# Thank you James Dobson **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132 "2008-06-25T00:20:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/1 "2008-06-25T00:20:11Z")
[Evangelical screeds](http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html) are just what Obama ordered! > [@](#): > > A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution. The battle now is for the middle and the farther Right the anti-Obama forces seem (and they will be lumped together - McCain cannot escape his allies, right or wrong, and even if they don’t like him either) the more moderate and reasonable Obama will appear, the more the mythical middle will feel they can identify with him. So thank you Rev. Dobson. Please keep it coming! ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/2 "2008-06-25T00:46:53Z")
I don’t know if you want that, **DSeid**. McCain’s biggest problem with the evangelicals is that he **doesn’t** have them in the bag. Dobson might tip them towards McCain. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/3 "2008-06-25T01:03:38Z")
Ah, but what Dobson’s really pissed about is Obama calling him a black racist…or something. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/4 "2008-06-25T01:15:51Z")
It should be noted that not all people who identify as “evangelical” are knuckle-walking trogs, but A lot like Unitarians who actually _believe._ They are cheerful, upbeat, and socially progressive, at least in the sense of a genuine concern for the well being of others. The Sermon on the Mount has more to do with how they behave than Leviticus. Dobson is wholly invested in the Thou Shalt Not branch of Christian theology. the kind of people who seem to think of salvation as primarily being a Get Out of Hell Free card. More about fear than about love. Cringing Calvinists, who spend half their life in Hell before they even die. The Trogs wouldn’t be for Obama if he was ten shades of white, they aren’t racists about this. The Happy E’s can probably be persuaded to vote for Obama, without a lot of difficulty. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/5 "2008-06-25T01:19:29Z")
Dobson said he just wants to be a tool for God. Mission accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/6 "2008-06-25T03:02:55Z")
**Arizona** , **'luc** ’s point is cogent - this cycle more than most Evangelicals are not a unitary block and the Religious are not owned by the Right. The Dobsons are not going to vote for Obama, never would, and even Dobson might not come out for McCain: > [@](#): > > Dobson’s comments follow the Obama campaign’s recent efforts to increase its appeal among evangelicals, many of whom have expressed reservations about supporting Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. > > Dobson himself has said he will not vote for the Arizona senator. The more his opposition consists of self-made caricatures the better for Obama. ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/7 "2008-06-25T04:14:03Z")
I think we’re agreeing more than we disagree here. Dobson might tip people who were going to sit out towards McCain, I suppose is what I should have clarified. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/8 "2008-06-25T04:14:16Z")
Obama’s picking a fight with someone who controls a barrel of ink. Not sure I see the logic in that but, hey… go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/9 "2008-06-25T05:01:16Z")
Maybe it has something to do with integrity. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/10 "2008-06-25T06:28:03Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Obama’s picking a fight with someone who controls a barrel of ink. Not sure I see the logic in that but, hey… go for it. [/QUOTE] Obama is hardly “picking a fight.” He made a single comment in which he used Dobson’s name as one polarizing figure–which is a legitimate point. He also made the comments 24 months ago when he was only beginning to consider a run for the presidency. That Dobson waited until now to respond strongly suggests an agenda on the part of Dobson rather than any antagonism on the part of Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/11 "2008-06-25T07:01:36Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Obama’s picking a fight with someone who controls a barrel of ink. Not sure I see the logic in that but, hey… go for it. [/QUOTE] Obama didn’t pick a fight with anyone. Dobson fixated on a few lines from a speech Obama gave two years ago. You can read the entire transcript [here](http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/). The irony is that Obama was using this speech to tell liberals and secularists to be more tolerant of people of faith. Her are some excerpts: > [@](#): > > \*Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. > > In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway. > > More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. > > Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord.” Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny. > > Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems. > \ > > secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. > > Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.\* Most of the speech has that kind of tone, and it also includes Obama’s story of his own conversion to Christianity. What Dobson latched onto was this stretch here: > [@](#): > > \*Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. > > 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. > > Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example. > > We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded. > > Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion. > > But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.\* Dobson firts whines that Leviticus doesn’t count anymore because Jesus wiped away the old covenant (this is what Dobson says is "distorting scripture), then he completely misses the point and accuses Obama of telling him what to think about abortion (which he doesn’t). If you read the entire speech (and I hope you do), you’ll see it’s about the most pro-faith speech you’re ever going to find from a Democrat, and it does not distorty Scripture. I challenge you to read the whole speech and tell me if you think there’s anything you disagree with or find insulting to Christianity. Dobson is making himself look like a tool. By the way, Dobson has no formal training in theology (his doctorate is in psychology), so his credentials in commenting on the Bible are no better than Obama’s. Dobson’s allegation that Obama has a “fruitcake” interpretation of the Constitution is stupidly condescending considering that Obama is a former professor of Constitutional law, while Dobson has no legal education at all. One more thing, Dobson is a guy who says that a good way for dads to bond with their sons is to take them in the shower and show them their cocks. The guy is a nutball. His poor opinions of Obama and McCain is a credit to both of them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/12 "2008-06-25T08:28:21Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Obama is hardly “picking a fight.” He made a single comment in which he used Dobson’s name as one polarizing figure–which is a legitimate point. [/QUOTE] He went out of his way to poke someone who was a critic of McCain. Doesn’t matter how you feel about Obama’s point. It matters how someone with a barrel of ink feels about getting poked. He had an unintended ally and now his Director of Religious Spinnery is going to have to make nice to shut him up. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/13 "2008-06-25T10:17:15Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Dobson first whines that Leviticus doesn’t count anymore because Jesus wiped away the old covenant (this is what Dobson says is "distorting scripture), then he completely misses the point and accuses Obama of telling him what to think about abortion (which he doesn’t). [/QUOTE] I noticed that part. So, does this mean Dobson will never again quote Leviticus 18:22 when he’s talking about homosexuals? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/14 "2008-06-25T12:11:47Z")
I wonder who made Dobson the true interpreter of the Bible. There are many divisions of Christianity and that is due to many different interpretations of the Bible. I get many emails claiming that Obama is a secret Muslim. Since this is a free country,if he were, he would still have the right to run for president. It is hard to understand why any Christian wants freedom of their religion but not those who differ. Thankfull most Christians do! Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/15 "2008-06-25T12:15:06Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] He went out of his way to poke someone who was a critic of McCain. Doesn’t matter how you feel about Obama’s point. It matters how someone with a barrel of ink feels about getting poked. He had an unintended ally and now his Director of Religious Spinnery is going to have to make nice to shut him up. [/QUOTE] Poked him? He just used him (again, 2 years ago, before McCain had won the GOP nomination and before Dobson had said he wouldn’t support McCaon) as an example of a conservative religious figure. I really don’t see how any reasonable person can see that as Obama going “out of his way to poke him”. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/16 "2008-06-25T12:28:14Z")
> [@DtC](#): > > One more thing, Dobson is a guy who says that a good way for dads to bond with their sons is to take them in the shower and show them their cocks. Wow. Got a cite for this? Not that I doubt it, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/17 "2008-06-25T12:43:59Z")
That speech is word-for-word from his section on Faith in his book The Audacity of Hope. MeanJoe ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/18 "2008-06-25T13:05:09Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Wow. Got a cite for this? Not that I doubt it, mind you. [/QUOTE] I believe he’s talking about allowing young boys to grow up being comfortable with their sexuality which in itself is not a bad idea. His suggested techniques are a bit out there for sure. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/19 "2008-06-25T13:13:41Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] He went out of his way to poke someone who was a critic of McCain. [/QUOTE] Really? Dobson’s first attack on McCain as a preesidential candidate did not come out until six or seven months after Obama had made this speech–and long before anyone thought that McCain had a chance at the candidacy. Making claims about Obama’s purported mistake that requires that the arrow of time be twisted into a pretzel hardly supports your contention. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2008, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132/20 "2008-06-25T14:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Obama is hardly “picking a fight.” He made a single comment in which he used Dobson’s name as one polarizing figure–which is a legitimate point. He also made the comments 24 months ago when he was only beginning to consider a run for the presidency. That Dobson waited until now to respond strongly suggests an agenda on the part of Dobson rather than any antagonism on the part of Obama. [/QUOTE] Polarizing figures? Did he happen to mention the Rev. Wright in that speech? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thank-you-james-dobson/454132.md?page=2)