Barack Obama is attempting to increase his appeal to evangelicals, but Family Research Council founder James Dobson is trying to put a stop to it:

As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement’s biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization’s headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.

The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

Some of the controversial comments made by Obama that Dobson will highlight include Obama saying Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application,” and “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” Ouch, I guess it’s already personal.

Dobson will have some extremely harsh words for Obama on his Tuesday radio show, and will accuse the Senator of “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.” Additionally, he will take a swipe at Obama’s support for abortion rights by stating he takes “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

To me, it seems pretty juvenile that a presidential candidate has to take part in debate with a kook like Dobson. But it’s American politics, where the wacky religious right still have way too much sway.

Places of worship are not immune from swine flu panic. Good luck getting so much as a taste of the blood of Christ in some churches:

When worshippers clasp hands to “pass the peace” or share the communion cup and offering plates, religious leaders around the country want to be sure they don’t also pass on swine flu.

Catholic churches in many dioceses with confirmed cases of the flu will not offer communion wine, and parishioners have been urged to bow or nod instead of offering a handshake.

Imams have been told the Friday communal prayer can be canceled and done privately. One rabbi is making hand sanitizer available to stave off germs that could be passed when the Torah is touched as it is carried throughout the synagogue.

Fearing your imminent death from this week’s trendy flu is no way to go through life. At least one holy man feels the same way:

Rabbi Mayshe Schwartz of The Chai Center in the Boston suburb of Brookline said he didn’t want to overreact.

“Unfortunately, more people will probably die this weekend in car accidents of drunk drivers than of swine flu,” Schwartz said. “The job is to create calm, not to create fear.”

More information has come out from Angels & Demons (the sequel to The Da Vinci Code)director Ron Howard that the Vatican won’t be blessing the new movie:

At a press conference Sunday, Howard said he hadn’t sought cooperation from the Vatican based on the opposition he encountered filming “The Da Vinci Code,” another Brown novel that angered many Catholic leaders.

But he said the Vatican nevertheless exerted influence regarding his filming permits, and he was told it would not be possible even to shoot scenes in Rome that had churches in the background.

“When you come to film in Rome, the official statement to you is that the Vatican has no influence,” he said. “Everything progressed very smoothly, but unofficially a couple of days before we were to start filming in several of our locations, it was explained to us that through back channels and so forth that the Vatican had exerted some influence.”

“Was I surprised? No. Am I a little frustrated at times? Sure,” he said.

Nevertheless he said he felt that he was able to preserve the overall “Angels & Demons” experience despite the restrictions by recreating scenes on sets. For the Sistine Chapel alone, some 20 members of the production crew — posing as tourists — took photos of all the frescoes, floor mosaics and paintings of the tiny chapel where popes are elected — until they were told to stop, the film’s Web site says.

. . .

The 2006 film “The Da Vinci Code” took in more than $750 million worldwide. It prompted calls for boycotts by church leaders worldwide with the idea that Jesus married and fathered children and by depicting the conservative Catholic movement, Opus Dei, as a murderous cult.

Reaction from church leaders to “Angels & Demons” has been more muted, though one Italian bishop, Monsignor Antonio Rosario Mennonna, said Saturday the film was “highly denigrating, defamatory and offensive” to the Catholic Church, the ANSA news agency reported.

It’s not like The Da Vinci Code was even that offensive to the Catholic Church — the plot had nothing to do with pedophile priests.

Showing that Ireland is yet to shed all of their Catholic traditions, an Irish politician is proposing anti-blasphemy legislation:

Dermot Ahern, Ireland’s justice minister, has proposed the legislation, which will outlaw anything seen as “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”. The legislation also includes fines of up to €100,000 for “blasphemous libel”, a move that Nugent and Atheist Ireland describe as “criminalising free speech”.

If passed, this would be one of the most repressive laws in any democratic country. But it seems unlikely that the law it will ever become law, and Irish atheists are having a good time making fun of the proposal. Leading the charge is the group Atheist Ireland and its co-founder, Michael Nugent.

“This new law will treat religious beliefs as more valuable than secular beliefs and scientific thinking,” Nugent said. He said the real solution to dealing with Ireland’s current blasphemy law was to remove all references to religion in the 1937 constitution.

“The bill’s first test of blasphemy is that religious adherents express outrage. Instead of encouraging outrage, we should be educating people to respond in a more healthy manner when somebody expresses a belief that they find insulting,” Nugent said. “More worryingly, this law would encourage the type of orchestrated outrage that Islamic fundamentalists directed against Danish cartoonists.”

The Dublin-based writer said many atheists found parts of the Bible insulting, but would not wish it to be banned or discussion about it closed down. “Parts of the Christian Bible suggest that women must not teach and must learn in silence, or that effeminate people are unrighteous, or that people should worship a god who threatens to make you eat your own children. But we do not believe the Bible should be banned, and neither should discussion of the Bible in terms that cause Christians to be outraged,” said Nugent.

Under the proposed law, Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, a spoof Irish republican extremist who sings in a Celtic shirt, could be prosecuted for his song The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, Nugent said.

Damn, you know it’s a bad law when it targets Ding Dong. Best of luck to Atheist Ireland.

A hint of sanity has been detected in Saudi Arabia:

An 8-year-old Saudi girl has divorced her middle-aged husband after her father forced her to marry him last year in exchange for about $13,000, her lawyer said Thursday. Saudi Arabia has come under increasing criticism at home and abroad for permitting child marriages. The United States, a close ally of the conservative Muslim kingdom, has called child marriage a “clear and unacceptable” violation of human rights.

The girl was allowed to divorce the 50-year-old man who she married in August after an out-of-court settlement had been reached in the case, said her lawyer, Abdulla al-Jeteli. The exact date of the divorce was not immediately known.

A court in the central Oneiza region previously rejected a request by the girl’s mother for a divorce and ruled that the girl would have to wait until she reached puberty to file a petition then.

There are no laws in Saudi Arabia defining the minimum age for marriage. Though a woman’s consent is legally required, some marriage officials don’t seek it.

Of course, most of their sanity was already lost when they were allowed to marry.