Condemning Divisiveness By Being Divisive

You've got to hand it to Barack Obama.

He used his presidential campaign speech at a church to call for separation of church and state and then divided himself from the "religious right" by labeling the movement "divisive."

Not every rhetorician could get away with that kind of sleight of mouth.

First off, the very presence of Obama, speaking before the United Church of Christ's 50th anniversary national General Synod is somewhat remarkable.

He's running for president. And this is the congregation of Barry Lynn, the founder of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who runs a personal jihad against church involvement in politics.

But Obama explained why it's OK for him to solicit votes and support in churches: "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that separation of church and state in America means somehow faith should have no role in public life."

Without missing a beat, however, Obama reassured the audience that he indeed believed in separation of church and state, a concept that appears nowhere in America's founding documents.

"We can affirm our faith without endangering the separation of church and state, as long as we understand that when we're in the public square, we have to speak in universal terms that everyone can understand," he said.

Then, apparently in the name of unity, he attacked those in the church who actually stand upon clear, unambiguous biblical commandments and injunctions — labeling them "divisive." He denounced those "who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us."

He would never do that , of course.

Obama supports abortion on demand.

Obama supports homosexual unions. The Bible doesn't.

Obama opposes prayer in government schools. The Bible commands believers to pray unceasingly.

Obama opposes teaching the overwhelming evidence the world was created with an intelligent plan. The Bible reveals that plan.

Thus, anyone who stands up for the Bible in the political realm is "divisive," according to Obama — and, for that matter, every other candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama is just a little more skilled in his ability to navigate these choppy spiritual waters.

How does Obama do it? By going on offense. Finding himself on the wrong side of every biblical commandment pertaining to marriage, life and death and sexual abominations, he audaciously tells his audience, "I don't know what Bible they're reading."

That is what I call sleight of mouth.

Now, personally, I think the Bible speaks to us on a wide variety of issues — from economics to immigration. The Bible is the primary lens through which I view the world — and I hope that is true of most Christians and Jews.

However, where there is room for interpretation on issues like economics and immigration, there really is no room for error about homosexual conduct, which both the New Testament and Old Testament refer to as sin.

So, when Obama and his sin party tell homosexuals to revel in their condemned behavior, they are hardly being compassionate. They are encouraging people to continue practices that will send them to hell.

It would be one thing for the sin party to dismiss the scriptures, to say the Bible is no longer relevant, to suggest it's all a fable. But that's not what Obama does. He actually has the audacity to ignore the unambiguous world of God, pretending it does not say what it clearly does say.

I would hate to be in Obama's shows come Judgment Day. All I can say is, I hope he's got fireproof soles.

To find out more about Joseph Farah, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.