When James Dobson criticized Barack Obama’s hermeneutics and theological analysis, Obama was quick to respond with a political barrage. Obama has the notion that Christians will like him if he talks about the Bible. Yet he knows that he cannot really adopt any particular interpretation, because that would immediately alienate those who follow some other. Therefore, he has attempted say nothing in a lot of words. Dobson has called his hand, by pointing out that his words don’t have any real meaning. Like the glib politician he is, Obama accuses Dobson of perverting the truth.

If anyone is perverting truth, it is Obama. I am not a follower of James Dobson, but I agree with his statements that Obama distorts the Bible and offers up an equally distorted interpretation of the Constitution. Obama has a reputation for promoting change and hope in his exalted speeches, but when you dig deep into his words, you find nothing. Empty words. His biblical interpretation and his Constitutional interpretation are empty words. They may come across as distortions, but if you read closely, they simply a cover-up for Obama’s unwillingness to tell us what he really thinks.

One of my dearest friends is a Democrat. She grew up Democrat, and in her adult life, she has always voted Democrat. She is a true believer in the liberal interpretation of the Constitution. However, even she observes that Obama is an empty suit. His speeches are full of words put together in a meaningless combination. Since her Ph.D. is in literature, I think I can rely on her ability to interpret words. Before she talked with me about Obama, I already thought his speeches were full of fluff, but I would have been willing to hear from her that I had missed something. Without any help from me, she volunteered that she will not vote for Obama, even though he is the Democrat candidate, because she has no idea what he stands for. She plans to vote for McCain. She said to me that she could not vote for Obama because, “I don’t know what kind of change he wants me to hope for.”

One of the problems with listening to Obama talk about religion, the Bible, or any other topic is that, if he is challenged, he changes his words. No matter what words he says today, if anybody really fights his words, he simply changes them. He told us that Jeremiah Wright was his spiritual mentor, but when people learned the kind of mentor Reverend Wright was, then Obama told us he never meant to imply that he actually learned anything from Reverend Wright. In other words, we were dumb to think that the word “mentor” meant “mentor.”

Likewise, when Obama talks about abortion, he cleverly calls it a “divisive” issue. Obama is nothing if not inclusive, so anything divisive is anathema. In his “landmark” speech about religion in 2006, he admonished religious leaders not to be “divisive.” The body of the speech implies that standing firm on any principle is the same thing as being “divisive.” Therefore, when I read his comments about abortion on his website, I interpret him to mean that any principle rejecting abortion as immoral is “divisive.” Apparently, condoning and maybe even encouraging the murder of babies still in the womb wisely avoids “divisive” speech. Furthermore, he classifies real human embryos wanted for stem cell research as “excess,” thereby excluding them from the human race rather than divisively advocating for their right to live. This language certainly avoids the stain of being “divisive.” It also avoids standing for any real principle.

James Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible to fit his own worldview. Obama is not alone in doing that. Lots of people quote or misquote the Bible for their own purposes. However, most of them are not running for president of the United States; their interpretations do not have the potential to affect our lives in any major way. If Obama were elected president, his interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the Bible would be important. He wants us to believe that his faith informs his acts. What little we can see of his faith makes me fear his acts. Among other things, I expect we would hear that his socialist agenda is an outgrowth of his interpretation of the Bible. Socialism is a dangerous political disease that hides behind the mask of kindness to others. A slick talker like Obama will surely try to make us believe that the gospel according to Karl Marx is simply a deep interpretation of the Golden Rule.

When election day comes, I will join my Democrat friend in voting for McCain. The continued strength and security of the United States is too important to take a chance on Obama. I don’t want any of the changes he hints at, even though it is extremely hard to guess what they might really be. I hope that many voters will see through his facade. I will vote for McCain. I hope you will join me.