Are you lending your support to the claims of this Christian-produced video, or just throwing this out there for fun?
Obviously the Christian group is anti-Obama and they feel insulted by what he said about the Bible. Since we already all know that Obama is a Christian, what is it they are trying to say? That he's not a real Christian? The video's producers can't deny that what he said was true, they only disagree with the fact that he actually said it. Of course, that is what free speech is all about.
But like we've been saying in other posts, there isn't supposed to be a religious test for government office in our country. So according to our Constitution, anything that Obama says that deals with religion should essentially be ignored as far as this political race is concerned. But in actuality, the only thing being ignored is our Constitution. A religious test is indeed enacted on every candidate in our country. Until that one thing changes for everyone, people like Mitt Romney will never make the impact in politics they might have, had their private religious beliefs just been left out of the debate.
I personally think this should extend beyond politics. There have been many great contributors to humankind over time that have had ideas or positions that many would be offended by. But I don't think this negates everything they accomplished or contributed. Two quick examples come to mind.
Oprah Winfrey has recently been exposed as not believing in the divinity of Jesus. There has been quite an uproar over this and many Christian groups have mobilized smear campaigns to discredit her and to basically try and affect her career in a negative way. I always find it particularly humorous when the very people who claim to support Jesus, act completely contrary to his teachings. I'm not really much of an Oprah fan, but I've always viewed her as a person who has contributed much to human society. Are all of her good acts erased because she has exercised her freedom to believe or to not believe in Christianity?
Mark Twain is another good example. Ernest Hemingway said of Mark Twain, "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. ...all American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." Beyond "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" he produced other notable works of literature such as "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", "The Prince and the Pauper", "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and "Life on the Mississippi". I think most Americans revere Mark Twain for his contributions.
But wait, he said some awfully nasty things about the Bible:
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."
"[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology."
Unlike Obama, who was merely comparing some of the ridiculous Biblical teachings to today's government policy making techniques, Mark Twain unabashedly announced his complete disdain for the book.
And on a more personal note, he even dedicated a whole chapter of his book, "Roughing It" to the Book of Mormon. It's a pretty negative critique, so you may want to skip reading it, but you may not care what Mark Twain thought so here it is: Chapter XVI from Mark Twain's, "Roughing It"
So anyway, in order to be consistent in our actions, if Obama is disregarded for political office based on his beliefs, shouldn't Mark Twain or Oprah be treated the same? Shouldn't you immediately throw away any of Mark Twain's books you may have in your home based on how his beliefs oppose yours? Or perhaps protest the Oprah Winfrey show because she views Jesus differently than you do?
Not so sure Jesus would act that way...these Christian groups sure have a lot to learn about their own religion.
Let me be clear Marne that I am not accusing you of any of these positions. I'm merely using this You Tube video made by a Christian group as a glaring example of hypocrisy and presenting it rhetorically.
Actually, since I have found all that out about Oprah several months ago (I did a lengthy post about it on my blog) I don't watch Oprah much anymore. Oprah does much good in the world, and has accpomplished things for society that no one else could or does. And I acknowledge that. I still do watch Oprah, as I love certain shows that she has on. But I do not follow every show she has, nor take everything she says into large consideration because of her religious views. Why would I choose to follow her if I don't agree with what she stands for? Just like you have chosen to not follow the LDS faith based on how you don't agree with what we believe. I'm sure Obama has a lot of good views and maybe is he the best choice for president...but I still didn't like the video. That is a normal fact of life and a principle in sociology...people tend to follow and become friends and aquaintences with those who have the same ideals, values, and convictions as they do.
It really doesn't matter if church and state are (or should) be seperated or not. Fact of the matter is, it DOES affect people's decisions, political or not. Look at Mitt Romney. If he wasn't a Mormon, I am positive he would be in the running for President right now. Was that fair that people didn't look at all his credentials and what he had accomplished in his political career? All people could focus on was the fact that he was a Mormon. It's really sad.
Some of the neatest people I know are not LDS. But we have the same value system and goals in life. It really does make all the difference. I would prefer a leader of our country to take religion seriously, not mockingly. But I know that decision is not mine to make, and maybe to others it is not important.
Christian groups do have a way of being hypocritical of how WE (meaning Mormons) understand Christianity to be, and how WE understand the Bible. I don't think Christ would often do what these groups do, but they seem to interpret the "WWJD" concept differently than us.
An example that I've seen is picketing signs that say "Gays will go to Hell". I don't think Jesus would do that....in fact, according to the Bible, he sat down and ate dinner with them.
I've seen and read somewhat of the material that these Christian groups produce and I don't like any of it, whether I agree with the main point or not. In my view, they are a bit off in their obervance of true Christianity. But that's just me.
