Senator Obama vs. Dr Dobson

Okay, so my loyal reader has asked me to address the Senator Obama/Dobson fiasco. Yes, I call it a fiasco. From my limited exposure to the entire ordeal I think that it is something the press has just run with. I listened to the entire Senator Obama speech that sparked this whole ordeal and I have to say that I think Dr. Dobson overreacted to what was said about him personally. That is my take. Now I believe that the press, since they dislike Dr. Dobson, have taken his comments and blown them up to try to cause as much trouble for Dr. Dobson as they can, and to also paint all Christians in as poor a light as they possibly can.
That said I do have a critique of what Senator Obama said in his speech and some of what I have to say is similar to what Dr. Dobson said, hopefully it is said in less offensive manner.
It should be noted that Senator Obama gave the speech to the Covenant for a New America in June of 2006. He opened his speech by saying that 90% of people say they believe in God, 70% believe in an organized religion, and 38% consider themselves Christian. He went on to speculate that the 38% who said they were Christian, most likely considered themselves that because of the “slick marketing” of the larger churches, or they simply needed assurance that someone cared about them. This I did find offensive because I do not believe that I have fallen victim to slick marketing. I have looked at the evidence, and based on the evidence I can come to no other logical conclusion than Jesus Christ lived on earth, was crucified on a roman cross, and that three days later rose from the dead. If you would like more information on where I get my facts please check out More than a Carpenter, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, The Case for Christ, and The Case for the Ressurection. Frankly if I were to believe a religion simply because I wanted someone to care about me, I would not be choosing Christianity. There are to many rules. There is a lot of stuff that I want to do, but try not to do because I believe that the creator of the world told me not to, and he is pretty much someone I try to listen to.
Senator Obama went on to say that he went forward in his church in Chicago, and “submitted myself to His (God) will and dedicated myself to discovering His (God) Truth.” Yet I it strikes me that he has either not been looking hard enough for God’s Truth, or he has been looking in the wrong place. He quoted verses from the Mosaic law, found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and implied that if we are to take the Bible literally would have to do the things mentioned in those verses, such as stoning homosexuals and disobedient children. Here I am going to go on a little aside.

Taking the Bible Literally
(From Stand To Reason June 2008)
Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means, “Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.”
Now here’s our question: When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally?
Let me ask the same question another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (California, in my case), do you think the legislators intend you to understand the words of the regulation “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion?”
Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.
But now, it seems, we’re stuck on the other horn of our dilemma. To be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? Aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers, for that matter, both capital crimes under the Law?
The simple answer is “No.” Just because God intends a biblical command to be taken literally, does not mean He intends it to be applied universally.
Consider this. Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, at face value. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies to us. We’re not commanded to cast nets into deep water.
Here’s another way of looking at it. No matter what state you live in, the California legal codes are to be taken literally. But they don’t apply to you unless you live in California. In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law, like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads it. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey it.
The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them. It is not the legal code God gave to gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words are to be taken literally, this does not necessarily mean we must obey them now.
The real question we face is not whether or not to take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under the same legal code. We are not. Americans are not the nation of Israel living under the legal code the Mosaic Covenant. We are a mixture of peoples governed by a representative republic.
Though we may glean wisdom from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, we are not obliged by Sinai since it was meant to organize the Jewish government. To suggest we are is a mistake. If anyone things otherwise he is duty-bound to buy a net and throw it into deep water.

I think that answers Senator Obama’s concerns nicely. He continued at 22 minutes into the speech to say, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave our beliefs at the door before entering the public discourse.” I happen to agree with Senator Obama on this statement. I am concerned about his record on this. I do not know but my assumption is that Senator Obama supports the court decisions to remove the Ten Commandments from public displays, and public displays of the nativity at Christmas.
Next in the speech he began talking about the “separation of church and state.” Senator Obama is quoted as saying that the authors of the Constitution “did not want state sponsored religion hindering the way, they (the people of the United States) practiced their faith as they understood it.” Sounds like a good interpretation to me, but then how are the radical right wing evangelicals hindering the way others practice their religion by asking that abortion be banned. That is unless Ann Coulter is correct and abortion is the sacrament of liberalism. Yet I imagine Senator Obama has no problem with schools telling kids they can’t have prayer meetings on campus, or wear “Christian” symbols on their jewelry.
At about 30 minutes into the speech he started to get into the difference between subjective and objective truths. Okay he did not say it like that but he did believe there was need for compromise on issues like abortion and that religiously minded people do not listen to arguments and stand only on our beliefs. Allow me to address the issue of abortion. Abortion is like insulin, either it is okay or it isn’t (insulin either treats diabetes or it doesn’t) it does not. How do you compromise on this, “it’s okay to kill a baby before the third trimester, but as soon as it enters that, it’s human?” If you think it is right then you should think it is okay right up to the moment before the baby is born. If Mrs. Smith is in labor and has the baby half way out when she has second thoughts, why not let her have the doctor kill it right there on the spot? Or even after it is born. After all Senator Obama voted against allowing doctors to treat babies born alive during abortions. Causing them to slowly die of natural causes. If Mrs. Smith waits until after baby Smith actually is born and then decides she doesn’t want him/her, why can’t she tell the doctor to withhold care of the baby because it’s birth was just the result of a botched abortion?
As for us not listening to arguments. I will admit there are those out there who probably do not. However, I know there are those on the pro abortion side who do not listen. Read the following argument that I originally posted back in January.
There are only four differences between a fetus, and a newborn, yet it is legal to kill a fetus and illegal to kill and new born. Lets examine those differences. All you have to do is remember to s.l.e.d.

S- Size. Obviously a newborn is larger than a fetus, especially one that is not very old yet. So if we follow this line of thought out, a persons size effects their person hood. Obviously a larger body is a person and the smaller fetus is not. So does that mean that since I'm six foot and over 275 that I am more of a person than my wife who is five foot something and a buck and quarter? Or am I more of a person than most people since I am larger than most? Does that mean I can rule over them and do with them as I wish since I am more of a person than they are? Of course not! Yet when it comes to babies this is a criteria.

L- Level of Development. Newborns are more developed than in utero babies. If they weren't they would not be able to survive outside of the womb. I can argue that since I scored higher on my ACTs than most people I have a more developed brain than they do. I didn't say it was a good argument but it can be made. Does that mean that I can rule over those who didn't do as well as me? Also does this mean that we become more of a person as we age and develop (ie a 7 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old) until we reach our prime and then we begin to become less of a person as we begin to become more dependent on others.

E- Environment. In utero babies are by definition in the uterus and newborns have survived the birth process and now live in the big bad world. Really just a difference in inches when you think about it. So when I am at work am I a different person than when I am at home, or across the room? No. So does moving through the birth canal turn you into a person?

D- Dependency. The in utero babies are dependent for everything while newborns can at least breath on their own. So is a diabetic that is dependent on insulin less of a human than me? Or is someone who depends on glasses less of a human? That doesn't make sense either.

Well if the four differences between in utero babies and newborn aren't valid when applied to the general population, why are they valid when applied to the question of abortion?

I think that is a very persuasive argument. Senator Obama went on to say that the Bible will not compromise. I disagree with that statement. It is true that it will not compromise on the big issues, but it will on the smaller ones. Take Paul in 1 Corinthians talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols. He encourages those who don’t have a problem with eating it, to go ahead and eat it, but he also tells them that if it is a problem for someone they are with, then they should abstain. I call that compromise.
Well that covers most of the things I wanted to discuss and I have to admit I am tired of typing. Hope all is well with everyone and that you all enjoyed the post.