Dobson falsely suggested Obama accused Dobson of "want[ing] to expel people who are not Christians" from the U.S.
SUMMARY: On his radio show, James Dobson falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama claimed Dobson "wants to expel people who are not Christians" from the United States. Dobson was referring to a 2006 speech in which Obama actually asked: "And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"
During the June 24 broadcast of his radio show, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama claimed Dobson "wants to expel people who are not Christians" from the United States. Dobson was referring to a speech Obama gave in 2006 in which Obama actually asked: "And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?" After airing that statement, Dobson responded: "I don't want to be defensive here. Obviously, that is offensive to me. I mean, who wants to expel people who are not Christians? Expel them from what? From the country? Deprive them of constitutional rights? Is that what he thinks I want to do? Why'd this man jump on me? I haven't said anything anywhere near that."
From Obama's June 28, 2006, speech before the Call to Renewal organization:
OBAMA: And moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's populations, the dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever. Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? 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 -- a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? We -- so, before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.
From the June 24 broadcast of Focus on the Family:
TOM MINNERY (host): Later in the speech, he says, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
Well, I say, "Excuse me?" Seventy-six percent of the people identify themselves as Christian. There are only six-tenths of 1 percent who are Muslim, seven-tenths of 1 percent who are Buddhist, four-tenths of 1 percent who are Hindu. That's from last year's Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Religious Survey. So he's diminishing the idea that people of Christian faith have anything to say. And then he begins to diminish you.
OBAMA [audio clip]: And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?
MINNERY: Well, we have to camp on that for just a moment, because he has compared you somehow as being on the right what Al Sharpton is on the left. Al Sharpton achieved his notoriety in the '80s and '90s by engaging in racial bigotry, and many people have called him "a black racist." And he is somehow equating you with that and racial bigotry.
DOBSON: You know, Tom, I don't want to be defensive here. Obviously, that is offensive to me. I mean, who wants to expel people who are not Christians? Expel them from what? From the country? Deprive them of constitutional rights? Is that what he thinks I want to do? Why'd this man jump on me? I haven't said anything anywhere near that.
He also equates me with Al Sharpton, who is a reverend. I am not a reverend, I'm not a minister, I'm not a theologian, I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development from the University of Southern California. And there is no equivalence to us. So I don't want to overreact to it. But, you know, I -- this comment was made two years ago, and it's taken me two years to find about it, so --
MINNERY: Well, you're in good company, because from there, he proceeds to disparage serious understanding of the Bible.
It's called a hypothetical, Dobby. look it up.
Obama does not want to kick out Christians...... in fact, I'd be all for giving the more loony(er) ones their own TV show.......
Oh wait..... they already have several...... on FOX and ABC Family channel at night......
Since converting all non-Christians to Dobson's religion would amount eliminating all non-Christians, isn't that the same as expelling all non-Christians from the country?
DOBSON: You know, Tom, I don't want to be defensive here.
Sounds pretty defensive to me...
Both...
James Dobson says Obama has a ‘fruitcake’ view of the Constitution
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.
You could put "Niceguy Eddie" in place of "Dobson" in the above statement, and it would describe perfectly the truth about men like Dobson, Fallwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Kennedy, Donohue, etc... Wow. Hypocrasy of truly lunatic heights. Scum like Dobson will burn in hell. He and Fallwell can keep each other company.
Scum like Dobson will burn in hell. He and Fallwell can keep each other company.
Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are already down there waiting for folks like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Rod Parsley, and James Hagee. Satan put in a whole new wing just for them.....
I think many of YOU will be the ones who can confirm whether "they" made it down there or not. That's quite judgmental of all of you who claim to be non-judgmental. Good thing their not gay. What do you call someone who is afraid of religios people? Religyphobe? The point is that considering you have sooo many issues with the gay population not being treated 'right', you sure have no problem condemning a different population. Just because you don't like their lifestyle doesn't mean they can't have the right to express themselves.
