http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/...l_dobson_obama



COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

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.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

The program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics.

Last week, DuBois, a former Assemblies of God associate minister, called Minnery for what Minnery described as a cordial discussion. He would not go into detail, but said Dubois offered to visit the ministry in August when the Democratic National Convention is in Denver.

A possible Obama visit was not discussed, but Focus is open to one, Minnery said.

McCain also has not met with Dobson. A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said.

Dobson has not backed off his statement that he could not in good conscience vote for McCain because of concerns over the Arizona senator's conservative credentials. Dobson has said he will vote in November but has suggested he might not vote for president.

Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs.

__________________
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
Hebrews 11:6

Barack exemplifies the beliefs of many so called Christians. That is those who do not believe that Christ is the only way as our Lord so declares in John 14:6 "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Most of these people have just enough knowledge in the Bible to look foolish. Barack's statements about the "Sermon on the Mount" make me think he has never really read the text of our Lord''s sermon.

Christ dealt out some extremely hard teaching while he was on this earth (John 6:53 ff, Matt 19:4 ff). Many of his teachings given while on the mountain were also difficult. The same commands concerning marriage and divorce that the disciples found so difficult were given while on the mountain.

In fact the hardest of all teaching is found in Matthew 7. FEW will be saved MANY will be lost (vss. 13-14). If we do not bear good fruit we will be cut off (vss. 15-20). If we do not do the will of the Father we will be sent away (vss. 20-23) into the fire of hell (Matt 5:22).

Instead of supporting these radically liberal social and religious views we find the opposite. The fact is that most of the new age post modern false teaching in the world today (that Barack and many others subscribe to) can be debunked simply by studying the words of our Savior found in chapters 5-7 of the book of Matthew.

Brotherly,
Lee

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"

Not taken argumentatively at all, it is a good question. I am running out of time seeing as this is Wednesday evening (and I have an appointment with God) so I will get back with you tonight.

Brotherly
Lee

PS I was not picking on Barack in particular just using his comments about the Sermon on the Mount as a starting point, for the simple reason that he shares the same views as many denominational and universal people.

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"

Hmmm... no doubt we will probably be voting for the lesser of two evils. Determining that might be interesting.

Here is one questionnaire. I remember another one that had questions more related to moral issues, but I can't seem to find it right now.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

I certainly don't have any profound answers and probably not even the right answers. Firstly, I do think Christians can be involved in politics. However the way the political system is and the state that our culture is in it would be very hard for a Christian to have much success in politics.

That means that we are removing the best of the bunch before we even get started. So what we are left with are people like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. Regardless of their political views we would disagree with their religious views, and in many cases their moral views.

What I have to keep remembering is that we aren't selecting elders for our congregation, but rather a president. Now one certainly has the right to withhold their vote (a right that I have used and will use), if you have to hold your nose to vote.

So to your question: While both views are equally wrong. I don't believe that a vote for one particular candidate is necessarily an endorsement of his or her religious beliefs. The religious beliefs do give us some sort of starting point for that candidates views on other issues however.

I am not a John McCain fan, I would have voted, I think, for Fred Thompson who seemed to have more common sense answers than any other candidate.

For what it's worth I try to take religion out of the determining factor, knowing that there is a good chance any one of the politicians up for the office is as equally lost as any other. I look at moral questions first. Abortion, marriage, etc. Then comes Supreme Court justices, and national defense.

I can't be sure what is best for this country. Four years of failed policy with a liberal or four years of failed policy with a liberal. The only difference may be the degree of failure, plus what side gets the blame.

Some times I get really fed up with the political process (If you couldn't tell already). My hope is that when this country hits rock-bottom morally that we wake up and realize that this country will not survive long mocking God and killing babies.

Sorry for the long winding post. If I didn't really answer your question please bear with me and ask it again

Brotherly
Lee

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"

I wonder what the inspired writers would say of us lifting up one heathen over another just because he "seems" a little closer to respecting the truth than the other. I don't believe God could be that pleased with us getting wrapped up in that which is ungodly and worldly, brothers. I would remind you that evangelicals lifted up George W. Bush and he proved to be a liar and a deceiver. I can't understand how supporting one politician over another is going to make an appreciable difference in how worldly sinners are going to somehow improve things for the church, how supporting one or the other is going to improve the preaching of the truth. George W. Bush has had 8 years to put prayer back in schools. Has he? Bush has had 8 years to outlaw abortion. Except for outlawing partial birth abortion (a minority of the procedures performed in this nation), has he? Neither will McCain, nor Barr, nor Obama, nor anybody else.

__________________
"that in all things he might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

Absolutely it will! Our founding fathers were not all members of the Lord's church. Yet it was their work that created this nation and all its liberties so that we could teach and the church could grow and flourish. God uses governments to His advantage, and we are to pray for them. It is completely appropriate for Christians to support candidates who will help preserve the freedoms we have to a larger degree than will others so as to ensure that we can worship God freely and teach others without fear of persecution.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Were any of them reputed to be? As you well know I'm sure, the Lord's church in America was NOT started by the Campbells. At least a couple of Mayflower folks (the governor, no less) were members of the church. Somehow history overlooks that--and so does the church today by and large.

Robert -- I agree. Voting for a candidate for government office is not lifting up a politician as a brother in Christ. It is not supporting a false teacher. He is not running for a job as a preacher or teacher of God's word. There is a hard line between the church and secular government. Now, if the government were the Vatican, then we would have a different situation entirely...

Consider that at the time of the early church, the Roman government as very evil by Biblical standards. Yet look at what Paul said through inspiration. Romans 13:1-7
Is being in subjection to those in power lifting them up? Note also the discussion here presumes that those in power recognize good and evil and will reward each accordingly. Is it therefore not in the best interest of the church to do what they can to ensure the people in these positions are themselves not evil or are of lessor evil?

There is no "thou shalt vote" or "thou shalt not vote" statement or direct teaching in the Bible. Perhaps that is because the people had no rights to vote then???? I think studying how in the Old Testament God had his people deal with all the rulers would be beneficial to understanding God's thoughts on this subject (we are doing this now on Sunday AM). For example, after the kingdom split, no leaders were upright and walked with God, yet God still worked with those who at least were not pure evil and gave lip service to removing the idols.

I don't know, Joe. The point is, not all were. Some may have been, but certainly most weren't. If some were, then could they be viewed as "fellowshipping" with those who were not in coming to the new world?

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)