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 of this article will examine Jimbo's assertion that Obama's interpretation of scripture is absurd, Part II will examine Obama's response.
With regard to Part I, Jimbo found this portion of the speech particularly ludicrous:
[G]iven the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. 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.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 we go with 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 abomination? How about 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? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
For the purposes of this article I'll address each assertion individually.
1. The dangers of sectarianism are greater because of the diversity of religion in this country.
One need go no further than the teachings of Jesus to find this point reinforced.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household...
In context, Jesus is sending out his disciples telling them that their efforts to preach the good news will be met with hostility on earth, but He will ensure they are recognized for their earthly efforts in heaven.
So, there you have it, people will commit crime just because of a plurality of religions in an area. The FBI has compiled statistics on this:
Year Religion-based Hate Crimes 2006 1462 2005 1227 2004 1374 2003 1343 2002 1576 2001 2004 2000 1472 1999 1411 1998 1390
While no criminal motive is better than another, compared to other motives like love or greed, these numbers are almost statistically insignificant
2. What passages of scripture should we use to guide public policy?
While Jesus spent almost all of his earthly ministry addressing individual behavior he did have a few quips for leaders:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
These important matters of the law can be taken from Isaiah chapter 10:
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees,2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?4 Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives
or fall among the slain.
Here, I think Al Sharpton and James Dobson are on the same plain. The Bible makes it clear that rulers have extremely broad discretion. The differences between Al and Jimbo concern what to do within that discretion. That is more a matter of informed opinion than Christianity. The key underlying concept of Christianity is love, and love cannot be coerced.
Let me summarize this position: sin has separated God from man, but the grace of God gives man the opportunity to return. By the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, men are justified. That justification comes as a result of a personal relationship with God that cannot be coerced. This is so commonly misunderstood be non-Christians, I feel compelled to lay out the entire scriptural structure for it.
Jesus invited men to follow him, but did not force anyone to do so. Christ appeared to five hundred people after the resurrection as the risen God before he ascended into Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:6). However, after the ascension there were only 120 believers (Acts 1:15). It is difficult to imagine a more compelling argument for believing in God, than being confronted by God directly, as God. However, the vast majority of the people who met Him chose not to believe (at least at that time). Therefore, the grace can only be accepted by the love of the heart of the believer. “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified” (Romans 9:10-11, emphasis added).
Similarly, after Jesus began his ministry his family did not immediately believe that he was God in flesh. They came to visit Him once, and He turned them away stating that whoever does the will of God is my family (Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:1-21). Jesus had given everyone an equal opportunity to follow Him, and at that time, His family had not chosen to do so. Moreover, the grace of God extends to every person equally. At this time there was a difference between knowing Jesus personally, and submitting with one’s heart that he was God. His family did not recognize the latter and they were turned away. Jesus did not compel them to do anything; however, it was clear that there could not be salvation without belief.
The Old Testament contains the same message in a much more graphic manner. In the story of the Rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Bible discusses the evil an irrationality of forced love: Amnon fell in love with his sister Tamar, and decided to pursue her sexually. One day He feigned illness and she brought him food in bed. Once she was close to him, he grabbed her and tried to attack her. Her response provided a foundation for the reasoning of the evil of forced love in the Bible, “Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel." (Id.) Eventually, Amnon completed the act, and some time later another sibling killed him.
In contrast, the Apostle Paul provides a very famous explanation of love in his First Letter to the Corinthians, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres…” (1 Corinthians 13:6-7).
Tamar’s first reaction was that forced love is contrary to the Law of Moses. She argues that loving relationships should be entered as a matter of free will. Though the punishment for rape (a fine of 50 pieces of silver, Deuteronomy 22:28) was comparatively light to how the issue is handled today, it was, nonetheless, a sin contrary to the law. The Mosaic disdain for forced love indicates that it cannot be consistent with the nature of God because He lacks sin.
Tamar’s second reaction appeals to Amnon’s sense of decency. It is irrational to state that he loved her while subjecting her to this disgrace. Love always protects, and by committing the act, Amnon failed to protect her. Following Mosaic Law, Tamar publicly exclaimed her plight by refusing to wear virgin robes, and by putting ashes on her head. Similarly, God would not subject anyone to personal embarrassment by forcing His love.
Tamar’s final plea is to Amnon’s own ego. She states that he is not only dishonoring Mosaic Law and Tamar, but he is also dishonoring himself. Because he pursued her out of love, his ego could only be satisfied by a loving relationship with her. As he did not pursue this solution, he was bound for despair which the Bible tells us followed him in every proceeding day until his grisly death. God recognizes the principal that a forced love would be unsatisfying to Him, and he avoids it by allowing free choice.
At its most fundamental level, rape is evil. Rape is the most vile assault man can place on society by offending another person. As Tamar stated, it is the behavior of wicked fools. Paul has stated that love cannot delight in evil. There cannot be any love in rape; love must be an unforced voluntary decision, by mutually willing parties.
Therefore legislating morality to compel people into a relationship with Christ is offensive, and no Christian would suggest it as a viable public policy. Rather, society leaders can make decisions within extremely broad discretion based on whatever factors they feel are relevant. Christians will continue to abide (albeit imperfectly) to a set of religious norms out of their personal desire to enter a relationship with God.