Dobson: Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter”
posted at 11:10 pm on June 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Why this, why now? Probably because Obama’s evangelical outreach is just starting to gear up and Dobson wants to use his influence to blunt it before it can build up steam. Whether he’s doing that out of loyalty to the GOP, genuine concern over a pro-choice candidate peeling away Christian voters, or just the usual craving for attention, I leave to you to decide. Here’s the money section from Obama’s speech on faith two years ago:
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.
The example he gives to make his point is Abraham preparing to kill Isaac on God’s command, as though the moral argument against abortion were no more coherent or “universal” than the voice in some zealot’s head. Dobson’s rejoinder:
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama’s argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion’s terms but in arguments accessible to all people.
He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
“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’s not what he’s trying to say. What he’s trying to say is that it’d be unfair and unconstitutional to make policy based on the ipse dixits of some religion’s God. You’re fully entitled to fight for what you believe, but if you’re going to turn it into law, you need a better justification as a legal matter than “Because God says so.” Otherwise, the only people who will understand it — not agree with it, necessarily, but understand it (i.e. who’ll find it “accessible”) — are people of your own faith. What’s obnoxious about the passage from his speech isn’t that he thinks policy needs to be based on more than a Biblical imprimatur, it’s that he’d choose abortion, of all things, as the example to illustrate his point. That’s a sly, convenient way for him to dodge the issue by implicitly reducing the pro-life position to nothing more rational than one of those holy say-so’s, something he can agree with as a God-fearing Christian but as a lawmaker in a pluralistic country is obliged to dismiss. Note to St. Barack: You don’t have to be a Christian or even a theist to find the pro-life position “accessible.” He knows that, of course, but this issue is so dicey for him with the evangelicals he’s trying to woo that he’s forced to try this feeble sleight of hand as a way of getting it off the table. Think it’ll work, when viewed in the soft glow of his Lightworker halo? Ask Doug Kmiec.
Exit question: Bizarrely, I got three separate e-mails this morning pointing to the year-old video of Obama saying America’s no longer a Christian nation. WND even wrote it up today. Were people connected to Dobson circulating that to lay the groundwork for this broadside, or has it been circulating independently for who knows what reason over the past couple of weeks and maybe that’s what inspired him to speak up now?
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’m personally sick and tired of liberal democrats trying to use scripture to their advantage while trashing it at the same time! Osama Hussien Obama doesn’t know any more about the bible than Nancy Pelosi does and pastors like Dobson should call him out each and every time!
sabbott on June 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM
From Obama’s text:
This is the only part of Obama’s speech where he understands a Christains personal commitment to Christ and Gods laws. The rest is a feeble attempt to justify “mans” laws that are in direct conflict with Gods. Dobson does not say this for “attention”. It’s called conviction.
kdaddy is spot on with this “analogy” that this society has become comfortable with an abomination in the guise of “personal choice”. With ecologist screaming genocide at the southern border fence because a certain species will not be allowed cross the Rio Grand to mate—-a majority of the same folks have no problem walking into an abortion clinic.
There is no middle ground here folks. Dobson knows this and I suspect Obama does too.
Rovin on June 24, 2008 at 9:45 AM
A literal interpretation of the bible shows Abraham was a zealot?
shick on June 24, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Yeah, a zealot wouldn’t have slept with his servant in direct disobedience to God. If Abraham wouldn’t have slept with his servant and just obeyed God in the first place with his wife, we wouldn’t have the Muslim problem at all. For as I understand it the Muslims, their heritage and ideology, are decendants of Ismael – and cursed as a result.
ThackerAgency on June 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM
The key difference between a zealot and an obedient follower is in the heart. A person can be a religious zealot and not have a heart for God but seek his own justice and righteousness. This was not the case of Abraham when he offered up his son Issac.
shick on June 24, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Excellent point. God wasn’t kidding when he said that bit about the sins of the fathers. Actions have consequences.
fourstringfuror on June 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I was attempting to get into AP’s mind.
