James Dobson has accused Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama of “distorting the Bible” and referred to Obama’s interpretation of the Constitution as a “fruitcake interpretation.” 

That should come as no surprise to anyone.  Obama responded by saying

“Any notion that I was distorting the Bible in that speech, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make that argument,” Obama told reporters on board his press plane Tuesday night.

Dobson’s response came through Tom Minnery, his spokesman.

“There is no need to ‘make stuff up’ as it relates to Sen. Obama’s interpretation of Scripture and the role of religion in the public square. His statements and record make clear his questionable perception of both. … He is editing God’s word to fit his liberal worldview, and the more exposure his views on these matters get, the more obvious this will become to American Christians.”

All this came about referencing a speech Obama made to the Christian group Call for Renewal in June 2006.  It seems that Barack Obama made a few logical suggestions in the speech that have rubbed Dobson the wrong way.

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.”

So far, so good… until Dobson made his way to a radio interview on Tuesday.

In the comments 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.

Well, I guess we should put our trust into the “fruitcake interpretation” of Dobson who believes he has been appointed to determine selective relevant teachings from the Old Testament.  Hinting that “passages from the Old Testament are no longer relevant” seems to put us in somewhat of a quandry.  Which of the Old Testament passages are relevant?  And, why would I trust Dobson to make that determination for me?  The dietary codes may be “antiquated” but I guarantee you that Dobson preaches the Ten Commandments.  Both the dietary codes and the Ten Commandments are found within the first five books of the Old Testament.  What gives Dobson the right to determine which words we adhere to and which we ignore?

The point of Obama’s 2006 speech seems to tell us that we need to take our faith and our faith based principles and apply them to the world we live in, not just the church we pray in.  But, we do not live in a theocracy, much to the dismay of some of the Sunday morning preachers.  Our founding fathers were not Christians.  They were Deists.  And, they had the good sense to know that living good moral principles is of more value to the nation than quoting scripture, selectively chosen to make a point or not.  Makes sense to me.  There are too many Sunday morning Christians who forget the teachings by the time they leave the parking lot.

I’m not going to get any deeper into my personal beliefs.  What I believe is of little consequence to anyone.  And, quite honestly that is the point.  James Dobson doesn’t have his ultra right wing conservative buddies creating a platform for him during this election.  Karl Rove has left the White House and now prepares to face the Senate.  And, no one cares what James Dobson has to say any more.  Like so many of the money chargers in the church, Dobson is looking for full pews on Sunday and full coffers on Sunday afternoon.  He is grabbing for his fifteen minutes and no one cares.