Obama mocking the Bible
Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:
DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!
It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.
Here’s the video in question:
The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own. Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:
Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:
While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And 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? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?
Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?” Here are the results of that poll:
What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:
- 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
- 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
- 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.
And exactly what does the First Amendment say?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.
And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.
Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.
Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.
In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain. I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.
Tags: constitution, election, lies, obama, propaganda
August 12th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Our site takes a somewhat unbalanced view of Brother Dobson. Yours is actually more charitable. Thanks for adding your comment to the blogging universe.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Well, I was really trying to defend Obama so my post really doesn’t have anything to do with Brother Dobson but, hey, thanks for your comment. However, you did mention one point in your own blog post that’s very relevant:
As I’ve said time and time again, context is important. It’s so easy to take what someone else says and make it mean something completely different than what the person intended. That’s exactly what happened here with this video. The context you provide is very good because Obama did not intend to associate any specific scripture to a particular reverend or priest. Very good observation.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
[...] a recent blob post, I talked about an email I received that claimed that Obama had mocked the bible. This was based on Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address. I recently have been [...]
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
There is no where in the Constitution that says seperation of Church and State.It says there will be no state run religion,the left has changed that and inserted as well as the media to say seperation of church and state.
The Democrats are also the ones that took all the social security money that was at one time in a lock box ,they decided to use the money for programs.Social Security is now paid out of the General fund.Thank you Democrats
Puton
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
You are correct in that the words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution. Those words actually came from Thomas Jefferson and have been debated about ever since. However, the concept itself is implied in the Constitution in that both an “establishment” and “freedom” clause exists for religion. Its there to prevent the government from passing any laws on both a state and federal level that favors one religion over another. That would include any laws that are based on a belief within a given religion since it would mean favoring the religious views of one religion (or lack or religion) over another.
I’m not even going to go over the problems with Social Security because it would take a lot of research and a whole blog post to talk about. What I can say is though is that I would just blame Democrats for the problems with Social Security. This has been an issue for a long time and both parties are to blame for the whole mess. Blame everyone, not just the Democrats. Everyone serving in our government is to blame and should be held accountable, period.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I want to thank you for clarifying
this video.
It has been sent to me by email many
times and I just shake my head.
Try telling a bunch of religous nuts
that the video is taken out of context!!
They don’t want to hear it.
I have had a couple people get really
mad at me over this.
From now on, I think I will just send
them here to read your take on it.
Thanks again,
Tammy
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I know this will go nowhere but your publication of the text of the speech just shows the video wasn’t taken out of context. What was taken out of context is Obama’s interpretation of the Bible.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 am
Allen, read it again. When Obama talks about Leviticus and how it suggests that slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination, is he talking about his own interpretation? Or is he merely mentioning a few interpretations that others have about certain parts of the Bible? The point isn’t about whether Obama’s interpretation is right because Obama doesn’t even talk about his own interpretation. It’s not clear at all what Obama’s interpretation is because he doesn’t even really talk about it specifically. He merely glazed over it just to establish a point. The point is; Whose interpretation of the Bible is correct and whose should we use to define the policies and laws of the United States? If Obama was talking about his interpretation of the Bible then who is to say that your interpretation is more correct that his? Whose to say that the Catholic’s interpretation is more correct? Or the Baptists? And you’re probably right, your argument goes nowhere because there really is no argument.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I agree with allen. Even though it might have been taken out of context, it doesnt change words that were said. If he didnt mean to offend firm believers of the Bible, then he should have been more clear. I believe it was Obama who was using Scripture out of context for shock value to make a point. But self-respecting people dont need to belittle others religious beliefs in order to make a point. Thats pathetic. And Tammy, ‘religious nuts’?…. very classy.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Let’s assume for a moment that what Obama said was his own interpretation and not anyone else’s. Examine each statement:
I think the key word in what Obama says is ’suggests’. He’s not saying that Leviticus definitively says that slavery is ok, merely that there is some suggestion of it. Nor is he saying that shellfish is indeed an abomination, merely that there is some suggestion of it. This is just common sense stuff.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (New International Version)
44 ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Over a good number of year, slavery is something that Christians neither accepted or condemned. And slavery is all over the Bible. That is a fact. Now, people have debated for ages about whether God condemns slavery or not. Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, once said, “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Granted, he’s wrong, but that didn’t stop people like him from distorting what the Bible says to suit their purpose. Would you qualify Davis as being a ‘nut’?
Leviticus 11:11-12
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So…if I eat anything that doesn’t have fins and scales then it’s an abominable act? Eating a lobster is an abomination? Really? Granted, I won’t ever say that someone who believes this is a ‘nut’, but to say that Leviticus ’suggests’ this isn’t much of a stretch.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Again, ’suggests’ stoning.
I go into detail about this on another blog post. Has anyone actually read the Sermon on the Mount? These are passages that have influenced some of the greatest pacifists of our world, people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. Passages that say “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek”?
Question: In what passage of the Sermon on the Mount or any other passage in the Bible does Christ condone war? Seriously. If war goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ then why wouldn’t it be considered a radical departure from what Christ taught?
Ash, I’m sorry but I just don’t see how this is belittling anyone’s religious beliefs. Obama makes some very valid and fair points. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe. That’s what makes America the country that it is. And ‘religious nuts’? Trust me, there are plenty of them out there. Some of them are called ‘terrorists’. But you don’t find a whole bunch of people getting offended when you call them ‘religious nuts’, do you?
September 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I received that same email from My Uncle (who is a wonderful man and Pastor of a large baptist church). This is how I replied.
Hey Uncle Lenzy!
I am writting this email with great humility and I hope it doesn’t come across wrong. You know I greatly respect you. But I watched this speech in its entirity when he gave it at the Call to Renewal Conference given by Sojouners Christians for faith and Justice. Here is a link to an mp3 of the speech given without the editing of whomever posted that doctored up clip on youtube. Obama is not perfect no one is but when it comes to religous freedoms he is not this anti-christian/muslim in disguse that others or trying to make him out to be. So please before we start taking the bait of the people who gave us George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lets dig deeper to see if its really true.
Click on the link to hear for yourself the enitre speech
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628_Sen.Barack_Obama_Podcast_Call_to_Renewal_Keynote_34.mp3
I would be happy to discuss this or any other issues concerning Sen. Obama. And not to say I agree with all his positions but a wiseman told me that if two people agree on everything one of those people isn’t thinking at all.