Dobson's a dork
Okay, not really a dork. But still.
Now this is going to get awfully long, and I apologize, but Dr. Dobson's broadcast really pissed me off.
In case you missed it, Tuesday Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and the unofficial leader of the Christian Right, the man millions of Americans turn to for direction in voting decisions, decried Obama as "confused" and a "fruitcake." He did so in a scathing deconstruction (his discussion of Obama starts at the 11 minute mark of his broadcast) of Obama's brilliant 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech on the place of faith in politics.
Now, I don't know if Dobson has watched or read the entire speech. But I have done so several times, and the delivery is one of the finest in a generation of politics. Either Dr. Dobson did not read the entire text, or worse, if he did, he deliberately distorted the meaning and purpose of Obama's remarks.
Dobson takes segments of the speech out of context to suggest that Obama
- 1. lacks the Biblical understanding necessary to derive appropriate political direction from the Scriptures.
- 2. desires an entirely secular government based on the "lowest common denominator of morality."
- 3. endorses legislation of ethics/morality only if 100% of Americans agree, thereby rendering any ethical legislation impossible.
- 4. "doesn't give a flip" about the preservation of the family.
Here is my response to Dr. Dobson's allegations:
1. Dr. Dobson uses Obama's discussion of Exodus, Leviticus, and Matthew, to suggest that Obama is equating Old Testament law with New Testament grace, and that Obama somehow believes OT law offers political direction just as legitimate at that derived from the Sermon on the Mount.
That's absurd. Anyone listening to the entire context of Obama's remarks would understand that Obama is simply suggesting that we cannot rely on any one sacred text alone to determine our colective political course. The decisions of government must be rooted in the will of the people (which indeed is often determined by our beliefs and our faith) combined with the written parameters defining the scope and purpose of our government.
2. Dr. Dobson continues his analysis in suggesting that because Obama does not see Scripture alone as a valid source for law, Obama is proposing a secular state, an amoral state. Again, that's not what Obama was saying. Why would he even make such a proposal while speaking at a church venue in a forum dedicated to the renewal of faith in politics?
What Obama is suggesting is that when we as Christians desire to effect change in political direction, we cannot rely simply on our own Scriptural interpretation to do so. We must appeal the law of our land and the purpose of our government when forming our arguments. It is possible to ground most of our moral and ethical arguments in these, and in doing so our arguments and movements become legally stronger, not weaker.
3. Dobson suggests that because 70% of Americans are self-proclaimed Christians, the Christian voice effectively serves as a majority voice, and majority rule. He caricatures Obama as believing that 70% is not enough, that "we the people" means every last person must be in agreement in order to effect any change. But obviously Obama is not suggesting a need for unanimity in direction.
What Obama is suggesting is that this nation was founded on the notion that there will be no official American relgion no matter how great the number of adherents. Neither 70% nor even 100% of the population following one religion is enough to make that religion the foundation of our laws. This is why Obama rightfully asserts that we as Christians must be able to make our policy arguments independent of Scriptural citation. If we as Christians are allowed simply to appeal to Scripture to make policy changes, we've effectively become the state-sponsored religion.
4. Dr. Dobson says that none of the three candidates has uttered "a single word" on the importance of preserving the family. This is patently false. Obama has won accolades by being unafraid to challenge Americans to stop making excuses and start effecting change in their own homes. He's said we have to turn off the TV and start spending time with our kids. He's said we need to get "Uncle Willie" off the couch and help him find a job. He's said we need to show our youth how to invest in the community to help break the cycle of broken families. And Obama, unlike his opponent, has honored his commitment to his marriage.
Throughout the broadcast, Dobson and Minnery are openly mocking of Obama's message, his church, and his faith. This strikes me as the utmost in hubristic self-righteousness and utterly inappropriate for a Christian leader. Last I checked judgmentalism was not among the fruits of the Spirit, and it is His throne, not ours, that was established for judgment.
At one point Dr. Dobson and the show's moderator have this exchange:
Tom Minnery: I think he is dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter, I just don't know whether he's doing it willfully or accidentally.
James Dobson, replying to Minnery: I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theoogy.
Well, this is my take. Dobson and Minnery are clearly dragging Obama's message through the gutter. I just don't know for certain whether they're doing it willfully and accidentally. But when I think about it, it seems they're deliberately distorting Obama's remarks to fit their own political views and their own confused agenda.
