Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Obama vs. Dobson

I only have about 15 minutes so I have to make this quick.

"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."


Really? So Jesus' teachings cancel out everything in the Old Testament?

Then why is it even a part of the Christian bible?

I don't recall anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus said "Hey, I'm here now. New Sheriff in town. You can crack open those lobster tails, and pass the melted butter!"

Plus, Dobson is kind of shooting himself in the dick if he's saying that the book of Leviticus is null and void. I'm pretty sure that Leviticus is where all of the biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from.

The Right loves to repeat that "the bible defines marriage as a holy covenant before God between one man and one woman".

Seriously?

I challenge all of the biblically literate to find me one single passage from Jesus where he addresses this issue. Find me a quote from Jesus where he condemns homosexuality. Find me a quote from Jesus where he says that the only form of marriage acceptable to God is "one man, one woman".

Come, on. Chapter and verse. Educate us.

15 comments:

dianne said...

I'm sure you already know this has been debated by scholars on each side to no agreeable conclusion, so for your readers to somehow come up with "the truth" is of course a futile exercise.

I'll simply take a different approach which is my own take on the issue. If you believe that in the beginning, God created man and woman with unique reproduction capabilities, then you would naturally believe that He did not intend for homosexuals to be sexual partners. If He had so intended, we would not be having this conversation.

Faith said...

Me thinks Dianne is one of those people that thinks people can "choose" whether to be gay or not. ::sigh:: Dianne, we wouldn't be having LOTS of conversations if things had remained as they were "in the beginning." But guess what? We aren't just a world made up of one man and one woman now anymore, are we? Jeezy chreezy...

I don't have the truth for ya, man. As you well know, I believe what I believe, and don't feel I should have to defend it in any way to people who think otherwise or what have you. But I do think this Dobson guy is a certifiable jackass, that's for sure.

I did want to say that the New Testament, at least as far as my religion goes, is more of the Christian way of teaching. I mean, yes, the Old Testament exists, and we learn from it as well of course. But isn't that the foundation of Judaism? And then Jesus came along, Christianity was born, and we kinda stick to readings that come from the New Testament when it comes to our fundamental beliefs.

I could be wrong though. I've come to the point in my life where I believe what I believe, and it's kind of an evolved way of thinking compared to what I learned from age 0 - 21.

travel said...

First of all, inadvertently signed my real name "Dianne" above instead of my usual "Travel" moniker. Sometimes I do that...forget who I really am not...lol

Thanks, Faith, for your analysis of my beliefs. But, I have no opinion whether people are born gay or not as I have never seen any proof either way. The only proof I know is that same sex people cannot produce a child. Simple scientific fact. I happen to believe that God intended it that way.

Pascal √Čbert said...

Damn, the things that Americans think are important...

If only it were so easy to whip people in to a frenzy over our bloodthirsty imperialism, codified racism and shameful neglect of our poor and disenfranchised.

Here's what I know: Jesus told me that marriage - the civil, holy union - was to be between a woman and a man. Yes - he TOLD me that.

Now, he also told me that I would need a valve job when I really needed only new spark plugs.

Moral of the story? 1) Don't take your car to be fixed by Jesus Rodriguez; 2) Shut the fuck up. If you can't argue about something important then just shut - the fuck - up.

Keep calling bullshit on the Dobson bozos of the world, Monsieur Onassis. You have the gift of outrage. We need so much more of that in this pivotal year.

Spyder said...

Dianne/Travel- My Bro in law is gay. believe me it's definitely not a choice. The Hell he's gone through is not worth being gay to be cool & with it.
Are man & woman only suppose to be together to reproduce? Because the hubby & I are failing then.
And if sexual activities are only to be with the opposite sex. Why did God create humans with the capabilities to have man to man, woman to woman, and man to woman sex? Should God have made sex not pleasurable? And then you only did it to procreate?

Just a few questions I have. I don't have the answers, but then neither do you. I do know that I'm not going to be casting any stones at any gay people. I might just hit some friends & family.

Poodles said...

If god didn't intend for gay sex then why did he create a prostate on men and a clitoris on women???

Suzanne Karmin said...

How can love be a sin? I don't think God would punish his children for loving each other, whether it's a brotherly love or a romantic love. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the compassionate, loving God that they teach in Sunday School. In my opinion.

Dan said...

Travel as in the former "travelingal"? I've been wondering where you went . . .

mainstream said...

You know, Travel is right, our plumbing is designed for the opposite sex. However, to say that homosexuality is abnormal is to ignore all of human civilization.

There has always been homosexuality in human civilization. Anybody disagree?

Seriously, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, predating Christ by thousands of years.

So Travel, you're correct, but it is also correct for me to say homosexuality has been around as long as humans have.

