Jimbo decided to make an issue of this speech of Senator Obama's which is nearly two years old. You may read Senator Obama's speech or listen to Jimbo's monologue at the links I have posted. Part I examined Jimbo's assertion that Obama's interpretation of scripture is absurd, Part II will examine Obama's response.
Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us."
Christianity Today notes that this is a convenient view that many politicians take.
This approach is probably good politics. Indeed, one politician not commonly associated with Obama already practices this strategy. You won't hear from President George W. Bush direct appeals to United Methodist Church teachings to justify his opposition to same-sex marriage or abortion. Speaking in 2004 in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."Signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Bush likewise declined to cite chapter and verse. "By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak," Bush said. "The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience."
One can think of the Christian Church as fundamentally seeking to accomplish three tasks: First, to give praise to God. This is non-controversial and gets virtually no media attention, though every Church does it in every service. Second, to convert non-believers into a relationship with Christ. Finally, to assist followers in spiritual growth (in the Catholic Church it ensures salvation is maintained by administering seven sacraments, and in Protestant churches it seeks to move the individual in a closer relationship with God. In either case, there is a structure for attending to the spiritual needs of members).
Churches regularly encourage their members to adhere to a certain moral code. I am not sure when they decided they wanted to impress morality upon others who were not members. I seems clear that the Bible has no interest in imposing Christian values upon non-Christians. For example, it is a sin for Christians to divorce their Christian spouses, however, "if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so." (1 Corinthians 17).
As I noted in the previous article, society can impose whatever irrational regulations it chooses, and Christians will abide by them unless there is a direct conflict with Biblical instruction. However, this does not mean that Christians are forbidden from interacting in the political process to seek whatever legislative change they desire. Accordingly, there is nothing in scripture that supports Obama's assertion that the most effective way to legislate is in a secular manner. However, that does appear to be what politicians do.