Many people see the bible story of the sacrifice of Isaac as an allegory–to teach obedience to god. But if one were an atheist, how could you possibly think Abraham was a zealot, unless you considered the story literal, which is in and of itself a contradiction for an atheist. You see?
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Good point. What is, after all, to keep the Muslim, Hindu, or atheist from agreeing with the Christian God of Abraham? I can cite “God says not to kill babies” as my ultimate authority, but that doesn’t stop the atheist from saying “God or not, seems like the right thing to do”.
Allah’s usually impressive logic gets gummed up when an evangelical type is speaking. The hate gets in the way.
Jaibones on June 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
For me anyway, sometimes, yes.
ThackerAgency on June 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Not only is there nothing to stop them from agreeing, but it seems to me it is the Christians in America who have made it possible for the others to have a safe and welcoming place to agree or disagree.
Which non-Christian–including atheists– has more rights or better opportunities outside of the US?
Have you thanked a Christian today?
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Thacker: Actually, the Muslims are more likely a result of the Nestorian heresy than any supposed connection to Ishmael. There is also the issue of the lack of evangelism to the Bedouin, who spoke Arabic and not Aramaic or Byzantine Greek.
As for their decision to do f-’d up and violent things? Blood’s on them.
RE: the topic, Obama ‘immanentizes the eschaton.’ He makes the Kingdom of Heaven the State. He makes salvation a material thing. It’s the chief error that makes modern leftism in all of its forms, no matter how explicitly pious or religious. God may be on the side of the downtrodden, but not at the expense of the wealthy: God comes for all people. He has not come to exclude any particular group from his kingdom other than those who exclude themselves.
However, we must be wary, since there are spiritual implications to everything, including our economy. As in the past, nominally faithful people can be tricked by promises of good times and material blessings. While God asks all of us, it is not for any man, head of state or otherwise to enforce this.
It is also possible to create a ’substitute’ kingdom; I.e. a socialist paradise. Even if successful it would be monstrous and evil. I would rather be free and poor than in the socialist net.
RiverCocytus on June 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Interesting that so far Allahpundit has not responded to being called on his cheap shots against Dobson…
pseudonominus on June 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Don’t know what this means. The Bible never says Abraham was a zealot, and AP obviously uses the word as an insult. So, what are you driving at?
Some parts of the Bible are history, and should be taken literally. Other parts are visions, poetry, prophecy, allegory, love letter, axioms and more, and should be interpreted according to the genre being used. If AP always takes the Bible literally (assuming that he knows where to find one) he would find it difficult to understand much of the time.
Akzed on June 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Interesting how you wingnut will defend that loon at any expense.
AP doesn’t have to respond, Dobson doesn’t warrant any response other than sit down, shut up and get the hell into the Constitution Party where you belong.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Amen.
Vaporman87 on June 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Like he and the rest of us have to be beholden to Dobson, please how dare you be so brazen. You people are really too much.
If it was up to you guys the GOP would lose for the next century.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Do you show your true colors when you say he should “shut up”?
Not very 1st Amendment of you.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Rah, rah, rah. You guys do not own religion period. it’s America. And still using the middle name?
You guys are pathetic, you’re like a tired clice’ grasping for any smear you can find. Instead of debating on the issues it’s back to acting like Democrats with the name calling and the filthy smear tactics.
Some Christian…not.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that the GOP is a fluid institution comprised of a variety of constituencies at different periods in time. Here you meet a constituency you do not belong to. It constitutes perhaps a third of the GOP.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM
To be frank, abortion is not a religious issue per se. It is a human rights issue, and can be successfully argued that way. Yes, there is the religious component, but anyone with an ounce of humanity can understand that you don’t kill your offspring because they are ‘inconvenient’, and the hypocrisy of the left is no more apparent than when they insist on the ‘right’ to abortion of innocent life, yet stand around with candles to protest the execution of convicted murderers.
Think_b4_speaking on June 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Do you intend for the GOP to win without the constituency you call pathetic? The conservative Christian and Jewish community is a part of this, whether you like it or not.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I believe there were similar words spoken by the Romans while nailing Christ to the cross.