If we need to have citations from Rome, Greek and other civilizations let's have a separate conversation about that. And let's also talk about the homosexual traditions of "untouched" tribes in the Amazon and other places that continue until today, which have gay practices and traditions. These tribes have throwback and throwforward predictive value because they are untouched.

I think that looking at the facts homosexuality is far, far from abnormal. Homosexuality is normal for human civilization. It's not 50 or 70% of the population, but it's always more than 5%.

(remember, self reporting is ambiguous)

And I'll risk acknowledging the commenter who said essentially "why would anybody be gay with the current social stigmas attached to that status?"

That’s a damn good argument that being gay is largely (but not all) genetic.

However, there is honor in being gay. As much honor as there is in being heterosexual.

That is because holy relationships are a covenant between two people to honor, love and respect one another.

Now, does anybody really think the creator of the universe is going to send a loving gay couple to hell?

(Travel, you can honestly answer that)

mainstream said...

Travel, I'm sorry, I was typing ad nauseum, but I assume you're always honest, and I did not mean to imply otherwise.

travel said...

I don't come on this liberal site to hear myself talk. Believe it or not, I listen to y'all and feel comfortable expressing my views. I don't dislike homosexuals and have had homosexual friendships. And, I certainly don't believe God condemns them to everlasting hell. None of us are saints. All of us are sinners.

Back to the topic at hand, however, I believe the Bible is the word of God and is meant to guide us in the way God wants us to live. For those of us who believe that (and I fully acknowledge that many people don't), we don't want politics to dictate to us how we must live anymore than those who don't believe in God at all. In the case of homosexuality, for example, I don't believe we should be required to accept that children will be taught about homosexual behavior in the public school system when it is against the religious beliefs of their parents.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two rights most of us would fight for and indeed our forefathers did. I just want it remembered that it is a two way street.

And, Dan, I still read your site, just don't have much to contribute on local politics I am not familiar with.

Heather said...

In the crude way you put it, yes, New Testament sort of wipes out the Old Testament in terms of Christianity. Those who adhere to the old follow the Abrahamic Laws (Judiasm), and those who are Christian generally are governed by Messianic law. It's been a while since I've been to church, and my theology is a bit rusty...but that is what I remember...in a nutshell.

As for Gays and stuff: There's still a lot of stuff we don't know about genetics and embryonic development for anyone to say with an absolute certainty that they are or are not born that way. I'm leaning towards the born that way theory. I'm sure God didn't intend for some people to be born with both sets of reproductive organs, but it happens all the time.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me. I have a lot of gay friends, and I love them dearly. As long as they are happy, and it's not hurting anyone, live and let live, I always say.

(I'm still trying to figure out the prostate-clitoris remark...)

Akmed Advil said...

What do people mean when they say kids are taught about homosexual behavior in public school? What does that mean?

Some people make another comments about honoring the religious beliefs of the parents when allowing kids to take certain classes. And that kids should be kept out of certain classes because of their parent's religious beliefs.

Let's talk about that.

Hmm.

A while ago there was a woman and her child who died, because her husband's religious beliefs dictated that they not receive trained medical assistance.

The child was stillborn and his wife died a month later.

So,

Let's say he gets married again. Has another kid, successfully this time. And his kid goes to school and has a mandatory CPR/emergency first aid class. His Dad objects for religious reasons.

What does the school do?

Say I come from Pakistan, and I believe that males and females should be kept in separate classes.

What do I do as the parent, and what does the school do?

Poodles said...

Heather Said:
"(I'm still trying to figure out the prostate-clitoris remark...)"

The gay haters always say that human anatomy was "made for straight sex". This isn't true. A woman doesn't need a penis to stimulate her clitoris for sexual pleasure. And if you ask any man who has ever had his prostate stimulated anally by a penis, finger or any kind of probe he will tell you it can be very sexually stimulating, and a vagina can't do that. So if humans were made for heterosexual sex, then why those tools?

Heather said...

The prostate gland secretes fluid that initiates the movement of sperm and nutritionally sustains sperm. It has nothing to do with gay sex. It is part of the male reproductive system. I think that when folks figured out that when stimulated, the prostate can cause more powerful orgasms in men, that was just an added bonus.

Sort of like women's breasts being able to make a man happy, in addition to nourishing babies.

The clitoris is unique as it serves only for pleasure. However, when stimulated (i.e. orgasm), it can cause an increase in oxytocin, which in turn regulates our hormones when they get out of wack by stress, or the Crimson Wave.

Arguing that these two components were meant for either heterosexual sex or homosexual sex, has to be two of the most retarded claims I've ever heard. And being a nurse, I've heard plenty.