James Dobson of Focus on the Family became upset when Barack Obama raised certain issues concerning Christianity. Obama rhetorically asked, "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus?" Dobson took issue with citing Leviticus since Dobson holds that Jesus nullified many of the Levitical practices. However, contrary to Dobson's observation, Obama's point on this is valid. There are many people professing to be Christians who do hold with Levitical law. There are many who are really Old Testament believers to the exclusion of Jesus's teachings that did not nullify Levitical law but rather fulfilled it. He removed the hypocrisy and took the spirit of the law to its next and ultimate step of infinite, divine logic that is righteousness. That is something James Dobson does not support; otherwise, he would not be for war and many of the other theological errors he makes clearly and plainly.

Obama put another question that Dobson ignored or the news coverage has ignored if Dobson addressed it directly. I'll have to read Dobson's full radio transcript to be sure. That question is "...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."

Now, the question is right with the exception that there is no doubt whatsoever. If we stick to the Sermon on the Mount, the Pentagon has to go. As Christians, we are to stick with the Sermon on the Mount; therefore, the Pentagon does have to go. I've been writing that on this site for a long time. I wrote about it before this site existed. I said it decades ago.

The problem is that Obama and Dobson both claim to be Christians whereas neither is. A Christian knows that the Pentagon is pure evil and must and will go. A real Christian loves that truth. He or she will spread that truth as far and wide as possible and will never back down from it and will never be ashamed of saying and writing it but rather proclaim it enthusiastically as an integral part of the Good News.

Priesthood of All Believers

Dobson said of Obama, "...and then says go read the Bible, as if he's some kind of biblical authority." Well, look who's calling the kettle black. Dobson is the pot right next to the kettle. It's an old saying from the days when the cookware was iron and used over the wood fire. Both the pot and the kettle would turn black from use. Dobson is putting down Obama for Obama's asserting the principle of the Priesthood of All Believers.

Is Dobson an authority on the teachings of Jesus Christ? He is not! He isn't even close. He doesn't get it; or if he does, he hides it (the truth). Jesus was, and remains, a total pacifist. Anyone speaking with any authority about the spirit of Jesus Christ knows this and says it. Dobson doesn't say it. Does he know that Jesus is a pacifist but avoids it? I say he does. I say Obama obviously knows it too but chooses to use failing subtlety such as "it's doubtful" about the Pentagon. He knows full well that the Pentagon and Jesus have zero part in each other, but he's afraid to say it because there isn't enough time between now and the election to wake up the people. Besides, the powers that be who have anointed Obama don't want the people to know.

The two of them are arguing also over their respective visions of the meaning of democracy. Obama is pushing relaxing standards within each ideology for the sake of watered-down unity (no real unity at all). Dobson is either unaware or doesn't care that Jesus has nothing to do with secular elections and secular laws. Dobson wants to push for Christian principles in the secular state. It's hypocrisy writ large, James.

These men don't understand Christianity at all. They are both completely lost relative to the first generation of Christians who knew, heard, and lived with Jesus Christ himself.

James Dobson calls himself a conservative-Republican Christian. However, There is No Such Thing as a Conservative-Republican Christian: Jesus is a small-c communist

Read the pages on our site starting at the top-right column.

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
Los Angeles Times, CA - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
Chicago Tribune, United States - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
Washington Post, United States - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
Houston Chronicle, United States - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
San Francisco Chronicle, USA - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
FOXNews - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
Boston Globe, United States - Jun 23, 2008

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
MiamiHerald.com, FL - Jun 23, 2008

Google Blog Search Results


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.