I just read this article in which James Dobson, founder and leader of Focus on the family, takes issue with what Barack Obama said in a 2006 speech to Christians gathered against poverty.
I hear Dobson as again boiling things down to abortion. He seems unable to hear Obama's need to "translate" Christian beliefs into arguments to shape policies for the common good. The common good is a new concept I've only rediscovered, having existed for ages among Christian thinkers and disciples.
I don't hear any lowering of morality from Obama. I hear a critique of the Religious Right and their own fruitcake theology that says abortion and gay marriage are the most important political issues to Christians. That is true fruitcake theology, voiced by Dobson himself.
I hear Dobson as again boiling things down to abortion. He seems unable to hear Obama's need to "translate" Christian beliefs into arguments to shape policies for the common good. The common good is a new concept I've only rediscovered, having existed for ages among Christian thinkers and disciples.
I don't hear any lowering of morality from Obama. I hear a critique of the Religious Right and their own fruitcake theology that says abortion and gay marriage are the most important political issues to Christians. That is true fruitcake theology, voiced by Dobson himself.
I am not a particular fan of Dobson either, though he is free to voice his opinion. I agree with Obama that, while people may have religious motives for pursuing certain policies (whether opposition to abortion or support for welfare programs)), they are more effective when they can articulate their positions through arguments that can be understood and recognized by all.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have to take issue with two things in your post, one minor and one fairly significant:
1. Dobson said that Obama had a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution, not a fruitcake theology.
2. Though I often hear liberals argue that abortion and gay marriage are not issues worth considering, I very rarely hear them take the obvious next step of switching their position to appease their critics. If abortion and gay marriage are so unimportant, then liberals should be willing to promise to take the conservative position on both issues. The fact is that liberals actually think both issues are crucially important and worth voting on, even as litmus test issues, they just don't think the other side should get to do so too.
Both your points are valid.
ReplyDeleteMy concern here is more with Christians (fruitcake theology) than politicians (fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution). You accurately identified my push beyond politics to religion with the fruitcake reference shifting from interpretation to theology.
I fear many Christians grasp so little of the heart of God, namely what concerns God and what God cares about (which is just about everything). This reality surfaces in politics often with the heavy prioritization of abortion and gay marriage from conservative Christians.
I too believe both of those matter for life and marriage are given by God and are not to be taken by humans. I also think that the human relations called family are also important to God and to me. I won't claim to have a better grasp of God's heart - I fear that Christians have misrepresent God by not speaking about the many other issues that God cares about and that the way to "win" is to win by the way of the world - in this case with legal/political policies.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/06/dobson-and-obama-who-is-delibe.html
ReplyDeleteI just read this post by Jim Wallis, who is not as pro-Democratic or liberal as one might think. He was at the Obama's speech in question; an organization he leads was the sponsor.
He makes the point I could not adequately put words to: that Dobson has grossly distorted Obama's points in the speech.
He also details the relation of faith and politics, a theme I am investigating this summer.
A good post by Wallis (excepting the cheap shot at the end). I agree with his take on religious motives providing a reason to enter the debate but not sufficing to convince others in a pluralist nation. I also tend to think that religion can often inform a person as to what is important, but it doesn't always provide the details of how to address that specific issue in a political sense. Jesus tells us to take care of the poor, but doesn't specify how to do so, for example. As Christians, we know what we have to do, but a lot of the how is open for discussion.
ReplyDelete