Dobson accuses Obama of ‘distorting’ Bible”
(CNN) — One of the country’s leading evangelical leaders is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.
In comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. . .
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, later adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
I decided to see of for myself and read what Obama said in the speech in question…
Obama.Senate.gov: ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Such a powerful, thoughtful address. Here are a few parts that I though were worthy of special attention (but I recommend reading the whole thing if time permits) . . .
I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.
But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
Obama has expressed what I believe about abortion and sexuality, but only far more eloquently.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Amen!
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. 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.
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 ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about 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. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
This is the part that got Dr. Dobson all worked up, and if you read it in the context of his addresss, Obama was not saying “look at the Bible and how ridiculous it is” but rather that the Bible is only useful when it is interpreted, and that interpretation is something that is best done in an individual community of faith, not on the national level. (however, I got to say that I like his take on the Sermon on the Mount, and agree wholeheartedly with his interpretation of it!)
I can only assume that Dobson didn’t understand what Obama said here or he is purposely trying to confuse and mislead his audience.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, 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.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
What a good example!
I guess I should thank Dr. Dobson for pointing me to this speech. I previously had doubted Obama’s sincerity of his faith (particularly after his leaving his old church), but now I must say that not only am I convinced of the depth and thoughtfulness of his faith, but also am convinced that he has the kind of faith I am down with.
I am still not 100% happy with Obama’s stands on some issues, but I think I can now be ok with voting for him.
Dobson would do well to follow the example of Christ, and stick to spreading the Good News about salvation, instead of trying to garner power for the religious right through political means.
Hello welcome on board with the Obama family. I am also a Christian supporting Obama. He makes so much sense and the religious right is so upset ,because he is taking them to task. They never expected a democrat to know the Bible. They have become so partisan nowadays. It’s curious that Hannity had an excerpt from Obama’s speech last night on Fox news, and today here’s this James Dobson article blasting the same speech. This will backfire on the hypocrites on the right. The Bible is clear God will not be mocked. They keep politicizing God and I’m sure he’s tired of it. That is why I think Obama is going to be President. God is using him to take the right to task for supporting a party who caters to the rich, while pushing the middle-class into poverty. If you flip to the back of your Bible Index you will see that there are more verses about taking care of the poor and sick, than anything about abortion or homosexuality. Those on the right, need to rethink there priorities.
Apparently you are not alone in being pushed toward Obama by Dobson’s speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/dr-dobson-has-just-handed_b_108989.html
Kudos on this blog. I hadn’t heard Dobson’s remarks, but am further convinced he is not a rational being and proof of religion’s capacities to blind. I’ve long been a supporter of Obama, and yes, I think his thoughtful approach to both religion and politics is one of the reasons I think he provide stable, straightforward leadership that is not easily swayed by our own version of religious extremists. Personally, I’m a little tired of the media thinking that the only brand of Christianity are the fundamentalist ones.
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25343812/
Thanks for your comment, Janetta.
I’ve always wondered what the mainstream media would think about the fact that I was converted from conservativism (both political and religous), primarily from rereading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. After reading the gospels with an open mind, I realized first that Jesus was in favor of violence, and secondly that he wasn’t a capitalist.
And I know my story isn’t unique. Many, many folks have been inspired to engage in liberal activism because of their faith. But of course this is ignored by the press.
Re: “… we are no longer just a Christian nation; …”
I wonder when does Obama believe you ever were “just a Christian nation” and when does Obama believe you stopped being “just a Christian nation”.
The “…government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”, according to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and passed by the United States Congress.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S.A. Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”.