http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama No Mr. Dobson. What he is saying is that we don't formulate policy in this country based on your interpretation of the Bible. In this democracy, you are free to believe what you want and preach those beliefs to people who are willing to listen. But under our Constitution, you cannot make laws based on what you believe the Bibles says you should do. If that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution I would love to hear the proper interpretation. Another thing I would like to touch on is the relationship between the Old and New Testament. If they are of different equality within the faith of a church, why is the one of lesser equality even bothered with? And it seems to me that in much of the debates religion gets involved in with regards to policy, the OT is a big part of it. I just don't remember Jesus speaking in many of the specific terms that the NT gets into. Or am I wrong in that assessment?
The Daily Show just showed a clip of Dobson on Larry King citing Leviticus as a reason to opposed homosexuality. So Dobson is a hypocrite. Chalk another one up for the 1st Amendment.
haha, wish I'd seen the LK clip. What gets me about this attack is why now? He gave the speech a couple years ago. Did Dobson just get his copy of it this week?
He is probably pulling a Sharpton. He needs to get his name in the headlines so that he can pull in some more money.
Wow...you have read the Constitution haven't you Devilfin? It also should be pointed out that "if" your thesis is correct that "you cannot make laws based on religion" then Dobson and Obama would be equally offbase. Or is the problem really that Obama is at best lightly familar with the Bible? After all this is the same man who claimed that "I cannot be against abortion because of my Faith it is a matter of law" while earlier he stated "If my daughter messes up, I don't want her punished with a baby". One cannot offend the morally culpable DF, Obama is offbase, yet to be sure, his inconsistency involving even the basics of Christianity is lost on his adherents...
Well if Dobson would have listened to the rest of Obama's speech he would have seen that Obama comes out sounding a lot more pro-Evangelical than anti-faith reflecting policy decisions. So I don't agree with either of them, just with Obama to a lesser extent. If you pass say an anti-gay marriage law and the reasoning of it cites Leviticus is that not unConstitutional? If the rationale of the voters who might vote for that law is based on their religious beliefs is that not an infringment on the beliefs of people with a different religion than their's?
Hmm..was that before or after Obama said "America is no longer a Christian Nation"? I'm curious as to your take on that DF. That would require a leap on any court's part, a Statute or Constitutional Provision nomrally has within it a clause like "Be it resolved on June 26 2008 the Congress of Colorado has agreed to law "X Y and Z" based on clause "X" in the Constitution of the State of CO. A Constitutional Amendment normally contains no such proviso, it says what it says "Amendment 336 "Marriage shall be only recognized as..." there is no mention of the Bible or Religion (though it could) it is merely a Amendment or Statute. Now a Congress could rely on the Declaration of Independence's "Endowed by Man's Creator" if they wished to reference the Almighty.
I'm not familiar with that statment by Obama. I think this speech Dobson criticizes was from 2006. So if you can find when Obama made the "no longer a Christian Nation" statement then we can compare. We are a Christian nation. But we are also a secular nation. We are Christian because most people are of that faith. But when it pertains to our laws we are secular. You're right that an amendment would say what you say. I'm not sure if regular laws would have an explanation or not. But I'll assume they wouldn't for argument's sake. In the case of an amendment I'm sure a court would approach it based on the state's defense of the law. In their defense the state would probably have to give the reasoning behind enacting the law. If it were based on some sort of scripture or religious dogman I'm sure it would be very problematic. They can look at the Declaration of Independence all they want. The Constitution is the one that is a legally binding document. And the Constitution was heavily influenced by the Virginia State Constitution (obviously since Madison wrote both) and the VSC is pretty explicit about religion and the philosophy behind what would become part of the 1st Amendment. I want to clarify a point in case someone comes along and gets the wrong impression. This isn't one of those things were I'm suggesting people can't vote on a candidate base on their religion or morals. They certainly can vote any way they choose. They can even do so when it comes to voting for laws. The difference in voting for laws being that if the law is enacted and is challenged in court, it better not abridge others' rights to practice their religion.
We are not now, nor have we ever been a "Christain nation". Some of the colonies had state churches but those were mostly for the purpose of taxation and denying to others the rights they had escapoed to America to enjoy themselves. Some of the founding fathers were Christians though more were simply deists. They wanted people to use their beliefs to inform their judgement but were also men of the enlightenment age and thus were also deeply wedded to reason. Obama's speech was actually very solid theology, imo. In point of fact each of the Abrahamic faiths has struggled through the years with how to interpret and practice ancient principles in a new situation. Some OT rules weren't being practiced at the time of Jesus, if ever. Certainly the issues of meat to idols hasn't been an issue in Christianity in 1700+ years! His point about what "version" of Christianity would be normative is a real issue. I have been denied access to pastor's groups because I was baptized as an infant and thus could not possibly be a Christian by definition of the folks in charge. How we count the ten commandments and/or which translation of the Lord's prayer we use (if at all) has been used by Christians to exclude others or at least margainilize them for years. It has been a scandal which has negativily impacted our ability to proclaim the faith for years! James Dobson gave up being a religious figure years ago and is nothing more than a shill for a political postion. I say that as a Christian and a moderate who has not yet made up his mind on who I will vote for. I am actually looking forward to a contest between two candidates who have been long practicing Christians (not someone like Reagan who discovered Christianity when it was politically expediant) and have struggled to apply the principals of their faith as they made/make decisions. Isn't it interesting that the two presidents in recent years who have been the most visibly practicing Christians in their personal lives, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, were rejected by the so-called Christian right, not because of their faith but because they didn't follow the right's politics which are too often not based on faith principals at all!
Thanks Ohio. I always appreciate your expertise on this subject. And I do find it very funny that Carter is so despised by the right, yet like you said, he was a very visibly practicing Christian.
