Sean reports...

Dr James Dobson

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on The Family said the following on the radio yesterday in response to a speech (link to text) by presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama to the Call To Renewal's Building A Covenant For New America on June 28, 2006:

"He's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."

Dobson, Tom Minnery, and Dr Bill Maier go on to talk about how Obama talks about the application of Bible teachings from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Both Dobson and Minnery talk about how the Levitical law no longer applies today because it was only meant to apply to the Israelites after they came out of the desert. And in the same breath they say that the principles - such as on the issue of same-sex marriage - still apply.

HUH?

Does that make any sense? Aren't these two then doing what they are accusing Obama of doing?

Dobson even says that he isn't a reverand and a Bible expert but then responds to Obama like he is. For me I thought faith was a personal gift to yourself; a tool guided by your personal covenant with God and your own intrepretation of his vessels/prophets dictating a higher power's word - be it the Jewish God, the Catholic God, the Protestant God, the Islamic God, Buddha, Vishnu, or what even being your faith recognizes (Not to leave other faiths or Jewish/Christian/other denominations/sects out, I do want to say I am condensing here). In the end it is all a personal interpretation of how to live one's life well with the people and environment around us.  My personal view in this instance is in deference to Jesus Christ's declaration of a Golden Rule in the Bible's New Testament, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

I respect Dobson's right to give his opinion and have it heard. Many Christians utilize 1 Corinthians by Saint Paul as a counter to Levitical Law and maybe this is where Dobson and Minnery are coming from. But is it right to accuse people of hypocrisy and commit it in the same breath using his own interpretation? Funny how people don't even listen to their own voice sometimes.

For instance, Dobson and Minnery agree there are other faiths in America but since Christianity is the majority their views and morality should take precedence.

On the other side, Dobson and Minnery take presumptive Republican presidential nominee to task for not villifying same-sex marriage stong enough and supporting anti-gay marriage amendments on the state ballot in several states in November. So no side is left out in criticism from Dobson's moral view in this radio presentation.

It's funny to listen to someone feign that he isn't an expert than go on like he is and at the same time accuse someone of reinterpretation of the Bible while doing it in the same breath.

I will let you decide though in your own mind if Dobson is right or not. In deference to Dobson, here is a link to the full radio show. I am all for at least respecting disparaging views even though I think they are without real reason and hypocritical.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The McFreeds, in the interest of equal time, post this speech from March 18, 2008 for your review...

This does not mean we are giving up on our support on Hillary Clinton, it means only that this speech is major enough to make available to our readers.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The McFreeds say...

In case you haven't heard of her, Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern gave a strong speech about how homosexuality is a major threat to the American way of life.  Here is a portion of her speech.

This is our response...

"We fervantly agree with Mrs. Kern's right to free speech and we appreciate her taking time out of her life to represent women, married couples, teachers, seniors, people of faith, and people from her Oklahoma district in the State Legislature.  We look forward to debating her point of view with future legislation in future forums as well as objectively reviewing her legislation and seeing where we - American gays, lesbians, and transgender - can find common ground on issues that support, serve, and protect all American families of all shapes, sizes, and colors. Most importantly, we would like to join Mrs. Kern in ensuring that Oklahomans never experience a day such as April 19, 1995 where Timothy McVeigh took the lives of so many for the cause of intolerance. Difference should never be used as a reason to kill, mame or terrorize."

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

Part 3 Nevada Caucus Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate 1-15-08

Part 4 Nevada Caucus Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate 1-15-08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion).  What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief.  So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.  

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Sean says...

Stef and I intently watched the historic debate last night where nearly all the Democratic candidates for President attended.  All your majors were there: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.  Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden did not attend. Each addressed questions separately by moderator Margaret Carlson, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese, Washington Post editorial page writer Jonathan Capehart, and musician/activist Melissa Etheridge (waits for the double take on this choice... tick tick tick...check out link to editorial about her inclusion). Although not strong questions, it was GREAT to see candidates take on gay and lesbian issues directly. ALL the Republican candidates were invited but did not attend.

Stef and my initial take was the following in terms in who did the best to satisfy us:

1. Edwards

2. Clinton

3. Kucinich/Obama

The LARGEST disappointment was Bill Richardson. When asked by panelist (yes you read right) Melissa E. the question "Do you believe homosexuality to be a choice?" he answered the following way (courtesy YouTube) which was followed by the biggest GASP by gay people I think ever recorded on TV that wasn't a planned acting event:

Bill Richardson flubs in debate, says gayness is a "choice"

Really disappointing!  Bill Richardson had a lot of things going for him in my mind and this comment despite the explanation on his website just really deflated at least my balloon. This man is overqualified for the job with a resume that includes congressman (minority whip), Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, and Governor of New Mexico. But his interviews and debate appearances have truly disappointed me in the last 2 months. The man is great at getting things done apparantly in the past but he can't verbalize why his vision is the best. Ted Kennedy had the same issue when he was deciding to challenge Jimmy Carter in 1980 - "Why I want to be president?" And now one of the big issues on my political checklist (and Stef's too) has a bad mark for him.

You be your own judge here on this and tell us what you think.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend