wonder why?
>>It is not, however, our duty to militaristically enforce these rights in other nations.
Shouldn’t have stopped the Nazis, then. They never attacked the US directly. Seriously, dood. Go back to high school. YOu appear to have slept through history.
Can you tell me which provision in the Constitution grants the inalienable right of abortion?
>>If you are going to call it a War on Terror then the people you imprison in that war are “Prisoner’s of War†and are have right’s under the Geneva Convention which was agreed upon by OUR Congress and signed by OUR President!
Which provision covers non-uniformed combatants that use civilians as human shields again? Cite the provision, please. Thxbye.
>>It doesn’t mean that they are innocent but it means that they are human beings too.
Human beings don’t saw off the heads of innocents with rusty knives while videotaping it and then chanting to their “god.” At least animals that kill in horrid ways have a valid reason – food. What’s the Islamic terrorist’s excuse? Not good enough.
>>Just like we defeated the world’s most power nation to gain independence, so can they revolt against their government’s.
We also went to war on two fronts against Germany and Japan, only one of which attacked us directly. And it was violent. And we killed lotsa women and children as collateral damage (and many that were Nazis and actively supported the Nazis). We firebombed the Berlin and Dresden. We decimated the entire country. We probably should have just smoked some dope and listened to John Lennon instead. Thanks a lot, grandpop. You murderers.
>>It is the responsibility of those people to demand theior own rights.
See, the problem in Iraq was that if you demanded anything, you were thrown by the secret government police into a paper shredder. Or maybe a sulfuric acid bath. Whatever the world’s favorite martyr-tyrant felt like that day. But you’re right. They’re all cowards.
>>Our constitution makes it clear that even “unlawful combatants†are covered by our Bill of Rights.
Please cite the provision in the Bill of Rights which describes the “rights” that “unlawful combatants” have. I’ll wait.
Nicely said Mikeeeey! Why don’t you look up the meaning of fascism before you start throwing it around. Then you will see who’s closer to being a fascist: Bin Laden or Bush. And I love how simply disagreeing with your government is being anti-american. Actually, it’s about as American as it gets. We qusetion everything and don’t let tyrannical warmonger leaders spend our tax money invading other countries all while cutting taxes which leads to higher inflation and ruins our economy. Don’t EVER say that I am an anti-American!! I’m not the one supporting the killing of OUR teenagers in a foreign nation in the name of national economic interests. You are the anti-American for not standing up for your OWN rights when they are being thown in the garbage right right in front of your face. Our rights are far more important than “supporting our Cammander in Chief”. It was the great Ben Franklin who said “You can have safety and you can have freedom but you can’t have both.”
I CHOOSE FREEDOM!!!!!!!
Nice talking with you all,
Josh
K
The Bill of Rights does not only apply to American citizens, they are inalienable. They apply to all mankind
You are confusing “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence with the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. They are not the same documents. Try again.
Ofcourse, if the Bill of Rights is inalienable, why are you upset with the USA trying to help other peoples achieve them? Seems to me you would be a plank-owner with the idea of getting a dictator hanged when we can do that.
darn tags
I am not trying to be condescending, I simply realize I can not understand their point of view and do not with to condemn them for having it. I do find the issue a total distraction from the fuck up that has been occuring the last 7 years, but could see why people find it offensive. The only people that will find that an issue by the time November rolls around will be repubs desperatly grasping for an issue to make their own candidate more palitable by comparison.
He that lives upon hope will die fasting.
You choose freedom alright, the freedom to whine when the people you don’t like are elected. You are the one who equates Osama bin Laden with George Bush. The absurdity of that comparison is enough demonstration of your pre-adolescence.
You support fascist tyrants over the elected government of one of this worlds’ oldest democratically elected Republics. You and yours have been seen around the blogosphere for nearly ten years Josh -you are not original. Good luck; hope you find a clue.
Sounds like Josh declared victory and left(no pun intended)! Bong water must be getting dirty!
Um…
The “bill of rights” are the first 10 amendments to the US CONSTITUTION, and apply ONLY to citizens of the USA and those aliens lucky enough to be here. Period.
Otherwise, yannow, we woulda given them Russkies heck for some of the shit they pulled.
BTW, I seem to recall that the Founders had a little help from France. Just sayin’.
It was the great Ben Franklin who said “You can have safety and you can have freedom but you can’t have both.â€Â
Sorry, Josh, you’ve fanned again.
