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.

Michael and Vicki (and Mollie) went over the mountain ...

And boy did we see stuff!

Now that we are actually in SLC and facing the major task of unpacking boxes and figuring out what goes here, I hope to resume the more normal content of this blog. For now, one more trip related narrative.

For those of you who are asking why I am doing this instead of unpacking, don't ask. I had need to get on-line to make travel reservations for a wedding in Georgia and decided to update. Besides, my primary function in this process is to move boxes from one room to the next - most of them already in place - and to reach top shelves - V has a ladder.

** In Nebraska, I saw wind socks on highway overpasses. My first thought was one of fear. What kind of airplane would be tempted to land here? Do I need to watch for that in addition to all of these wack-o drivers? Then, finally, it hit me. The wind socks are designed to alert watchful drivers to the strength and direction of cross-winds. Good thing, I guess, because we fought a 25-30 mph cross-wind across the length of Nebraska.

** Back to Illinois. In the southern part of the state is a small college, Rend Lake College. On the interstate is a billboard advertising the Rend Lake College Golf Outlet Shop. I have never before seen a College operate a retail outlet besides its official bookstore. I wonder whether they have a major in PGA studies.

** Somewhere in the heart of America, I saw a Stuckey's which I identify with the quintessential All-American experience, sitting next to an "Adult Superstore." That juxtaposition may be more in line with contemporary America than I would like to admit.

** We missed all of the major storms in all of the states we travelled. However, as we were approaching Cheyenne, we were hit with 70+ mph wind gusts. I am certain extra years were added to my time in cosmic punishment for some of the things I was saying to myself as I wrestled the steering wheel of the U-Haul.

** We finally saw tumbleweeds in their native environment across Nebraska and Wyoming. I hope they were in season because we crushed quite a few.

** The serpentine climbing drive out of Cheyenne was quite beautiful and the rapid descent into Laramie was some kind of scary. I am glad I do not have to do that again.

** The best sight on the trip was on I-80W when I saw "Exit 129 - Parley's Way and Foothill Drive." That meant we had arrived.

Travels with Mollie

For those who may be expecting some insightful commentary on the depth and breadth of the American experience here, forget about it. That would take a Steinbeck, and I am no John Steinbeck. Instead, here are just some random musings about quirky sights on the road.

** Traveling through Chattanooga on I-24W, we passed the "Tennessee Alabama Fireworks and Apparel Store." I wondered whether the management would give away free bottle rockets with every tie purchased.

** I have decided that speed limits are generally ignored as well as the "no-passing on the right" laws. I knew that was the case in Atlanta, but it has been true in every city and town we have hit.

** On one stretch of I-64W in Illinois and on another stretch of I-70W in Missouri, I decided to conduct a decidedly unscientific experiment. For 10 miles, I counted the number of tractor-trailer rigs passing by on the other part of the interstate. On I-64, I counted 57. On I-70, the total was 61. As I saw the prices for Diesel gas knocking at $5 a gallon, I had to wonder how transporting items using this method contributed to the cost of things we buy.

I have more to say, but we have taken a break in KC with our sons and daughter-in-law. We are heading for dinner now.

Go west, ol' people, go west!

Forgive the paraphrase of Horace Greeley's famous remark. The original comment does not really fit us anymore.

Tomorrow morning, we secure the truck and will load it with all of our worldly possessions. Count on us to pick the first weekend of the year in Georgia when the heat index might hit triple digits. Ah well, this might be one way for me to take off a few pounds.

I suspect that I will be incommunicado until after we arrive in Salt Lake City. Wish us well on the trip. I hope to be back in business on this site soon.

Religious wolf in "voice of reason" sheep's clothing?

According to a New York Times story today, written by Laura Beil, Texas is shaping up to be the new battleground between those who acknowledge the scientific legitimacy and educational necessity of teaching evolution in schools and those who oppose it.

The issue in Texas, though, is a subtle one. No longer are people who are anti-evolution demanding that the words "creator," "creationism," or "intelligent design" be included in state science standards. Now, they want schools to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. It does not have the high drama of the classic movie, Inherit The Wind, but this tactic could turn out to be an effective tool of the anti-evolution movement.

What could be wrong with doing that, you may ask? Isn't that the right and fair thing to do? Like everything else, it depends on what things are defined as "weaknesses" and how that material is presented.

According to the article, "The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse. Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement. “Very often over the last 10 years, we’ve seen antievolution policies in sheep’s clothing,” said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism. The “strengths and weaknesses” language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution."

In Texas, the opponents of evolution are within one vote of capturing a majority on the State School Board, which has the power to mandate a change in how evolution is taught. Dr. McLeroy, the chair of the state board, who does not think that there is any scientific justification for evolution and believes that earth is only several thousand years old, says that the debate is between two systems of science - a creationist one and a naturalist one.

There are problems with that view. First, by definition, a creationist view cannot be science. Science is science because it can be tested and proven right or wrong. Believing in a God-created universe is something that can NOT be tested; it is a matter of faith. Despite the scientific sounding claims proposed by its adherents, creationism is NOT science. Second, the understanding of "a creationist" system of science as it is promoted in the United States by conservative Christians follows one particular understanding of one of the creation stories in the Book of Genesis only. This perspective dismisses all other religious accounts of creation as mythological and not worthy of consideration. It seems to me that this movement ought to hold other religious understandings in the same high regard for consistency sake.

This conflict between science and religion is a long-standing one. For centuries, the church, or some in it, has been quick to condemn scientific advances as heresy, at best. It would be wonderful to think that we had progressed beyond this, but we obviously have not.

God and Karma get blamed for a lot.

Who would have thought it would come to this?

For years, I have been critical of various fundamentalist Christian ministers who have blamed God, or, more politely put, held God accountable, for a number of events from hurricanes and earthquakes to plane crashes and diseases. I have cringed as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, John Hagee, et al. loudly proclaimed that Event X happened because God was sending judgment upon the people of Y - and you can fill in the blanks.

For these ministers, with their theology based on the idea of God's complete sovereignty, that is absolute control, over human beings, human affairs, and the planet where humans reside and their companion piece of God's vengeful wrath being visited upon those who do not measure up to their standards, there is no alternative but to believe that everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, that takes place comes from the hand of God.

But now, instead of God being blamed for something, the idea of Karma is being "blamed" for the recent earthquake in China. That well-known theologian, Sharon Stone, she of Basic Instinct fame, has been quoted as saying that the earthquake came as a result of China's policy on Nepal and its conflict with the Dalai Lama. Now, Sharon Stone has apologized for the remark, but she shows that she buys into the same theological construct as Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, and Hagee. Whatever happens to us is because of some force or deity that is outside this world exerting its power over us and our affairs.

Where is the line we draw separating what God does and what is just a result of being human on Planet Earth? A plane crashes; was this caused by God, allowed by God, or a result of gravitational forces acting on an object? A person gets cancer; was this caused by God, allowed by God, or a result of a cellular pathology that can happen to any human? I have known many people of faith who have wrestled with the conflict between believing that God is intimately and personally involved with us and that God causes everything that happens.

Where do you draw this line? How much do you agonize over this in the middle of the night when something has happened to you or your family?