Rovin on June 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM
For all of their judgemental crap and their smears we are better off without them. They are determental to the GOP because they piss off the important independent vote and we end up losing the independents and the Liberatrians. We don’t need the wingnut loons, send them packing.
They belong in the Constitution Party, not in the GOP. Over there they can all set together in a circle smearing and trashing everyone who is different than them. The GOP is a large tent and they make our tent appear smaller, i.e. small minded. We need to win, not lose.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I tried to answer that above at 10:03
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Thanks for proving me right with that response, it’s appreciated.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Got it now.
I wasn’t the only one confused.
shick on June 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Its times like these that I really miss Bryan…
MechEng5by5 on June 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM
You’re not listening. “They” are as much the GOP as you think you are. You are finding out that you don’t want to be in that party because it’s perhaps too far right for your tastes. Others look at you and say they don’t want to be in the party because it’s too far left for their tastes.
The parties are falling apart and the re-alignment is happening. I suspect our new choices will be even more stark.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Hey moron, how about without us, the GOP would not have won anything in the last century. Buy a clue!
MechEng5by5 on June 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
The only thing that is “prooved” is your attempt to alienate a huge portion of the GOP electorate with your self-rightous secular solipsism.
Rovin on June 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I am usually put off by spokesmen for the “religious right” (I loathe Hucakbee, for instance) but I’m with Dobson on this.
The fact is that Western Civilization and our laws and constitution have inextricable roots in “some religion’s God”, namely Christianity. As Dinesh D’Souza points out in What’s so Great About Christianity, even Atheists benefit from the ideas that evolved from, and were unique to, Christianity.
We take all of these ideas for granted now, but they cannot be divorced from Christianity. So, even when you are using “reason” alone, it is still reason framed from a Christian perspective. It is also important to note that it was Christianity which made the family, and not the state, the cherished center of life.
When they’re at Gitmo?
Buy Danish on June 24, 2008 at 11:02 AM
More of the same…and it has hardly been for a century, try 25 years. Jeez. jJust becuase Karl Rove and Lee Atwater duped you guys with empty promises don’t take it out on us.
You should be more articulate in recognizing a political con when you see one.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Where did Bryan go? I too miss his writing.
I wish that AP would recognize that some of his reader base includes the very people he mocks. Even though I disagree with athiests/agnostics I choose not to deride them and instead pray for them.
kerrhome on June 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Is anyone really surprised at Obama’s extreme stance on abortion? Didn’t he say that he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby” if she made a mistake.
I’m a pro-life Christian, and I realize that pushing my belief system as justification for banning abortion is not going to convince the secularist mind. I also admit that life beginning at conception is a tough sell without getting into any philosophical discussion. Roe v. Wade tried to at least invent some criteria for determining personhood (viability), but later cases pushed that back to the point of birth.
However, if I press a pro-abortionist to explain what transformation, scientifically or medically speaking, occurs from one second before “birth” and one second after, that suddenly distinguishes a fetus from a baby, and makes it worthy of life, they wont have an answer without getting into some philosophical discussion of one right trumping another right. Usually they will use Obama’s argument that I’m just a religious zealot trying to impose my beliefs on others to cover their own lack of an answer. It would be interesting to see what justification Obama would give for allowing a live baby born due to a “botched abortion” to die.
AverageJoe on June 24, 2008 at 11:05 AM
You realize that we’re not here only because we are Christian conservatives right? I am a defense and fiscal conservative as well. I served my country in the military, want a strong military, want low taxes and spending and I also believe that our country was founded on and is strong because Christianity. Deriding Christian conservatives is not going to make the Republican party more conservative. I thought we were a big tent party.
kerrhome on June 24, 2008 at 11:08 AM
it’ll be interesting to see how your boy captain queeg, does without us in november. good luck with your new moderate party.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
AO, you should really take a second to read what you write. Conflicting yourself in the same paragraph does not add support for your argument. And neither is the arrogance of thinking Christains belong in some other tent that insulates your vision of the GOP. Your youth is appearently lacking the historical, (and yes, religous) values that has always been the backbone of the GOP. Where you stand on this issue, we lose far too much of our base than you’re willing to realize.
