PTM WEEKLY UPDATE -- JUNE 30, 2008
A young Barack Obama with his mother, Ann Dunham. Barack's Momma
Q. Last week you responded to someone who had come out of the SDA church -- someone who is now reading your book Revelation Revolution and was asking for further help to understand why some, in the name of God, insist of smearing Barack Obama. You said that you had been forwarded some spurious allegations about Mr. Obama and that you had replied. Can you supply some of the response you gave.
A. The attack I was forwarded was titled "Barack's Momma." I was asked what I felt. First of all, I will not reprint it here -- for that very action is what people who are attempting to engage in character assassination hope others will do. We won't dignify this trash by reprinting it -- but in case it, or a similar kind of report, either about Mr. Obama, or anyone for that matter -- be they a public figure or not -- perhaps some of our comments might be helpful.
My first concern about the material you forwarded is the title "Barack's Momma." The title is not about Mr. Obama's Mother -- but "Barack's Momma."
Second, the author does not identify himself or herself -- no publisher's address or phone number is provided. Why? Reputable reports follow standards -- which include attribution. Why is the author/source hiding -- of what or whom are they afraid?
The entire "report" claims to be from a Christian perspective, but its biblical basis is highly suspect. The report uses highly incendiary language -- examples:
a) Barack Obama 's mother is called a "full fledged radical leftist" -- this charge has no specific meaning. What is the difference between "full" fledged and "partially" fledged?
b) She is charged with engaging in miscegenation -- racial intermarriage. This terminology shows obvious racial bias -- the author's religious bigotry is on display here. Racial intermarriage is not some heinous sin.
c) The report alleges, dogmatically, that Barack Obama 's mother met his father in her Russian language class. Is the place of their first meeting a documented fact, or was the actual place they met on campus the university dining hall, or on the tennis courts? Of course, for someone who is convinced of some Communist leftist plot behind Mr. Obama's presidential bid, the allegation that his mother and father first met in a Russian language class adds sizzle -- never mind truth. Perhaps this Christian source believes their end justifies any unchristian means.
d) The report alleges that no evidence has yet been presented that Obama's father and mother were ever married -- and then the report parenthetically comments, "you know what that means." Essentially, the report calls Barack Obama a bastard, but no proof is offered. Since Christianity is the apparent motivation for these comments (!?!?!), then we should stop and remember that Jesus was also called a bastard -- and that it was the religious leaders of his day who leveled such a charge (see John 8:31-41).
NOTE: PTM IS NOT saying that Barack Obama is equivalent, in any manner, shape or form, to Jesus -- and of course neither are George Bush or John McCain!
e) This trashy report asserts that Barack Obama's mother lived in Seattle as a teen, spending time in Seattle coffee shops with "other young radical leftists." Unbelievable! This "report" seems to imply that the author distrusts big city cosmopolitan melting pots, and coffee shops in general -- what would/do they say about Starbucks and the types of radicals that hang out there? I must confess that I frequent Starbucks myself! Come to think of it, my mother was also born in Kansas!
f) The report demonizes Barack Obama's mother as being a Unitarian, while claiming that she was a Christian. The report slams Unitarians, not on the basis of some of their unbiblical teachings, but on the alleged political leanings of Unitarians. Unitarian churches are regarded as "left-wing" by only one source I know of -- extreme fundamentalist "Christians" who suspect all Christian churches other than their own (which would include, in general, Catholics, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox and certainly RUSSIAN orthodox as being highly suspect -- unchristian). I personally don't agree with the doctrinal teachings of Unitarians, but I wouldn't say that Unitarians are a bunch of pinko Communists.
g) The "report" further alleges that the church Barack Obama's mother attended in the Seattle suburbs was nicknamed "the little red church." By whom? Radical fundamentalists who distrusted coffee-drinkers from Seattle?
h) The unnamed, anonymous author of this "report" alleges that the school Barack Obama's mother attended was a "hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers." Anyone who knows anything about higher education in the U.S. knows that virtually any highly regarded state university, over the past 50 years, could have the same thing said about them. That would include Bush and the Clintons as having attended "hotbeds" of "pro-Marxist radical teachers."
i) This "report" (that's a dignified name which it does not deserve) says that Barack Obama's mother wanted to adopt a mixed-race Korean baby before she died. What is that supposed to mean -- that a "Christian" would not adopt mixed-race children? Further, this slanderous report alleges that the father of this little baby was an African American! Are we to believe that if Barack Obama's mother were a good Christian, she would have searched for an orphan she could adopt whose father was white?
Allegations like these, either in God's name or not, are racist rantings. It is particularly galling when they try to pretend that they are speaking for Jesus Christ, and then use terminology that sounds like White Supremacy Neo-Nazi bigotry.
As we said in the first letter, we share this not because we are attempting to defend the Democratic nominee for President -- we would say the same about a "report" about the sitting President, or about Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. We do not endorse political candidates -- but we do comment about issues that politics often brings to our table. With this in mind, we highly recommend the next issue of The Plain Truth magazine we are working on right now -- our September/October issue, with its cover story "How Would Jesus Vote for President -- OR Would He Even Bother?"
Dobson dogs Obama
As we finalize this issue of the PTM Weekly Update, Evangelist James Dobson has leveled pointed criticism against presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama for "distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible" and "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Dobson's comments were precipitated by a speech given by Obama to the Christian group Call to Renewal some two years ago (what took Dobson so long to respond?).In his speech, Obama addressed the idea held by some Christian leaders that public policy should be governed solely by the Bible. "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"
While PTM does not endorse any presidential candidate, we must note that Obama raises a valid question. There are thousands -- perhaps millions -- of institutions and teachers, interpreting the Bible in as many ways. Even if we relegated the playing field to "traditional" Christian interpretation and teaching, we would still have grave disagreements over how the Bible should be applied in matters of public policy. And does the Bible even purport to have have all the answers for every question of public policy?
But beyond that, Obama's questions are fundamental with regard to hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation). Which parts of Scripture are valid for Christian practice today? How does the Old Testament relate to the New? These are questions every serious student of the Bible should ask.
Surely Dobson can't be suggesting that all other Christians in the nation should remain silent and unquestioningly accept his teaching. Surely Dobson realizes that by his comments he is alienating many "secular" citizens against Christianity -- and that by professing to speak for all of Christianity in America, he is angering millions of Christians who do not accept his views. He almost certainly understands how his comments are perceived by the broad majority of Americans. But is he speaking to them?
It would seem that Dobson and other aging leaders of the traditional Religious Right are concerned as they watch their movement being overtaken by younger, more socially and environmentally conscious evangelical leadership. Like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have done many times in the past, Dobson makes "hard line" pronouncements not to further the gospel of Jesus Christ, but to galvanize his followers against more moderate voices in Christianity. Of course, this only serves to bring about division. We have already watched Clinton and Obama duke it out. We can expect more allegation, innuendo and outright slander as the election year wears on.
Sadly, if history is any lesson at all, some within Christendom will engage in mudslinging.
We conclude with a story about Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest U.S. president, a Christian who had little patience for or sympathy with religious pontifications or swelling, pride-filled self-righteousness. After he was visited by a stuffy, somewhat arrogant religious delegation, Lincoln turned to one of his aides and told him the story of a little boy who had used mud to sculpt a church building. When the little boy was asked, "Where's the preacher?" the boy responded, "I ran out of mud."
RETURN TO PTM WEEKLY UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE
Copyright © 2008 Plain Truth Ministries -- Worldwide.