YOU HYPOCRITS!!!
Maybe so?
Is bigotry a bad thing, Phil? Because if it's bigotry to not accept the homophobia of others, and you're a bigot for not accepting those bigots, then I'm a bigot for criticizing you for that. And on and on. Anytime anyone points out the bad behavior, they are guilty of the bad behavior themselves, by your logic. And so the only non-bigots are those who don't think bigotry is something to complain about. The only people acting appropriately would be people who don't think it's such a bad thing.
Maybe you should think about it a little.
That is a good point. In Philib's world, he is a hero because he embraces his irrationality. He seems to feel that he should get some sort of credit for being honest about it...Nevermid that bigotry requires a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to begin with.
Secondly, being opposed to bigotry is not necessarily a kind of bigotry itself. Bigotry is irrational by definition. Being opposed to bigotry can be an entirely reasonable and rational position - and therefore not bigotry itself.
You can be opposed to child molesters without being bigotted against them. The same can be said for opposition to anything. Irrational opposition is bigotry. Rational opposition is not.
I think many of YOU will be the ones who can confirm whether "they" made it down there or not. That's quite judgmental of all of you who claim to be non-judgmental. Good thing their not gay. What do you call someone who is afraid of religios people? Religyphobe? The point is that considering you have sooo many issues with the gay population not being treated 'right', you sure have no problem condemning a different population. Just because you don't like their lifestyle doesn't mean they can't have the right to express themselves.
YOU HYPOCRITS!!!
It looks like Philib's IQ is dropping before our very eyes. I just don't where to start on that pile of drivel he posted above, except to say it should be "they're not gay" - not "their not gay", and I don't know any "religios" people......
A word of warning, Philib. Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston were both fairly liberal when they were young, became conservative as they got older, and eventually died of Alzheimer's disease.......
"I just don't where to start on that pile of drivel he posted above, except to say it should be "they're not gay" - not "their not gay", and I don't know any "religios" people......"
That's good, writer. You claim to be a professional and we get: "I just don't where to start...". Thanks for helping me out with demonstrating how hypocritical you people are. You can't wait to whine and complain of others, yet see no fault in your own behavior. Writer, perhaps you should stick to writing gay-porn, because if you were to write seriously, then your constant typos will keep you poor and destitute.
BTW, I appreciate your spell-checking all my posts. Keep up the good work. Perhaps that can be mmfa's next improvement in their system...to add spell-check.
We're hypocrites because we don't like bigoted people and don't like what they stand for? OK then... Sure, whatever you say there chief.
And who said we weren't judgemental? We're saying if you're such a good Christian, and believe in everything that God and Jesus holds true, then you, the good CHRISTIANS are the ones who are hypocritical for, yes, being judgemental of others, when it states clearly in the Bible, that God will be the final judge of people, not man.
"when it states clearly in the Bible, that God will be the final judge of people, not man."
Are you making "final" judgment? Am I making "final" judgment? Since you know so much of the Bible, then you can agree that the Bible, also clearly, says that we are to judge evil from good. We are told to follow the righteous path. Are you able to do that without making judgments on what is evil and what is good? Does your righteous path include demeaning and denegrating Chritians? Or are you making a "final" judgment that he isn't a Christian?
Oh geez. Here we go again with Remedial Marketplace of Ideas 101...
I haven't read anything here which says these people should not be allowed to put their views out in the "marketplace of ideas." Dobby (sorry, I love that nick for Dobson!) or Robertson or Hagee or Parsley have every right to talk on teh radio, do their TV shows, publish their books and websites and so on. But the same marketplace which allows the Dobby Parsley-Hageeson crowd put put out their opinions allows others to put out their opinions. Dobby is perfectly allowed to say that Obama distorts teh Constitution and the Bible, but I am, by that very same measure, equally allowed to point out that in my opinion, Dobby is simply a right-wing theocrat who wouldn't know the Christ if He bit Dobby on the @ss...
Wonder what they teach the little ones in there?
In a word, hate.
Yet another example of a conservative who is unable to process an abstract thought...
Dobson ought to demand that Obama give him specific examples of how he would expel all of the Christians from the country.Otherwise, it's all just "shoulda coulda woulda".
Stupidly lying. Much the same as with the "punished with a baby" quote. Obama is actually making a great point about how Cnristians don't even have consistent views among themselves. Dobson however has to keep using his religion as a weapon, hence he says Obama accuses him of expelling Christians.
Dobin is hiding behind christianity. So an argument against Dodson is an argument against Christianity. He is a coward to do this. Is he another nonvet chickenhawk?
"I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist."
But Dobson is an evangelical psychologist.
Or, to shorten it and make it more accurate at the same time:
evangelical psycho...
"I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist."
And a lousy psychologist at that.
The Messiah has just destroyed the Christ Fantasy !!
Here is comprehensive proof that the symbolism of many ancient texts, canons, and concepts is an advanced and extremely ancient spiritual & philosophical technology that predates all extant religions and mystery schools. Consequently, here is proof, beyond disproof, that all three so-called "Faiths of Abraham" are purposeful deceptions.
Hence, the Apocalypse unfolds because the great mysteries are unsealed !!
Here is Wisdom !!
So then shut up and stop preaching to us!
Read it again.
Obviously, that is offensive to me. I mean, who wants to expel people who are not Christians? Expel them from what? From the country? Deprive them of constitutional rights? Is that what he thinks I want to do? Why'd this man jump on me? I haven't said anything anywhere near that.
Dobson, will be marginalized once Obama takes the White House, mostly because he won't need arsehats like this guy around on conference calls, and I'm sure hoping he won't be asking his opinion about Supreme Court nominees like Bush old boy did. Just another religious conservative who is scared about the changing times. Not to mention, many in his side of the world, evangelicals, are starting to turn on him. No longer are homosexuals, and gay marriage, and abortion the big threats. No, there are actually a ton o' people who are evangelicals who are talking about combatting global warming, and helping the poor, you know, Christian types of things. Dobson is going to lose his grip, if he hasn't already, and the sooner, the better.
Funny how this joker is bringing this up now. 2 years after the original speech.
I guess Dobson must have a problem with reading comprehension - his reading is two years behind the times, his thinking is centuries behind....
Barack's point is that Dobson and Sharpton are both Protestant evangelicals, with pretty close to the same dogma, doctrine and church constitution--an yet the followers of Sharpton and the followers of Dobson do not, to say the least, get along.
Which Tom Minnery proceeds to demonstrate in wide-screen technicolor.
If you read Dobson's actual comments -- which MMFA includes -- he is asking a rhetorical question: "who wants to expel people who are not Christians?"
I'm going to have to throw out all of my old definitions of "rhetorical question". I'm wondering, do you consider those Fox news "questions" (ex: Is Obama a Terrorist?) rhetorical as well? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
Congrats, though, that is probably the stupidest post of the day.
The idea that Al Sharpton and James Dobson worship the same God is so transparently false that one would have to be willfully blind to not see the difference; which would include 17 of the 18 posters above.
The point of political importance that Dobson correctly makes is that Obama distorted the Bible's teaching to advance his very non-Christian political agenda (Yes, the Bible does teach a very specific political philosophy - it's best expression is found in the U.S. Constitution). To suggest that Jesus' Sermon on the mount would promote a pacifist agenda (the implications of his 'defense dep't. phrase) is simply wrong. To suggest the the Bible supports slavery is also wrong, even in the OT texts that allow and control it. Only people abysmally ignorant of the spirit of Christianity would suggest the Bible promotes slavery. If you're looking for a religion that promotes and supports slavery, try Islam - check out southern Sudan.Here's a link: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20586
To try and paint Republicans as 'racists' as Obama did recently is a smear that would have made Nixon and LBJ blush. At best it reflects a man desperately unsure of his own abilities and personal worth. At worst, it reflects a man who is willing to accuse anyone of anything to gain his objective - a well known Stalinist methodology.