Rovin on June 24, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I sincerely hope so. rather be stabbed in the front by democrats than in the back by you moderate republicans.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Abortion is just one of the issues this evangelical has with Obama. I just dont want to see America get her first Marxist president. I dont want to see a man who calls himself a “Christian” but who subscribes to the hatred of Liberation Theology be president. I dont want to see a man who thinks government has all the answers be president. I dont want to see a man who will ration energy (in his words, cut consumption) become president. I dont want to see a man who wants to nationalize industry be president. With a socialist majority in Congress what ever liberties and freedoms we have are gone. All freedoms and liberties except that is, the right to destroy life in the womb. The gutless spineless republicans wont make a stand. They couldnt even run things when they were a majority.
I will not worship at the alter of Obama-Baal-Molek.
As much as I dislike McCain, he really is the lesser of two evils.
So now Obamessiah is Joshua who will lead us into the promised land. Well, I’ll be like Moses and watch from a mountain top.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Is that all you care about?
baldilocks on June 24, 2008 at 11:16 AM
You dont have to push anything on anybody, Joe. Just continue to stand for what’s right. Abortion is wrong anyway you look at it. But Obama’s ok with having a comfortable room for the child who survives an abortion to die in.
God help us.
It’s true that God gave this command to his OT people, the Hebrews. But is there any reason not to adopt it as my own? Seems to me it’s pretty good advice.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Obama’s ok with it.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 11:28 AM
But the problem is it’s always about you guys.
yes, I want low taxes, I do not want a Democrat in the White House and John McCain is the best candidate for us right now. The GOP has a bad mark on it right now. The general public sees hypocritical Christians lying through their teeth to get vote. There was another one yesterday.
It’s got to stop with you guys, please. I care about the GOP and you guys are trying to dismantle my party and John McCain and I just cannot take it anymore. it’s just too much.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Thanks for the link Abcurtis. I wonder how Obama can claim he was for “comfort rooms” for babies to die, when he wasn’t (according to Stanek). Pull the transcripts and prove him wrong.
Also, an interesting quote by Obama:
Mind you, these are babies born alive because of botched abortions we are talking about, yet he still calls them fetuses. Again I ask, what is it about birth that must happen for fetuses to become babies?
AverageJoe on June 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Thanks for answering honestly.
There are thing which are more important than the GOP. Sorry that you can’t see that.
baldilocks on June 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM
.
You might want to review the history of the party. It was founded on human rights issues, and the tax and defense planks were added much later. Just who is trying to steal the party?
Think_b4_speaking on June 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Staneks quote is also worth noting:
What also sickens me is that the hospital in question is “Christ Hospital & Medical Center” (affiliated with the United Church of Christ) with many Board members from Trinity Church UCC. How can a “christian” hospital can perform abortions, then let babies born “by accident” to die. I dont care how pretty the room is. (Theological question: They baptise the “fetuses” before allowing them to die?)
AverageJoe on June 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Check this out – http://www.defendingcontending.com
The first entry says it all.
Nolamom67 on June 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
don’t worry, my votes for the GOP will definately stop this year.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM
[Think_b4_speaking on June 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM]
Your point holds the crux of the problem in this case. The religious component is the human rights issue. Try employing the human rights argument without at some point being forced to acknowledge these babies are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” or other such derivative religiously inspired doctrines. And you are now stuck in a position inaccessible your debate opponents.
Mind you, I agree with you but others won’t. There are some who think, for matters of convenience, because of other religious tenets, from tradition or culturally, that all people are not created equal. They bake others children in ovens when they don’t like the parents, throw widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands, treat their women like cattle, or in the art of some governments just downright believe they own their people. Some think it alright to kill their children if they are dishonored by them. Then there is the “Might Makes Right” people like Mugabe. Thus, this religious component is and always will be inaccessible to those who live only in world of convenience.
This human rights argument is rendered null without, at its base, an appeal to a Creator. You can play the game that if you get enough Creators from different religions to agree on the human rights argument, then you’ll have a majority and can pass a law on some spurious rational secular argument imposing it on the remaining dissenters, but without the “God Says So” component, we are all just animals with the fittest surviving “uncompromising commitments” and “regardless of the consequences”.
Dusty on June 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM
That should read:
“Thus, this religious component is and always will be inaccessible to them and, particular so, for those who live only in world of convenience.”
Dusty on June 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM
.
From a worldwide perspective, I understand where you are coming from, but I think within the US, we have a basic cultural understanding that we all work from, which is why we don’t burn widows on the pyre here, etc. In fact, even on the animal level, one can see where creatures will commonly sacrifice themselves to protect their young, so even without the veneer of humanity there is room to argue the point. Ulitmately, however one must refer to science to make the atheist argument against abortion, (as understood by doctors) which is that a fetus is indeed a life, and that it must be killed to effect the abortion.
Think_b4_speaking on June 24, 2008 at 12:11 PM
“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.”
Why would anyone on the right be more upset with Dobson (with whose pronunciamentoes I have less and less patience for usually) than Hussein? Hussein’s quote implies that opposition to abortion, buggermarriage, confiscatory taxation or whatever it is that he stands for is not informed by proper hermeneutics.
Dobson is only calling a club a club by pointing out what Hussein is trying to obscure: the Bible teaches certain things unequivocally, and those who disagree are at odds with the truth. Hussein says Dobson’s side has not read the Bible, while he claims to be interpreting it properly. Dobson is only making the same claim.
BTW, Hussein is using the oldest canard there is by bringing up the OT dietary laws, yet no doubt thinks that he has won the debate with it. What an absolute and total lightweight zero nothing hollow man.
Akzed on June 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Ishmael was not cursed, he was blessed as the seed of Abraham and promised a nation.
Squid Shark on June 24, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Dont be too sure about Obama’s biblical knowledge. After all, Satan quoted scripture to Jesus. The Bible is like the internet. You can find any biblical passage to support or refute a position. Of course, in order to do that, you have to forgo context. With scripture, context is everything.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You’re right. His name in Hebrew is Yishma-el meaning, “God will hear.”
He was blessed and was promised a nation.
Here is what was promised to him:
However, this is what the Lord said about Yishma-el:
The Arabs are descendant of Yishma-el, the Muslims trace their lineage from him to give them a birthright from Abraham. Doesnt this describe them to this day?
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I’m with Dobson on this one. Democracy cannot demand we accept what is wrong over what is right. right and wrong are not relative values.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM
The values differ among churches though.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 1:04 PM
In reference to AP’s emails about America being a Christian nation. I do believe America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and maybe one time it really was a Christian nation. But it is no more. No truly Christian nation would never allow their children to “pass through the fire”, that is, sacrificing children on the alters of choice (Baal) and convenience (Molek). And that’s all abortion is. Women ’s health has absolutely nothing to do with it. Besides, arent some of the aborted children female? What about their health?
Every pagan nation in the OT that allowed child sacrifice were judged and destroyed. They no longer exist. What makes us different? That we call ourselves “Christian?” I dont think so.
Obama can worship Baal and Molek as his gods if he wants, but I wont. Killing is killing. Whether it is outside of or inside of the womb is irrelevant.
And I’m sure AP would agree – killing is wrong.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 1:15 PM
That should be “ever.”
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM
agreed. And why do you suppose that is? After all, they have the same scriptures I do.
The Church of England says it’s ok for two of their mail priests to marry each other. I wonder what scripture they used to justify that.
I think instead of trying to find scripture that prohibit abortion Obama should be looking for scripture that supports it.
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Fetus – Latin for infant.
If it’s a human infant why is it ok to kill it in the womb? If the “fetus” is not a human infant, what is it?
abcurtis on June 24, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Meh, AP just needs to read The Irrational Atheist and he’ll get the picture. :)
CTDeLude on June 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Some definitions of “Fetus”:
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
When did “Fetus” start equating to just tissue or anything other than unborn offspring?
If I performed an abortion of the fetus of an endangered or protected species, could I be charged with a crime?
AverageJoe on June 24, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The extreme Right Wing causes the same problems for the GOP that the extreme Left Wing causes for the democrats.
You guys are never happy and are only happy with some kind of manufactured controversy or conflicts with some group. Or you thrive on smears that are put out there to stir the pot. The dram level is staggering, you would think it was merely theater for our entertainment.
It’s a problem in both parties and it is undermining our democracy.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Excellent question. You know the libs would be up in arms.
(As an aside, I would assume you would be in trouble if you informed the little
girl’srodent’s parents.)JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I mean read the extreme blogs on both sides, it’s always the same crap.
Talk about a study in bitter.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Not sure where the Church of England justifies it. It is difficult to reconcile the differences among denominations. Obama may be saying that there needs to be a common discourse on values independent of the dogma of each individual church.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Where did the “basic cultural understanding” come from, if not the theological and philosophical understanding of the Christians, Deists, and others who formed our country? What maintains it, and keeps it from devolving into a “cultural understanding” that allows abortion, then infanticide of Downs children, etc.? I think religion is a part of our essential philosophical structure in this nation, and needs to be maintained rather than excluded from the public policy debate.
As to appeals to nature, that can cut both ways. Some animals will sacrifice themselves for their young. Others, however, will eat their young at times.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM
The extreme Right Wing causes the same problems for the GOP that the extreme Left Wing causes for the democrats.
You guys are never happy and are only happy with some kind of manufactured controversy or conflicts with some group.
This from a commenter who links to an allegation about a congressional candidate as proof that the GOP is filled with religious “hypocrites?” I don’t know the truth about the candidate you link- neither do you.
The fact that you refer to this as a “manufactured controversy” demonstrates a philosophical divide between your position and religious conservatives.
I’m not a big fan of Dobson. He does have a right to his opinion about Obama’s biblical scholarship, however. And, I agree with his criticisms. Obama clearly wants to appeal to biblical injunctions about poverty, injustice etc. while dismissing the “obscure” passages he doesn’t agree with.
I guess you could call Obama a “cafeteria Universalist,” or something.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I’d also like to point out that the Declaration of Independence explicitly uses the “God said so” argument in justifying our right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness (property).
Obviously “God said so” should not be immune to challenge, but it should also not be excluded as an illegitimate argument.
Sackett on June 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM
AprilOrit, why exactly is it that Mr. Obama’s middle (which is really one of his last names), shouldn’t be used?
Entelechy on June 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes, the Creator says so and man by virtue of his creation has rights that preceed the government. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution rely on a particular sect’s interpretation of what God specifically says.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM
It takes one to call one, wepeople…! :)
A_O, that’s what happens when you wind up “geezers” and “olde farts”…
I tried to warn all concerned!
J_Gocht on June 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Look, there have been others, don’t try it.
My God you guys are looking for a Christian Utopia and it doesn’t exist.
And real Christans just are not this bitter and jaded and angry and hateful.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 2:59 PM
It’s difficult to see how one of your comments differs from another.
You wish to throw out the far right and far left. You fancy yourself part of some reasonable center. OK. So what? You’ve offered no reasons why your version of the reasonable center is preferable. You’ve offered no explanation as to the philosophy your center believes, and how it has historically proven itself both useful and desirable and durable. You are simply a young person who is just intelligent enough to understand that there are two sides involved in ideological conflict but think that all that matters is some accommodation.
All that matters is a well-thought out philosophy winning. Get off the fence Ms. Orit. It’s tiresome. Put up or shut up. If you think you have found some 3rd way, go for it. If you find enough allies, you will win. Explain what a centrist position is. Explain why it’s best. Explain how you intend to win. Explain why being a centrist is always reasonable, when the center moves. We are not on a fixed political plain. We have been drifting left for nearly a century.
Otherwise, you’re just flapping your gums.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM
no we’re just looking for a conservative who won’t bend over and become a liberal…er moderate….er whatever.
