Dobson semi-apologizes to Fred! for claiming he isn’t a Christian
posted at 8:35 pm on March 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s peeved that U.S. News & World Report represented his remarks as a political “snub” when it was nothing of the sort. That’s fine, but that wasn’t what offended people here. The offense came when his spokesman implied that even if Fred!’s a Christian, he’s not Christian “enough.”
Hotline has the complete text, but here’s the meat of it:
With regard to your possible acceptability as a candidate for president, I commended your consistent support of pro-family positions. However, I said while I had no first-hand knowledge of your religious views, I was not aware that you had professed to have made a Christian commitment. If so, I said, that might discourage support from some Christian conservatives. The remarks were not intended to represent either an endorsement of Newt nor a disparagement of you. Instead, as my media representative explained in a follow-up call to the reporter, Dan Gilgoff, the comment reflected my efforts to “read the tea leaves.” Let me say again that I told Mr. Gilgoff I had never met you and didn’t know if my understanding of your personal faith was accurate or not. What he wrote was quite the opposite.
Here’s how Gilgoff described the subsequent call with the spokesman:
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson’s claim. He said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith.”
“We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added. “Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”
Dobson seems to be saying now that he didn’t know whether Fred was a Christian of any stripe. His spokesman seems to have said that he didn’t know him to be a “committed,” i.e., evangelical Christian. Or am I missing something?
I’m the last guy here to whom any of this might matter, so you tell me: is the rift healed now? Apology accepted/all better?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I semi-apologize to Dobson for thinking he’s an a**hole.
HerrMorgenholz on March 29, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Dobson needs a JR high school bathroom swirlie for this one.
What a doofus.
Steve LLamabutcher on March 29, 2007 at 8:39 PM
I’ll leave the same comment I left at seejanemom’s, oh btw great graphic slublog.
Ugghhh. I used to like Dobson, but over the past several years on his radio show his “Family” advice has been leaning more on psychological advice rather than biblical. Which some people probably love that, I, personally, have a problem with it. That being said I really wish these Christian “spokespersons” would focus more on biblical teaching and the Gospel rather than punting for political candidates.
vcferlita on March 29, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Hmmmm….
Fred talked to his old freind… God….
God got ahold of Dobson…. saying “look schmuck…”
Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 8:42 PM
No! The rift is not healed because Dobson’s first point was clear enough: Fred! isn’t Christian enough to grab support from conservatives. What Dobson fails to recognize while dabbling in “the tea leaves” (a hat trick best left to Pat Robertson) is that conservatism is not all about Christianity. Christians in large numbers lean toward conservative values, yes. But you could make the same argument about so-called “moderate” Democrats. Fred! represents conservative values whether he’s a Christian or not. At the end of the day, do you want a conservative whose Christianity you may question, or a liberal who quotes scripture all day long? Get over it Dobson!
thedecider on March 29, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Heh! I bet ol’ Dobby read the comments here at Hot Air, Free Republic and elsewhere. So swiftly comes his attempt to back up the truck.
laelaps on March 29, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Who’s Fred! ?
/ducks and runs
LakeRuins on March 29, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Hey… wait…
Dobson was dabbling in the tea leaves… attempting to read the future….
Uh…. isn’t that Witch Craft?
And thou shalt not suffer a witch to live???
/monty python voice…
BURN HIM… Burn HIM….
Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Dobson make me want to vomit. He’s long past the “sell by” date in regards to his influence in American evangelical circles. His desperate lunge into politics will endear himself to the baby chicks who need someone to chew up and regurgitate their talking points.
This comment, judging Thompson’s faith, is not only a breach of common decency, but a major sin in Christianity.
Pathetic man and pathetic people who undoubtedly will be influenced by his political leanings.
Besides all that, I bet Fred could serve up a large can of whupass for a remark like that.
Newt is a true conservative, but too polarizing; Fred is worthy of a shot at it, based on what we’ve seen so far.
windbag on March 29, 2007 at 9:03 PM
…and I’m the last gal…this had no relevance, whatever.
Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Oh, forgot – great job on the “Seal of Approval”, Slublog!!!
Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I suppose similar apologies to Romney from some of the same people will be offered when hell freezes over.
WasatchMan on March 29, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Mr Dobsons’ opinion might matter if we were electing a pope but not a president. But I don’t let the pendulum swing too far the other way either. There is something comforting about somebody who tries to live their life guided by the 10 Commandments.
LakeRuins on March 29, 2007 at 9:12 PM
To be honest, I don’t care what the guys thinks one bit. What I do care about, is what I always care about, breaking the 11th commandment with, what I believe, are millions of lives at stake. He should have the basic common sense to remain silent if has nothing nice to say.
TheBigOldDog on March 29, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I read a novel this past summer called A Day with a Perfect Stranger, in which another person attempted to pass judgement on whether someone was a “good” Christian, or Christian “enough.”
Dobson is equally irrelevant, regardless of what he thinks.
Bob Owens on March 29, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Oh for heaven’s sake.
I’m not even gonna try.
Rightwingsparkle on March 29, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Evangelical Christianity is nothing short of fanaticism.
I know, my family is evangelical. Their message of hope and faith is often drowned out by the noise of their righteousness.
In Dobson’s defense, though I am not evangelical (I don’t go to church anymore, and when I did I was Lutheran), his tapes and books have given me great insight into being conservative. I have always seen him as a humble and giving figure. It’s sad to see him say such things.
I hope he smacks his PR person in the mouth for saying that they only refer to evangelicals as “Christians”. My father and his friends do the same thing and it makes me sick.
unamused on March 29, 2007 at 9:33 PM
All I can say is that I consider myself an evangelical Christian…and Dobson pisses me off. Not just about Fred! But about quite a few things. And maybe not as much as others do, but enough.
nailinmyeye on March 29, 2007 at 9:40 PM
What exactly do you believe that Evangelical means? And how exactly do you define Christian? As an ex-Lutheran these should be easy questions.
What we find in America is 1000 different definitions of these two terms and many are contradictory, so they can’t all be correct. Or maybe they are all wrong. But in the end there really is only one original definition of both terms.
A person either agrees with the original definitions or they do not.
As far as Dobson’s comments, I’m very surprised. This is not what I have come to expect from him over the years.
The message of hope and faith is the “Grace” part of our soul infused by the Holy Spirit, while the self-righteousness comes from the “Law” part of our sinful humanity. Everyone is self-righteous in some way, and we have to be careful because speaking callously against other’s self-righteousness is nothing more that our own inherent self-righteousness leaking out.
Lawrence on March 29, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Roger that vcferlita! Dobson has been great for me way back when I was a new Christian but when he goes out of his way to make this kind of comment I have to shudder. Whether or not Fred! is a Christian is immaterial when it comes to his fitness for the Presidency. Some folks, like myself, will choose a Christian first but that is a PERSONAL DECISION and not something I would expect to be a GLOBAL STANDARD. We are a secular country. For Dobson to make the pronouncement that because he doesn’t THINK Fred! is Christian therefore he shouldn’t be President gives credence to the argument the Christian Haters regularly use to strike down all things Christian.
Evangelical Christians do not have a leader in this world. Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and even the great Billy Graham are just teachers and Pastors. We don’t take marching orders from them and even disagree with them regularly. Folks like the first three often let their own pride get in the way and start thinking that we bow to them and will act on whatever they say. Guess what boys….we don’t.
Pilgrim on March 29, 2007 at 9:52 PM
I couldn’t care less what Dobson says. I respect the man, but the only thing that affects my vote are my views and the candidates’ positions.
RW Wacko on March 29, 2007 at 9:57 PM
First off, thanks for the link AP, and for all the compliments on the graphic. It’s amazing what irritation, Shiraz and a working knowledge of photoshop can produce.
I agree with nailinmyeye. What bothers me about Dobson is that in recent years, he has gone from being an effective spokesman on issues important to evangelicals to an ineffective spokesman on candidates. As he’s grown more partisan, my fear is that he’s alienating people who may not lean conservative, but do feel a draw toward the church.
In recent years, evangelical leaders have become increasingly associated with the Republican Party and much of their effort is going to unite Christians not behind a common theology, but instead behind a common ideology.
I think that the evangelical community and organizations that claim to speak for them, need to stop making political conformity a prerequisite of Christian faith. The gospel is open to all who will hear it, not just to those who check the box marked “R” on their voter registration forms.
Christians should be involved in politics, but should never make a particular political opinion a litmus test for what makes a ‘good Christian.’ In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul called Christ a ‘stumbling stone,’ since the message that Jesus preached was hard enough for society to accept. In their zeal to achieve political influence, Christian lobbying organizations have erected a few more barriers to faith for those who do not support Republican or conservative policy proposals.
After all, political power is fleeting. What really matters is not.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Whoops. Meant to add, so no – apology not accepted. If he wants to apologize, it would be a good start to use the words “apology” or “sorry,” neither of which appears anywhere in the statement Dobson released.
Also, the attempt to blame this all on the media is a blatant attempt to hide behind conservative distrust of the MSM rather than take responsibility for what he said.
This is really disappointing behavior on Dobson’s, and FoTF’s, part. Shameful.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Part of the problem here is that some people–no doubt a minority of evangelicals–use the word “evangelical” as a codeword for “better Christian than you“. Just one man’s opinion, but it certainly looks to me like Dobson and Schneeberger practice that brand of jackassery.
In other words, we need to find out if Dobson weighs the same as a duck.
ReubenJCogburn on March 29, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Pilgrim on March 29, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Good points, especially at the tail’s end.
Re: the rift and healing, it seem to me that Thompson’s the kind of guy that doesn’t need Dobson either as a filter or a messenger to Dobson’s flock. That makes Dobson one of those generals without a command and Dobson realizes that. I’m sure Thompson will allow it to heal but I don’t doubt that Dobson’s access is much diminished by his unchristianlike public statement about Thompson’s Christianity.
Dusty on March 29, 2007 at 10:37 PM
The kind of fanaticism that will do anything including sacraficing our lives so that others can discover the way to salvation and heaven. Other kind of fanatics sacrafice their lives to kill, main, wound, and destroy. Which kind of fanatic do you prefer?
You guys need to ease off Dobson too. He has been fighting back libs and liberalism since before many of you were in diapers.
Mojave Mark on March 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I will not, because I believe the command of Jesus in Matthew 28 to be more important than any political power, any man or any cause. Dobson, through his growing partisanship, is making himself a stumbling stone and misrepresenting Christianity.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Well, Dobson may have heard that Robertson and Hagee might be willing to give Thompson a look, and he didn’t want to be left out of the holy trinity.
Drum on March 29, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I should add that I believe Dobson is a good man. I like his books. His parenting advice is solid (and much, much appreciated). I really want to see him do the right thing and apologize for wrongfully judging a man’s faith.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Read in “Fred Speak”……..
PinkyBigglesworth on March 29, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Idiot me:
THEIR PLAN!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 29, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I was not aware that you had professed to have made a Christian commitment.
Well he certainly spit it out like he knew what he was talking about.
Sheesh. First the slam, then the hidey-hole backtrack.
I would have preferred he had stuck to his assertion.
daveintexas on March 29, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Today while I was out finishing up my spring cleaning in the yard, I could hear a low flying plane over my house and of course given where I live and the 9/11 reflex I looked up and saw one of those single prop planes trailing a banner that said … DRAFT FRED THOMPSON 2008..
You GO FRED!!
Texas Gal on March 29, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Slubbo, I agree.
This is a bad idea, and it the momentum on it needs to be stopped.
My concern with guys like Dobson is they seem to want the Federal gov’t to be a natural extension of their religious belief, and they want to politicize their flock as a means to achieve it. Its wrong to do, it forces people away from joining the faith, which is Job One for the Church. The Catholic Church had to crack down on clergy that were too politically active in Latin America a few decades ago, of course its had political debacles throughout the centuries. Dobson and religious of his mindset should focus on faith, and let conservatism flow from that, and look at the struggles of our Church, and not make our mistakes.
Politically, the problem for me is twofold, first, its creating an identity group, which is what the left does, its a liberal idea and a liberal construct and I don’t like it, even if our side does it.
Second is they (the evangelist bigwigs) trend toward central control and nannystatism, but in a socially conservative way. I don’t care for central control, that’s why our gov’t is such a goddamn mess in the first place, decentralize, decrease, deregulate. And I F*CKING HATE NANNYSTATISM!!! I can totally see them taking away booze, cigars, gambling and violent, sexual or vulgar video games and entertainment if they thought they could and get away with it, among other things.
Of course I could be wrong and I’m sure if I am I will be told so angrily by one or several of you…
Bad Candy on March 29, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Dobson can’t claim to be speaking politics one moment and not speaking it the next. If he’s going to exercise authority in that arena, he’s going to get judged accordingly.
But for the record, Tinkie Winkie was gay.
