Obama Says Dobson Is "Making Stuff Up"

The Associated Press is reporting that Barack Obama said Tuesday that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was "making stuff up" about comments Obama had made regarding the Bible.

In 2006, Barack Obama spoke before the liberal group Call to Renewal. In his speech, Obama cited parts of the Bible when he asked his audience which parts of the Bible should guide public policy.

From the AP story (from the OneNewsNow website):

In his program, Dobson focused on examples Obama cited in asking which biblical passages should guide public policy. For instance, Obama said Leviticus suggests slavery is okay and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said in the speech. In response to that recorded statement, Dobson said: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell is a Methodist minister and supporter of Barack Obama. He and fellow Obama supporters have launched a website to counter Dobson's comments. While I disagree with the purpose of the website, it does list some of the quotes Dobson was referring to. You can see for yourself that Dobson was right. But Caldwell disagrees. Again, from the AP story:

Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson's advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was "a bit over the top" and "crossed the line."

"There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking," Caldwell said. "So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable, and we at least want to hold everybody accountable."

According to the Caldwell website, Obama had this to say regarding abortion:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all"

First off, it's liberals who make abortion out to be strictly a "religious issue." It's not. Many of us who oppose abortion are also religious but abortion is about human rights-- specifically, the right to life.

I want to know why speaking out in opposition to Barack Obama's deliberate distortion of Biblical passages is "over the top" and why it "crossed the line." So many people are jumping on the Barack-Obama-is-perfect bandwagon as if this were the Second Coming. It's not, folks. Barack Obama is a human being. He is fallible-- this is clearly evidenced by his liberalism. Untouchable? No. When a candidate brings up a topic and uses it for his or her benefit, it becomes fair game. Ad hominem attacks and attacks on family members should be considered over the top. But attacking a candidates views or assertions has always been, and should always be, considered fair play. If those views are defensible, he should defend them. Snide remarks about "making stuff up" doesn't count.