Take your pick, folks - Obama has shown himself either psychotically paranoid or ruthlessly amoral (or both!). Whichever it is, he should never be entrusted with the reins of power of the Presidency.
"To suggest the the Bible supports slavery is also wrong, even in the OT texts that allow and control it. Only people abysmally ignorant of the spirit of Christianity would suggest the Bible promotes slavery."
I thought the Bible was the word of God.
So the OT allows slavery, which means God allowed slavery. But it's wrong to say that the Bible "supports" slavery, even though it's God telling us that he is allowing it. Your God seems to be very confused about what He does and does not accept.
"The idea that Al Sharpton and James Dobson worship the same God is so transparently false that one would have to be willfully blind to not see the difference; which would include 17 of the 18 posters above."--edross...
On what basis do you make your comment? How do you know it is indeed "false"? Is it just your opinion as I suspect?
EDROSS...: To suggest the the Bible supports slavery is also wrong, even in the OT texts that allow and control it. Only people abysmally ignorant of the spirit of Christianity would suggest the Bible promotes slavery.
See: Leviticus, Chapter 25, versus 45-46:
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are bornand reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattel, and leave to your sons as hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves..."
Also see Exodus, Chapter 21, versus 1-11...
Quibbling over whether these Biblical passgaes "allow" or "support" slavery is nothing more than semantic masturbation.
One of the rationales I've seen is that slavery was just very common at the time, uncontroversial in societies. But God has no interest in what is common and uncontroversial. His word doesn't hinge on popular opinion. If it's wrong, then surely he would just say so. It's not like He was shy about letting the world know he was upset with the decadent nature of society when he sent the flood. The behavior of that particular time must have been extraordinarily common and therefore uncontroversial if it required the killing of everyone except a handful of people in order to remedy.
It's about time that you recognize ed's hard work. I was beginning to you were snubbing him.
You accuse others of being ignorant of the spirit of Christianity, yet you misinterpret the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.
The right has reinterpreted the teachings of Christ by filtering it through some Orwellian process, so that today we have leaned men teaching that Christ would approve of war, and ignore the poor, the meek, the hungry and the persecuted.
In fact, today's, so called, Christian leaders seem to think that their faith requires that they should be the ones who persecute.
I will no longer allow myself to be called a Christian. I QUIT!
I will no longer allow myself to be called a Christian. I QUIT!
Don't do that, Worrie... Stick to your own religious beliefs and say screw organized religion and the loonies and hypocrites who populate it. Regardless whether one believes Jesus was divine, many of his teachings, as they have been reported to us, are admirable and worth following.
It's organized religion that is perverting Christ's teachings. Not that I'm a religious guy, but I take great offense that these cretins seems to know the mind of God. They know how Jesus would react in any given situation. I've even read serious articles where these clowns said they knew that Jesus would probably carry a handgun.
I've had enough. I still have my beliefs, but they're not what would be accepted as Christian beliefs in today's world.
I was always taught that man was made in God's image and that what made us different from the rest of the creatures was our ability to think and to reason. Religion today demands I not think and says reasoning is sinful. To them, I've been judged and found lacking.
I still have my hopes and beliefs but the rest of Christianity has me "Left Behind".
They can kiss mine.
"...what made us different from the rest of the creatures was our ability to think and to reason. Religion today demands I not think and says reasoning is sinful."
Apply your statement above to Barack Obama and James Dobson's tirade. Reasoning and thinking are sinful in Dobson's eyes and that's the message he trying to send to his followers. What we have today in religion are followers of preachers, not follwers of Jesus Christ.
Examples, please?
