Obama’s Interpretation of Christianity – The Progressive Plan

James Dobson, Focus on the Family founder and prominent Christian Leader has accused Barrack Obama of distorting the Bible. Dobson referenced the speech that Obama gave to the Call for Renewal Christian Group. Obama came back with Dobson is “Making stuff up”. Dobsons fears are well-fouonded but he is missing a point.
Full Obama article, Dallas Morning News. Dobson has a fundamentalist view of the Bible, one that is consistent with most Christian think, while Obama holds a progressive viewpoint. Is Dobson being over-critical of Obama’s view of Christianity? The text of the speech can be found at Obama’s senate site
here Christians, as Obama points out, often allow their religious viewpoint to affect their political think. To combat that point of view, he gives a template for getting along with those who hold overly religious views in order to attract them politically. It’s all in the turn of a phrase. Dobson should not be concerned with Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, as any Christian can point out, the Bible has multiple versions (King James, American, Catholic, Teaching) however, the premise and theme remain the same, with only slight variations in the language, these variations do not dilute or distort the message. It is a fact that a Christian refers to Jesus Christ as their savior, one who lived a life that was based on a message of peace, tolerance, law and personal responsibility. A practicing Christian, whether Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, And Baptist, etc. understands that their responsibility is to act in accordance with principles set forth by the law that Jesus referenced: The laws handed down by God to Moses – the commandments. Paraphrasing: Jesus spoke to his disciples saying, I did not come to change the law but to fulfill the law. Therefore, arguing that the Old Testament is irrelevant, distorts the basic values of Christianity. Jesus also pointed out the difference between the law of man and the law of God, and the inconsistency between the two. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the law of God and continue to pay taxes to man.

Those that profess to be Christians yet support abortion use the bible as well as reference the US Constitution in the same breath – they combine the two to prove a political point. The problem is; this is not consistent with Christianity. Christians are exhorted to act according to their faith – and that faith does not condone or support so called “Reproductive Rights”. The thought that one can vote for partial birth abortion, taking an active roll in promoting death, then one can call oneself a Christian, when it is politically expedient to do so. It is not fair to point to Obama as the only one who follows this type of Christian-political manipulation, one need only to look to the Bay state and multiple elected officials who will attend a Catholic Mass and then vote their conscience in accordance with a secular point of view.

Obama raises the question that is raised every time an election cycle occurs. Should there not be a separation of church and state with regards to one’s personal religious feelings not infringing on the rights of all citizens by actively practicing their faith once elected? That is the one most fallacious arguments used by progressives. The country was founded by Christians who were seeking to escape the persecution of religion, not escaping religion entirely. The thought that one can vote or uphold a law that is antithetical to any world religion (reproductive rights), based on the founders beliefs should be given more than a second glance. The point of the constitution and that clause that is so abused: to make a separation between church and state, to avoid creating a theocracy that would establish one religion over another. It was not designed to completely eradicate religion from the public square. Obama in his speech suggests that people do not read their bibles – and that the religious right distorts the bible for their own political gain. The same could be said of those politicians that distort the constitution and inject religion into the same speech for political gain.

What Dobson and any clear-thinking American who wishes to preserve our democracy and the republic under which we live should be concerned with in regards to this particular speech is the following: Obama constantly refers to “we as progressives”.

Progressives are simply stated, communists who refute religion, believe they are elite and entitled to control the masses. The fact that the Democrat Party has been taken over by Progressives in the past 20 years or so, should be completely vetted. The Progressives would destroy our current form of government replacing it with one similar to the Soviet Union. (A country they greatly admire). To learn more about progressive think visit:
Progressive Democrats of America. To understand the correlation between Progressives, Socialists and Communists read a good book on Post-Marxism such as “Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism”.
Even allowing a cursory study of the material is enough to “curl the hair” of any American, regardless of Religious Affiliation. Therefore, debating or decrying Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, is the least of our problems. In the analysis of the speech that Dobson criticizes – it appears that the problem truly is Obama’s use of his Christianity as a political tool to further the Progressive agenda.