"Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8." Is this over the line?

Story here:

So, is this meme a good old American-style sassy political joke, or screaming-evil eliminationist hatred, or simply in poor taste? Or something else?

For context, here’s the whole Psalm (KJV).

The slogan specifically references verse 8, so it’s difficult to argue that the following verses are meant as well. It seems to be the usual veiled dig, where folks can claim innocently that they’re merely opposing Obama politically, while those who wish to can secretly enjoy the more disturbing thoughts.

It’s hard to see how this is “hilarious,” though.

I call it another use of religion to justify just about anything most rational people find abhorrent.

Aren’t you yourself committing the same error? Those who look at subsequent verses should look at previous ones. Obama doesn’t fit that bill.

Christian Science Monitor:
Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. It seems to me that this Psalm was chosen specifically because it talks about the kinds of things that some radical religious types want to happen to the president (c.f., the pastor in California, IIRC, who is praying for Obama to die). I’ve looked at the subsequent verses, and I don’t see anything that would not apply to Obama, or any other reviled (by some) leader.

Perhaps he is and around here (SDMB) that matters.

However, I think it is abundantly clear that those who would use a religious text as a justification for violence tend to be exceptionally choosy in their reading and narrow in their interpretations. The Bible has been cited by all manner of hate purveyors to justify their actions. Nevermind that in the larger context of the Bible overall it almost never makes any sense (Jesus preached love and tolerance afterall which is the opposite of what these types are on about).

So, I think to say this is ok because all who read it will get the full context of the whole thing rather than just the parts that fit their worldview is naive.

Yes there were various things/people expressing hate and violence at Bush but the level directed at Obama has gone off the charts to the point the Secret Service is worried that they can meet their obligation of sufficient protection for him while maintaining their other traditional tasks.

Jesus also preached Hell and damnation. And the OT is chock-full of smiting. Psalm 109 is one of those considered “problematic,” because it’s hard to read it as anything other than a prayer for vengeance.

Of course, the way it begins –

– sounds like something Obama could with justice be saying about now.

I do wish these people would read the entire Bible. I realize Psalms has a great deal of fun smiting, whining and calling down of God’s fury, and there’s nothing like Leviticus if you want to find something really juicy to help you exalt yourself over your neighbor and to condemn them, but the New Testament does suggest that people might actually consider being nice to each other. Honestly, stick it out, it gets better.
Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

It’s not worth getting hysterical over the imagined evil hordes who, in reality, have far less political power than even the average well-connected intellectual.

That verse must be what The Fellowship/The Family is thinking of in their power-worship version of Christianity. (I wonder if they apply it to Obama.)

Doesn’t make them harmless. That characterization would apply to Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, etc.

So you are warning that some right-wing activist may assassinate Obama. Do you want to go on record with odds for that? Higher odds lend more weight to the scare but then you look sillier if wrong.

I think it’s just a joke. You’re turning around the “pray for him” statement.

How would you calculate the odds? But the Secret Service has that he’s getting a record number of threats and they are overburdened dealing with them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he is; and I’m sure the majority of the right will cheer, even if not in public.

And why should I believe that? The Right loves to make obvious threats and then berate people for taking them seriously. And then fake being horrified when someone actually gets gunned down.

I seriously doubt it. The rules surely don’t apply to a Muslim.

Somebody might have to help me with a cite, but I feel certain I heard Mark Sanford comparing his situation to that of King David and Bathsheba. The Family seems to be pretty big on the idea that since they are God’s elect, the commandments are more or less optional for them.

The Family scares the living crap out of me.

Oh, yeah:

Words have power. Pen is mightier than the sword and all that.

I think you would agree there are wingnuts on both sides of the political spectrum with religious zealots being particularly prone to violence in service of their wingnuttery.

One group saying, “I hate GWB, I wish he’d catch swine flu and die” is not of the same ability to call to action as citing scripture calling for the death of a person.

The two things are not equivalent.

My bible classes and bible reading is long behind me now but my sense was (in my church anyway) that the NT supersedes the OT. The NT takes precedence and it is more accurate to say Jesus was about love and tolerance than kicking ass (even if he had some moments where he thought ass kicking was ok). I do not think Jesus was down with the whole smiting and fire and brimstone stuff.

I fully admit I could have that wrong though but I don’t think so.

Because if it had been an obvious threat, it would have been cited Psalm 109:8-10.

The story of Lazarus and Dives makes pretty clear Jesus believed in the doctrine of Hell and was not especially troubled by it. There are other verses.