Examples of a Christian political philosophy in the US constitution: The recognition of man's sinful nature - by providing 'checks and balances.' If I might include the Bill Of Rights, the freedom of religion from governmental control (that is the most revolutionary item in the whole experiment). Federalism. The whole concept of 'limited government.' The recognition of individual rights - the franchise to vote. While not all these ideas are unique to the US constitution, they are rooted in Christian theology.
Not all the Founding Fathers were Christians, but their world-view was undeniably Christian and their political philosophy was inherited from John Calvin and John Knox.
The constitution as a historical political experiment also says something about political expediency in the Bible: I think that John Adams would have been in favor of female suffrage, and Jefferson as well. But it wasn't even remotely possible. Just as a slave-free nation wasn't a possibility. Adams especially did not condone or approve slavery.
The Bible didn't invent slavery, it limited its reach, and ultimately, it was Christians (Wilbur Wilberforce, northern prohibitionists) applying Christian teaching to social policy that brought slavery to an end in western civilization.
"Examples of a Christian political philosophy in the US constitution: The recognition of man's sinful nature - by providing 'checks and balances.' If I might include the Bill Of Rights, the freedom of religion from governmental control (that is the most revolutionary item in the whole experiment). Federalism. The whole concept of 'limited government.' The recognition of individual rights - the franchise to vote. While not all these ideas are unique to the US constitution, they are rooted in Christian theology."
You are confusing parallels with production. The concept that man is not perfect is not exclusive to Christianity, so "checks and balances" doesn't rely on it at all. Same for individual rights and voting. It's the same sort of fallacious argument as talking about how our laws disallow murder and theft just how two of the Ten Commandments do. You can reach the conclusion that these things are bad for the population without knowing about Christ or the commandments at all, so there's no evidence of influence there.
Not all the Founding Fathers were Christians, but their world-view was undeniably Christian and their political philosophy was inherited from John Calvin and John Knox"
Terrific, but that doesn't prove that that the Constitution wasn't influenced by any number of non-Christian factors.
"The constitution as a historical political experiment also says something about political expediency in the Bible: I think that John Adams would have been in favor of female suffrage, and Jefferson as well. But it wasn't even remotely possible. Just as a slave-free nation wasn't a possibility. Adams especially did not condone or approve slavery."
What the hell are you talking about? What "political expediency in the Bible" are you referring to?
I can always count on conservative Christians to lie, they’re always so immoral.
edrossinoelwein9669 stated:
“To suggest the Bible supports slavery is also wrong, even in the OT texts that allow and control it. Only people abysmally ignorant of the spirit of Christianity would suggest the Bible promotes slavery”
Here are just a FEW of the NEW TESTEMENT quotes that support slavery.
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Iceman:
You're wasting your time. Anybody who can spout drivel the way Edross does has no interest in reality; trying to talk to somebody like Edross, or Dobson, or Fred Phelps is like arguing with a flat-earther. They will continue to claim that they are right, God says so, and therefore God proves their point. They cannot critically examine anything, they cannot actually read the Bible, and they certainly cannot look at the historical context out of which the Bible emerged.
But I still enjoy reading posts like yours that point out their own inconsistencies.
Gee Iceman, I didn't realize I was going to have to debate a biblical scholar! I'm so impressed - you know there's a New Testament!
Let's see. Instead of telling slaves to react to injustice like Jesus would, you'd tell them what? Revolt? Die? (Perhaps I should spell it out here - the texts you cite do not promote slavery - they just recognize that it exists and try to mitigate its evil - and that even in unjust circumstances, a follower of Christ has a responsibility to react as Jesus did.)
At the time of the writing of the New Testament, the Christian population was way less than 1% of the Roman empire. They had zilch for power (a large percentage of them were slaves). They had zilch for influence. All they had was a firm conviction that they were beloved of God and that they could trust Him even if the world they lived in treated them with cruelty and injustice. And their spiritual great-grandchildren conquered the Roman Empire! And in 18 centuries or so, their spiritual progeny halted slavery in protestant lands. Meanwhile, in the East (Buddhism and Hinduism), and the Middle-East (Islam), and in Africa (Islam and Spiritism), slavery continues to this day.
