Pearls and Swine

Doctor James Dobson has criticized Barack Obama for "distorting" the Bible. First of all, everyone knows that distorting the Bible is Doctor Dobson's domain, so if there's going to be any biblical distortion, it will come on Doctor Jimmy's watch.
For some context, here are Obamas comments: He said Leviticus suggests slavery is okay and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
Doctor Dobson? "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
Well then. Is there any room for interpretation? Are we still stuck in the literal "forty days and forty nights" version of the most recent translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? And what part of the Sermon on the Mount is Obama distorting? "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Or maybe "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Let's see now, where would be find people being persecuted for righteousness' sake? What would the proper interpretation of that passage be in 2008?
Or maybe we should just be thankful for a separation between church and state. In which case Doctor Dobson should probably keep his feelings about Obama's a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution to himself.