Monday, June 23, 2008

Fruitcake interpretations

A new low for B. H. Obama: now he’s distorting the Bible!

Theology aside, his remarks are curious. In every college dorm room debate on religion the atheist side will, at some point, bring up Leviticus on slavery and shellfish. It’s odd hearing a Christian do so.

During the Jeremiah Wright ‘crisis’, the Obama apologists excused his attending a radical church claiming Obama was there for the Jesus talk, which Obama loves, not the hate whitey ranting, which Obama grudgingly tolerated. Barry’s facile interpretation of the Scriptures suggest it was the other way around.


  1. Beautiful!

    Here we've got a somewhat self-confused post / on an entirely incoherent AP article / on an inarticulate Dobson statement / on muddied Obamaramble on the murky amorphousness of the Bible! Beautiful!

    As for Christianity, do you have a truer interpretation of the faith? Besides, when Obama criticizes slavery and shellfish in the Bible isn't he actually Doing what Jesus did (according to the traditional/Dobsonesque misreading of the sacred texts)? How is that not Christian?


    Feh. The truth is that Carlin was right. Elections are about nothing but the illusion of citizen power. McCain sucks, so does Barack and even if one of them were God Himself he'd accomplish nothing worth spit in "his presidency".

    Jefferson's plant is truly in need of some watering. America totally sucks balls.


  2. Nothing confusing with what I wrote.

    Jesus didn't criticize shellfish, he gave us the a-ok to eat clams and oysters, something I plan on doing this 4th of July.

    "As for Christianity, do you have a truer interpretation of the faith?"

    I do, and will reveal it at the appropriate time.

  3. LOL literally.

    You're too good with words. I'm guessing that you don't make your living as a wordsmith, but you deserve to.


  4. Oh, and as a totally unimportant aside, the shellfish thingee is actually in The Obama's Audacity book. I was reading it today and came across the passage precisely as I was pulling up this page on my cell to see whether you had responded to my accusations of muddledness (and it was fuckin muddled! :-)

  5. What do you think of Audacity? If I were serious I'd read it myself.

    Something I haven't seen anyone else say (perhaps because everything gets tied up with race with him) is that his personality is not that different from all the other recent Harvard/Ivy law types, who also have these 'manufactured identities' for the purpose of self-advancement*. I think his peculiar background enhanced his ability to do it.

    *I'm not sure if that makes sense, I should probably clarify what I mean by that, I may do so at a later date.

  6. I only read a few pages here and there while passing some time in a bookstore. I happen to agree with many of his aesthetic moral preferences regarding socio-economic matters so I personally enjoyed the book's semi-boilerplate writing about said issues. Beyond that I'd say that I didn't come across anything too extraordinary but that it's clearly in the upper tier of autobiographical works by active politicians in that he comes across as sincere, self-aware and sincere in his honest sharing of that navel-gazing. Whether that seeming sincerity is real or fake may be a matter more in the eyes of the beholder than anywhere else but my personal impression is that he's one of the more genuinely open and honest active politicians. Then again, that isn't a very high bar to jump and he's certainly less honest about his thoughts, beliefs, opinions and tastes than we would all like to believe a national leader should be.