I’ve noticed that any lib who doesn’t like christians automatically accuses christians of this….next step is to shut us up via ‘hate crimes’ legislation…
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM
It was actually Tom Minnery who said that to Dobson.
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM
AP,
Last night I repeatedly asked for any evidence that Dobson has ever been motivated by “just the usual craving for attention”. I see you haven’t produced any.
Will you apologize now, & admit that Christians have a right to express political views, too?
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Here’s my philosophy – live and let live and don’t always look at the glass like it’s half empty, which most of you do.
I try tpo look for the good in people, even my adversaries, unless they appear to not be worth it, or have to visible good on display.
The reasonable center is the best right now becuase it is just that – reasonable. And certainly not so hardcore negative, unhappy, uncaring and downright unkind.
Here we go with the easy way out, since you are such a wingnut I w must be a lib. I’m not a lib I am a Moderate jew, and you are just another shameful charleton in a long line of more of the same.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM
whoops –
I try to look for the good in people, even my adversaries, unless they appear to not be worth it, or have no visible good on display.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I don’t need to explain anything, it’s so obvious. You guys are the minority, just like the Far left, you guys are far from mainstream America.
You will never run this country in this lifetime, this I know.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Telling a citizen to “sit down and shut up” is undermining our democracy.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM
And if you guys were so right about it all the GOP wouldn’t be in the position it’s in.
I mean really, a full round of positive reality and goodwill is surely needed.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Well, that good will certainly isn’t coming from you.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:16 PM
And moreover Dr. Dobson’s authority or lack of it purely lies in the eyes of the beholder.
But one thing is for sure, when you get that first taste of media attention it’s an addiction that must be fed for years to come.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:18 PM
I didn’t call anyone a moron.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:18 PM
“Goodwill” is needed, after Christians “shut up”, right?
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Dobson has several million listeners 5X a week on the radio. He doesn’t need any more attention. He can get on Hannity or O’R any time he wants, & he rarely wants to.
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Aha, but the Constitution and Declaration would not exist without the influence of Christianity on our values, and specifically on the men who wrote those documents.
Try as you may, that is an inescapable fact.
Spoken by someone who sounds bitter, jaded, angry and hateful.
Buy Danish on June 24, 2008 at 4:21 PM
His right to speak comes from the fact that he is a citizen. The content of his speech comes from what his profession as a Christian family counselor. The fact that people know who he is gives him as audience. You want to silence him because you don’t agree with him. He has been around for almost 30 years. Maybe if you said something worthwhile you could gain an audience and more people would want to hear what you had to say.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:23 PM
“comes from his profession…” sorry.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM
That’s your fantasy that fuels your personal negativity about what perceive to be real, not mine.
How about just focusing on living your life and cease with taking everyone’s inventory who is different? Including John McCain and Barack Obama.
This is a democracy, when over 50% of the country decides we will be a religious nation – a Christian version of Saudi Arabia – fine. I’ll go along with it.
Until then, I’ll live in the Moderate country called America and count ny blessings everyday.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM
That is why I said what I said. Whether what he says is considered worthwhile is purely in the eyes of the beholder. He can say what he wants, but AP asked in his posting if he was craving for attention and I would say there is a very good chance of that, it is essential to his soapbox.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM
You also said he should shut up.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I don’t think he is craving attention. He has strong beliefs and those who have strong beliefs have no problem promoting and/or defending them. That is obvious from the success of blogs. The fact that he has a bigger soapbox does not mean he is an attention seeker, he is just using what he has (his ministry) to express his beliefs. That is his right and he doesn’t need to shut up. If you disagree with him that’s fine but his right to speak should not be denied.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I never told him to shut up. Again, his legitamacy is merely in the eyes of the beholder.
Again you are trying to create drama.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Oh please and this coming from, hmmm, let me guess – you?? LOLOLOLOL
That’s pretty comical.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Look at your post for 10:36 AM. You said he should sit down and shut up. You are the dramatic one.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Why on earth this morons political opinions carry any more weight than Will Smith’s is beyond me. Hey Dr. Dobson… STFU and Focus on the Family why dontcha?
hindmost on June 24, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »