"Sermon on the Mount" ... A Response.

I'm not employed by Senator Obama's campaign, nor am I a man of faith. I am, however, a man that cannot tolerate the distortion of truth. And after viewing the recent political attack ad sponsored by PH for America, which has already amassed 2 million views on YouTube, I had to pounce. So, let's take a look at the ad:

On June 28, 2006, Senator Barack Obama gave a speech to the “Call to Renewal Conference”, where he explained why he finds it so difficult for America to use the Bible to help guide our public policy:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok...? 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? ... Folks haven't been reading their bibles.”

First of all, some cuts in here and some taking out of context done by PH for America. Looking at the transcript for that speech, Senator Obama said this before the offending clip:

“Moreover, given 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 is a totally valid observation. There are many different sects of Christianity. Shall we teach everyone that the pope is infallible? Do we teach the Bible as the absolute word, or the starting grounds for your own faith and moral code?

The cuts in the ad, although minor, seem to cut out the things that PH for America couldn't combat. Here's the whole clip, unedited, from the transcripts:

“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.”

Where's the attack against shellfish, PH for America? And it seems odd that the second to last sentence was cut out completely. Senator Obama made a very good suggestion. Let's read our Bibles to actually remember what's in there.

The entire context of the speech itself is not rallying against religion or religious teachings. It's a call to compromise. Most people would agree that the Bible does include some very archaic laws and morals. And even though PH for America accuses Senator Obama of being “arrogant”, he still is a man of faith.

Senator Obama, after you so arrogantly mocked and ridiculed the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Sermon on the Mount, taking those passages of the Bible so painfully out of context,...

On Slavery in Leviticus: Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Archaic laws in Deuteronomy (with other laws around it in context): Deuteronomy 17, 1-5: Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Deuteronomy 14, on shellfish (curiously, it also states that swine is sin. Sorry, bacon-lovers.): Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Those sound archaic, even when IN context.

...you then condescendingly that quote “Folks haven't been reading their bible” unquote, as if the American people don't know what's in there. But the real question is: do you know what's in there, Senator?

Pulling out those little nuggets, it sounds like he does. But do you PH for America?

For instance, did you not know that most Christians and historians agree that the Sermon on the Mount contains the most spiritually inspiring words ever uttered by Jesus Christ or any other religious leader?

Citation needed.

And as far as your sarcastic remarks regarding the Defense Department not being able to survive the Sermon on the Mount's application, I can assure you, Senator, that Christ would NEVER advocate turning the other cheek to terrorists and America's enemies, as your smug laughter so clearly implied.

I, on the other hand, assure you, PH for America, that Christ actually WOULD advocate turning the other cheek. Please flip your Bible to Matthew 5:38:

“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

And to back that up, another relevant passage, from Luke 6:27:

“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

The Sermon on the Mount, as a whole, advocated nonviolence and nonresistance, something that actually would be very hard to implement in the current Defense Department.

And did you not know, Senator Obama, that the book of Deuteronomy, which you also arrogantly mock and ridicule, is what gave us the ten commandments?

Which, the tenth commandment permits slavery. In Deuteronomy, the Tenth Commandment reads as such: “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.” (5:21)

Deuteronomy also gave us the law that women cannot wear pants (22:5), or wool and linen together in the same garment (22:10). Also, it states that remarrying your former wife after divorce is an abomination (24:4), and the book gives clear instructions for defecation in the wilderness (23:12-14) Oh, and if you are in violation of ANY of these laws..."Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law." (27:26)

Folks, all those condescending remarks distorting our Judeo-Christian Bible did not come out of the mouth of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. No. They came straight out of the mouth of Barack Obama.

Drawing unnecessary comparison to the Rev. Wright yet again. Didn't that whole controversy show that Senator Obama was a man of faith? Then why do we keep questioning that aspect of his life?

“Folks haven't been reading their Bibles”

Paid for by PhforAmerica.com

PH for America, with your distortion of a man's good intentions, I only have God's words for you:

'You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. And you shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the LORD'. (Leviticus 19:11-12)

-Zack Quiroz.