Technorati Tags: 
- Barbara Gordon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I was taken aback when I
Dobson is an odd cookie. I
Dobson is an odd cookie. I don't know if he's a victim of his own success or what.
What's really interesting is that he admitted in the discussion that he's not a minister and he holds no religious credentials. Then why would he presume that he has the authority to pick apart Obama's theology?
He also admitted that in over two decades of ministry, his show has never dedicated a broadcast to the analysis of a political figure before. So why now? Clearly he has identified Obama as public enemy number one. At the same time, he complained throughout the broadcast of the Republicans' failure to accomplish anything on behalf of the religious right, and he's threatening to have his flock abandon the party.
He has requested feedback on his decision to devote an entire show to his political analysis. I haven't decided if I want to give him my two cents or not.
Don't give him two cents,
Great write up Barbara. I
Great write up Barbara. I grew up with Dr. Dobson's influence in my life(I read "Preparing for Adolescence" when I was 12 and the radio show "Focus on the Family" was often played regularly on our car rides). Dr. Dobson and the christians like him who gave their oath of fealty to the republican party in the 90s, their convoluted support of the government played a substantial role in my personal evolution away from their faith and into atheism. He may talk a good game about the New Testament, but there is little that is christ like about his actions or attitudes.
I honestly believe this criticism is a political ploy to save face as he prepares to compromise himself to back McCain. I say this based on this quote "I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are … I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience"
It seems when the influence and relevancy of these "men of god" are threatened, they need scapegoats to blame for their coming flip flops. Right now, Dobson is setting Obama up to be that scapegoat. Obama will be the reason, and not Dobson's own need for political relevancy, that he violates his conscience.
dude, we totally grew up in
dude, we totally grew up in the same family!! I had to read that book. Did you get the magazines, too??
I don't know if it's a ploy. He spent the first ten minutes of the broadcast lambasting McCain (and he concluded with another jab), and he threatened to have his forces pull out from the GOP.
No, not the magazines, just
No, not the magazines, just the radio show and the book. I'll bet you know about Open Forum and Howard Camping? As well as the program "Unshackled"? :D
I know what he was saying about pulling out from the GOP but one thing I know about these phonies, their political influence is more important than their principles and he will not do it. He's bluffing. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, I win either way, but he won't. He's a good little partisan and he knows who and what he really serves. And it ain't Christ.
For my Religious RFO friends
For my Religious RFO friends who were angered by Dobson's comments or are just sick of his worldly unchristlike partisanship in general, This site sprung up in response to his comments about Obama.
It's Ok Barbara to call
It's Ok Barbara to call Dobson a dork. He certainly is behaving like one :)
Great blog entry, Barbara!
Great blog entry, Barbara! How can a self made minister dare to sit in judgement on the heart of another human being? Why does Dobson decide now to preach on a politican? Could it be that the religious right is running scared?
Benjamin, I found that website a couple of days ago and signed up. It's time that those of us who are Christians take back the values that Christianity stands for.
I have something to say, and
I have something to say, and I hope it won't anger or offend anyone. Please remember that I'm a very strong Christian, and try to live my life as a walk of faith. BUT...
<If we as Christians are allowed simply to appeal to Scripture to make policy changes, we've effectively become the state-sponsored religion.>
Or a religion-sponsored state? If we, as Christians, control law and policy making, are we any different from the Muslim nations that war over which religious sect will be in control? They each think that their belief system is "right" and should therefore control their government. Which Christian theology would be in control of our government? Would one denomination begin to plot to "overthrow" another for political power? Is this what we want our nation to be? NO WAY!
I do believe our nation is guided by the religious/moral values of it's leaders, simply because it is a part of who they are, and a part of what forms their opinions on various issues. But our forefathers were very wise in keeping the two separate, as a president is president of every American citizen, no matter what their religous beliefs may or may not be. But none of us have the right to impose our beliefs on the rest of the country. Those matters belong between an individual and their God, not in the White House or Congress.
I'm telling you all. I'm a
I'm telling you all. I'm a democrat, but I think Barbara would make a great congresswoman. Lord knows we need more prinicple people in government. Her wrinting has really grown on me and I look for her opinion frequently. I sense a great intellectual mind.
DraftBarbara.org?
Are you kidding me? Barbara
I think Obamas problem is
I think Obamas problem is he's essentially a secularist Liberal in the traditional sense...almost an anachronism. But he feels that he has to play at being the "traditional Christian" and show he has a "traditional family". Why? I'm not really sure...but essentially he's a Lib in Cons clothing, and because it's phoney, and not really him, occasionally it rears up and bites him (cf. Reverend Wright).
That's just the way things are...if you go messing with Chrisitianity, and its because your trying to get something from people...yeah...watch out!
Would you be interested in
<if you go messing with
<if you go messing with Chrisitianity, and its because your trying to get something from people...yeah...watch out!>
jaba..... I assume that you also mean that this applies to Christians like Hagee, Parsley, Swaggart, ad nauseum.
Mom is Friend of Dobson
Mom is Friend of Dobson
Barbara,
This was incredibly well put. Thank you so very much! Let me take a minute to explain to you why I appreciate your well thought-out argument.
I grew up in the Nazarene church in Pasadena, CA. My mother served on the church staff, and back in the 80s, Jim Dobson was a member of the congregation of our church (before "Focus on the Family" moved to Colorado). Dr. Dobson is friends with my mom and knows me. Although he and I are not friends, I would call him an acquaintance, and in the past I respected his opinions and what he had to say. I am saddened by this latest turn of events and have lost respect for Dr. Dobson as a person and as a man of God.
Being an avid Obama supporter, I have spent countless hours talking with family, friends, and co-workers about this remarkable candidate and what he could do for us as a nation if elected. Being a Republican myself and hailing from an evangelical background, I feel I bring some credence to the argument when I tell folks that I am a Republican who has made the educated decision to vote for the Democratic nominee - because obviously I had to do a lot of research and analyzation before I decided to reject the nominee of the party who's values typically mirror my own (for the most part). A person of particular importance to me in this ongoing dialogue is my mother. My mother is an incredibly intelligent woman. She gained her bachelor's degree in the 60's when it was still unpopular for women to do so; she has had an incredibly successful career in terms of how many people she has touched through her ministry (in a male-dominated ministry environment); and in addition to working full time and being in her 60's, just attained her master's degree. I didn't need Hillary to show me that women could do anything, I had Carol Wagstaff. So when I make an academic argument, Carol Wagstaff is my litmus test as to whether the arguments I am making will hold water in a scholarly environment. In certain cases where I feel I am right but cannot win mom over, I don't necessarily think that makes me wrong (although sometimes it does), but that I need to somehow work on my argument - that I am missing some key proofs to what I have to say.
Right now, my mother and I are strolling through the marketplace of ideas regarding the November elections, and I feel like I have made some pretty convincing arguments as to why she should, in fact, vote for Sen. Obama. So much so, that after the last e-mail I sent regarding the subject, she has not touched the subject - and it was almost a month ago that I sent it. She finally responded this week, no later than 48 hours after Dobson's comments were reported. Unfortunately, mom puts a lot of stock in what Dr. Dobson has to say. To her credit for that matter, until about 3 days ago, so did I. Her reply simply stated that she disagreed with me, and that she didn't have time at that moment, but that she would get back to me. Now I have no idea what mom will say when she does, in fact, get back to me; but I would be willing to bet large sums of money that it will either be a copy and paste of what Dobson said, or an argument based off of his comments.
All of that to say (boy I am longwinded!) I have been planning to write her back with a preemptive commentary about what he said, but having read your post - so perfectly the arguments made - I am saved the trouble by doing a copy and paste (to which I WILL credit you). I am hopeful that your reasoned arguments will strike a chord with her. Thank you again!
-Dave
"I grew up in the Nazarene
"I grew up in the Nazarene church in Pasadena, CA."
High-fives here from an ENC alumn!
Dave, We are so happy to
Dave,
We are so happy to have you stop by, and I'm glad you appreciate my thoughts. I'm on vacation right now, so I'm not going to post you a full response just now (please forgive), but I'll get back to you in a couple of days.
Feel free to use the ideas above. I think it's really important that we get out the message that Dobson does not speak for the church at large nor represent all Christians.
more soon.
~barbara