Okay, so we got this Evangelist (and first off can I just say: EVANGELIST?!!! EVANGELIST??!!! I hold the evangelical church with as much regard as the Jehovah's Witness...tha
t is...with none at all) named James Dobson (and I just say that he looks like a white supremist bigot anti-christ wannabe...kind of like the pope), apparently he's a leader of some sort (and I NEVER trust leaders of gigantic churches...ever) and he's accusing Obama of "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter" and "[making] a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." I mean, LOOK at this guy's picture -------------------->He scares the freaking hell out of me!! Now that I have that out of the way. He's a fucking dipshit, asshole, conservative, working for the right-wing Republicans to destroy Obama's image for other conservatives so that Obama can't be president because CLEARLY Obama actually has a shot. Huh. Okay, let's get down on what he was talking about in the article from CNN. "[Dragging] biblical understanding into the gutter" is referring to the points that Obama made in his speech in June 2006 to the Christian group called 'Call to Renewal': "In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked 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 said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application""(CNN.com).
And so Dobson's response is of course this: "In the comments to be aired 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" (CNN.com).
Okay, so, let me get this straight: there are some passages in the Bible we can TOTALLY overlook, but then there are others we HAVE to adhere to? I don't get it. If we can pick and choose what we have to adhere to and what we don't have to adhere to then we really shouldn't be listening or reading the Bible at all. If we go by this reasoning, of course. You're NOT allowed to eat pork or shellfish. Gays are NOT allowed to marry Gays (well, it doesn't ACTUALLY say that, so maybe they should. . .you're really just accused of having sex with the same sex, sleeping in the bed...well...that's ambiguous...and really, who's going to go into everyone's house to make sure? Like a comedian said: why don't all gay couples wanting to get married claim that one or the other is of the opposite sex? It's not like somebody's going to make you drop your pants in the middle of the congragation), but if we go by this Dobson guy's logic and reasoning we can totally disregard THOSE rules altogether because clearly the Old Testament is no longer relevant. WHY HAVE AN OLD TESTAMENT AT ALL? Let's just get rid of it. Nobody likes those old guys with the huge ass fucktard beards anyway.
And now let's move onto the fruitcakeness. FRUITCAKE...??!!! OF THE CONSTITUTION?!!! Omg, I was thinking the guy was going to break out say something insandely racist like ... slavery wasn't legal in the Bible , but it was legal in the States or something (I know that made no sense, but jeez..this guy irks me SOOOO much). Let's do a quote: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values," Obama said. "It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason."
Dobson said the suggestion is an attempt to lead by the "lowest common denominator of morality."
"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?" he asked. "What he's trying to say here is, unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.
"What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that 'I can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue,' " Dobson said. "And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now, that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
Okay, who the FUCK said anything about dead babies? HUH?! Seriously! I mean, personally, I think that these religious nutcases need to leave the abortion issue alone. Seriously. It's a woman's body and nowhere in there did God spake and commandeth the peoples of the earth: 'Thou shalt not commit abortions for this is an unlawful act and if thee so shall commit this act then thine soul is forfeit under heaven blah blah blah..." They classify it as murder. Bullshit. The damn embryo, batch of cells, whatever doesn't even have a BRAIN much less the ability to know that it's fucking DYING. And once again, who said anything about DEAD BABIES?! Honestly, what if Barack were going to pass a new law concerning homosexual marriage in the ENTIRE country and not just in California? What if he were going to do something about immigration or the fucking war?!! Who said anything about DEAD BABIES?! What if he were going to figure out ways about the 'death with dignity'? Apparently, many in the country are up in arms about that.
I think James Dobson is a fruitcake himself, and anyone who takes his words into consideration are fruitcakes too. He's attacking Obama, first off, for a speech he made back in 2006, dredging up, or attempting to dredge up, criticism of the man because he probably doesn't think a nigger can run this country. He's probably in his home right now, cringing because a nigger is representing one of the most powerful political parties in this country, and even though Hilary was a woman at least she was white, and he could probably handle that better. Because really, you got to ask yourself: why the hell didn't he have these same concerns when Obama was running and hadn't had the nomination in the bag? Why didn't he put his two cents in back in 2006, when Obama running for president was barely even a well thought out idea? What did he do, spend all his time, doing his research on both candidates so that which ever one DID when he could bad mouth to the US citizens who are getting their hopes up for someone with SOME kind of decency?
I can't believe this.
Maybe Obama is making these comments because he believes, or is at least trying to get everyone else to believe that he believes, that we NEED a united front. The Euro dollar is making a mockery of the American economics in Europe. The American image in the international community is seen as elitist and comparable to George Orwell's Big Brother government agendas, or at least it's coming close. We bully the other nations to submit to our will and, if they don't, we subjugate them, punish them and incite political upheavals and then it can't be substantiated because America is so damned good at convering its tracks.
No comments:
Post a Comment