Obama mocking the Bible

Recently, someone contacted me about a blog post I made back in 2008 about Obama mocking the Bible. They were curious about what I wrote. It struck me as being really cool that someone would be interested in something I wrote on a personal blog four years ago. Being that this was a post about a rather controversial topic, I figured this would be a good one to revisit and offer an updated opinion. This is gonna be a long post so…bear with me!

The video above was the result of an email I received in 2008 with a link to Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal’ speech and the following statement:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

Some of the comments I received about this video said that Obama’s comments were the most arrogant comments ever made by a politician and that he’s so far off base that it’s scary. Furthermore, Obama describing the Sermon on the Mount, one of the greatest sermons ever given, as being radical apparently is a sign of arrogance as well. But what really struck me more than anything is the notion that our nation is based on Christian principles. There are likely many Christians out there who feel that their heritage is being taken away from them, that we as a nation have lost our identity, and that our world was a better place when it was under the influence of Christianity. Thus they feel we should bring back the Majority Rule, bring back prayer in public schools, and overturn any liberal interpretations of the Constitution that supposedly restrict religious practices.

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. The video only shows a select portion of the speech. If one was to hear/read the whole speech then one would see that in no way does Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Obama was merely 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 from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address that includes the part shown in the video:

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 some questions: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment?

Back in 2008, I had jury duty and 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“ (no longer available online). 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:

USA Today: Which specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?

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. As such, I do not believe that we’re strictly a Christian country, at least not in accordance to our Constitution.

As for the content of the speech, I don’t think Obama’s statements are arrogant at all. The main underlying point he was making is that he is a man of faith and  that his Christian beliefs and relationship with God are very important to him. One’s faith does have a role when making decisions in politics. However, the position a politician takes must be more universal in nature. Politicians can’t make decisions that are entirely based on their beliefs. There are other factors involved.

And Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount was referring to the fact that if our government was to run by the Word, Jesus’ words like “rest not evil”, “turn the other cheek” and the “Golden Rule”, then we would seize to have a military. Well, maybe seize is too strong of a word but an emphasis on defense-only strategies would likely be the case. It’s “radical” only because so many claim to believe it and yet their actions say otherwise. The Sermon on the Mount has been, in my mind, one of the main sources for Christian pacifism. Given the activities of our Defense Department, the idea of running our government based on the Sermon of the Mount is a radical departure from how things are now. If they did then they would have never invaded Iraq, an action that I think would go against the teachings of Jesus Christ in so many ways. Let’s look a little bit at what the Sermon of the Mount says:

Matthew 5:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’

39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’

44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Wouldn’t invading a country under the guise of imminent threat go against the principles of love your enemy and turn the other cheek? To me, imminent threat means that our enemy is going to attack our country directly. Was there any evidence at all that would suggest this in the case of Iraq? 

These principles are not shared with Christianity alone. Other religions have very similar pacifist teachings. Both the Quran and Torah have similar messages as well as the teachings of Buddha. To say that these beliefs and philosophies are unique strictly to Christianity would be a very arrogant notion.

Christianity has been split along many lines for years even before the United States won its freedom and drafted the Constitution. Religious persecution existed as well and thus minority Christians like Baptists, Mormons, and others struggled to maintain their religious freedom. John Leland, a Baptist minister in the late 1700’s, may not have had direct involvement with the writing of the First Amendment but he was among many Baptists who were very vocal and campaigned for that freedom. He is just one example of someone who represented a group people who wished to have religious freedom.

The intent wasn’t to create a wall where religion couldn’t enter politics at all. That would be unrealistic. Rather it was a separation by a more permeable barrier where everyone’s beliefs would be honored. The fear was that state sponsored religion would have caused an opposition to some of the more progressive ideas of the time…like folks who wanted to teach the Bible to slaves.

If we are a Christian nation based entirely on Christian principles then we are going down a very slippery and dangerous road. What parts of the Bible are to become the law of the land? The Old Testament? The New Testament? King James version? Or the New American Standard? And who decides how it should be interpreted? The Pope? Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jerry Falwell? And what about other religions? What if certain laws go against other people’s religion? Do we just say, “Tough tiddy! We’re a Christian nation! Get used to it!“? This is the sort of thing that our First Amendment is supposed to protect. And if our government is oppressing your right to practice your religion then maybe you should do something about it. Personally, I fight for the freedom to practice all religions and not just Christianity. American Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus, even agnostics and atheists; they all have a right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) by the rights granted to them as native citizens of the United States and the First Amendment. After all, if there’s one thing that Jesus Christ was about it was tolerance. And love of course.