Here's a couple of fun quotes. First, let's take Obama's quote:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
Mmmkay. Not too shabby, really. Even though yeah, I'd rather NOT see any discussion of mythology in politics, it's not too bad. He's pretty much right-on about the sermon on the mount, too.
Next up is Dobson's response.
In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, later adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
Mmmkay, then. Not surprising, really. It's interesting to me, though, that he chooses to call this confused, and says that the teachings of the Old Testament are no longer relevant.
Right. Time to look it up. I decide to go with a nice easy issue, homosexuality (because gay people are FAAAAAAABULOUS and I need some hilarity in my day). So, a quick google search gets me to the Focus on the Family site, which then refers me over to this site. The discussion of the appropriateness of homosexual behavior contains a shocking lack of funny. I'm disappointed... there goes the funny part of my day. Still, it uses Leviticus as one of the bases for the "gay ppls are bad mmkay" argument. AAAAND, to continue to spell out the hypocrisy at play here, Leviticus happens to be one of the parts of the (wait for it) OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT. Yes, the SAME OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT which is apparently too outdated to be of any use in a christian discussion on theology. The very same OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT which is used to discuss bans on abortion, bans on gay marriage, keeping me from buying scotch on the SABBATH (which is a concept from the very first PART of the OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT, you DOUCHE)....
You eating that cake yet? You can't have it, you know. It's earmarked for people who get that the bible is in general, from Old to New and everything in between, a mistranslated, misunderstood, mediocre-grade quality, plagiarized work of fiction as created by dozens of authors over thousands of years, best suited for making money off of hicks who like to donate their savings in order to get a bunion healed up in a tent in some rural setting.
At some point, preferably soon, someone will hit these really annoying evangelicals over the head with a clue bat. Until then, I'd appreciate it if the news media could possibly (at least briefly) stop giving them free publicity.