Dobson Hits Obama for "Distorting" Bible

[MDM4AU 336]

THE WAHINGTON POST

Dobson Hits Obama for "Distorting" Bible

By Krissah Williams

James Dobson, a long-time leader of conservative Christians, today accused Sen. Barack Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to justify his own world view."

Dobson's comments, which aired today on his Focus on the Family radio show, come as Obama's campaign plans to launch a broad appeal to evangelicals and Catholics.

Dobson and Tim Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, spent about 20 minutes of the show harshly critiquing a speech that Obama gave in 2006 to a group of liberal Christian leaders.

In the speech, Obama argues for religious diversity and acceptance and prods liberals not to cede issues of faith to Republicans.

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said in the speech. "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?"

Dobson said he had just recently learned of Obama's speech and that reading it caused his blood pressure to rise.

"Why did this man jump on me? I haven't said anything near that?" said Dobson, whose comments were first reported by the Associated Press today, which received an early copy of Dobson's remarks.

In response to Obama's contention that religious voters had an obligation to "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values", Dobson asked: "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?"

Minnery told the wire service that Dobson's office had recently been contacted by Obama's campaign for a meeting this summer.

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. DuBois, an Assemblies of God Minister, is leading an outreach effort for Obama that will include thousands of "faith forums" intended to connect people of faith and bridge religious divides.

Dobson, who has not backed Sen. John McCain, has said he is dissatisfied with both major party candidates and has suggested that he will not vote for president this year.

The Washington Post

[Shire5k 19]

Obama was merely commenting on two crazy peoples' contrasting views. So what?

[LegalEagle 22]

This guy:

In the comments to be aired Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/eva...vote/index.html

Is the same guy as this:

Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., dedicates his daily radio broadcast Tuesday to noting how the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the banishment of religious expression in the public square in its Monday decisions on a pair of Ten Commandments cases.

Dobson says the high court's decisions in cases from Texas and Kentucky "tore a hole through the First Amendment."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb55...59?tag=rel.res4

If Obama uses the Old Testament, he's an idiot, but Fruitcake Dobson can fight to put his selected parts of the OT in the public for all to read.

[channonc 466]

Seriously, why is this kind of stuff even relevant to the election? I DO NOT vote for or against anyone because of their religion. It is totally irrelevant to me. These kind of debates only steer the public away from actually discussing the real issues facing our nation.

[kwagoner 214]

Seriously, why is this kind of stuff even relevant to the election? I DO NOT vote for or against anyone because of their religion. It is totally irrelevant to me. These kind of debates only steer the public away from actually discussing the real issues facing our nation.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

Seriously, why is this kind of stuff even relevant to the election? I DO NOT vote for or against anyone because of their religion. It is totally irrelevant to me. These kind of debates only steer the public away from actually discussing the real issues facing our nation.

It's relevant because it gives insight into the overall worldview of a candidate when it comes "real issues" that face our nation. There are few issues in this world that do not carry at least some moral dimension to them and many, many issues have huge moral implications. How one's faith informs such decisions (or how one expects other people's faith to intersect with such decisions) matters when deciding on a leader.

I'm not saying that McCain is necessarily better on this, but I don't think this is an irrelevant subject at all.

[bojack34 2]

Obama was merely commenting on two crazy peoples' contrasting views. So what?

While I agree their are a lot of crazy religious leaders out there I believe Dobson is one of the most grounded and least controversial. But so what, Christ Jesus was controversial. Why? Because He spoke the truth and people don't want to hear the truth. Looks like Obama is going to shoot himself in the foot again. It would be in Obama's best interest if he wants to be the next president to keep quite about religion. From his previous speeches given on the scriptures he doesn't have a clue what he is talkin about.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

Obama was merely commenting on two crazy peoples' contrasting views. So what?

While I agree their are a lot of crazy religious leaders out there I believe Dobson is one of the most grounded and least controversial. But so what, Christ Jesus was controversial. Why? Because He spoke the truth and people don't want to hear the truth. Looks like Obama is going to shoot himself in the foot again. It would be in Obama's best interest if he wants to be the next president to keep quite about religion. From his previous speeches given on the scriptures he doesn't have a clue what he is talkin about.

I doubt you've read this speech.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

From the same speech:

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:

"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

[Shire5k 19]

Jim Wallis Criticizes James Dobson's Distortion of Barack Obama's Statements on Faith and Politics

Evangelical leader Jim Wallis, author of The Great Awakening and founder of Sojourners, the largest network of progressive Christians in the United States, today criticized James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, for distorting Barack Obama's statements on faith and politics at the annual Pentecost Conference in 2006 held by Sojourners.

Full Text of Jim Wallis' Statement:

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "CitizenLink" radio show today to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

Now that James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because his basis for the attack on Obama is the speech the Senator from Illinois gave at our Call to Renewal/Sojourners event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech, Dobson was not.

You can read Obama's now two-year old speech, which was widely publicized at the time and will see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

"I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth Spaceballs the Movie because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees; we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.

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.

In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching. Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases like HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to James Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. Many evangelical votes are in play this election year, especially among a new generation, and are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for James Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archive...ripping-of.html

[CCTAU 3,336]

Seriously, why is this kind of stuff even relevant to the election? I DO NOT vote for or against anyone because of their religion. It is totally irrelevant to me. These kind of debates only steer the public away from actually discussing the real issues facing our nation.

So you admit to supporting a closet muslim just because he is dimocrat? What'd I say?

[Tigermike 3,046]

"Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion."

Therefore I, Obama the Messiah, can support abortion, the homosexual lifestyle, Afro centric religion and you have to accept it because I say it is in proportion. And if you disagree with that you are a bitter old white person.