THANK YOU Jim,
PLEASE keep speaking out against this right-winged Obama bashing. I totally agree with you that he is a devout Christian. These lies by Dobson need to stop and thank you so much for being the voice. Dobson should criticise the political views of Obamas not his faith in general.
Thanks again, Ryne

Posted by: Ryne | June 25, 2008 2:20 PM

Christian supporters of Barack Obama need to explain how they reconcile Christianity with neo-Marxist radicalism. Marxism has man at its heart, reflected in the impulse to solve all problems through governmental action; Christianity has Christ at its heart, and emphasizes each individual's conscience. They are incompatible at the core.

This is the same incompatibility that led Dietrich Bonhoeffer to oppose the policies of Hitler's regime in Germany. Note that Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler long before he knew anything about the death camps. Several of his letters from prison express the heart of this opposition, focusing on the difference between the worship of God and the worship of man.

Anybody who doubts Obama's radicalism needs to read some of the details of his upbringing and career. His mother was a campus radical; his childhood mentor was a communist; he spent his time in college among campus radicals; his first employer was a radical religious organization, emphasizing liberation theology; his church was a liberation theology church; his community mentors were radicals; he worked with ACORN, a hard-left organization, for years, and with the New Party, a hard-left party. It is simply not plausible that he was born, educated, grown, mentored, and employed among radicals for his entire life, and was not one himself.

I do understand that many at this site adhere to liberation theology themselves. They need to answer the same question for themselves; how can a Christian ally him- or herself with an ideology that touts man's ability to solve all societal problems through activism?

Posted by: Plumb Bob | June 25, 2008 4:48 PM

Don't we need to actually establish a connection between Obama and "neo-Marxist radicalism" before we can ask/respond to that question?

Posted by: B-W | June 25, 2008 5:50 PM

"Good night, honey."

"Good night, Dr. Dobson."

Posted by: canucklehead | June 25, 2008 6:32 PM

I agree with Dr. Dobson. He is a very strong Christian and a man of God. This country was built on God's word, we are a Christain nation at the core, and those who do not believe it are denying our forefathers and our constitution! Have you been to Washington D.C. recently? God's word is all over the monuments! You cannot pick and choose when you believe in God's word and when you don't. If the Bible says something is wrong, it is wrong all of the time, not just at Church, or when you want it to be. Mr. Obama believes in abortion, and letting babies who are born alive after an abortion to be left to die. Is this something that is wrong at church and ok in the public square? No, you cannot have 2 separate views of right and wrong, one in Church and one in Public. Like the Bible says, YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO GODS, and I believe that is what Obama wants people to do. Wake up America and see what Obama really stands for! Also, DR. DOBSON DOES SPEAK FOR ME!!!

Posted by: Marge | June 25, 2008 10:42 PM

If one listens to Jesus, one notes that it is not the one who says Lord, Lord who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of the Father in Heaven.

Having the word "god" posted everywhere does not make one or a nation part of the Kingdom.

Igor

Posted by: Igor | June 26, 2008 8:45 AM

Let's stop all this fighting and simply come together to support Barak Obama.

After all, Sen. Obama disagrees with yesterday's Supreme Court decision disallowing he death penalty for child rapists. According the this morning's Washington Post, Obama believes in the death penalty for child rapists. Dr. Dobson should be happy about that. As for Jim Wallis--brother, I'm afraid Sen. Obama has sold you down the river along with Rev Wright!

Posted by: Jesse Rivers | June 26, 2008 9:28 AM

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT--AN ARTICLE FROM A GUY NAMED PETER WEHNER

National Review Online
Thursday, June 26, 2008

Sojourner, Heal Thyself! [Peter Wehner]

On his blog yesterday, the liberal evangelical Jim Wallis, reacting to comments made about Barack Obama by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and Tom Minnery, said this:

Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

I agree with Wallis about the need for civility and respectful language. I wonder, then, what Wallis would say about these aspersions, made by a professing Christian not long ago:

I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States. And this isn’t about being partisan… I’ve heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States. They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful way they have fought it. Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars wasted—because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.

But I don’t favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven.

It turns out that these disrespectful and uncivil words, attacking motivations, came from … Jim Wallis, back in November. How terribly inconvenient for Wallis.

I wrote a piece for NRO at the time pointing out how reckless and misinformed Wallis’s charges were. It now appears as if Wallis is willing to play by different sets of (Christian) rules, depending on what best advances his political ideology. His is a cautionary tale: many of us who are Christians and in the political and policy arena struggle with how to allow our faith to animate our political and philosophical views without allowing it to become merely an instrument to advance a narrow political agenda. Our faith, while it certainly ought to be relevant to our public lives, should be trans-political and trans-ideological. And while faith can deepen one’s commitment to certain issues, the danger is that a passion for those commitments can sometimes manifest themselves in words that cross boundaries and are meant to wound. Tough and spirited exchanges are fine; mean and ad hominem ones are not.

I have found that it can sometimes be a delicate and difficult balancing act.

We could all benefit from more examples of, and more encouragement to strive for, authentic grace and civility in our public debates. It’s just that Jim Wallis, one of the more partisan and political figures you will find within Christianity, is not in the best position to be preaching on this particular subject. See Matthew 7:3 for more.

Posted by: Jesse Rivers | June 26, 2008 9:50 AM

Mr. Dobson speaks for me. And one-billion other Christians that value Christ Jesus and the witness of the Apostles.

Posted by: Donny | June 26, 2008 10:16 AM

ToddH -- The question to be asked: Is what he said true in context? Today, probably most people, even many conservative Republicans, believe just that. You know the old saying: "Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind," especially when folks refuse to be confronted about their sins.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 10:21 AM

Marge said:
"You cannot pick and choose when you believe in God's word and when you don't. If the Bible says something is wrong, it is wrong all of the time..."

I respect your passion. The simple reality, however, is that EVERYONE picks and chooses from the bible and we have to; otherwise slavery could be justified as well as other horrible sexist and racist discrimination. Dr. Dobson picks and chooses a few anti-gay verses and uses them to raise incredible amounts of money. Obama was pointing out that people aren't reading their bibles if they claim we must never pick and choose. For example, it is unlawful to wear mixed fibers. We are to stone a son to death for not behaving. We are to cut off the hands of woman intervening in a fight on her husband's behalf. We are to stone to death a woman found to not be a virgin on her wedding day. These are a handful of verses that we may be wise to choose to not follow. I imagine you'll agree.

It is my wish that more people when picking and choosing, including Dr. Dobson, will read the red letters first and study and work to apply the red letter teachings in their lives. Dr. Dobson seems to almost completely ignore that which is taught and modeled by Jesus when he seeks to oppress others and take a stance of superiority. He also reveals himself to be uneducated on biblical scholarship and theology.

Once again, I sincerely respect your passion and I offer these thoughts with the belief that you might be better off to follow other leaders more closely than james dobson because he does not follow the way of the Christ. That is not my business; only a positive encouragement of you and an observation of james dobson.

Posted by: David | June 26, 2008 10:23 AM

Rick,

Okay, apparently if you provide a link the comment is held for approval. Just go to the Huffington Post and go to Jim Wallis' blog and search for the article entitled "A War Pitched with a Curve Ball." National Review quoted the last two paragraphs.

Posted by: ToddH | June 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Stan McCullars | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM

Looloo,

The problems is that the National Review was not dishonest. They quoted nearly half of an article that was written by Jim Wallis for the Huffington Post entitled "A War Pitched with a Curve Ball."

Posted by: ToddH | June 26, 2008 10:34 AM

That's ugly, far less than civil, something you can shout but never prove, and just exactly the same tone and tenor some here are calling Wallis to task for.

I'm myself in the media and have been for over half my life -- I think I have an idea of what I'm talking about. If you don't care to hear that, well, that's really not my problem because sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Going further, NR was actually part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary complained about a decade ago (and she had the goods).

Anyway, I've long noticed a double standard when it comes to political discourse -- conservatives are allowed with impunity to skewer people they disagree with (even falsely) but when a "liberal" criticizes a conservative -- more likely truthfully -- he or she is being "mean." Well, you know what? I've personally had it, and I'm sure Wallis has too.

As for Buckley leaving National Review, not so, as he had a commentary in every issue.

Uh-uh -- he had actually sold his stock two years ago.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 11:08 AM

I keep wondering why Christians in our country must be labeled as "liberal" by the press when we stand up for laws that aid those in poverty and vocalize our opposition to the Iraq war?

Posted by: Bethany | June 26, 2008 11:22 AM

Know what Rick, I can quite readily believe that, your own bias is showing like a slip that's 6" too long.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. I've worked in Christian media, too, which is how I came to understand it.

Buckley could disagree with the contributors because unlike the liberal left the conservative movement is a true big tent ideology.

Two days ago I visited a conservative Christian blog -- which has personally attacked Obama on several occasions -- and posted something disagreeing with how to deal with a certain political issue that differed from the "received" doctrine, and a couple of people, including the blog owner, basically went after me. When I pointed some things out that they had not considered, they didn't respond.

Besides, based on what conservatives themselves have said, you'd have a very hard time arguing the "conservatism" is a "big-tent" ideology. Toward the end of the 1996 general election campaign, Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network complained in a piece in the Washington Post about that very thing (he certainly never believed in a "big tent"), and in a recent article, "The Fall of Conservatism," that appeared in the New Yorker, Pat Buchanan said that from the start the goal was "positive polarization." In other words, there never was much room for anything other than orthodoxy; what differences there may have been were of degrees, not fundamental principles.

And as for Buckley, it was one of my hard-right colleagues, a conservative columnist, who wrote his obituary who brought up that he sold his stock in NR in 2006 and that he had become "estranged" from the magazine. Further, the New Yorker article mentioned that he feared that conservatism had lost its way with the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM

Marge,

This nation has never and will never be a Christian nation so please let's be honest about our history and what actually happened. This nation is about greed, always has been, always will be. It had a nice coat of white washed Christian b.s. to make it look Christian but it never was.

The bible also is very clear about not legislating our sexual standards and placing them on others. But it seems to me that you really have a poor understanding of grace. The bible says a lot of things are wrong but do you keep everything the bible says. I know I don't. I would assume not or else you would be a Jew living in the time of Moses.

I don't dispute the fact Dobson believes in Jesus it's how he practices that belief that bothers me. It shows that the man really lacks a very rabbinical or orthodox way of looking at scripture. It's sad really because he could be a bigger force for good.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM

It seems to me we are taking very lightly some critical issues concerning abortion and gay marriage, just as in the 60's sexual immorality (free sex), and drug use was taken lightly. Now, look at our young people and the moral fiber of our nation. The only absolute moral compass is the bible, and until we begin to use it as our standard in this country, we are, as Ronald Reagan once said, a country gone under.

Posted by: Norma | June 26, 2008 5:31 PM

Wow! This one really brings out the wackos, doesn't it. What I think it boils down to is that the kind of phony religiosity that James Dobson represents is a dying phenomenon - thanks be to God.

The newest generations are perfectly comfortable with societal issues that make Dobson and his ilk cringe: gay marriage, abortion [but only if absolutely necessary], an end to the death penalty, realistic and compassionate immigration policies, and more.

Perhaps we're finally getting back to what Christ actually taught: love.

Posted by: John Smart | June 26, 2008 6:46 PM

Good stuff! We're finally seeing Evangelicals break out of their self-imposed political straight-jacket and recognize the realities of conservative politics. As one who's voted on three sides of the aisle, I'm pleased that there's critical thinking going on. Dobson has played a helpful role for years in the lives of young couples in particular. But he has become a demagogue and full of self importance. Like so many before him, he's come to see his perspective as the authorized version of the Evangelical worldview. Here's Dobson's problem:

1. The leadership of the party he's in bed with has transformed itself into one of the most obviously corrupt political coteries in history. All attempts to represent the Republican party as something Christian are now being seen for what they are: a complete laughingstock. Do we need to list again the countless examples of corruption and deception coming out of this group?

2. The political system is not, never has, and never will be truly in sync with the Gospel. The Gospel, as Obama correctly points out, is essentially at odds with the normal political pursuit of power and self interest. The sophistry employed by supposed Christian leaders to couple the conservative Christian movement with the conservative political movement is finally fully exposed for the fraud this is in theological and ethical terms.

3. American society is fundamentally changing. We will no longer allow ourselves to be manipulated (Christian or not) by either political party based on one political litmus test such as abortion. The Republicans have abused this trust for far too long and we know they are insincere in this regard. You cannot be pro-life in one arena and pro-murder in another. So there is one salient issue in politics today: which party is worst? Which party has abused power more? Do I need to reiterate the obvious?

Dobson has embarrassed himself this time. I used to respect him and his programs. But he has gone too far. He does NOT represent Evangelical Christians as a whole. He represents one segment who want to marry their religious and ethical views to one political party. This is what is called fascism. Think about it.

- E

Posted by: Erasmus | June 26, 2008 7:54 PM

Canucklehead: Looks like Ron Reagan is set to star in the next sequel of Pirates of the Caribbean using the compass that will show us the way to our hearts greatest desire, to capture the evil neo-marxists and the squirrel gets the ACORN.
IMO-You are absolutely right about the money.

BTW- any body want to take a crack at my question in post #2 above?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 26, 2008 8:53 PM

Great article Jim. I pastor a small church in an urban neighborhood. One topic that has surfaced in many of my sermons is the need for Christians to be living examples of THEIR faith, not trying to force others to conform to our values. I believe that Christians can, and must, lead change within this nation and the world. However, that change has to begin with our own actions of following and living the examples set forth by Christ. Additionally, we need to be adopting the teachings of the apostles and other great leaders, both and female, of the Old and New Testaments. Christians are not bound to participate in actions that are unbiblical simply because a state or our national politicians have a passed a law condoning certain actions. We need to be living and setting a counter culter example of morality and life.

Somehow, Christianity has linked itself with the Republican party. In some extreme cases it appears as though the Republican party can do no wrong. Some Christians seem to have forgotten that our hope is not in some earthly power or leader. Rather our hope is to be centered on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It seems that Dr. Dobson and others have sometimes forgotten the source of our strength and example.

Posted by: eagle | June 27, 2008 10:25 AM

Dr. Dobson's Family Research Council is one of the most effective political tools I've seen in a long time. They blame all of society's problems and waywardness on liberals, Democrats, or both. The followers take it hook, line, and sinker.

No one ever stops to think, hey the conservative Republicans have been in charge a very long time making all the laws since 1994 to the beginning of 2007. Hey, President Bush, who can do no wrong, has been the father of the country for almost eight years! The U.S. Supreme Court is a majority Republican appointed one!

Posted by: steve | June 27, 2008 2:35 PM

"I haven't endorsed a candidate, but I do defend them when they are attacked in disingenuous ways"

When you post a defense of the disingenuous ways that Obama has attacked McCain, Jim, I'll be more inclined to believe you.

Posted by: Trygve | June 28, 2008 6:22 PM