Heh. That's a slightly misleading title. But somewhat the truth.

A Federal Court judge recently ruled that California Universities can deny credit to students who take courses where the Bible is treated as infallible:

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

I like the part about failing to teach "critical thinking". But ultimately, this isn't really that big of a deal. Most colleges will accept the Bible as a historical scholarly document. But if you start claiming that there are no contradictions and everything in the Bible is literally true, well then you're kind of crazy. 

I know some readers of this blog tire of my fawning over Obama. And I get it. So, I tried all week to ignore this story, but um, my beautiful black hero is calling out one of our whack-job Evangelical Leaders. And I can't resist. So bear with me.

Recently, in a speech on Christianity, Obama had this to say:

"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 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 — 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 now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

So Obama basically implores people to actually read their Bible, and in turn, pokes at James Dobson.  To which, the Dobson responds:

"I think [Obama is] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,"

Really? Obama is the one interpreting the Bible to fit a crazed idealogy? This what I believe we mean, when we say, the pot is calling the kettle black.

And in today's Washington Post, George Bush's former Deputy Assistant, Peter Wehner, writes a rather nice defense of Obama:

If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn't. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.

Yeah well, I've been wincing about Dobson for years. Ever since he went from Focus on the Family, to Focus on James Dobson.  So yeah, chalk this up as another reason, I'm voting for Obama. He annoys the Dobson.

Yes, I know this is a theme we've hit on over and over again, but it's close to election time in Oregon, so I thought I would roll out another fun article about how young Christians are a little miffed with the Christian Right.

"I think it's a new movement starting," said Amy Archibald, 19, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University. "Most of us would never blindly follow the old Christian Right anymore. James Dobson has nothing to do with us. A lot of us are taking apart the issues, and thinking, 'OK, well, [none of the candidates] fits what I'm looking for exactly.' But if you're going to vote, you've got to take your pros with your cons."

Like I say, you need to vote for who you think will do the best job as President. You need to vote your conscience. Unless, of course, your conscience is telling you to vote for John McCain or Hilary Clinton. Then you need to stay home.

(Thanks Chris)

This is the question blogger Jim Wallis asks. He asks this question in response to James Dobson's letter criticizing the National Evangelical Association's fight against global warming. Dobson's letter states:

More importantly, we have observed that others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.

Wallis questions Dobson's assertion and asks:

Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God’s children living on less than $2 per day? And isn’t the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right - climate change is real, is caused substantially by human activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths - then isn’t that also a great moral issue? Could global warming actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God’s creation?

Wallis concludes:

So, today, I am inviting you to have that debate about what the great moral issues of our time really are. Again, let’s ask a leading evangelical university to invite us both and host a public debate, and perhaps ask a major evangelical publication to co-sponsor it. Let’s have that debate, Jim, and see what America’s evangelicals think the great moral issues of our time really are. How about it?

This could be PBC's shining moment in the sun.

(Thanks: Andrew Sullivan)

I just had this emailed to me, maybe you've seen it before but I found it funny:

An open letter to Dr. Laura, by J. Kent Ashcraft, May 2000

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev -24). The problem is, how do I tell?

I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Lately, I have been spending a lot of time at the Boundless Blog. (Focus on the Family's blog for young people) It's a little like this blog, except the author's take themselves more seriously, and there are fewer tithing jokes.

In my favorite post so far, one the authors argues that Global Warming is a farce, and then the readers take him to task in the comment section. (All while loving him in Christ).

There are some good discussions going on over there, and it gives me hope that the next generation of Christians are going to be a little less Dobsonesque.

That's the question Boundless writer Scott Croft asks.

And his answer:

I believe the Bible to teach that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sin, and all romantically oriented physical activity is sexual activity. In my view, this includes premarital kissing.

Well, as I said before, "It's not premarital kissing, if you don't plan on getting married." But I still love the phrase, and I'm totally using it with my friends.

Also, Boundless has a blog. It's great fun.