Dobson: Obama is “Dragging Biblical Understanding Through the Gutter”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, June 24, 2008
- Viewed 206
- (38) comments so far
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or 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.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.
“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Here’s a link to the whole article from the AP...
What do you think? First of all, is Dobson right? And secondly, are you comfortable with him speaking for you as a Christian?
The AP reports that James Dobson, is accusing Barak Obama of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.
According to the article, "the criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
"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?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Jim on Thu, June 26, 2008
Daniel, I will accept that I misquoted Obama’s statement of Israel being a “sore”, rather than a “stain”, Yet, his opinion on Israel being a sore is quite revealing. First, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Second, they are not seeking nuclear weapons to wipe out an entire nation. Third, they have been attack without let-up since 1948-56, 67, 73, 79, and on up till today. Yet, the countries, all of which are Muslim, are bent on the nation of Isreal’s destruction. Yet, in Obama’s view, Israel is the “sore”, not the terrorist nations of Syria, Iran and, until recently, Iraq. Daniel, if a man referred to your wife as the sore in the relationship, he would be revealing his dislike for your spouse. So, Obama seems uninterested in supporting self-governance, just embracing those among whom he grew-up and went to school with-Muslims! That is not a lie, neither is it over-reacting. It’s taking him at his word.
In addition, all laws are moral, if they are not moral, they are not law. The author of that statement was Martin Luther. If one surrenders the morality of law to those who would make immorality law, then we have ceased being salt and light, and we’ve abdicated our responsibilities. For example, opposing abortion. The first inalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is that of the “right to life”. So, not only is Psalm 139:13 reaffirmed in the Declaration, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the whole of society to not destroy human life, especially life in the womb. It is a cop out for one to declare that I’m against it personally, but then say I can’t force my opinion on others. That’s insane. If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong! To say I can’t tell someone that murdering a child in utero is wrong, then what do they think is wrong? Anything?
Plus, the Dec. and Constition is full of Christian language-“nature’s God, and the God of nature” is an Augustinian, Luther, way of describing the Christian God of all of creation-nature; the third item mentioned in the Dec. says that George was a tyrannt because he did not do what was right for the people, which is a Lutheran idea regarding those who would usurp the rights of people taught throughout Scripture, and all of the Founders were steeped in the theology of Luther and Calvin. The description of “Providence” was the way the 17th Century Christians referred to the Lord Jesus; because they reverenced the name of God in a high order.
Did you ever hear about the establishment of the Pilgrim colony so that it woud be a “light upon the hill”? The whole intention was to be a missionary society, not perfect, but free to correct the problems.
If the Christian support isn’t important to Obama, then why is he seeking it so fervantly? Since he has entered into the theological field with his interpretation of Scripture, which is horribly twisted, then he has opened the door for those who disagree with him. Plus, the statement of his you quoted is easy to understand-he wants society to define Scripture, and only if it agrees with Scripture. So, do we establish Scripture, if we agree with it, or does Scripture establish moral law, even when we don’t agree? Obama wants to choose what he accept in Scripture, and he rejects Jesus as the only Savior. If he does that, he may be some religion, but he isn’t a Christian. You can’t be a Believer and disbelieve the source of your salvation. If Jesus is only one way to heaven, then He was the butt of a horrible joke-He died for nothing! In Galations, Paul declares those who would change the Gospel are accursed. That’s pretty plainly stated, and to defend one who destroys the faith and the Gospel is not acceptable, especially when he is using twisted theology to try and tell Christians that he’s right, and Scripture is wrong.
Lastly, my mother’s family name is McKain, and I mistakingly often spell McCain’s name as my family spells it.
ck on Thu, June 26, 2008
Jim,
By far the most well thought out and articulate reply of this thread.
No bashing. No degrading comments. But your ‘argument’ came across very well.
DanielR on Fri, June 27, 2008
Jim, I don’t know where to start. You’re all over the place.
First of all, you keep saying Obama said things he DID NOT say. He did not call Israel a sore. You just don’t see that you’re seeing politics at it’s worst and buying into it completely. One candidate says something and the spin-wizards spew their drivel and you buy the spin/lies without even listening to what the candidate actually said.
