On Tuesday, James Dobson ”” a prominent evangelical leader ”” took exception to Obama’s 2006 speech.
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said on his Focus on the Family radio program, which claims 200 million listeners worldwide.
For 18 minutes, Dobson excoriated Obama for his political stands ”” especially Obama’s belief that a politician must take into account a variety of views on moral issues.
“Now that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution,” Dobson said. “This is why we have elections. To support what we believe to be wise and moral. We don’t have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which is what he is suggesting.”
Not surprisingly, Shaun Casey, who advises Obama on religious issues, argues that the candidate’s view is a mainstream interpretation of the Constitution. Casey says Dobson’s criticism is not really about theology. On the one hand, Casey says, Dobson is frustrated that Republicans chose John McCain as their nominee, a man whom Dobson has said publicly he will not vote for.
“And I think on the other hand, he’s frustrated that Sen. Obama’s outreach to evangelicals seems to be getting some traction at the grass-roots level, as well as among a number of prominent evangelical leaders,” he adds.
Does anyone with a mind really listen to Dobson? Sheesh.
I am categorically not voting for Obama. But… I do not care much for James Dobson either. His criticisms of Barack Obama’s speech have some validity but methinks he goes way too far.
Obama’s spin doctor is in the zone.
Dobson misses the mark here. If we want to criticize Obama’s biblical exegesis, how about his statement that the unlimited abortion license is supported by the Sermon on the Mount?
Clearly Obama’s outreach to evangelicals & Catholics has spooked power players like Dobson.
I am so encouraged by this response:
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday that he belongs to a group of religious leaders who are working independently of Obama’s campaign and launching a Web site to counter Dobson at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com.
Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson’s advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was “a bit over the top†and “crossed the line.â€
“There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking,†Caldwell said. “So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable.â€
deleted
What Obama dis is what so many liberals do. They find passages in Scripture that they don’t like, gets in the way of their political agenda (or understand) and tear them out of the Bible. Very Marcionite in their approach. Kind of like 1 and 5.
You can’t do solid exegesus by sound bites and that’s what Obama did. He did what the liberals like to do. Find a passage in Scripture that we don’t do today or don’t really understand, and then say that the rest should be discarded too, unless of course the passage agrees with their social agenda. If you want to get rid of Leviticus fine, but lets get rid of it all including that “neighbor” nonsince, because (Lev. 19:18) is where it comes from. It is within the same block of material that condems homosexual practice and a whole range of sexual sin (Chapter 18). It is all part of the Holiness Code.
Dobson was right to call Obama on it. If Obama wants to use Scripture than let him use it responsibly. Obama displayed a casual contempt for Scripture that he deserves to be called on.
I think both of them are in the wrong. Obama oversimplified — actually, misrepresented — what the bible has to say about slavery, shellfish, discipline, etc. His overall point — that public policy can’t be determined by how one group of people interpret the bible — was a fair one. Dobson went way over the line with his criticism.
#5 Mr. Carlton,
Which of Dr. Dobson’s statements on this subject do you think are “over the top”, “inappropriate” and/or “unacceptable” as your quoting of Mr. Caldwell state? Or is this just a chance to pick on Dr. Dobson?
Instead of saying that Christians must accept the “the lowest common denominator of morality,” as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn’t advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite–that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then have to engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best of all with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.
deleted
#6 Wamark, you might provide evidence about Obama being a “fraud.” Otherwise, it sounds foolish, as if you are the one being duped.
Dobson is clearly spooked. If Obama weren’t on to something, why would Dobson respond?
Br. Michael, alas, I think you do the same thing. Further, Obama didn’t actually try to dismiss the bible. But he did raise the uncomfortable truth that most conservative evangelicals can’t explain their beliefs to people of other faiths very well, without getting self-referential. It is a presumption to say that just because parts of the bible are challenging and discarded that one assumes the entire thing is irrelevant.
As far as reducing scripture to soundbites, that’s exactly what Dobson has done!
Well, the question is Obama a Christian first or a politicin first? I think he is a politicion first.
As for his analysis of how Christians of different stripes relate to people of other faiths in a pluralistic society, I think he raises a real issue. There are better examples of differences among Christians, of course.
Bottom line: I wouldn’t pick him or McCain to be pastor at my church…but then again, that’s not the job they are applying for.
edited
Well, John Wilkins #12, some people might wonder about the integrity of Obama loudly and repeatedly challenging his Republican opponent to participate in the public campaign financing system, following which he swore to do the same, only to end up at, “never mind.”
Or, a reasonable person could be forgiven for thinking it’s a fraud when Obama, with his wife and young children in tow, sits in front of a nutcase, racist preacher for 20 years, but then claims he’s shocked – shocked! – at the content of the preacher’s sermons.
Certainly, it appears fraudulent, in a politically calculating kind of way, to rail against Countrywide Financial and the mortgage industry, then bring on board a long-time Washington fixer deeply involved in both to vet VP candidates. Or coo about the need to respect both sides of the abortion issue, while supporting taxpayer-funded culling of babies and the right to murder the result of a botched abortion – what the rest of us call, “a baby.” Or rip NAFTA while dispatching a principal economic advisor to tell the Canadians not to worry about the rhetoric. Or pledge to the voters an immediate pullout from Iraq while telling the Iraqi Foreign Minister in George-Bush-like language that nothing will be done without consultation with the generals or that would affect the security situation on the ground. And so on.
You get the picture: there’s more than enough basis for calling Obama a “fraud.”
I listen to Focus on the Family almost every morning driving to work. There’s a lot of good stuff on his program regarding how to raise kids and have good relationships. I have to say I don’t agree with a bunch of Dobson’s political statements, the worst with me being his continuing endorsement of Gingrich. Dobson has a big blind spot as to people’s personal character so long as they are saying the things he wants to hear regarding preserving family values. But the fact is tha Obama took the first potshot at Dobson, so he can’t complaint if Dobson responds.
The reference to Dobson was not a pot shot. Obama simply said which Christianity are we going to promote, Dobson’s or Sharpton’s. He was basically asking how do we choose which version of Christianity to embrace as a nation and cited Dobson and Sharpton as two self-proclaimed Christians who have sharply divided views. There may have been another quote in there (I’ll admit I haven’t read the whole speech), but that is the only one I have seen reported.
Being compared to a professional race-baiting phony minister like Al Sharpton sounds like a disagreeable potshot to me.
Br Michael
If Obama wants to use Scripture than let him use it responsibly. Obama displayed a casual contempt for Scripture that he deserves to be called on.
There’s calling him on it as you did in a firm and reasoned manner and then there is going on for 18 minutes of near-hysterics. I prefer your way.
#17, you’re closer to the point than #16; you are right that in its context the comment was not a direct pot shot per se. Obama was actually talking about the challenge of religious pluralism, pointing out that even if the U.S. were only comprised of only Christians (which is obviously not the case) we would still need to learn how to live together and govern fairly. Sharpton and Dobson were chosen as exemplars of self-professing Christians who are diametrically opposed on all things political — it was illustrative and rhetorical. Does it cast Dobson in a flattering light? Well, no. Point granted. Then again, maybe Sharpton was offended as well. 🙂 The point was to pick two prominent figures who represent poles on political matters and who, at least to some, seem extreme in those views.
deleted
deleted
Obama’s theology is off the mark? You mean God didn’t d**n the US of KKK-A for inventing the AIDS virus and deliberately infecting African-Americans?
I can’t think why either would be offended, except that they really wanted to be. Obama was critical of neither and did not assert that either was right or wrong. He simply offered two prominent religious figures as examples of how diametrically opposed opinions can be within Christianity. I guess they are being compared, but only to display their obvious differences.
This is silly. I think the founders had it right when they said: “no religious test.” I think we need to go further and preclude religious discussion by the candidates. First Amendment be damned! Just because you have the right to speak doesn’t mean you always should! Political figures rarely have anything worthwhile to say about theological issues. (see e.g.: W telling Christians, Muslims and Jews that we all worship the same God.) But they can’t seem to keep their mouths shut.
Brian, it appears from one (disturbing and quickly abandoned) Google search that you are quite right. I wondered about that — but hoped it wasn’t true — which is why I asked.
#6, do you really want to be like that?
#23, really?
This makes me wonder: Why does the mention of Obama inspire this sort of stuff from some Christians? Disagree, fine; talk policy and even values; but why so vile? Does this say something about the “fullness of the heart” (Luke 6:45)?
(placing bets that someone will remind me that Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” . . . )
Obama’s theology is off the mark? You mean God didn’t d**n the US of KKK-A for inventing the AIDS virus and deliberately infecting African-Americans?
By the same standards then I would say your theology is astonishingly revisionist and liberal. For whatever period of time you were an official member of TEC, your leaders were ++Griswol, ++Katharine and even possibly ++Browning. Now, of course Senator Obama has condemned WPator Wright’s comments, but then Jeffersonian you condemned the leaders of TEC. What’s a simple reappraiser like me to think?
[i]#23, really?[/i]
Really…what? I asked a question.
#24 talitjhad wrote:
[i]Political figures rarely have anything worthwhile to say about theological issues. (see e.g.: W telling Christians, Muslims and Jews that we all worship the same God.)[/i]
Christians, Muslims, and Jews worshipping the same God? W must have been reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I guess the rumors of him aiming for the Tiber might be true.
[blockquote]By the same standards then I would say your theology is astonishingly revisionist and liberal. For whatever period of time you were an official member of TEC, your leaders were ++Griswol, ++Katharine and even possibly ++Browning. Now, of course Senator Obama has condemned WPator Wright’s comments, but then Jeffersonian you condemned the leaders of TEC. What’s a simple reappraiser like me to think? [/blockquote]
At the time I joined TEC (in 1992), I wouldn’t have known the PB if I had tripped over him. I did, however, begin to hear increasingly politicized sermons from our rector and told him I found them objectionable and wrong-headed to boot. I eventually left TEC as a result, and long before VGR oozed onto the scene.
I will say that none of the sermons I found so objectionable came anywhere near Crazy Jerry’s tirades, and had they been such examples of fulminating lunacy, I would have departed immediately. Under no circumstance would I have remained, given tens of thousands of dollars to any organization run or related to my rector…and then opined that there was “nothing particularly controversial” about his unhinged ranting.
What to think? I’ll leave that up to you, B.
Brian’s comparison in #26 is astonishingly uninformed. I know he can do better.
The very idea of James Dobson accusing anyone of “deliberately distorting the Bible to support his own worldview” sends my irony meter all the way up to 11…
[blockquote]Does anyone with a mind really listen to Dobson? Sheesh. [/blockquote]
He’s a bogeyman NPR rolls out to menace the listenership with now and then. Say what you want about NPR, but they know their clientele.
My big problem with Obama and scripture is that he makes statements that in my mind are just nutty. He said “..or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount-a passage that is so radical it’s doubtful that our own defense department would survive it’s application”. The defense department exists to protect America and destroy America’s enemies. How would you even apply that. Would our toops have to share ammunition, supplies and give the advantage to the enemy to comport with scripture? As my Grand mother used to say “it’s just loopy”. Obama makes this kind of statement all the time. Obama seems to want to do to the Evangelicals what the liberals have done to TEC. Lets find common ground and dialogue, then you compromise to my positon. How do you dialogue with some one who won’t vote against killing a child that has been born alive after a botched abortion?
Jeffersonian – you must be kidding.
Dobson was named “The Most Influential Evangelical Leader in America” by Christianity Today magazine, and Slate has termed him the successor to evangelical leaders Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. His daily radio program Focus on the Family, which is broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on over 7,000 stations worldwide, is heard daily by more than 220 million people in 164 countries. In 1981 he founded the Family Research Council as a political arm through which “social conservative causes” could achieve greater political influence.
I can honestly say, Bob, that outside of MSM mentions of Dobson as a mouth-breathing troglodye, I think I’ve heard Dobson’s name mentioned once in the past 15 years. This, coming from a fellow right-wing madman.
Why is it assumed that Dobson was offended by his name being in the speech? For that matter why are some people so concerned that a Christian broadcaster and political leader, would comment about a speech made by any political speech, which references material interests he advocates?
Dr. Dobson has just as much of a right and responsibility to point out what he sees as errors in political speech and policies as the anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-choice, or environmental political leaders. What seems to be the issue is that Dobson disagreed with and pointed out the errors he heard in the media’s favored political candidate.
As to the motives of Dr. Dobson, they are obvious aren’t they, he is attempting to promote his views on morality, biblical values that he and many of his “10 Million” listeners support. I’m no more shocked by what Dr. Dobson said, than I am shocked by the Rev. Caldwell’s rejection of Dr. Dobson’s comments.
I’m for more speech, not less, let people speak. Agree or disagree.
#15 – heh, phil, he still comes out smelling a lot sweeter than most other politicians. And smarter, too. He’s in it to win, and there’s no reason to expect the Republicans to play nice. Clearly, since you’ve bought into their game, he’s doing the right thing.
If anyone thought Obama was incapable of fighting, he’s pretty much shown that he’s able to play political ball. This should be a pretty good predictor for how he’ll handle the international sphere.
I admit, the things you mention, well, I wonder if any politician would satisfy your demands. Clearly McCain wouldn’t (Hm, Charlie black has a lot more blood on his hands than anyone Obama’s affiliated with; getting out of public financing was… smart; and we disagree that Wright is a racist – I went to that church several times, after all, and wasn’t kicked out nor did I feel uncomfortable; and the rest – well, I wonder which politician would say everything everyone wanted to hear; and it just seems like a media constructed conflict about Johnson. I mean, what does his connection have to do with giving Obama advice? He’s not advocating financial policy! It’s just a bunch of people desperate to find something, so they find the trivial).
If you find such a politician who smells as sweet as you desire – who could also get elected – tell me. I’ve said repeatedly that Obama’s a politician first. But he is also one who demonstrates an ability to listen to others and has every intention to include a wider variety of voices than Bush ever had. You should be thankful that Obama would listen to conservatives in order to have good policy.
And it looks like he’ll have far more of a mandate for liberal policies than Bush had for conservative ones.
Jefferson, that you haven’t heard from him doesn’t demonstrate that Dobson’s small time. If someone had told me he hadn’t heard of Al Franken, I wouldn’t think that Al Franken was small time….
Dobson isn’t small time, but he’s lost quite a bit of influence over the past ten years. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/dr-dobson-has-just-handed_b_108989.html]Frank Schaeffer[/url] opined:
[blockquote]As a result of his power grabs and bullying of other evangelicals, not to mention his telling people how to vote and pointing them to the failed W, Dobson & Co. have zero credibility with a growing number of otherwise conservative evangelicals who happen–this year–to be looking favorably at Senator Obama’s holistic Christian-based world view. Unlike Dobson they like Obama’s theology just fine.
All that was missing to put the frosting on the Obama cake was for Dobson to attack him. For Obama to win all he needs to do is peel off a chunk of heretofore solid evangelical Republican votes. Dobson just handed Obama those votes. [/blockquote]
John W., I’m a realist and have no problem living in a world with unprincipled politicians. Obama, however, having stage-managed himself to be a different kind of the breed and even a secular messiah, has basically asked to be held to a higher standard, so I’ll oblige: he doesn’t come close. And yes, I do think Obama’s worse than McCain on the integrity score.
Also consider that on the initial question of whether Obama might be judged a fraud, McCain’s merits or lack thereof are irrelevant.
I’m not saying Dobson is small time, I’m questioning his supposed influence. I travel in religious and political circles where his message supposedly resonates, yet I hear precisely zero from or about him. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you’d fallen for the bogeyman treatment he gets from the left-secular media, John.
Jeffersonian, you really are funny.
Dobson stands in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ”life issues” of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research. Dobson, 69, is arguably the dominant ideologist of the movement.
His influence is so considerable among conservatives that, before President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, White House adviser Karl Rove reportedly called Dobson with private assurances about Miers’s judicial philosophy.
Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, described Dobson as ”the most respected and influential person in evangelical Christendom.”
deleted
wamark,
your use of this metaphor is shameful & well below the standards of this blog
—–
[i]wamark’s comments now deleted. Agreed they are below the blog’s standards. Wamark, any further infraction and you will be in moderation[/i]
[blockquote]Dobson stands in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ‘’life issues†of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research. Dobson, 69, is arguably the dominant ideologist of the movement. [/blockquote]
Dobson started his organization 27 years ago. How have those issues you listed been going since, and how did Miers do in that confirmation process?
I love self-refuting arguments.
I’ve deleted a bunch of comments related to Wamark’s crude language. Any further continuation of that theme or discussion will result in the thread being closed.
Apologies to all readers for missing the original infraction by Wamark, been busy trying to follow GAFCON as well as do some work in my day job.
–elfgirl
The James Dobson that made these remarks is not the same James Dobson that I have listened to for the past 20 years.
🙂