John on March 29, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Evangelical leaders became political pundits when they started seeing a trend of liberal values becoming more mainstream. Liberal ideals involving homosexuality, abortion, etc…, were getting a stronger political voice, and liberal judges and politicians were helping them along. Evangelical leaders saw this trend and knew they had to become politically active (elections and judicial appointments) in order to curb and eventually stop that trend. They got in it for the right reason, but have since gone astray. Now that they’re there, they are imbedded and don’t want to let go of their new found power base. The motive is not wrong (it is, after all, their Christian conviction which led them in to it), only the means are wrong.
thedecider on March 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM
So, did Fred defeat Jesus? I knew he would!
lorien1973 on March 29, 2007 at 11:39 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
They should never have started getting this involved with the process. Advocacy of positions through doctrine is one thing, but this nonsense of picking candidates and making them kiss your ring like you’re a mob boss is a bad move and a dangerous trend, for conservatism and the churches. Its just gonna hurt both.
Bad Candy on March 29, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Maybe so. However, with his litmus test being that a candidate has to be an evangelical/born-again Christian, he’s obviously only voted for President twice–2000 and 2004. I’d say that makes him a pretty lousy “fighter” for conservatism. I mean, he couldn’t possibly have supported Reagan.
bamapachyderm on March 29, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I don’t disagree. I was providing a back-drop to explain why we have people like Dobson attempting to pick the next POTUS. It used to be that many of these same evangelical leaders would speak out against society’s ills from a biblical perspective. Now, people like Dobson and Pat Robertson are raising up an army of folks to enter politics, law, whatever!, to try and change what, and for whom, we vote on. It’s wrong. If they would stick to the profession to which they were called, and stop being political pundits, the message of the bible could then be preached to change hearts and minds. People turn to Christianity because they are looking for something greater than themselves to complete what they are not. They do not look to Christianity for advice on political matters.
thedecider on March 29, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Christians got rid of slavery. This was purely political. Christians got women the right to vote. This too was purely political. Christians set up this country so that one day in the far future you would be free to write what you please on blog sites. This too was purely political.
Mojave Mark on March 30, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I wouldn’t call any of those movements purely political – there was conscience involved in each.
Except for the blog sites, of course.
You’ve got to wonder what Washington, Jefferson and Adams would think of this stuff.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Agreed, and it goes even deeper than that for some. There are those who don’t consider you a ‘real’ Christian at all unless you meet their lofty spiritual criteria. I have a feeling Jesus is none too pleased with that kind of self-righteous judgementalism.
infidel4life on March 30, 2007 at 12:08 AM
I think some of you are being a little hard on Dobson. Admittedly, being Jewish, I don’t have a dog in this fight, (except I love the idea of having another Republican POTUS, because it will drive the Dems of adademia completely wild), but I think this is just what a certain type of religious leader does once in a while. They run around making theological pronouncements, and sometimes they make political pronouncements, and sometimes they get the two confused, so they are thinking and speaking theologically about something that is political. It’s bound to happen, and does not infrequently. Of course a little hubris makes it that much more likely . . .
smellthecoffee on March 30, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Oops. I meant to write “I love the idea of having another Republican POTUS with a Southern accent, because it will drive the Dems of adademia completely wild.”
smellthecoffee on March 30, 2007 at 12:12 AM
That’s why you don’t go too heavily into politics when you’re a religious leader, I’m not for the militant anti-christian attitude of the left, but seperation of church and state is good. Look at the Islamic world. No one can tell what’s religious motivated lunacy, tribal, political, social, cultural, economic, general assholishness or whatever, its one big clusterf*ck, and no one knows where to start untangling things to make a functional society.
Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Smellthecoffee, I get what you’re saying. The problem with Dobson and his ilk is that their voices are a lot “louder” than most, and as a result we’re all painted with the same brush. You know how leftards are about conservatives–they think we’re all “fundies,” or at least that’s the garbage they spew. Personally, I don’t care if some idiot moonbat thinks I’m a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist, but how many people have been turned off from the right-of-center side of issues because of narrow-minded bigmouths like Dobson? How many have been turned off Christianity?
He’s selfish, egomaniacal, attention wh0ring, judgmental, and repellent. There is nothing Christ-like I see in that man at all. His calling is supposed to be to draw others to Christianity, but I’m at a total loss as to who would be drawn by him. He gives Christians a bad name with his public persona, IMHO, and I resent it.
