Dobson attacks Obama

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: June 24, 2008

Just when you thought James Dobson was giving up his meddling in power-play politics for a return to true ministry, he swoops down to snatch his tattered reputation out of rehab.

This time, he surfaced for air long enough to go after Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting Barack Obama.

CNN reports that Dobson “is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a ‘fruitcake interpretation’ of the U.S. Constitution.“

You’ve gotta hand it to ol’ Jim. He’s nothing if not eloquent. “Fruitcake.“ Is there an Aramaic equivalent to that?

Dobson lambasted a 2006 speech—

SIDEBAR: Let’s stop there for a minute. A 2006 speech. Think about that for a minute. These remarks have been around since 2006, and apparently they were SO OFFENSIVE to James Dobson that it took him a year and a half, at least, to gather up all his righteous indignation. A year and a half. END SIDEBAR

—a 2006 speech wherein Obama suggested, according to CNN, “that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible.“

Obama noted a couple of passages from the Old Testament books known as the Pentateuch, or Books of the Law, to illustrate his point.

Dobson charged that Obama is “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology” and that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.“ (Read and hear more at the Focus on the Family-related

527

I mean, web site here and here.)

Dobson was apparently too blinded by rage to realize it, but he was proving Obama’s point: Governing “solely” on the basis of the Bible would be impossible, because the New Testament, the sacred Scriptures that primarily guide Christianity, sometimes conflicts with the Old Testament, the sacred Scriptures that primarily guide Judaism. Such was the impact of Jesus’ life on Earth.

This is not to say that some religious precepts can’t, or shouldn’t, be pursued in public policy. On the contrary, Obama’s speech was basically a road map of how he believes the “religiously motivated” could find more success in government:

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values,“ Obama said in the 2006 speech. “It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.“

Oh, you could almost see the bulging blood vessel in Dobson’s forehead. According to CNN:

Dobson said the suggestion is an attempt to lead by the “lowest common denominator of morality.“

“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?“ he asked. “What he’s trying to say here is, unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.

“What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that ‘I can’t seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue,‘ “ Dobson said. “And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now, that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.“

Um, no.

Is there anything in Obama’s statement that indicates that he believes that people of faith have no right to fight for what they believe in “unless everybody agrees?“

No.

Is there anything in Obama’s statement that indicates that he believes people of faith must “conform” to the moral beliefs of those with whom they disagree?

No!

Talk about your “fruitcake interpretations.“ Dobson just doesn’t get it.

What Obama is saying is that, understanding that the lawmakers of this country are 536 (including the president) different people with different religions, different teachings and different interpretations of those teachings, people of faith can do themselves a favor by couching their arguments in “universal values” that are “subject to argument.“ By doing this, they actually strengthen their positions that would otherwise stand only on subjective religious beliefs.

And is that anything more, or less, than what the Founders intended for any other issue being deliberated by Congress?

No! Nor should it be!

I’m no fan of James Dobson and other evangelical political wanna-bes like him. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying Christians have less of a right to assembly, petition and advocacy than others. Actually, I’ve been on the forefront of many of those issues throughout my career in government. But the reason I find the Dobson Doctrine, if you will, so distasteful is that it is so counterproductive to achieving the goals and accomplishing the changes its followers supposedly want so badly to affect. By cleaving so unswervingly to their dogma to the exclusion of even the mere idea that they might consider another viewpoint, all Dobson’s followers do by holding their hands over their ears is alienate others who might otherwise be able to be convinced of their positions.

I have written about this before. Here is my main post about why evangelicals who moonlight as politicians are so disgusting (read this one if you only have time for one), here is the column I wrote about the disturbing battle for evangelical endorsements last fall and here are my Dobson-related posts (warning: they’re not pretty).

One more note: James Dobson has also made clear his disdain for GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain. He said earlier this year that if McCain and Obama are the nominees, he “simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.“

You might say that Dobson has washed his hands of the presidential race.