Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'?

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "Focus on the Family" radio show to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, "I'm not a reverend. I'm not a minister. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development." Child psychologists don't insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders -- Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn't say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?

James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not.

I haven't endorsed a candidate, but I do defend them when they are attacked in disingenuous ways, and this is one of those cases. You can read Obama's two-year-old speech, which was widely publicized at the time, and you can see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack on Obama.

First, 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.

Second, and perhaps most important, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama strongly defended the right and necessity of people of faith in bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and he was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and always has been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but he also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands -- so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good -- for all of us, not just for the religious.

Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite -- that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best, with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

One more note. I personally disagree with how both the Democrats and Republicans have treated the moral issue of abortion and am hopeful that the movement toward a serious commitment for dramatic abortion reduction will re-shape both parties' language and positions. But that is the only "bloody notion" that Dobson mentions. What about the horrible bloody war in Iraq that Dobson apparently supports, or the 30,000 children who die each day globally of poverty and disease that Dobson never mentions, or the genocides in Darfur and other places? In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching.

<p>Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. It puts many evangelical votes in play this election year, especially among a new generation who are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for Dobson's attack on Barack Obama.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Comments

[rkoenn]

I agree with most of your post. Religion does play a role in our country but hopefully under the allowances and restrictions the constitution defined. It also plays a role in everyone's life whether they are religious, agnostic, or atheistic. And it obviously plays a huge role in parts of the world where they do not have the sensibility to separation of church and state. I am a practicing Catholic for my entire life but use the basic fundamental teachings of the church and not the official papal edicts. There are problems in my church, well known, but the huge majority of it practitioners are good people. And I strongly believe in separation of church and state but do not find flaws with some mutual support from both sides. And while I fundamentally abhor abortion I will not condemn of tell a woman what she must do when she has to make that decision. Here is where Bush is so wrong, as in so many things. Refusal to her right but no support to help if she decides to carry the child. That is absolutely amoral but the old religious right doesn't get it! Hopefully the young evangelicals are.

[Bulbul]

Who cares ?
We are chosing the President not the Pope.
Religious fanaticism is the root of all of the problems in the world.
Dobson the nonentity, should do what ever he is good at, let the voters chose the President.

[HannibalSilver]

Sometimes, our theology reflects our values and personalities. Jim Wallis in this masterful article projects a democratic personality, sensitivity to different views, and a call to bi-partisan unity and America unity as well. He avoids a "codebook" approach to Scriptures in favor of a "casebook" that engages reason and inspiration in the proposal of universal values rooted in mercy and compassion. More voices like Wallis will play a positive role in the proposal of more Changes WE Can Believe In. These changes will unify rather than divide the country.

[UncleHomer]

I can only laugh when anyone that calls themselves Christian turns to the old testament of the Bible for authority or even spiritual support. The grand corruption of all Christianity is that if you believe in Jesus Christ you should also believe his own words when he said in the Sermon on the Mount that he had come to free humans of the Old Laws (and there fore the Old Testament of the Bible).

I think if he was actually divine that would have been a really smart move on his part, since when Literary Critic and eminent Professor Harold Bloom analyzed the Book of J, which is the oldest surviving remnant of the modern Holy Bible, he concluded the most likely author of the original text of the Bible would be Bathsheba. Now do you think Dobson really wants to be going around quoting a "party girl" in King Solomon's Court.

[sonshine]

Mr. Wallis,

Please get this article of yours to Mr. Dobson. Tell him that I'm a life-long Christian and I'm ashamed to be associated with someone like him. Tell him that I expect politicians to behave in a certain manner but a person like him who indicates that his life's mission is to lead people to Christ, I do not expect to distort the truth--any truth. It would perhaps make a great difference to Mr. Dobson if he knew that thinking people are disgusted when he makes such boldly deceiptful statements and he should pay attention to cries for honesty from people who might be his followers.

Mr. Dobson is shameless in his support for Republicans no matter what they say. I guess he must think that a Democrat can't go to heaven. Isn't he rich enough? Why not stick to being a child psychologist and keep his partisan tongue wagging to himself?

Thanks for your honesty and objectiveness Mr. Wallis. Please continue to speak truth, no matter who it is about.

[MPeter]

Dobson feels frustrated because for the first time in a long time, he is firced to deal with a presidential candidate who can read, interpret and apply the Bible to real life situations. A living, smart, capable President scares a scavenger like Dobson who peddles ignorance and preys on the innocent. Thank you Reverand Wallis for standing up. Thank you for pushing back. Thank you for your henesty. Thank you for your commitment to social justice.

[mari2JJ]

Actually it is far more than that. Amazing that he thinks he has any credibility with any compassionate, reasonable person. He is a bigot of the first order. I am not judging him, I am only taking him at his won word, when he declares he is competant to judge anyone. That is a real problem for anyone calling himself a Christian. Sad sad day when someone like this holds himself up as a judge and jury, thus bringing shame on the name of Jesus. Very, very sad!!!!

[mommamia526]

I think it is about time Mr. Dobson realizes that he is just one of the U.S. citizens and that he has just one vote: his own. I do not know where this man gets the impertinence to tell everyone how we should vote, and/or read and understand his Bible. I believe that Mr. Dobson has not really read his Bible, or what Jesus said, reportedly, such as *let him who is without sin cast the first stone*, and *do not even say raca*. Mr. Dobson has too much to say about too many other people. He is not an elected official and represents no one. I also believe he is not even a pastor, or whatever clergy in his particular church are called. Now, but if Mr. Dobson would start speaking out about the things men do we do not speak of, and would take on some other men, I would be the first to encourage him to put his fists up. After all, there are some *industries* which are mightily *successful* in this *religious* nation.

[3rdCitizen]

Thank you for this blog Mr. Wallis. I agree with everything you said.

[H2O]

Our dear Dobson - didn't understand Children - new born felt pain - until around 1992 - until - a new report showed - that new born can be traumatized with pain for life.

Yet he does not fight for the living children - and backs corpo interest - when it comes to protecting - the living of this world.

Yet - I believe or dr dobson - is really traumatized himself - Maybe - it would be good therapy - He went to IRAQ "after all he supported it" and help the Children of IRAQ get over there trauma.

With his great understanding – It should not take him long to cure the children – in the war torn Nations.

And God sent him forth to heal the world.

[Donnat]

You know the Republican credo - the right to life ends at birth

[Carrasco]

What a great article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I agree with you 100%.

I feel horrible that I contributed to the disatrous state of our nation. I voted for Bush TWICE because I felt, at the time, that I had a moral obligation to do so. I was so wrong. I have seen the light. It's funny how "religious" people feel they have to vote one way simply because of one or two moral decisions. However, we choose to overlook things like war, proverty, genocide as if it's okay. I still can't get my family to understand that just because you believe yourself to be a spiritual person or christian that you have to vote republican. I'm glad that I have finally opened my eyes, it's just a shame that I contributed to the mess we are now in. :-(

[MamaBird62]

Wow Carrasco. What a brave statement. Thank you for sharing that.

[sonshine]

It's never to late to do what is right--a loose quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Let's all stand when we know that we must and change the way that we think if it is time to do so; and forgive ourselves for the past going forward and doing what we believe is right--me.