And as I said at my own blog, what if the perfect, ideal candidate this time were Jewish? Or Catholic? Not good enough for him, I’d guess. That’s what f’n galls me.
bamapachyderm on March 30, 2007 at 1:12 AM
If Dobson is such an egomaniac, why is his ministry called “Focus On The FAMILY“? Note, he didn’t name it after himself as many others do. I’ve followed his career for around 25 years and he’s truly done remarkable things. Some of you are acting like the drive-by media. Throttle back already. He’d be the first to say it’s not about him.
The only reason you haven’t had a Democrat in the white house the last 6 years is because of Christians voting in droves for Republicans. No matter what the window dressing it always comes back to abortion. Human life has value but the Democrats have eschewed that idea completely. What other choice is there in terms of political party?
Mojave Mark on March 30, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Read enough of what they spoke and wrote, and you’d realize that they would not understand an America that includes so many people who don’t take Christian involvement in ALL of society for granted. They operated on the presumption that Christian values and beliefs were the glue that held a free society together. That DOES NOT MEAN they wanted government to determine how people believed, or a central church that dictated any political policy. Nor does it mean that they would castigate, demean, or stigmatize a citizen who believed otherwise. But people of different faiths who wanted to live and thrive in America had to accept that the majority culture was Christian.
And yes, I’m a fanatic. But my Boss is ok with that.
Freelancer on March 30, 2007 at 2:13 AM
The only reason you haven’t had a Democrat in the white house the last 6 years is because of Christians voting in droves for Republicans
Don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the last two elections, but not enough of you are voting in droves.
Get with the program pal.
daveintexas on March 30, 2007 at 3:07 AM
Simple programming – Fred –
Indoctrination – Fred -
Excommunication – Fred -
Do as I say not as I do – Fred –
How subliminal can this be?
The Inquisition what a world – Mel Brooks
How to be a religious fanatic in 12 easy lessons.
Call now for your free CD!
Jackson, Falwell, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Dobson need not apply. Including McCafferty and Dobbs.
Kini on March 30, 2007 at 3:10 AM
The very existence of Fred F. Thompson among us is troubling to monotheists.
I have one thing to say: Zeus. Google it.
saint kansas on March 30, 2007 at 4:35 AM
I’m not evangelical in the slightest.
I guess I’m not a Christian.
I’m glad some twit from off-denominiation in Louisiana is in charge of making the call on if I rate my faith or not.
It’s like when I got back from my second tour as a corporal, and had 4 times the ribbons and awards of some of the staff who elected to avoid deployment for 15 years like pussies and tell ME which awards I rated.
I got in trouble with them, and I’ll get in trouble with this.
Ringmaster on March 30, 2007 at 7:08 AM
Wait…even if I follow the moonwalking, 50-foot tall, laser-eyed graven image of Pop on a 40-year pilgrimage through the desert, then I’m still not Christian enough?
James on March 30, 2007 at 7:51 AM
I’m a Catholic. A pretty quiet one. I don’t hide my faith but I don’t run around yelling the fact. I try to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and I try to give a good example, but I don’t yell from the rooftops.
Ellen on March 30, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Isn’t it possible that this has been blown out of proportion?
He said:
Meaning he wasn’t sure if Christian conservatives were willing to get behind a candidate who has not expressed his faith openly. And let’s face it, one of the reasons Christian conservatives voted for Bush is because he did just that.
So what’s the big deal really? How is this any different from the polls that showed people would rather vote for anyone but an atheist?
Allah himself show us all a poll that seems to imply that it wouldn’t be enough for MOST voters. Dobson wasn’t speaking for himself. He was simply stating the obvious, that Christian considers are FAR more likely to vote for Christian conservatives.
Have a problem with it if you want, but it’s a fact, not an opinion.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 9:14 AM
What does it matter? The people here that got bent out of shape about Dobson are still gonna hate on him no matter what he does. It certainly didn’t change anything. The people that take what Dobson says to heart already knew it wasn’t a snub to begin with, and more than likely already thought what he said before he said it.
The point is that to many Christians, Fred’s secular outer shell is something of a liability. I think Dobson makes more of it than is there, but he’s still got a point. Bush talked openly about his faith on many occasions throughout the 2000 campaign. His faith was something that was central to his motivations. Fred hasn’t and probably won’t ever do that. So, Dobson is correct in that sense. What Dobson’s wrong about is the extent to which he thinks Christian conservatives are ideological purists.
