James R. Dobson, of “Focus on the Family,” is ticked off at Barack Obama.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pretaped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
“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?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.” “Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.
A few things.
- There are some Christian groups who believe that the dietary laws in Leviticus do apply. Not a lot of them, mind you, but the basic point Obama is making applies: whose “Christianity” do you apply?
- Especially when some folks cherry-pick which Old Testament rules and regulations should be paid attention to. The Ten Commandments still seem to be in play for Dobson — as do Levitican injunctions against homosexual behavior. Dietary laws and which festivals to keep are no longer of interest to him. Certainly he has reasons behind this — but are they so self-evident to everyone that they needn’t be discussed?
- And, finally, does Dobson really argue that the Biblical passages that he would support as a basis for a “Christian nation” are all the same — and are interpreted the same — as Al Sharpton would support?
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama’s argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion’s terms but in arguments accessible to all people. He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
“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.”
No, what he’s saying is that someone like, say, James Dobson making arguments solely on the basis of his own religious beliefs doesn’t necessarily trump all other arguments — especially among people who believe differently. “It’s in the Bible” doesn’t hold much if any weight for Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, even some Christians, without something more than passage and verse. Imposing religious beliefs on others by way of law, compelling and forbidding behavior based solely on majority — or even minority — moral codes, is not useful or healthy in a pluralistic society. Something more, something we can reach consensus on, is needed.
Is that the “lowest common denominator”? I really don’t think so. At the very least, though, it means that those who wish to see their morality enacted into legislation must persuade, not act from authority — or it must be an authority that is recognized, if not by denominational hierarchy, than by acclaim for wisdom and holiness.
Obama isn’t arguing that you can’t, or even shouldn’t, use your religious beliefs to inform your arguments. He’s calling on people to recognize that those beliefs aren’t universal, and that to rely solely upon them to persuade others is unlikely to get much traction. And to treat them as the primary grounds for legislation is as likely to be divisive as anything else. Fight for what you believe in — but recognize that more than your belief is needed to affect the beliefs of others, if what you actually believe in is a democracy.
Bravo! Great post! 😉
Yeah, well, I’m preaching to the choir, I suspect. Or, rather, making noises that that Dobson probably simply cannot comprehend.
Watch me do this little happy dance. Ya ta ta ta! Major foot in mouth, there. I think he might have shown his true colors for a moment.
A lengthier review of Dobson and Minnery’s broadcast.
What’s fascinating about this is that it seems to be part of a new trend in the Religious Right’s politicization. It’s not enough to criticize someone’s positions. Now they’re questioning whether someone is Christian enough, or who’s Christianer.
I don’t know how much of this is an offshoot of the “Barack Obama, Closet Muslim!” meme, and how much is just that Obama’s daring to actually reach out to religious people and try to engage them, and all the Pharisees can do point fingers and say, “He’s preaching on the Sabbath! Unclean! Unclean!”
Another article saying that Dobson just handed Obama the presidency — by giving him the evangelical vote. The argument is that Dobson is (whether the media realizes it) in deep decline in evangelical circles, so speaking in such opposition to Obama lends the latter credibility among at least some evangelicals … especially (IMO) when it highlights that Obama actually *is* a believer, even (especially) if Dobson doesn’t care for those beliefs.
Frank Schaeffer: Dr. Dobson Has Just Handed Obama Victory
I never have understood how Leviticus gets divvied up. Officially. Theologically. What’s the justification for chucking the dietary rules? I vaguely recall Jesus saying something about ‘every jot and tittle’ of the OT still being valid.
Dave? Anybody?
Well, it’s not a real clear-cut distinction which Levitican laws still apply and which don’t.
Jesus, depending on the Gospel, didn’t get rid of the Law (by what he said), but did suggest strongly that there was a lot more to virtue and being right with God than strict adherence to the Law. Most of his criticisms of the Pharisees, for example, have to do with their slavish (and prideful) adherence to the letter of the Law, while not grasping (or even rejecting) the spiirit of it. Jesus’ two bottom lines on the law were (a) the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), and (b) the two greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor.
(Oh, he also makes it clear that divorce is a strict no-no (Matt 19). Most Christians these days, including darlings of the Religious Right, conveniently ignore that, too.)
Paul picked up that Law-less theme and ran with it in his own direction, triggering the never-ending Christian debate about faith vs works, and whether works can lead to faith (or redemption), or whether works are useless compared to faith, etc.
At the same time, Paul did mention a few rules, less ritualistic than Jewish law (which he largely rejected, saying that dietary laws and circumcision and such weren’t required, but could be helpful and should be respected for others) but still strongly stated opinions. Of course, most Christians have gotten over the idea that Women Must Wear Hats in church. The rule on women keeping silent in church (which is thought to be a later edition, since earlier in that same letter Paul talks about women being teachers in church) is also largely ignored, or at least not strictly enforced.
And note that while Paul condemns homosexuality (possibly, depending on the scholar you read, homosexual temple prostitution), his litany in 1 Cor. 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%206&version=31) notes that “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” There are a lot more of almost all of those than there are of homosexuals, but I don’t see evangelicals pushing for laws to keep drunkards from buying liquor or slanderers from getting FCC licenses or greedy from having jobs. Go figure.
(The one point that folks like Dobson do have on their side is that while may people fall into one of the above naughty categories, none of those types — except maybe for Gordon Gekko — claim that their actions are good, or meritorious, or virtuous. I can respect — if disagree with — an evangelical belief that homosexual behavior is per se sinful, and that gays are loved by God but must repent of their sins, just as a drunkard or slanderer or swindler must repent of their activities.)
Similarly, while Romans 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201;&version=31😉 appears to condemn homosexuality, it also does so in the same breath as folks who are “full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” Most evangelicals wouldn’t overtly support gossip or boasting, but it’s not clear that Paul distinguishes between those signs of depravity in turning from God and folks doing homosexual stuff.
So back to your original question, obviously conservative Christians (and, when they think about it, liberal Christians) do manage to draw a distinction between different parts of the Law. They usually do this by assigning blocks of the OT Law to being the “Law of Moses” (or “Ceremonial Law”) vs the “Law of God.” The Ten Commandments? God. Homosexuality is naughty? God. Booths and shellfish and menstrual uncleanliness? Moses. How is it distinguished? Pretty much by what could be sold to the Gentiles when Christianity was spreading over the first nine hundred or so years AD.
(Apparently the jury is still out on tattoos – http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1146703398.htm.)
Further, orthodox Christian theology indicates that Jesus came to “fulfill the Law.” Since Jesus has come and gone (and is rumored to be coming again, and boy is he pissed), the Law no longer applies. Except the Ten Commandments and the bits in Leviticus about homosexuality. I missed that footnote in Jesus’ teachings, but I am assured by many Very Religious Fundamentalists that it is in there somewhere.
In summary, Randy, there is not, that I am aware of, a coherent distinction between what Levitican laws (whether supported by Paul or not) still are supposed to apply to Christians and which are not. For that matter, there’s no coherent distinction between Pauline rules that are supposed to apply to Christians and which are not. Frankly, I’d go for Jesus and the Beatitudes and the Greatest Commandments, but that sorta thing will get you stoned in some quarters.
The first schism in the Jesus movement was between the Jewish followers of Jesus for whom the laws of Moses held, and the Gentile believers (primarily led by Paul) for whom the Moses laws were of less importance ( and were soon largely ignored, especially the food restrictions). They other rule of Jewish Law that gave some non-Jewish converts pause was, no surprise, circumcision.
By the time the Bible was being wedged into its present arrangement, the first real questions about who’s laws were the most important were being hotly debated, and did have some affect on which books made the cut. The choices remained largely of Catholic persuasion, however, until the Reformation, when the proverbial “hell breaks loose,” and interpretation becomes more a function of which sect one belongs to.
As Protestants are more likely to hold to strict Biblical interpretation (i.e. only things in the Bible are germane – no Last Rites, no worshiping of Mary), they have more issues with Laws of the Old Testament and whether they need be followed, and therefore, each sect has placed a different “weight” to those Old Testament laws. But they do pick and choose, it’s very clear.
The longer I live (and this is going to be a little snarky, I admit), the more I see religion (organized) as a way to control people rather than a way to offer an example of how the best lives are lived. It seems that Jesus’ words are more often ignored (feed the poor, see the Kingdom of God around you and act accordingly, love your neighbor as yourself) than offered from the pulpit as examples of how to live.
And that gets us back to the original point – worry about your own life and stop worrying about your neighbor’s (some classic quote about a splinter in your friend’s eye and a mote in yours.) A lesson that Dodson will never learn – he wants to control my life through his beliefs, not realizing that my salvation is not his or anyone else’s business but mine. And thus ends the lesson for today.
Sorry about this blather – these guys are just getting on my last nerve!!
What Mary, you mean folks should look into that whole mote/beam thing? ;P
Ya know, I’ve always looked at the OT as having two kinds of Word in it: Moral Laws and Social Laws. The main difference being that the Social Laws are in place to create a coherent people out of the Jewish Tribes (a contentious group at best) and ensure their longevity and fruitfulness.
This is where the dietary laws come in. Most of the things that are forbidden could KILL you back then. When you are a genetically small and oppressed group every single tribe member needs to be safeguarded. Frankly I place the homosexuality issues here as well, since homosexuality is detrimental to increasing population!
Were we to be revising these for the modern day, I’d imagine that we’d have instructions to eat organic, close to vegetarian diets. Of course we’d alse be commanded to abandon pollution and a whole lot of other stuff! So, not likely to happen! =)
The Moral Laws are more universal, and they tend to be the same laws that God revealed to all his prophets, in every religion world-wide. (uh, yeah, in a radical victory for God’s love, I believe that all the great Religions of Man are all sparked from the same Divine source. How WE imagine God being less important than how we comport ourselves in God’s sight.)
Listening to Right Wing Radio so you don’t have to!
First off I am amuses that the Local afternoon-drive-home righties have been cribbing off of Dave’s blog for topics that past couple of days, even more so because they are complete buffoons. Monday’s buffoonery dealt with the Demon Horse of…
The problem, Arty, is that you, too, are picking and choosing as to what’s a “moral” law and what’s a “social” law. Most fundamentalists tend to lump homosexuality in as a moral law; I’m not in agreement, but I don’t know enough bible history to really argue from a textual (vs aesthetic) basis why we should still pay attention to that as a huge sin, vs. blending of cloth types or having sex during or following a woman’s period or what to do if your ox gores your neighbor.
Mary, thanks for a clearer explication of the division between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians and how that drove this argument. Your observations on the fall-out of the Reformation on how this is interpreted are also useful.
Also, Old Testament would mean that Christians would have the same 613 (or 618 with five extra bits) Commandments that the Jews have.
Both old and new testaments are pro-slavery, so I am sure that won’t be an issue if we follow one or the other. Woman and children would go back to being property, that should make home life interesting.
Yeah, good times, good times….
Well, being no different in my own way than Arty or Dobson, I’m willing to pick and choose passages that confirm or inform my personal moral code. I do try to be honest about it, and reject stuff only where it seems wrong, vs. simply being inconvenient (I’d rather be an overt hypocrite than a covert one).
Well, which gets back to Obama’s point in the first place. 🙂
Indeed.
Frankly, I think it’s a great speech, what I’ve read and heard of it. The fact that Dobson’s throwing a hissy fit over it is just confirmation of that point to me.
Frankly I’m very happy that the Dobster brought this speech forward. If he hadn’t thrown a fit over it it would have been lost to the ages. Now it’s front and center, Obama will have to address it again I have no doubt will have another brilliant speech similar to his speech on Race. It seems like almost everything the Right tries to throw at Obama rebounds badly and becomes a strength for him.
I agree that, for a lot of folks, the added publicity from the speech is a plus for Obama, not a negative. At least, I hope so.