E'08: Fruitcakes & Liars

James Dobson used "fruitcake" as an adjective to describe Barack Obama's interpretation of the Constitution and suggested the presidential front-runner distorted the Bible. Obama returned serve essentially calling Dobson a liar, that he was just "making stuff up."

What teed up the good doctor was a speech given by Obama to the religious group, "Call to Renewal." Here were the paragraphs that drew the primary focus (I'll include a link to the full speech at the end of the blog):

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Dr. Dobson's point: context is key. Obama missed the contextual boat by a mile. His admonition to "read our (B)ibles" is advice he would do well to follow to understand the purpose and place of the Levitical law or the Sermon on the Mount. His response to such statements:

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Did Dobson make things up? Or did he highlight the chasm between Obama's biblical rhetoric and his biblical application. Cal Thomas, in the week prior to this free-for-all, exposed Obama's walking, talking contradiction in this article.

Obama knows how to bandy religious words (Schaeffer anyone?). Such smooth speech, finally crafted and just slightly off target, puts him in with some unsavory biblical company. Here's the transcript for your study.

Dobson's vitriol has left him without a candidate. He's hammered both McCain and Obama for not upholding godly principles in their governance. For that, he has taken criticism from his friends and cursings from his foes. And still he speaks out.

Sounds a lot like a prophet (Jeremiah 1:17-19 and Jeremiah 8 through 10 for starters, and that guy ended up in the outhouse basement). No telling what treatment Dobson will receive as this saga unfolds. It doesn't matter. His reward is elsewhere.

But will anyone down here hear him?