Obama is comparing Ancient Israelite Law contained in the Bible to our norms of policymaking in the 21st Century. And to an extent, I think he's right. In our view, such strict biblical correlation to modern-day policymaking would be extreme. Seriously.....especially Leviticus. I remember learning in Seminary about how it was custom to banish a women from the Israelitish camp for 7 days on account of her menstral cycle, her being labled "unclean". But, that's how it was back then, and I'm okay with that. I'm not critisizing the Israelite Law. I'm just pointing out how different it was from our time and that it is our responsiblilty to try to understand it in a contemporary culture and society. That is challenging!
Now, Obama was also pointing out how different it was from our way of life. His words were taken out of context, because we don't know the motivating factors behind them. There are groups out there who really think we should make our policy literally on the words of the Bible. Frankly, that would scare me too and prompt me to say something about it, maybe even with the words, "You folks haven't been reading your Bible", which I interpret to also mean, "You folks understand the Bible and want to contemporarily use it much differently than I".
Therefore, I don't completely disagree with Obama's words because as the narrator of the video stated at the beginning, Obama was explaining "why he finds it so difficult for America to use the Bible to help guide our public policy."
With all the different interpretations of the Bible, and given my religion's stance on the importance of complete seperation of church and state, I too would NOT use the Bible to help guide our public policy.
Obama was sarcastic, and perhaps he could have done without that. I wouldn't have been sarcastic about the Bible because I believe in it.
Which brings up another point. The Bible, or any religous text, can be interpreted and used in two very broad ways: religiously and historically. Obviously from a Mormon's point of view, our value is in interpreting and using the Bible in a religious way.
However, the only way for one to understand Israelite Law is to do so in ancient Israelite context. History must be understood within it's relative context and then contemporarily applied, but not without caution.
Gerda Lerner, an Austrian historian said: "We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events."
Sounds like something straight out of a history textbook.
So anyway, despite extreme-right-wing Christian groups (of whom we are critical just as they are of us), despite their best attempts to yet again use their fear and smear tactics to sway voters, let us try to rise above it all and critically analyze candidates based not on clipped media, but on sure founded sources.
7 comments:
Nice to see you on the political blog Marne!
Marne,
Are you lending your support to the claims of this Christian-produced video, or just throwing this out there for fun?
Obviously the Christian group is anti-Obama and they feel insulted by what he said about the Bible. Since we already all know that Obama is a Christian, what is it they are trying to say? That he's not a real Christian? The video's producers can't deny that what he said was true, they only disagree with the fact that he actually said it. Of course, that is what free speech is all about.
But like we've been saying in other posts, there isn't supposed to be a religious test for government office in our country. So according to our Constitution, anything that Obama says that deals with religion should essentially be ignored as far as this political race is concerned. But in actuality, the only thing being ignored is our Constitution. A religious test is indeed enacted on every candidate in our country. Until that one thing changes for everyone, people like Mitt Romney will never make the impact in politics they might have, had their private religious beliefs just been left out of the debate.
I personally think this should extend beyond politics. There have been many great contributors to humankind over time that have had ideas or positions that many would be offended by. But I don't think this negates everything they accomplished or contributed. Two quick examples come to mind.
Oprah Winfrey has recently been exposed as not believing in the divinity of Jesus. There has been quite an uproar over this and many Christian groups have mobilized smear campaigns to discredit her and to basically try and affect her career in a negative way. I always find it particularly humorous when the very people who claim to support Jesus, act completely contrary to his teachings. I'm not really much of an Oprah fan, but I've always viewed her as a person who has contributed much to human society. Are all of her good acts erased because she has exercised her freedom to believe or to not believe in Christianity?
Mark Twain is another good example. Ernest Hemingway said of Mark Twain, "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. ...all American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." Beyond "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" he produced other notable works of literature such as "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", "The Prince and the Pauper", "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and "Life on the Mississippi". I think most Americans revere Mark Twain for his contributions.
But wait, he said some awfully nasty things about the Bible:
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."
"[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology."
Unlike Obama, who was merely comparing some of the ridiculous Biblical teachings to today's government policy making techniques, Mark Twain unabashedly announced his complete disdain for the book.
And on a more personal note, he even dedicated a whole chapter of his book, "Roughing It" to the Book of Mormon. It's a pretty negative critique, so you may want to skip reading it, but you may not care what Mark Twain thought so here it is:
Chapter XVI from Mark Twain's, "Roughing It"
So anyway, in order to be consistent in our actions, if Obama is disregarded for political office based on his beliefs, shouldn't Mark Twain or Oprah be treated the same? Shouldn't you immediately throw away any of Mark Twain's books you may have in your home based on how his beliefs oppose yours? Or perhaps protest the Oprah Winfrey show because she views Jesus differently than you do?
