Dobson VS. Obama

The news du jour of religion and politics concerns the attack (or critique) of Barack Obama by James Dobson. Everyone knows who Obama is. Dobson is now more obscure in mainstream America than he used to be, though he ranks as one of the "old lions" of conservative Protestant Christianity and the Religious Right.

Two years ago, Barack Obama gave the keynote address to a progressive Christian group called Call To Renewal. If you have not seen a video of the speech, here is a link to the text:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/. Now, Dr. James Dobson has decided to call Senator Obama to task for what Dobson claims is a distortion of both the Bible and the Constitution. His critique (or attack) of the Senator took place on Dr. Dobson's radio program, Focus On The Family, which Dr. Dobson's staff made available to news outlets before the broadcast on Tuesday.

Here is the moment for full disclosure. I have not read anything James Dobson has written or heard his broadcast for more than 30 years. Thus, I am dependent upon the news story out of Colorado Springs for my comments.

** First, if the Senator's remarks were so reprehensible that Dr. Dobson said of them (according to the news story), "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." Why hasn't Dr. Dobson commented upon them before now? Why pick this moment in time to air a corrective to the confused and gutter dragging theology of the Senator? Could the motive be more political than theological?

** Second, Dr. Dobson is quoted as saying, "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?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Senator was saying. Throughout the speech to Call To Renewal, the Senator expressed his hope for a genuine dialogue on issues that would include people's religious convictions, with the understanding that, in this country, at least, someone's sincere religious convictions are not enough to win the day. There must be an appeal to the rule of law, as well. The convictions of a religious person should be buttressed by what the Constitution and the body of law actually say and must be buttressed by them in order to appeal to those with different religious understandings within Christianity and in other World Religions.

** Third, I hear in Dr. Dobson's comments (as quoted) a subtle suggestion that the Christianity of Senator Barack Obama is sadly lacking. I find this interesting because the opening story that the Senator used in the 2006 speech detailed the rantings of Alan Keyes suggesting that even Jesus Christ would reject Barack Obama as a political candidate because he was so vile.

** Fourth, one part of the Senator's comments that Dr. Dobson highlights as being especially wrong seem to me to be especially right.

Look at the full paragraph from the Senator'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 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.

According to the news article, "Dobson and Minnery [a high level official of Focus on the Family] accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament." I find that extremely interesting. Folks like Dr. Dobson claim that that every word of the Bible is "God-inspired" or "God-breathed" and that everything in the Bible is literal truth, as in the story of creation, which also is found in the Old Testament. Further, folks like that preach or listen to sermons that extol the faithful to believe every word of this Book as the very word of God. So, if every word is equally divine truth, why can't the Senator mention those dietary codes along side the Sermon on the Mount? Further, the point that the Senator was making was how people tend to pick and choose which passages to use.

I have been saying that for decades. I got into trouble in a Baptist church for suggesting that the people really did not take the Bible as seriously as they said they did. I used the sections of what is called the "Holiness Code" from both the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to prove my point. When I pointed out the number of laws they were breaking, they objected, "But we are Christians and do not have to take those passages seriously." I, of course, reminded them how Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law should be destroyed. Those Baptist people did not like that very much.

Even if all of the Hebrew scripture is to be ignored for policy debate purposes, there is much in the Christian scripture that can cause problems. For example, if one takes every word of (Christian) scripture literally, it can be argued that divorces should be prohibited, that lawsuits are not allowed, and that all government is ordained by God and no one should disobey any laws.

Barack Obama's point was obvious. Sincere believers have different understandings of what scripture says and, more importantly, what it means and how it is to be applied. That does not make any one of them worse than or better than the others. What is required is a civil discourse between people, not an angry screed, in order for profitable conversations on how our country is to go forward to take place.

The Seduction of Religious Impulses

One of the books I have been reading during this very moving time of our lives is Founding Faith by Steven Waldman, the founder of BeliefNet. Waldman presents a very balanced view of what the "founding fathers," specifically Washington, Adans, Jefferson, and Madison, had to say about things religious. One quote from the chapter entitled "Practicing What They Preached" helped illuminate much of the contemporary debate on church state issues for me.

Madison, the shaper (if not the author) of the First Amendment guarantees on religious liberty was commenting on the practice of appointing military chaplains during Washington's administration. Madison disapproved of this practice and wrote, "The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one."

As I understand Madison, he recognized how noble the stand was for those who supported the appointment of such chaplains and how popular it was, but he felt it more important to uphold the principles established in the Bill of Rights and to trust in the outcome. This reminded me of those today who support the posting the Ten Commandments in all public buildings, especially schools and court houses, and who insist on allowing a moment for prayer for the school children. These folks believe that such practices follow the will of the majority of Americans and will be important stands for our country to take. Further, they have argued that having the Ten Commandments always before us and having the children engage in prayer will "bring our country [and its people] back to God."

It is hard for politicians to resist such movements, particularly since these groups often make veiled, or blatant, political threats against any elected official who would not vote for such a measure, as in, "We will remember your vote come election time." Yet, resist they must.

Regardless of how they are presented, the proposals I have mentioned, have a decidedly Christian slant. Most "God-fearing" folks in Daphne Alabama, for example, would expect the prayers to be offered to be Christian prayers and would hope that folks who see the Commandments would understand that these are the "rules" that the one true God (the Christian One, don't you know) has established for human life. Madison's concern, my concern, and, I believe, the Constitution's concern (with the Bill of Rights) is to protect the rights of those who are not in the majority and who do not want to pray to the Christian God.

These religious impulses are seductive. Everyday folk, like you and me, have to help the elected officials resist the seduction.