Christians don’t need an open, committed Christian in a candidate to get what they need from them. They understand that common sense and rock-ribbed conservative values are the litmus test, and an openness about faith is many times just icing on the cake. Sometimes it can be a perfect storm (Reagan), but then sometimes it’s just a leaky boat (Carter).
spmat on March 30, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Correct, but all religion is fanatic on some level.
They’d probably wonder how a government that they set up based upon the separation of church and state got so f*cking sidetracked.
Enrique on March 30, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Well, nothing like eating one of our own. Sometimes it is so discouraging reading what conservatives will write about one of their own.
Seriously, James Dobson is a good man and has done so much to promote traditional families. This thread looks similar to threads over at HuffPo or DU regarding someone such as Michelle, AC, Tony Snow, etc … granted, no one is issuing death wishes — good job.
I wish you could give the guy a break. He too has 1st amendment rights, he means well, and as stated so many times at hotair, we don’t all have to agree, but the insults are rude, especially when applied toward a good decent person such as Dr. Dobson.
This man is brilliant politically and professionally. His advice and research has assisted us in raising a successful child and having a wonderful marriage.
wytammic on March 30, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Agreed :)
wytammic on March 30, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Some conservatives don’t like Christians and wish the party could be rid of them.
Seperation of church and state is not a foundation of this government, but even still, you don’t think you’re maybe exaggerating? It was a comment by someone who is not even a politician.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
When verbalizing “Fred!” are jazz hands appropriate??
honora on March 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Correct, but apparently we are using the mentality from the left that Christians should have no political viewpoints. Which of course, is completely asinine.
wytammic on March 30, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Good for you. You take the 2nd commandment to heart, too rare.
honora on March 30, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I’m sure that sentiment exists, but it seems much of the criticism in this thread is from Christians who see the dangers of allowing our faith to become too closely tied with politics or political figures.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Doesn’t matter, Fred’s still kicking everyone’s butt on the GOP Bloggers March Straw Poll!
http://www.gopbloggers.org/
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on March 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Not yelling about your religion is obeying the commandment to not make idols? You’ve lost me on this one. In fact, I can’t see how being quiet about religion is what it takes to obey any of the commandments.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I would agree that we should be careful not to do that, but this thing about Dobson has nothing to do with any of that. He isn’t a political leader.
But I do know many Christians who would rather elect a Christian as president simply because Christians believe in their moral principles and believe that their God will not lead anyone astray.
And this is just common sense. If you believe in a god and believe that your religion helps you speak with God, then it’s only natural that you’d want the person who leads your country to be able to do just that. You wouldn’t want this to make government a theocracy, but that isn’t a natural progression of a leader who prays.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM
But he is a political leader, just not an elected one. Dobson attempts to influence policy and elections through his organization. That’s political.
That, to me, is not a good reason to elect someone. After all, it’s pretty easy to pretend at faith.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM
I do not mean that being a Christian is the sole qualifier for Christians. I just mean that in an ideal world, all voting records being equal, the Christian thing would make a difference. I can’t tell you how many times I talked to people who explained that the way Bush spoke about his faith really helped push them in his direction. They believed he was geniune when he spoke. Maybe he wasn’t, but it still helped him get their vote.
He isn’t doing that here.
And I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are Christians supposed to completely stay out of politics? If you have a faith that effects even your daily life, clearly it will effect what you believe and which candidate you support.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 11:52 AM
No, but sure as hell trying.
Don’t be a dumbass, Enrique. They’d sh*t their knickers at the size of gov’t and its socialistic and restrictive grabs on peoples rights long before they bugged out about church and state, plus they weren’t militant atheist dickholes like you and the Dawkins numbskull hate brigades.
Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM
No, we’re not supposed to completely stay out of politics. We should be involved.
However, that involvement should never get in the way of the real reason we’re here.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Sure, just like a different hand signal is appropriate when verbalizing ‘Hillary!’
James on March 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Sorry Enrique, that was a little much, but I get a little sick of militant atheists spewing their hate, I get tired of having to see it all the time, its a real pain in the ass to filter through it in Fark to get to teh funneh. I get the aggravation with people trying to convert you, or telling you you’re gonna burn, but I get tired of the religion hatred.
