When he accused Presidential candidate Barack Obama of taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution, it was clearly no compliment and neither was his accusation that Obama was "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." So for starters, what does Reverend Dobson have against fruitcake? I mean we all like to make fun of it, and my wife's theory is that there are only a few of them which are re-gifted every Christmas, but still.... Next he'll be calling such interpretation "chopped liver" and for me, them's fightin' words!
But more troubling is Dobson's assessment of Senator Obama's comments, which strike me as well reasoned and genuinely valuable to anyone who takes both the Bible and contemporary experience seriously. He did not get it totally right, but more about that later. Now to the three dangerous claims made by Dobson, with whom I often disagree but rarely find this ugly.
First, why must Reverend Dobson insist that Obama's "mistaken" interpretations are a "deliberate distortion"? Can't someone be wrong anymore without being accused of lying? I appreciate that Dobson thinks Obama is wrong, but there is no evidence here that he is lying, too. And confusing disagreement with disingenuousness turns ugly pretty quick and serves nobody well. Not to mention that when he suggests that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter" because he offers an interpretation which differs from his own, he is telling all Jews, Muslims, and Christians who differ from him that we are guilty of the same dragging. If that is so, then I am proud to share that gutter with Obama and will leave the street to the ugly triumphalists who would defend Dobson's claim.
Second, while Dobson may be correct that Obama is "worlds away in the views of evangelicals," his claim is based on the fact that "Evangelicals...take Bible interpretation very seriously," which he believes Obama does not. Why? Because James Dobson assumes that if you don't share his conclusions about the Bible, you must not take it seriously. Ironically, taking the Bible seriously is the one thing that all interpreters actually share. If they didn't, they would not bother to interpret the text, they would simply ignore it! But sadly, for a man who claims to love the Bible, I suspect that is what Dobson would prefer.
Third, the Reverend would apparently prefer a world with people who share his view of the Bible, or have so little connection to it that they have no view at all. This makes it genuinely frightening when he accuses Senator Obama of wanting everybody to agree about how to interpret the Bible. He perfectly locates the sin of spiritual arrogance, which really does get people killed, and claims that those who oppose it are most guilty of it! Well, I guess he knows that the best defense is a good offense, or in this case, the ability to be offensive.
I do hope that in the future Senator Obama will not suggest that interpretations with which he disagrees are inherently not "amenable to reason." But that is something about which we can talk when we stand together in that "gutter" where Reverend Dobson thinks we both belong. Hey, maybe we'll make it a picnic and I'll bring the fruitcake.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Why is Dobson raising all this ruckus about a speech that happened two years ago? Is it possible that he's just trying to make trouble?
BTW my old family recipe for fruitcake starts with soaking a batch of dried fruit in rum for 24 hours. How can you go wrong with that?
Gee Chris, what is an "Old Testament"? Never heard of it. I know of a Tanakh/Hebrew/Jewish bible. But an "Old Testament"? Nah.
Hey Dave - I'm a Jew. Am I going to hell? Jews don't have a hell. Is there a special Xian one for us? I do know that fundamentalists who are also bible worshipers (i.e. idolaters) will avoid hell - there is a far worse fate for them.
Should we trade stories of who will have a worse end?
I don't think any one of us would agree with another person regarding, religion, politics or much else COMPLETELY, but I think Dr. Dobson has a better grasp on it than Obama does. I think Obama may be a wolf in sheep's clothing so to speak. We definitely need someone that has had a LOT more experience than Obama. We need a lot of help right now and I don't think it should be Obama. We need to remember that God is not mocked. He has put up with our pride, greed, complacency, disregard for His word a long time and we keep getting worse. So guess what people, we had better mend our ways as I think God is running out of patience. Also for people who think there are many ways to heaven, any Bible I have read says it is only through acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior that we can be saved.
I'm not convinced McCain's platform is in anyway more "Christian" or "Biblical" than Obama's.
Yes, Dobson can harp on issues of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, and the "muslim threat". But in reading the four gospels, I do believe the Jesus of the Bible was more concerned with the down-trodden and the poor, social justice, and with peace than with banning marriages.
(And while on this issue, divorcees re-marrying is unbiblical too, should we ban this as well? In fact, divorce is unbiblical, maybe we need another constitutional amendment?)
And in reading the way Hebrew society was setup according to the Old Testament, I'm not sure a more hand's off Republican government which refuses to step in with aid programs to those who need help is in line with God's heart of compassion.
And lastly, look.. we've just had 8 years of Bush. I don't care how Biblical Bush's views are. He did a crap job. This was Dobson's endorsement last time around. Fool you once, shame on Dobson and the current Republican party. Fool you twice, shame on you. If you vote according to Dobson's personal opinions again and get another 8 years of crap, this time, you deserve it.
Thanks for doing this....
It is really too bad that a large percentage of evangelicals have been duped by their pastors and culture to take a George W. Bush approach to Christianity. "If you're not with us you're against us". That would assume that the "Evangelical Brand" is infallible and any other Christian organization is not really Christian. Evangelicals talk about being pro life while 96% of evangelicals supported an unjustified war ("just war theory")
that has led to the death of as many as 500,000 innocent Iraqi children through violence, disease and starvation, not to even mention other innocent civilians and the sacrifices of our military. It is also quite interesting that this same mindset allowed Christians to tolerate Slavery (Mark of Cain...come on...really?) and genocide of our Native American population under the political guise of "Manifest Destiny".
If Evangelicals could get off their rhetoric and look to policies that would minimize the number of Abortions we could make some progress. It makes me wonder if Evangelicals are more interested in dogma or actually saving the lives of the unborn. Pull the beam out of your eye my brothers so you can better see to extract the slivers from others.
It is hard to take Dobson serious, after all, he is the one that proclaimed Sponge Bob gay.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.