![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgYou can read Obama's now two-year old speech, which was widely publicized at the time and will see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack today on Barack Obama.
First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:
"I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees; we have no right to fight for what we believe."
Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.
Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.
There's more. LOTS more.
You know this man, right? This is the guy who spoke truth to power with regard to Christianity some time ago, and hasn't shut up since.
Let me give you a hint.
If someone is trying to coerce you into action based on anger, hatred or other malevolent means...and calling it Christian...isn't. Some times it's hard to be clear - but then there are cases when it's clear as it can be.
Methinks Jim Dobson is seeing a threat to his paycheck. If you read the entire article to the end, I think Jim Wallis would agree with me.
First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:
"I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees; we have no right to fight for what we believe."
Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.
Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.
There's more. LOTS more.
You know this man, right? This is the guy who spoke truth to power with regard to Christianity some time ago, and hasn't shut up since.
Let me give you a hint.
If someone is trying to coerce you into action based on anger, hatred or other malevolent means...and calling it Christian...isn't. Some times it's hard to be clear - but then there are cases when it's clear as it can be.
Methinks Jim Dobson is seeing a threat to his paycheck. If you read the entire article to the end, I think Jim Wallis would agree with me.