I don’t hate atheists and neither do most religious, but I do hate pricks, and unfortunately, most of my experience shows that most atheists are pricks, particularly if there’s even a passing mention of a church or religion or faith in the the most benign terms possible, they feel they have to whip out an AK, fire in the air, declare their hatred of religion, then piss in everyones beer, rhetorically speaking.
Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 12:16 PM
You’re still losing me a bit. What exactly do you mean? How are Christians able to engage in politics without being considered theocrats?
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Yeah. That makes sense.
– George Washington (1789)
What a zealot.
spmat on March 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM
The way everyone else does. Vote, give money, run for office.
But church “voter guides,” “Justice Sundays” – all that stuff?
No.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:28 PM
This country exists because men of strong faith fought for the freedom to worship and work freely.
How is it that eliminating religious considerations from public discourse is a “return” to our founding principles? It is exactly because of religious considerations that our nation, and its founders, were drawn together.
spmat on March 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Yeah, no kidding. We dodged the theocratic bullet on that one.
/sarc
Seriously, my major concern is that the Christian church is allowing itself to become too closely tied to one political party, and I don’t believe that’s good for the church or its intended mission.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Look, unless a church specifically tells is congregation to pick a specific candidate, there’s nothing wrong with explaining to Christians that part of being a good citizens is to go out and vote. Schools do it all the time.
All that is happening, even here, is that a Christian is advocating certain policies he believes Christians should vote to enact. Other Christians argue that Christians should enact different policies.
That seems to be along the lines of voting, running for office and contributing to politics financially and otherwise.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Christians vote 60-40. That’s hardly being tied to one party.
Blacks are 80% Democrat. Jews are over 70%.
It’s disingenuous to worry about Christians with numbers like these.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I have no problem with pastors telling their congregations to vote and get involved, but voter guides implicitly endorse particular candidates, which I do not think is appropriate given that the gospel is intended for both Republican and Democrat.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:45 PM
When was the last time James Dobson interviewed a Democrat?
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Again, my issue is not “protecting America” from those wacky evangelicals – it’s preserving the integrity of the church and Jesus’ message.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Is this just because you say so? Oh tay then.
(You’re full of it.)
wytammic on March 30, 2007 at 12:50 PM
What’s the purpose of a church? Of Sunday worship?
Puerile. Doesn’t add to the argument at all.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Not trying to add to “the argument”. Just stating an opinion based on the 1st Amendment.
wytammic on March 30, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I agree with you to the extent that political pragmatism obstructs doctrinal and practical integrity.
The problem I have with the gist of your comments is that it seems you’re asking Christians to “turn the other cheek” politically, indefinitely. There comes a point when turning the other cheek becomes self-immolation.
Most everything that’s considered a socio-political milestone in the Western world was accomplished by very religious people with a political itch to scratch. Evangelicals like Dobson are no different. Perhaps you don’t like the itch he’s trying to scratch, but you have no right, either historically or rationally, to invalidate him based upon his nominal religious affiliation.
Great things have been done throughout the Western world, and in our country especially, by religious people for religious reasons. Sure, bad things as well, but it is historical fact that the good has far outweighed the bad. Religion is a valid motive power, both politically and practically. To say otherwise is to reject history and reason. The only caveat is that religion should never be seen as a means to a political or practical end; it is the motive power, not the mechanism.
spmat on March 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM
spmat on March 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Agreed. As a Christian, I have no interest in seeing us turn the other cheek – we should be involved and speak out. However, we should never let politics get in the way of what we were really sent here to do.
That’s all I’m trying to say.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I don’t disagree with either of you. Not knowing Dobson really, it did seem like a pretty mild goof. If you compare it to Robertson’s comment after 911, and even worse when the former Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, following a bombing on a Friday night of a teen night-club in which around ten Russian immigrant teens were killed, said, “They died because they were clubbing on the Sabbath.” Talk about speaking/thinking theologically about something that has nothing to do with theology!!! But, if you’re saying that Dobson has done or is capable of similar, and this instance is the tip of an iceberg, then be my guest and savage him.
smellthecoffee on March 30, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Well, that’s certainly an opinion.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM
He isn’t the only Christian minster out there. Jackson and Sharpton certainly interview their fair share of Democrats.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I can agree with that, as I’m sure every Christian would, but sometimes, I believe that politics are necessary for accomplishing what we’re here to do.
Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Only in the sense that freedom to practice one’s religion is allowed. The Great Commission does not require legislative support.
Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »