Well There’s a Can of Worms
Published June 24th, 2008Everyone’s favorite religious wacko, James Dobson, has pretty much invalidated many of his own moral arguments. And it seems he’s too short-sighted to even realize it.
It seems that Mr. Dobson has taken umbrage with some comments made in a speech by Barack Obama. He went on his radio show and did his best to tear apart Mr. Obama’s arguments against governing by the bible. Of course, this speech took place in 2006, so Mr. Dobson has either been holding this in, or not paying attention. Either way, I find the basis for his argument part peculiar and entirely hilarious. To summarize the comments of Mr. Obama:
In the speech, Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I’m sure, to most people. It is patently absurd to govern a 21st century society on a code of laws written two to five thousand years ago. Those people would have no clue how to socially interact in our society, nor would we in theirs. So what does Mr. Dobson have to say to this?
In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Oh. Good. Gracious. Me. Did he just say that? He did. He just stated that passages from the Old Testament are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament. Well no freaking kidding! So much for biblical literalism. But do you know what other major current social issue is rooted in the exact same set of laws that the shellfish prohibition comes from? Yeah - gay marriage, and homosexuality in general.
Jesus never talked about homosexuality, never condemned it or even frowned upon it. Yet every evangelical Christan seems to think the bible rails against homosexuality over and over. But it’s hardly even mentioned in the bible, and where it most specifically is - is in the Old Testament. Right around the part about not eating shellfish, stoning your wife and not wearing clothing of two different fabrics.
This is one of the things that really gets me about people who try to force all of society to conform to their religious beliefs. They pick and choose. They take the parts of the bible - for whatever reason - they want to follow, and ignore the rest. They cherry-pick whatever they feel will support them, while ignoring the context. It’s been a very long time since any major Christian sect followed the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, in whole. And for good reason! As Mr. Dobson said, they are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Dobson takes most issue though with Mr. Obama’s message of tolerance:
Dobson also takes aim at Obama for suggesting in the speech that those motivated by religion should attempt to appeal to broader segments of the population by not just framing their arguments around religious precepts.
Yet this is the wisest thing in the Obama speech. Dobson complains that Obama is trying to appeal to the “lowest common moral denominator” - but that’s not a bad thing. Not all of us have the same moral base. Not even all Christians have the same moral base, since they interpret the bible in different ways. To suggest that YOUR moral base is more correct than MINE is offensive and divisive - and that’s exactly what Obama is suggesting we shouldn’t do. If you are motivated by religion - great - but if you want to do something other than preach to the choir, it’s high time you took a step back and tried to figure out where everyone is coming from, and work within that frame. I will happily agree with most right-wing evangelical Christian that murder is wrong. I don’t think that’s defined by the bible though. And clearly we may disagree on the definition of murder - but whatever murder is, it’s wrong.
Dobson seems to think that Obama believes fighting for something you believe in is wrong. It’s not. But it’s arrogant to believe that everyone should agree with you because YOUR religious text says they should. And it is irrational to believe that society is immoral just because it disagrees with you and a book. All Obama is saying is that if you wish to discuss topics with a wider population, then your argument shouldn’t reduce to “The Bible says so.” Dobson disagrees - because the bible says so.
Let me understand this –
Dr. Dobson thinks Senator Obama is distorting the Bible.
Everything — every law, rule, passage, etc. — that Senator Obama mentions, can be easily located in the text. YOu can look it all right up, whether you agree with the senator’s interpretation or not.
On the other hand — are we so sure about that, in the case of Dr. D?
Would the Biblical authority and vigorous abortion oppenent, Dr. Dobson, be so kind as to direct us to the Scripture referenc — either in the OT, or the NT — that specifically prohibits abortion, or at the least, directly mentions its practice?
He should be able to do that rather quickly, because (1) he constantly claims that a Biblical mandate exists that supprots his viewpoint against it, and (2) he has now presented himself as a bona fide Bible expert. So, he should be able to immediately thumb us over to the exact reference, chapter and verse, for his favorite shibboleth.
The issue isn’t the bible - the issue is whether a man who says Roe V vs Wade is immoral and would like to see it overturned but won’t do anything to overturn it if elected is morally superior to a man who says Roe V vs Wade should not be overturned? And my answer is there is no difference between the two men’s position because if I won’t do anything to overturn something and I have the power to do so I really don’t want it overturned even though I feel more comfortable saying overturning it would be better.
Now if I don’t have he power to overthrow it then I am just wasting every one’s time because my opponent is probably more versed on other issues and I want to turn things into a shared opinion contest instead of an election.
The United States is not a theocracy. Nor should it have ever been, for if it had, it would never have become the great and tolerant nation, home to millions of people seeking refuge in a very difficult and hostile world, that it is.
Taking advantage of the religious, tax exempt publicity machine he has created to voice a political agenda should invalidate his tax exempt status.
Dr. Dobson should keep his focus on the family and keep his political opinions to himself, or perhaps he should surrender his 501C-3 tax exempt status.
Why don’t we hear his loud criticisms about the thousands and thousands of innocent deaths, (men, women, children, old people, crippled people) that have been caused in Iraq?
Dr Dobson, stay out of politics unless you intend to run for office!
The Religious Right is scared to death of Obama. They never expected a democrat to know the Bible. They take a very thoughtful and reasonable speech and try to distort it. Dobson is the one doing the distorting. He needs to stop being self-righteous after-all he has been supporting a party who’s philosophy is no more than Darwinism. “survival of the fittest/richest.”
Dodson is the one distorting Obama’s speech. How self-righteous is this guy. He has supported a party for years who has adopted the philosophy of Darwinism.(”survival of the richest”) This is against everything that God is about.