Those who would turn the U.S. away from its Christian heritage are turning back - back to tyranny and slavery and cruelty.
"Instead of telling slaves to react to injustice like Jesus would, you'd tell them what? Revolt? Die? (Perhaps I should spell it out here - the texts you cite do not promote slavery - they just recognize that it exists and try to mitigate its evil - and that even in unjust circumstances, a follower of Christ has a responsibility to react as Jesus did.)"
One of the quotes was "Teach your slaves...". That's a message to slaveowners, not slaves.
As I said elsewhere, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. Why does God have to limit his opinion to "recognizing" slavery exists? If it's wrong, he can very easily say so. Homosexuality and adultery existed in that time and they're condemned in the Bible, so what's God so shy about when it comes to slavery?
To touch on what you said about Christianity ending slavery in your other post, the Bible accepts slavery. God telling us that we can own slaves if we treat them a certain way means we can own slaves if we treat them a certain way. His word is universal, and so that is a right that is expressly granted by God. For anyone to tell us that we can't own slaves is taking away our God-given rights. What kind of Christian does such a thing?
<i>As I said elsewhere, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. Why does God have to limit his opinion to "recognizing" slavery exists? If it's wrong, he can very easily say so. Homosexuality and adultery existed in that time and they're condemned in the Bible, so what's God so shy about when it comes to slavery?</i>
Who are you to question God's wisdom of commenting or not commenting on any issue?
It seems to me like since we have a choice between eternal torment or eternal bliss at hand, God would want to make the rules pretty darn clear. Otherwise there is a God that doesn't give an accurate indication of how we should behave, then sends people to Hell for behaving the wrong way. So if it's immoral, he should just say so, for the sake of all his children that he loves so dearly. The same concept applies even more to all the people who have been enslaved directly because God failed to say it's immoral. Why would he want them to suffer so?
And if there is a God who plays that sort of game with our eternal souls and/or doesn't care about people suffering due to his own negligence, then I don't see why anyone would want to believe in such a deity.
To answer your question in a more literal manner, I can say that I'm someone who believes in logic over anything that requires faith, which is why I can question God's illogical behavior.
Fortunately, not everyone from the religious right is buying into Dobson's BS...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/obama-dobson-making-stuff_n_109032.html
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
Dobson does the very thing that Christians are directly commanded to avoid. And that is to judge others. Amazing that Dobson feels competant to do the job that Christ reserved for himself to do. Be that as it may, anyone with any spirituality can feel the love of God in Obama and also they can see his hristian approach to helping our country.
What do you get when you mix politics with religion? Politics.
Also note Minnery's leaps of logic which Dobson buys into. If Dobson lacks such critical thinking skills in assesing Obama's statement, we can pretty much assume that everything else he stakes his profession on is wrong.
What do you get when you mix politics with religion? Politics.
Nasty politics... I wonder what Jesus would say.
That's easy...
Jesus would walk calmly over to Dobsy and say: "You sir, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven--because you are a dirtbag."
So there's a giant conspiracy among people who answer poll questions? Or is it just an amazing coincidence that so many people happened to be lying on the same day for some unfathomable reason?
The epitome of irony - Dobbs and his theocratic fascist loyalists actually want to expel all non-lunatic fringe, Christian "fundies", as well as the U.S. Constitution. Finally...a candidate who will stand up against theocratic reformists, and defend our secular, American way! OBAMA '08!!!
Examples, please?
Don't hold your breath, Nerzog. I have yet to hear anyone give a detailed explanation as to how America was founded on uniquely Judea-Christian principles.
Dobson is a liar and I feel really needs to be called out as often as he tries to inject himself into this arena.
http://yaakov613.blogspot.com/
He's either a liar or a moron...
Depends which day you catch him. Jesus is probably up there saying, "I laid my life down for this blowhole? Sheesh!"