PH,
You may find it a “distraction” (which currently seems to be defined as anything Obama does not want to discuss), but I find that someone who runs as a post-racial Uniter but spent 20 years in Hate Church has a massive credibility problem. And given his scant record, I’m finding his actions speaking louder than his lofty speeches (which are in fact recycled from Deval Partick by David Axelrod).
I suppose Josh is now off to look for the provisions in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions that contain anything he claimed they contained.
We’re truly in the presence of a 12-year-old who hates his parents…uh…I mean…a master. Yes, that’s it. A master.
When did Ben Franklin force America to choose between safety and freedom?
What choice did we end up making of those two mutually-exclusive entities?
I think I missed something, and im sure you fine folks will fill me in. I am no Obama apologist, but wasn’t he asking what parts of the BIBLE we should use? He was not talking about what part of Christianity was he? Maybe he did and I missed that.
>>Our rights are far more important than “supporting our Cammander in Chiefâ€Â
I’ll remember this when Lightworker-In-Chief Obama tells me to give up my property, liberty or money to the government at the point of a gun.
Bravely Josh Ran Away
Bravely Josh ran away, (No!)
Bravely ran away, away. (I didn’t!)
When danger reared its ugly head,
he bravely turned his tail and fled. (No!)
Yes, brave Sir Josh turned about (I didn’t)
And gallantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, (I never did!)
He beat a very brave retreat, (Oh, lie!)
Bravest of the brave, Sir Josh-Monty Python’s Holy Grail
How does anyone consider logging off the internet “running”? Seriously the guy could have had to call 911 or go cook his kids dinner. Who knows but I seriously doubt he ran from typed black words on his computer monitor.
“Who knows but I seriously doubt he ran from typed black words on his computer monitor.”
Perhaps he redeployed to Okinawa.
“It was the great Ben Franklin who said “You can have safety and you can have freedom but you can’t have both.â€Â
– Yes. Now that you have the quote in hand, you can spend a bit of time thinking about how “playing it safe here in your elitist cacoon, letting others fight for your freedoms because you’re afraid to”, might not fit the original point you were attempting to make.
– Take your time, we’ll wait.
Okay PH – we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He went to do something than other reconcile how supporting a Baathist dictator against one of this world’s oldest democratically elected governments didn’t make him pro-fascist. He went to do something than other reconcile how supporting the Taliban against one of this world’s oldest democratically elected governments didn’t make him pro-theocracy.
He went to do something other that try to figure out how being pro-fascist and pro-theocrat (in the real hard-power blow your fucking brains out and kill your family type of fascist and theocrat) wasn’t being anti-American.
We’ll wait for you to come up with that reconciliation also. Though I will be going to bed soon – had a late night with the fireworks patrol and still had to go to work today. I am certain some one else here can take up that cudgel o’reality.
“It was the great Ben Franklin who said “You can have safety and you can have freedom but you can’t have both.â€Â
Says the champion of guaranteed food, housing, jobs and healthcare.
I would figure Mr. Franklin would be talking more about submitting to the British and relying on them for our “safety” or having actual freedom to do what we want with our own country and democracy, in which case we would not have safety because we would have to fight and rebel. I find parsing the founding fathers words is like parsing the words of Jesus, they are just too far removed from anything we know for anyone to be able to acuretly know what they were talking about.
Yes right now I can not find my spell check and do not know how to spell acureatly.
Hmmm, another clue ;)
Safety and freedom are kinda like bacon and sausage. Unless you do the a la carte thing.
Ohhhhhh. It hurts us. It HURTS us!
All this “who are we to judge” and “it’s all subjective”
Why don’t you look up the meaning of fascism before you start throwing it around.
AAAAHHHHHH! There goes another irony meter! It hurts! It hurts!
You are absolutely right when you say perception is everything.
NOOOOO!!!!
seeing as how these interpretations are completely subjective
STOP!!eleventy111!!
For one, what gives us the moral authority to make that judgment? From the eyes of our “enemiesâ€Â, we are the tyrants.
::jams fork into eye socket::
It is not for us to judge another leader’s morality.
Please, please tell me that Josh is 17. Please….
::collapses, sobbing, in a quivering heap::
PH,
Just for you. Really.
I find parsing the founding fathers words is like parsing the words of Jesus, they are just too far removed from anything we know for anyone to be able to acuretly know what they were talking about.
Only if you are a fucking idiot.
I was thinking he was a youngin. Hard to say, but for real you can tell he’s really trying.
I find parsing the founding fathers’ words is like parsing the words of Jesus; they are just too far removed from anything we know for anyone to be able to accurately know what they were talking about.
And this right here is the core thesis of Protein Wisdom: Meaning Matters, and the meaning has to derive from the speaker/writer’s intent, not from the interlocutor’s interpretation.
You can make a good argument for Jesus being too culturally remote to accurately divine His meaning (heh), but Jefferson? Madison? Paine? They wrote in English, were based in English tradition, refer to texts that yet survive, and did their dead-level best to explain their explanations and comment on their comments.
If you can’t understand the plain meaning of Common Sense or the Constitution or any of the supporting texts of the era, it’s because you’ve been to Graduate School and you drank the Kool-Aid.
The detox is difficult but possible, laddie. Never give up Hope that you can Change.
The founding fathers thought black people were less than human, I would OPE they could CHANGE today.
The founding fathers thought black people were less than human…
You should follow your own advice, their words are too hard for you to parse today.
–the other thing is: I don’t like Dobson much, but here’s a free Clew for y’all: if you’re going to challenge him on the content of Scripture, bring a lunch and a reference book, and make sure your phone batteries are charged for that saving call. You’re apt to find yourself in the position of having challenged the goofy-looking guy to a round of golf for $1000, offered him two strokes — and then found out his name is Woods…
Regards,
Ric
Whoooosh!
The point is that Obama is making claims about the text. There is an objective truth about what the text says, and he is wrong about that.
If your point is that no one can objectively verify whether anything described in the Bible ever happened, and therefore Obama can lie through his teeth about the text thereof, feel free.
You’ll be left arguing with Nishi and Thor, who seem to prefer that level of “logic,” but maybe that would be about your speed.
The founding fathers thought black people were less than human.
You’re referring, I assume, to the 3/5ths thing, right?
Here, let me show you the back story, which they don’t teach in college or even high school:
When they were cobbling together the constitution, many of the Founders wanted desperately to abolish slavery right then and there. They hated it. Franklin loathed it with his whole soul, as did many others.
But the southern states said that if slavery was outlawed by the new constitution, they weren’t going to sign the thing. The Founders knew that if the south peeled off by itself, the northerners would lose all their leverage to ever abolish slavery in the south.
So they agreed to not abolish slavery. Yet. Then it came time to decide how to count the population to decide representation in the House. The southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count as one person, so that they could totally outnumber the north.
Again, this would have tanked the abolitionists’ chance at abolishing slavery, so they compromise: slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person, so that the south could not overwhelm the north in the House.
Furthermore, counting slaves as 3/5ths was an incentive for the states to abolish slavery, because then they’d boost their representation in the south.
Which meant that a free black man counted as One Whole Person.
The result was that many of the states DID abolish slavery, but not all.
So tell Noam Chompsky and Howard Zinn to stuff their Narrative down their throat and choke on it. They’ve been lying to you, man; the Man has been lying to you.
#158
dave? Is that you?
lolz, still singing campfire songs, Proteins?
u dont get it…..it isn’t what O! says, its how he says it.
heres something interesting– a volokh thread where there are more evangelical sub-sapients arguing appeal to authority from the bible!
rawr.
the academics dislike evangelicals…..hmm didnt we go over that before?
my hypothesis is that the dislike component is multifactorial, but that endless bible quoting as appeal to authority is prolly a factor.
;)
ProggHero doesn’t ramble enough to be Dataless.
But I think we have another clue:
In a perfect world no politician would use religion as anything other than something to ridicule
It’s JOHN LENNON!
Who would’ve thought that 13% of academics have unfavorable views of Catholics?
What is the unfavorable rating of narcissistic children?
my hypothesis is that the dislike component is multifactorial, but that endless bible quoting as appeal to authority is prolly a factor.
;
Prolly not. You know why bartenders and waitresses dislike most academics? Shitty tippers.
The nishit never fails to deliver the goods.
yeah, well, dicentra, “one drop of black blood” still made one all black, didn’t it? still a slave even if one was a “high yellah mulatto” or a “quadroon” or an “octaroon”.
words matter, right?
slavery was heritable.
like race.
;)
I rest my case.
nishi – I really don’t need to type this, but you’re being stupid.
3/5th didn’t apply to blacks. It applied to SLAVES. Liberals today should have loved that strategy because it’s it fits into their the ends justify the means meme.
my hypothesis is that the dislike component is multifactorial, but that endless bible quoting as appeal to authority is prolly a factor.
“Spare the rod, and spoil the child.”
and if there was ever a childlike person who needed a good rod, it would be nishi. 1500 CC’S OF ROD STAT!!
thor?
It’s my fault. I said “Beetlejuice.”
Oh, God. Josh is a Zinn acolyte (knowing or unknowing). Or was it some other crackpot Marxist “history” prof who reduced WWII to the US fighting to create/maintain markets?
Actually, asshat, the US went to war against Hitler because Nazi Germany declared war on the US.
Nishi, STFU.
Seriously, a Muslim has no place lecturing people about slavery, on any basis.
Rob Crawford – She should prolly avoid lecturing about pedophilia too.
I really like that Josh thinks he is using reason to dissemble the text found in the Bible. You can tell by the other things he says that this is a tactic he employs more generally, as it allows him to remain correct absent anything pointing to that conclusion and more, in the face of contradictory evidence. Nothing can be know for certain, save for that which Josh will impart to the rest of us. It’s pretty amazingly narcissistic, although not necessarily intentionally so.
If the Bill of Rights applies to all humankind, and not just the concepts found therein, but the actual document then it would follow that the responsibilities that come with those protections must apply as well. I would be willing to bet that Josh would disagree with that idea completely.
Really? Where does it say that?
And here’s a stumper for you — you claim that the Constitution grants everyone rights like Due Process, right? Then how can the US obey the Geneva Conventions by not taking lawful combatants through the criminal courts? Why do we give people explicitly exempted from Geneva Convention protections more rights than those explicitly protected?
Just what was the historical treatment of unlawful combatants? Do you know? Do you know why?
I would be willing to bet that Josh would disagree with that idea completely.
I would be willing to bet that right now, Josh is putting his hand down his crack, pulling it out, and smelling his fingers.
alp
No bet. It’s important for people to have hobbies.
I think this is the quote Josh was looking for: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
It’s been discussed here before, but I think the reasons that lefties of all stripes give Pelosi, Obama, et al. a free pass on the whole religion thing is that they don’t actually think that Nan, O! and their ilk actually believe what they’re saying. Ends, means and all that. That’s the kicker — Dubya was actually sincere when he gave “Jesus” as his favorite philosopher, whereas Mama Nan and O! are merely using their religion as another arrow in their collective (hah!) quiver to try to separate the sickly and weak from the religious pack.
Isn’t it funny that the people going on and on about how we can’t judge others are the most judgmental of all?
Yeah, but who are we to judge?
What the hell does that mean? Is the Quran “strongly biased”? How about the Bhagavad Vita?
This is relevant, how, as regards Biblical interpretation?
Accurate? Are you expressing doubt that they’re not true to the original text, or are you questioning the “accuracy” of language itself?
Yes, but at least we haven’t beheaded you.
Yet.
It is apparent that Barack Obama is a Christian and reads the bible and has commited it to his heart. It is sad that someone like Dobson attacks that. Obviously, Dobson had to dig deep to attack Barrack. People like Dobson brought the Republican party down. They dragged it down to the mud! I am so leaning towards voting for Mr. Obama because of guys like Dobson.
My issue is these people who pretend to be of the faith are more politicians then not. I wonder who is the real fruitcake here?
Just my personal view. Didn’t mean to rant.
Dear Americans,
Before you vote, read this:
1] In the era of Hitler, the plight of the POOR Germans THAT were suffering economically LIKE THAT OF THE SUFFERING OF THE POOR AMERICA NOW was misused by Hitler to win votes with promises to deliver jobs for the Germans and better economy.
When Hitler won the election, he did these:
1]He took away the power of commanding general and replaced it with his own choice;
2]He forced the Christian and Catholic Churches to obey his commands instead of God’s commandments; and
3]He deceived the German people into believing that they were of Aryan race to take revenge on the Chosen people of God – Israelites or better known as Jews because Hitler, who was a son of a Jew kicked out of Jewry, was determined to pursue revenge for being kicked out of Jewry resorting to the Aryan race seeking to destroy the Chosen people of God-The Israelites purely out of hurt that turned evil enough to use the Aryan race to deceive the German people into murdering the Jews and the innocents at the expense of Germany. OF COURSE, MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE GERMANS BELIEVED
HITLER won the election because many Germans were suffering economically and were desperate for a leader who could promise them jobs and better economy. Unfortunately, Hitler was no economist but he was A EVIL DECEIVER. When he ran out of fund of which most belonged to the robbed Jews, he started the World War 2 to start robbing again to substain the economy of Germany.
