My Hero

[kyburg]

You 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.

Comments

[dawnspring.livejournal.com]

No matter my personal beliefs, this country is not and cannot be a Christian nation. We should have a strong moral code to go by, but it should be one not directly tied to or defined by any religion because that then goes against one of the major reasons this country was founded in the first place. A Christian leader has to find the middle ground with his/her secular followers. He has an obligation to lead by example and his faith should reflect in his/her ideals, but Scripture should -never- be law.

I disagree with Dobson on the issue of gay rights. One can be supportive of gay rights and Christian. In fact, the whole point of Christianity is to not judge others and to help them. It is not our place to opress or judge. It's sad that we do so regularly in God's and Jesus's name. We're all human, we're all sinners in some form or another, and denying a gay person the same basic civil and legal rights that we would grant murderers and adulterers (who are FAR worse off in God's eyes when you look at scripture) is morally wrong.

However, I do agree that some of Obama's personal views are very un-Christian. Obama's stance on abortion is absolutely appalling, Christian or not. There's women's rights and family planning, and then there's unwarranted slaughter of children and he's painted himself as the latter. He twice voted against a bill that would protect babies who survived abortion and were born alive, and is in favor of partial-birth abortions. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121261107480446197.html?mod=rss_opinion_main) Sorry....No. You just cannot claim to be Christian and hold those ideals. I'm Christian, I'm Pro-Life but not Anti-Abortion (yes you can be both), and Obama disgusts me.

But then, I've never seen Obama as the great hope he's being painted as in the media. To me, it seems like he's the second coming of Al Gore what with his Socialist and Big Brother ideals wrapped up in a shiny "Change" campaign. That just scares me.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

*checks link*

Whoa. All my security alerts just went balistic.

"Reported Attack Site!

Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.

Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners."

That's from The American Spectator.org. Going directly there, the banner ads scream at you from every corner and you can't find out who these people are without being blocked. It's appalling.

And then there's the content of this op ed piece.

"twice opposed legislation"

Uh, citations needed here much? There's only one piece of legislation referenced, and only one person's opinion quoted.

And as far as partial-birth abortion goes, you may need to dig a bit into my journal to find the hundreds of words I've written on the issue.

But to sum it up - it's a lie. The only people I've ever been able to verify, without a doubt, using it as an option...were the people who defended the suit banning it.

When it first hit the media, I was in a really good place to ask medical professionals dealing directly with the issue what they thought of it. A LOT of them. Think the whole membership of ACOG and AWHONN lot.

I couldn't find anyone who had ever heard of it, knew anyone who had done it...and only one doctor gave enough pause to consider it, and returned the verdict that he would consider it only if "the baby was already dead and the mother was dying." Full stop.

This was a tool to galvanize popular opinion...manipulate you into a seething rage...and it worked. It still does.

NOBODY THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA. They never did. Nobody thought it was a good option. Everyone thought it was a heinous as you did.

Don't be used so cheaply. They got you at the cost of one "babies on bayonets" story.

Wow, the rest of the article is just as bad.

Let's take another look at the sources, shall we?

Wall St. Journal, the bastion of speculative thinking - nope. But they know how to sell ads and subscriptions!
Mr. Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington-area public policy organization. Read the "About Us" tab. It's enlightening.

First paragraph is all about the Founding Fathers. Fourth paragraph is about the 'culture of death' - and while they have a lovely military prayer option on the front page - and you can view the list! W00t! - it really does come across as glurge. (And what is this about, anyway? Proof of prayer? I thought Johnny got benched for watching other people pray - by the other kid who had his eyes open during.)

These guys are not motivated - IN ANY WAY - to handing you a balanced viewpoint on someone who really does not agree with criminalizing abortion at any point. Matter of fact, they would be pretty motivated to skew things their way, right?

I'd really wonder about those bills. Seriously. I don't know about them - at all. Texas has a law on the books regarding 'futility of life' measures - was that bill one of those? Think they'd tell you if it was?

I'd love to see some good ol' depression-era socialism - the kind that built roads and infrastructure. Kept people working. Big Brother? FISA bill much? I don't think Obama would bring it - I think that whole thing has been here since Reagan.

Sorry for the rant - but these guys deserve no quarter. They distort, they lie, they smear and they slander.

Not anymore. Not on my watch.

I call bullshit.

[dawnspring.livejournal.com]

Wow, the personal attack and condecending tone? Way uncalled for.

I do my research and find out information the same way you do. Your sources have never been 100% factual or correct or void of any propaganda. Just because I am not blindly following Obama because He's Black And NOT Bush doesn't mean I am making an ignorant decision and that I've been "manipulated" into not supporting him. This is not the only place where I've read about his abortion stance, it's just the one I had the link to handiest.

If anyone's been brainwashed and manipulated, it's the folks who think he's anything new or special. He's no different than any other politican who has come down the pike in the last thirty years. He's just better at selling his brand of poison.

But you know, it doesn't matter. I learned the hard way back in 2004 that if you hold any poilitcal viewpoint that is not supportive of the Democrats or Liberal parties or you draw attention to the holes in their armor, you will be flamed into oblivion and everything you say can and will be used against you.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

But, she wasn't attacking you. She was trying to debunk the propaganda that has been force fed through the media about partial birth abortions.

I work at a hospital with a neonatal ICU, kids there are born 1-2 months early on average. I work with doctors of all kinds and in surgery on numerous occasions and I have never seen this procedure performed in over 20 years of service.

I agree, Obama is a politician. He's nothing new any more than John McCain is a maverick. Plain fact, politicians say what they want to get elected. They lie about a lot and try to stir up emotions. This is true in any political system.

The trick is to look and see who's paying for the message. That's the best filter I know of. And it works with any issue.

This says it better than I could.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]