Obama said the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is a sore that affects everything in the region and everything we try to do regarding the region. The CONFLICT, not Israel.
Next, you say all laws are moral, if they are not moral, they are not law. I can’t even begin to enumerate on how many levels this comment is stupid. Is the law allowing abortion moral? Are the laws that value a criminal’s rights over the rights of the victim moral? Laws are not moral or immoral, they’re just laws. Scripture is moral.
Obama’s statement is about democracy. I’m sorry, Jim, but we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. You’re a Christian Reconstructionist aren’t you? You want the whole Old Testament to replace all our current laws, don’t you? Then you could just accuse the people you disagree with of heresy and stone them.
I’m not even an Obama supporter, but there’s also a lot I don’t like about McCain. I’d just like to see honesty in politics for a change. Listen to what the candidates say, not all the political hacks who twist their words.
The cynical side of me says Obama doesn’t stand a chance just because he’s black, but I did grow up in the segregated south so my view may be clouded. And then morons start claiming he’s secretly a Muslim and part of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy Israel and/or Christianity and people with the IQ of mushrooms buy into it and that makes me crazy.
You want to rant, Jim? I can match your rant any time. I need to go pray and ask forgiveness now.
Todd, sorry for getting my dander up and abusing your forum. If Obama loses because people listen and don’t agree with him or just like the other guy better, that’s a democracy. But if Obama loses because he’s black or because he has a foreign sounding name and people buy the lies about him secretly being a Muslim out to destroy Christianity, that will be a tragedy for America. And it will show just how far we have NOT come.
Facts Again on Sat, June 28, 2008
Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former deputy assistant to President Bush:
Earlier this week, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson criticized Sen. Barack Obama, accusing him of “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit ... his own confused theology,” of having a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and of appealing to the “lowest common denominator of morality.”
Dobson’s judgment was based on Obama’s keynote address at a “Call to Renewal” conference on June 28, 2006. In fact, this speech was impressive in many respects. As an evangelical and conservative who has deep concerns about Obama’s policies and political philosophy, I nonetheless welcome such a statement by a leading Democrat.
For one thing, Obama took on liberals “who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant” and “caricature religious Americans ... as fanatical.” He went on to say: “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
ad_icon
So Obama was doing what people like Dobson have long urged: making the public square more hospitable for people of faith and calling for a halt to their demonization. Obama made his case in ways I found to be respectful and authentic.
Dobson took particular umbrage, for at least one obvious reason, with this passage from Obama’s 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? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount—a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”
Dobson was critical of Obama’s biblical references here and suggested that he had set up a series of straw men to support his “confused theology.” But as I understand him, Obama was pointing out why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras. The chief defect of Obama’s speech was that he didn’t provide more insight into how to navigate these theological waters.
The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson’s “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and “lowest common denominator of morality” comments was this: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason—which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion—or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.
There are certainly reasons for evangelicals to have concerns about Obama—based on his extreme views on abortion, judicial nominees, Iraq (his plans for a precipitous withdrawal would probably trigger mass death and perhaps even genocide) and other issues. But critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.
If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn’t. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.
Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former deputy assistant to President Bush.
Jerry A Maddock on Mon, June 30, 2008
I agree with ck….thanks jim
Trent on Tue, July 01, 2008
Obama’s comments at Call to Renewal all made sense. Dobson’s criticisms either missed the point or deliberately established straw man arguments of things that Obama didn’t say.
Jim, Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. Lebanon and Palestine are both democracies and even Iran has democratic components to its electoral process. Not that Democracy is the be all and end all, just that you’re comment was wrong. Be Blessed,
Gemini on Tue, July 07, 2009
How are you. Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Inexpensive online mba. I found only this - north carolina online mba. Online mba degree articles from articlesbase. Online mba degree articles from articlesbase. Best regards :cool:, Gemini from Taiwan.
disosawilliams on Thu, July 08, 2010
common and accessible ground and appeals to reason—which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion—or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence. management masters degree
Page 3 of 3 pages < 1 2 3
Post a Comment