Many Christians opposed Hitlers, but Christians were not the majority of the German population just like USA, and Hitler was voted in as Chancellor. Consequently, Germany suffered much, losing her people especially men, and also half their country to Russia.
Hence, when you, Americans, vote, you must vote wisely: vote for someone who has a good background rooted in Christianity AND IS KNOWN TO YOU for half a century would be good enough to be the President of USA so that the economy would not go into further devastation; AND
2] Take a look at Mugabe, a devious person thinking of his own benefit deceived his people into believing that he is a ‘CHRISTIAN’ somehow managed to deceive his people into chasing out the British to rule the country himself causing destruction by his robbery of the economy instead of his promise to share the weath of the country taken from the British among the people. Here Mugabe is another “Christian”. who deceives well. Obviously, Mugabe does not read his Bible TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF GOD !
In addition to other negative opinions of the Word of Bible, Obama has also called Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application.”
Conclusively, Obama does not know the truth of God; for he has doubted the Word of God for defence: for Obama KNOWS NOT HOW THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN AND ITS PRIME MINISTER, THE PEOPLE OF USA AND ITS PRESIDENT, AND OTHER NUMBEROUS SUCH COUNTRIES PRAYED TO GOD of Jesus FOR DEFENCE AND STRATEGY TO FIGHT HITLER IN WW2.
CONSEQUENTLY, Britain had developed radar which very much helped her to defence her air force against Hitler; and the US invented the Atomic bombs earlier than Japan helping to save the lives of many Americans, and allied forces not failing to mention the saving of lives of many Japaneses who lived like slaves under the rule of the Japanese emperor who divinated himself as god.
HENCE VOTE WISELY.
AMEN
Chinese Christian Jonathan
James, you’re an idiot. Obama got his biblical facts wrong, and got called on it by someone who, while you may not like him, is an expert in the subject.
Perhaps Obama’s personal development would have been better served by staying home and reading the Bible — and maybe some of the scholarly works associated with it — than going to Trinity and listening to the rants of the Mad Reverend.
#189: And, the other wing of the nut house checks in…
Dear American,
I believe senator Obama has not been reading his Bible well enough to know that there is the Old Covenant and New Covenant[mentioned by Jeremiah 31:31-34 renewing the Old Covenant with the 2nd Greatest Commandment[Matthew 22:36-40] that hangs all other laws except the 1st.}
I assume that Obama -with his past Muslim background and his past living in Muslim Indonesia- must have been reading the islamic websites where lies such as 50,001 contradictions in the Bible are posted.
THIS EXPLAINS WHY Obama speaks negatively [like all Muslims speak of Jesus in Islamic websites such as
http://www.answering-christianity.org]
of
1]slave [without knowing what the Bible says of slavery which actually meant servant who would be released after serving a period for his lord];
2]shellfish [which is forbidden because it is not clean]; and
3]Jesus’ Sermon with negative opinions.
4]stoning the child if he strays from the faith{I tried to look up this verse in the Bible but to no avail}
The Old Covenant had laws that were harsh, but
The New Covenant renewed the Old Covenant by the 2nd Greatest Command: ‘Love thy neighbours as thy self”.
Bottomline is Obama does not know Jesus well enough to be called a Christian; for a Christian does not doubt the Sermon on the mount by Jesus. Such negative probably derived from being born out of mixed marriage of a superior race and a lower status race.
One mixed marriage example is
1]Rev. Wright who, obviously, is hurt by racism preached racist sermons that negated the truth of God; and
2]Take a look at Hitler, who was a son of a Jew kicked out of Jewry, determined to pursue revenge for being kicked out of Jewry resorted to the Aryan race seeking to destroy the Chosen people of God-The Israelites purely out of hurt that turned evil deceiving the German people into murdering the Jews and the innocents at the expense of Germany;
Take a look at Mugabe, a devious person thinking of his own benefit deceived his people into believing that he is a ‘CHRISTIAN’ somehow managed to deceive his people into chasing out the British to rule the country himself causing destruction by his robbery of the economy instead of his promise to share the weath of the country taken from the British among the people. Here Mugabe is another “Christian”. who deceives well. Obviously, Mugabe does not read his Bible like Obama!
Obama would not be a righteous President; for he does not know the righteousness of God for he had stayed 20 years in his past Church and did not get out while racist sermons unspeakable were preached tells you American what kind of a Christian Obama is – A “Christian” that lacks the truth of God to differentiate the wrong from the right?
HENCE VOTE WISELY!
AMEN
A Chinese Christian Brother Jonathan
P S
I suspect Obama has been reading the Islamic websites{one such site is http://www.answering-christianity.org] which posted lies about Jesus and the Bible; and this clearly explains why the speeches of Obama regarding the Word of God were similar to the Muslims who would debate about Jesus and the Bible.
Every debating Muslim would pick one verse out of context from the Bible and started postulating. Ironically, this was what Obama was doing when he spoke of the Word of God. I suspect he is still a Muslim from the speeches he has been making regarding the Word of God!
Ironically, the debating Muslims do not know that there is the Old Covenant and there is the New Testament, and like the debating Muslims, Obama does not know it too, and that is why he would pick a verse and started postulating without knowing that under the New Testament, the 2nd Greatest Commandment “Love thy neighbour as thyself” hang all laws except the 1st commandment.
Just wondering on what truth is Obama standing on when he said that he will defend the nation of Israel when he does not understand the truth of God about the Chosen people of God.
Re: #162 dicentra,
It’s sad that things that used to be taught in Jr. High American history class now have to be spelled out because we no longer teach history but only multi-culti PC BS. Our schools now sell “snake-oil” by the tanker load.
YAY!
Now that we have Jonathan, we dont have to go to HotAir!
PW has its very own sandwichboardguy!!!!!
w00t!
It is apparent that Barack Obama is a Christian and reads the bible and has commited it to his heart.
Committing something to your heart which is in error is not a commendable act. That said, evaluating your faith and being willing to learn from mistakes is, and in course of that process mistakes will occur.
well.
i must go to work, but ill leave u proteins with sumthin to think about.
especially in O!’s case, the message IS the medium
discuss
hahahaha!
I’m not even a minor fan of Dobson. He’s right in this particular case, but I don’t know what that does to his probability of being right next time he opens his mouth. He wrote a piece a few years ago about what to do if you think your child is homosexual that was…well, stupid. I would no more take advice of any kind from him than I’d take it from some random nutcase, or Maureen Dowd.
Thanks for the idiotic thing to think about, nishi! One day you’ll hack us all down to single-digit. I think Vonnegut wrote a story about that kind of thing, once.
Well, you know what they say: “Malpractice makes malperfect.”
i must go to work, but ill leave u proteins with sumthin to think about.
especially in O!’s case, the message IS the medium
I would LOVE to … but I just notice some toe-jam between my third and forth left toe …
Priorities!
. Obviously, Dobson had to dig deep to attack Barrack. People like Dobson brought the Republican party down. They dragged it down to the mud! I am so leaning towards voting for Mr. Obama because of guys like Dobson.
James, don’t you know the proper format is to begin with “I was a LIFE-LONG Republican …”
Dobson didn’t have to dig deep – it brings up an issue that is central to HIM. He did what everybody does – they nitpick issues that are central to them. Feminists don’t bring up economics. Economists don’t give a hoot about reproductive rights.
Carin: Thanks for that.
I’m still contemplating the transcendent irony of several lefties bleating endlessly about Dobson and the Bible and the unfairness of it all while also whining that religion has no place in politics. Especially when not a one of them got the clear understanding of the problem even a little bit. It was like attending an ADHD convention on an active volcano.
What I got out of James’ pile O’ mush was that conservative Christians should just STFU! they’re ruining everything, which really brings that whole “big tent” thing into focus.
Again, I giggle like a Japanese schoolgirl.
I denounce myself for objectifying Japanese School girls.
I denounce you for that, too, BJTex. And myself, of course, for the intolerance.
# 188 asks, “I wonder who is the real fruitcake here?”
# 189 answers.
Here at PW, we don’t waste time getting results.
Japanese school girls are proof that God loves Japanese school boys and a reminder to married men everywhere that you are not good at making decisions. Unless you happen to have married a Japanese school girl, in which case just shut up.
#196 – that is backwards, matoko. Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message,” not “The message is the medium.” Get your quotes right, please.
Actually, I think what the nishtoon is saying is, if you take everything O! says and run it through a translator, you’ll get a picture of Patricia Arquette.
…’cause as we all know, the nishtoon has issues with uppercase letters.