There Is A Double Standard . . .
. . . and it is not between Mormons and Evangelicals. No, it is between Republicans and Democrats. Witness Obama’s ersatz citation of the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Now, if any conservative cited scripture in support of any position, all you-know-what would break loose. Yet, from Obama’s golden tongue, an utterance like this:
“If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.
barely registers on the MSM radar. Now the reasons behind this are numerous. For one, Obama supports a position most of the MSM agrees with - that makes a huge difference. However, in citing scripture as justification for his position, does he not exclude those that do not hold to scripture? Was Mitt Romney, the conservative, not pilloried for what some viewed as similarly exclusive remarks in The Speech?
But more, this utterance represents a view of scripture that is common amongst the “reasonably” religious. That is to say, people who mold their faith instead of allow their faith to mold them. Setting passages of scripture at odds with each other violates just about every rule of scriptural understanding that has been established over centuries of Biblical scholarship. It is a field of study called Hermeneutics and its companion field of study Exegesis.
If Obama’s desire is to connect with Evangelicals, then he just sent every serious studied Evangelical running for cover, as far away from him as possible.
I have long expected Obama - “the Rookie” - to make a major mistake. He has lasted longer than I expected, but this may be it. John Mark Reynolds wonders as well.
If it would not violate every rule for political discourse we set for this blog, I would love to show the utter religious ignorance of this silly, silly statement. Alas, I shall have to let it speak for itself. I believe the phrase is “Res Ipsa Loquitor.”
Lowell adds: Hey! I’m the lawyer here. I thought those old Latin phrases belonged to me! 
Actually, Obama’s statement is of a type so common among left-of-center politicians (and others) who quote Scripture that it’s almost boring. If he were a Catholic, he’d be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Maybe he’s a cafeteria Christian: “I like this statement in the the New Testament better than that one, so I’ll just live by the one I like.” Very modern.
More to the point, I think the statement shows that Obama does not really take the Bible seriously. I am not so sure this is a major mistake; it’s more like Obama showing his true colors. But the real point is the one John made: Obama can refer to the Bible, even in a controversial manner, without even a peep from the MSM. Could Romney have done the same? Could Huckabee have, for that matter?
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
- Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
- RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
- Say What?!
- In The Wake Of Prop 8
- A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
- Being The Target
- Encouraging?
- Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
- And Now…Terrorism!?
One Response to “There Is A Double Standard . . .”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
coltakashi on 04 Mar 2008 at 11:19 am #
Obama leaves us totally scratching our heads over what part of the Sermon on the Mount supports homosexual marriage. The part where Jesus says that looking at a woman to lust after her is committing adultery? That was the passage Jimmy Carter referred to as having sinned against in his interview with Playboy magazine. Jesus was clearly pretty strict on the sexual morality thing. His cousin John the Baptist got beheaded for his condemnation of King Herod’s adultery, and Jesus called him the first among prophets. Paul was an apostle who was directed by visions of the risen Christ, and wrote most of the New Testament, so there is no reason on the face of the Bible to think that Jesus would disagree with Paul on his view of sexual morality, namely that sex is something that belongs in loving marriage between husbands and wives. Homosexuality was a well established part of Greek culture, in the cities of Greece and Asia Minor where Paul preached and established congregations, so there is no question that he was condemning the same thing that modern “gays” are practicing.
I think it is relevant to this blog’s theme to contrast Mr. Obama’s flexible and selective approach to the Bible with the criticism that Mr. Romney got from some people who think Mormons are not “really Christian” and worship a “different Jesus.” Mormons take the whole Bible seriously, and believe the standards of behavior taught by both Paul and Christ are binding on them. We teach that in Sunday School and every other venue. Anyone with a computer can read it all on the LDS.org web page, including the new section that focuses on what the LDS Church teaches about Christ.
Mr. Obama may not believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers, but he clearly is saying that Jesus sympathized with the Devil’s position on sexual morality. Do Evangelicals think that is their Jesus?