Shouldn't Obama swear by Karl Marx rather than the Bible?

 

If anyone doubts that Lawrence O’Donnell hates Christianity, then he should go to the website of The Daily Caller and watch him in action. A transcript of his diatribe does not do justice to what possesses him—you have to see him strut his stuff to get a sense of his true pathology.

 

O’Donnell starts his rant by focusing on Atlanta Pastor Louie Giglio; the evangelical minister who bowed to pressure from homosexual activists by agreeing not to give the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural. Pastor Giglio’s crime? He’s a Christian. Practicing Christians, along with observant Jews, Mormons, Muslims and millions of others, accept the Biblical teachings on the sinfulness of homosexuality. In the 1990s, Giglio addressed this subject, citing Christian teachings, and that was enough to set off the alarms in gay quarters.

 

Over the past few decades, many homosexuals and theologians have tried to argue that the Bible’s passages condemning homosexuality should not be read as condemning homosexuality. In their postmodern mind, they say that interpretation is wrong. O’Donnell, to his credit, knows these savants are delusional. While he readily admits that the Bible condemns homosexuality, his level of cognitive development does not allow him to discern the difference between behavior and status, which is why he falsely claims the Bible condemns “gay people.”

 

The problem for O’Donnell is not Giglio, it’s the Bible. He says the practice of presidents putting their hand on the Bible is “one of our most absurdist [sic] traditions.” Furthermore, he says that because Obama embraces the gay agenda, he should not swear on the Bible. The point is not without merit. Given Obama’s ideology, perhaps it would make more sense for him to swear on Das Kapital.