I've held off for awhile, but it's time to roll back into the political arena. The news on Obama today revolves around James Dobson who has accused Obama of "distorting the Bible and offering a fruitcake interpretation of the constitution." Now, I'm really excited about this on a number of levels. First there's the idea of a "fruitcake interpretation" which is an incredibly bigoted comment. Why? Because fruitcake is a commonly known slang for homosexual and when you start using it as an insult we're back to the equivalent of "nigger-rigged" for fixing something on the fly. People might disagree with that, but just because you don't realize something is offensive, it doesn't mean it is. And, on a side note, we gripe because some (like myself, for example) read too much into things i.e. "fruitcake interpretation." After all, in this context it just means crazy, another vernacular meaning for the word so why am I being so sensitive? Because it is precisely the people who are sensitive that decide what is offensive. If you're goal is to not be offensive in a bigoted way then you don't get to pick and choose what someone finds bigoted. Just wanted to get that one out there.

Now on to the big stuff. Obama pointed out that Bible scriptures are, shall we say, a bit inconsistent. His point seemed to consist of two ideas 1) that there are multiple Christianities at work in our country so even if we are a "Christian" country that doesn't narrow down what moral/ethical code we should be running on and 2) literal interpretations of the Bible aren't helpful to the running of the government--think Leviticus. Now, I'm biased. There is no question about my bias and, furthermore, that I'm a crazy NON-Christian. In my perfect world our government would run on a set of ethics that owed nothing to religion. I want to clarify that I am completely aware of where I stand on this issue. That being said, I find this comments absolutely delightful--a politician that recognizes the logical fallacies undermining much of our political discussions today and says it out loud? How many times have these almost exact words been spoken between friends? And here is a man who is willing to say it out loud. I find that incredibly exciting. Furthermore, no where in these comments, this article, or anything else I've read has Obama even hinted at being anti-religion. He isn't going to stop people from going to church or their right to go to church, but is willing to stop people from forcing others to go to church. See the difference? As an avid non-churchgoer I'm thrilled by that. I'll fight to the death for your right to worship in whatever harmless way you desire, but I'll also fight to the death for my right not to.

Being a liberal isn't nearly so simple as those who curse us would have you believe.

I'm seeing more and more in Obama a man who might be too smart to be President. What I mean by that, is that he will say out loud things that are true. For example, you can't outlaw abortion because of the Bible. It's true. The government can't base laws on religion (or, rather, shouldn't). That means that the law itself must come from another ethical background. But for someone that does base ethics and morality on religion and cannot conceive of not using religion as a basis for those things that sounds like crazy talk. Plus, if you believe you are right--as anyone who actually believes in their faith does--then you don't want to have a law that allows for beliefs disagreeing with your own. It's a tricky, sticky situation and saying we can't base laws on your religion because other's don't believe it doesn't get through to these people. Their religion is fact and so it doesn't matter whether others believe it or not.

And that is, perhaps, the crux of the problem. We, as a society, have no interest in living our lives in a solitary fashion. We want to save those in need; we want to help each other. That means for the big issues, like abortion, we can't agree to let someone kill a baby (if indeed that's what we want to call it) we want to stop the atrocity. For the smaller stuff, like gay marriage, we don't want to stand by and silently condone an act that is repulsive. I speak of "we" here as society. And to some degree, there is no resolution to that situation. Those that believe abortion is murder will never allow it to continue unmolested and those that despise homosexuality will never support their equality. But quite frankly, I'm not interested in those people. Maybe I'll teach their kids some day and I'll deal with it then, but I'm not going to change any minds in that quarter, and neither is Obama. Those are the lost cause.

But, if every time they speak loudly against rationality (and yes, I am judging here) those who deny their monologic world view speak loudly in protest the damage might be controlled. Those that believe single-mindedly are powerful in their speech because they believe. The masses react to that. But if all of us who believe passionately for freedom of/from/to belief/believe then those that are not fanatical will have something else to consider. We will never all agree, but we might some day discuss. That's worth working towards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25343812?GT1=43001