Okay, huh? Really. James Dobson (shudder), who uses the Old Testament to support hatred and discrimination against a certain segment of the American population, apparently had his staff go hunting through archives until they came upon a 2006 speech given by Barack Obama in which Obama said that it would be hard to govern based solely on the bible because some Old Testament stuff like owning slaves being cool with The Big Guy and eating shrimp and grits being a going to hell offense wouldn't go over so well in today's multi-spiritual America. (Sheesh, what a Faulkner-esque sentence!)
So Dobson (who I've read suggests that young boys take showers with their fathers so these boys can see their father's big grown up penises and have something manly to aspire to) says that Barack Obama should not be "referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages" from the Old Testament that are "no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament."
But isn't that where the fundies get their ammunition to continue to spew hatred in the form of "God's love" against gays?
So, do I have this straight? The Old Testament is relevant if it supports your bias, irrelevant if it does not?
Is that how it is?
Loki sez: Eww.