Not so sure Jesus would act that way...these Christian groups sure have a lot to learn about their own religion.
Let me be clear Marne that I am not accusing you of any of these positions. I'm merely using this You Tube video made by a Christian group as a glaring example of hypocrisy and presenting it rhetorically.
Actually, since I have found all that out about Oprah several months ago (I did a lengthy post about it on my blog) I don't watch Oprah much anymore. Oprah does much good in the world, and has accpomplished things for society that no one else could or does. And I acknowledge that. I still do watch Oprah, as I love certain shows that she has on. But I do not follow every show she has, nor take everything she says into large consideration because of her religious views. Why would I choose to follow her if I don't agree with what she stands for? Just like you have chosen to not follow the LDS faith based on how you don't agree with what we believe. I'm sure Obama has a lot of good views and maybe is he the best choice for president...but I still didn't like the video. That is a normal fact of life and a principle in sociology...people tend to follow and become friends and aquaintences with those who have the same ideals, values, and convictions as they do.
It really doesn't matter if church and state are (or should) be seperated or not. Fact of the matter is, it DOES affect people's decisions, political or not. Look at Mitt Romney. If he wasn't a Mormon, I am positive he would be in the running for President right now. Was that fair that people didn't look at all his credentials and what he had accomplished in his political career? All people could focus on was the fact that he was a Mormon. It's really sad.
Some of the neatest people I know are not LDS. But we have the same value system and goals in life. It really does make all the difference. I would prefer a leader of our country to take religion seriously, not mockingly. But I know that decision is not mine to make, and maybe to others it is not important.
my opinion is how can you trust a book that has been rewritten a million times and that all the events in the book can't be proven...
Christian groups do have a way of being hypocritical of how WE (meaning Mormons) understand Christianity to be, and how WE understand the Bible. I don't think Christ would often do what these groups do, but they seem to interpret the "WWJD" concept differently than us.
An example that I've seen is picketing signs that say "Gays will go to Hell". I don't think Jesus would do that....in fact, according to the Bible, he sat down and ate dinner with them.
I've seen and read somewhat of the material that these Christian groups produce and I don't like any of it, whether I agree with the main point or not. In my view, they are a bit off in their obervance of true Christianity. But that's just me.
Obama is comparing Ancient Israelite Law contained in the Bible to our norms of policymaking in the 21st Century. And to an extent, I think he's right. In our view, such strict biblical correlation to modern-day policymaking would be extreme. Seriously.....especially Leviticus. I remember learning in Seminary about how it was custom to banish a women from the Israelitish camp for 7 days on account of her menstral cycle, her being labled "unclean". But, that's how it was back then, and I'm okay with that. I'm not critisizing the Israelite Law. I'm just pointing out how different it was from our time and that it is our responsiblilty to try to understand it in a contemporary culture and society. That is challenging!
Now, Obama was also pointing out how different it was from our way of life. His words were taken out of context, because we don't know the motivating factors behind them. There are groups out there who really think we should make our policy literally on the words of the Bible. Frankly, that would scare me too and prompt me to say something about it, maybe even with the words, "You folks haven't been reading your Bible", which I interpret to also mean, "You folks understand the Bible and want to contemporarily use it much differently than I".
Therefore, I don't completely disagree with Obama's words because as the narrator of the video stated at the beginning, Obama was explaining "why he finds it so difficult for America to use the Bible to help guide our public policy."
With all the different interpretations of the Bible, and given my religion's stance on the importance of complete seperation of church and state, I too would NOT use the Bible to help guide our public policy.
Obama was sarcastic, and perhaps he could have done without that. I wouldn't have been sarcastic about the Bible because I believe in it.
Which brings up another point. The Bible, or any religous text, can be interpreted and used in two very broad ways: religiously and historically. Obviously from a Mormon's point of view, our value is in interpreting and using the Bible in a religious way.
However, the only way for one to understand Israelite Law is to do so in ancient Israelite context. History must be understood within it's relative context and then contemporarily applied, but not without caution.
Gerda Lerner, an Austrian historian said: "We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events."
Sounds like something straight out of a history textbook.
So anyway, despite extreme-right-wing Christian groups (of whom we are critical just as they are of us), despite their best attempts to yet again use their fear and smear tactics to sway voters, let us try to rise above it all and critically analyze candidates based not on clipped media, but on sure founded sources.
Guess I won't be posting any more videos. Good grief.
It's not about posting videos, it's about what kind of videos. Any video made with the purpose of slamming the other guy is worthless.
Post a Comment