Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President Bush, wrote a critique on James Dobson’s critique of Barack Obama. It’s well worth the read. Here’s an excerpt:
The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson’s “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and “lowest common denominator of morality” comments was this: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, 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.”
Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason — which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion — or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.
… critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.
If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn’t. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.
*
Dobson’s ‘fruitcake interpretation’ of Obama’s speech and philosophy compelled me to support the “James Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me” website/cause/statement, developed by Kirbyjon Caldwell in response to Dobson’s attack. (Who is Kirbyjon Caldwell? He is the pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, a 14,000-member megachurch in Houston, Texas. He is one of President George W. Bush’s most influential spiritual advisors, who introduced him at the 2000 Republican National Convention, offered the official benediction at both of Bush’s inaugurations in 2001 and 2005, and officiated the wedding of Bush’s daughter Jenna.)
Last week, right after Dobson’s remarks, I added the graphic supporting the cause to the right sidebar of this blog as a personal outright rejection of Dobson’s blatant and corruptive blending and marriage of partisan politics with the Christian faith. He ignores or chooses to deny that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat.
