James Dobson Surrenders: "We Can't Stop Them"

But now something to propel us with smiles into a sunny weekend: James Dobson is surrendering. Again. Back in April, DakotaWomen noted the Focus on the Family honcho's declaration of general defeat in its drive toward theocracy. This morning new (?) SD Blogosphere entrant South Dakota Humanist finds the Dobson white flag flying right alongside the pigs. The U.S. House's approval of a hate crimes bill is Dobson's current cause for quite literal despair:

I want to tell you up front that we're not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can't stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn't pay any attention to it because they don't have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation... As I see it, there is no other answer. There's no other answer, short term [James Dobson, quoted by Dan Gilgoff, "James Dobson's Political Surrender," USNews.com: God & Country, 2009.05.14].

Anything they want. Them... also known as the duly elected representatives of the American electorate, of whom Christian fundamentalists and other right-wingers fail to constitute an effective political majority.

The faithful will cling to those last two words: short term. Surely they have some Glorious Revolution brewing to restore the Kingdom. You keep yourselves busy with that plan, dear downtrodden theocrats. Or just keep praying quietly in the corner. The rest of us will happily keep up the practical work of running the country.

Sunday Conversation: Daschle, Dobson, and Loving Thy Neighbor

An eager reader keys this sincere response to my earlier commentary on Secretary-Nominee Tom Daschle and the possibility of promoting family values through universal health coverage:

I read your article on Daschle Will Reform Healthcare and Family Values. I just want to say that I feel like you are not accurate about Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson’s intentions. The thing is, sadly, the government is “not so good” at supplying health care. (If you know a Veteran, or had to help a Vet get healthcare, you would know.) My Father is a WWII 91 year old vet and he has to “still fight” to get coverage. My sister has taken over this task and it is almost a full time job. I believe that Conservative people are just concerned it will be “worse health care” and not better, and that is why they speak against governmental health care.

Dr.Dobson truly does love people, he has spent years studying psychology and he is a Christian, the last thing he wants for people is to ‘hurt’ them, this is why he fights for family values as he is trying to fight for what he knows really works for people. If you got on his site you would see there are groups for all kinds of people to get counseling and help with every day issues. He is against abortion because he believes every human deserves to have “life”, you can understand that I am sure. And on top of it, the procedure is beyond horrible, surely any caring human would not be ‘okay’ with it being done for reasons of birth control.

Anyway, I do hope that Mr. Daschle and all others do come up with a great plan, but history proves this does not work (governmental health care) just look at what is happening in Massachusetts where they have tried this program… it is a disaster. Those who speak against government healthcare ‘do’ care about people, they want them to be able to make their own choice of doctors, care, etc.

Thanks for listening....

I offer the following reply:

Thanks for reading and even more for taking the time to respond. I appreciate good conversation.

I maintain a respectful disagreement with your views on government health coverage and on the political focus of Focus on the Family. I would note first that neither or nor the incoming Obama administration are aiming for government-run health care. My preference, at least, is for government health coverage: we keep going to our same doctors and hospitals; those doctors and hospitals simply send the bill to Uncle Sam, just as they do in Canada, France, and several other countries. (If history "proves" government health coverage doesn't work, nearly every other industrialized country is not listening... or suffering.)

I've seen government coverage at work in Canada. They may not have gold-plated insurance policies for the wealthiest purchasers, but they have universal access to good health care for every citizen. My wife and I have friends who have been visiting Canada, suffered an injury, and were in and out of the hospital for treatment in no time, with no paperwork. We can't get treatment like that here.

Universal coverage is simply the logical extension of insurance. We join insurance plans to pool resources; the best, most efficient insurance would pool the resources of every American. Compare the overhead of Medicare (3%) to the overhead of private insurance plans (20-30%). I would rather pay $3000 a year in additional taxes to the government and see $2910 of that money go for actual medical expenses than pay $3000 a year for private insurance, see only $2100 of that money go toward medical expenses while the rest pays for executive bonuses and yachts, and pay higher deductibles and receive less coverage to boot.

We also pool coverage because we want to help others. If you and I are part of an insurance plan, I don't want to turn on you and deny you coverage just when you need it most, when you find you have MS or cancer or suffer complications from pregnancy. But our private insurance company would do just that, rejecting you or making your premiums prohibitively expensive. Neighbors don't treat each other like that. Government health coverage would let us treat each other like neighbors.

I won't delve into my theological problems with Dr. Dobson -- I'll simply say that I live with an actual theologian, so I know Dr. Dobson's interpretation of Christianity has some errors. In general, Focus on the Family seems not to focus on real family issues that affect everyone every day. It seems there are a raft of issues that Christians could rally to address (corporate greed, pollution, poverty, disease, sexism, rape) that would do much more to promote the actual economic and moral condition of families than the the focus on the typical social hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality.

We're one nation. We've got to work together to solve problems. I happen to think we can do more practical good by working together on health care.

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger
Madville Times

McCain, Council for National Policy... and Banging the Bully Pulpit Against Unwed Mothers

Dots from the campaign trail—connect as you see fit:

Max Blumenthal reports at Talk to Action that the Council for National Policy met in Minneapolis last week. The CNP, an arch-conservative group founded by Tim LaHaye and whose membership has included folks like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Grover Norquist, Phyllis Schafly, and Oliver North, is quite pleased with Palin's nomination. Blumenthal goes so far as to assert that the CNP actually got to vet Palin.

Blue Texan at FireDogLake says the media are getting the Palin pick all wrong. The nomination is not a sign of that good old maverick John McCain doing things his way; instead, Palin is "a total cave to his extremist fundie base."

We shouldn't be surprised: McCain appeared before the CNP's spring meeting after he clinched the nomination and gave an address and Q&A in which he said all the necessary things. Given today's announcement that Gov. Palin will become a proud grandma before the Inauguration, the following exchange from that CNP meeting seems relevant:

ATTENDEE: ...One of the things that I am quite concerned about is that we do not have national leaders who have said anything about the fact that almost 40 percent of the nation's children are born out of wedlock.

The ramifications of that fact affect our schools. It affects our communities. It affects so many aspects of our culture that I would like to see the bully pulpit used to change the attitude toward marriage and to change the attitude toward having children out of wedlock.

SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, ma'am. And I think the same comment that you made applies to the rights of the unborn as well. We have to work to change the culture in America to respect the rights of the unborn. That is the way we will ultimately succeed. I agree with you [transcript, remarks and Q&A, John McCain addressing the Council for National Policy, 2008.03.07].

The Republican National Convention podium is a pretty good bully pulpit. Will McCain take up that call to change the attitude toward unwed moms Thursday night?

Limbaugh and Obama Agree: Praying for Rain Futile

Several days ago I listened to Rush Limbaugh argue that there's nothing mankind can do about climate change. Well, his friends in Jim Dobson Land may be proof of that. As the estimable Mr. Epp reminds us, Focus on the Family put together a cute video encouraging its followers to pray for rain ("abundant rain, torrential rain... rain of biblical proportions") during Senator Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech outside at Mile High Stadium.

Current conditions in Denver, about two hours before Obama's speech:

• Temperature: 77.2°F
  
• Humidity: 34%
• Dew Point: 45°F
• Wind: 1.0 mph, gusting to 3.0 mph
• Clouds: clear
• Visibility: 10 miles
  

Better luck next time, Colorado Springs.

James Dobson Endorses Barack Obama...

...or at least endorses changing one's mind...

Hat tip to Mr. Schwartz at the freshly remonikered Politics and Hypocrisy: It appears James Dobson is neither a theologian nor a man of his word. After saying he would not vote for McCain, Dobson now claims "the possibility is there that I might" endorse the presumptive GOP nominee.

But given how he defends this change of conscience, and he might just as easily endorse Obama:

There's nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context [James Dobson, quoted in AP, "James Dobson Might Endorse John McCain," Los Angeles Times, 2008.07.21].

So in one fell swoop, Dobson proves his desperate need for attention and takes flip-flops off the table as an issue in the presidential debates. On behalf of the GOP, thanks a bunch, Jim!

Boy, I wonder if some days, Dobson wishes he had stayed out of politics and religion and just stuck with promoting spanking.

Now Playing in Colorado Springs: Christians for Obama

Here's something else sure to raise James Dobson's blood pressure: an ad sponsored by the Matthew 25 Network, now playing in Christian radio in Dobson's homebase of Colorado Springs:



The Matthew 25 Network describes itself as "a community of Christians—Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical—inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor."

Sounds like pretty serious Christianity to me....

Obama Agrees with Majority (and Bush!) on Salvation

Bob Ellis frets over Senator Obama's statement that "Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people." The Democratic nominee was apparently responding to a question from Franklin Graham about paths to salvation.

Obama "doesn't even understand the most basic and foundational tenet of Christianity," Bob fumes, and thus won't appeal to too many "serious" Christians. "Serious," of course, is Bob's code for folks who agree with him that "God doesn't provide an "Oh but I'm not a Christian" excuse to get out of Hell."

Uh oh—looks like not even President George W. Bush is a "serious" Christian:

Obama's theological beliefs are clearly more liberal than those on the Christian right. But it's the beliefs of the latter that are fast becoming a minority. A new Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey of 35,000 Americans reports that 70% agree with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life," including 57% of Evangelicals. No less a figure than George W. Bush responded "no" when asked in 1999 if he believed heaven is open only to Christians. Those evolving, more relatively open-minded attitudes are one reason Dobson's organization has steadily lost members and revenue over the past five years [Amy Sullivan, "Is Dobson's Obama Hit Backfiring?" Time, 2008.06.26].

Looks like Bob and Dob are the ones being left behind in a hapless minority as true believers realize there's more to life and politics than wedge issues.

Obama: Dobson "Making Stuff Up"

Says Senator Barack Obama in response to Dr. James Dobson's criticism yesterday of his June 2006 speech on religion and politics:

I think you'll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.

For more on Dobson's willful deceptions, see also "James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me," a website created by a group of religious leaders comparing statements from Dobson and Obama.

-----------------------------------
Update 18:10: Escapee from the "soft theocracy" Frank Schaeffer writes "Dr. Dobson Has Just Handed Obama Victory." Schaeffer says Dobson is simply lashing out, alienating more and more evangelicals as his power wanes with the Bush Administration. Sweet!

James Dobson: "I'm Not a Theologian"

Quote of the week from the man who presumes to question Barack Obama's ability to read the Bible and apply it to his own life:

I am 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 PhD in Child Development from the University of Southern California...

[James Dobson, radio broadcast, 2008.06.24, transcribed by Pondering Pastor].

No kidding, Jim.

Oh, why stop there. Dobson has this exchange with his co-host [emphasis mine]:

Co-Host: “And you remember more recently that he quoted the Sermon on the Mount, cited the Sermon on the Mount as justifying same-sex marriage. So it seems that he is vastly confused about details of Biblical exposition, yet he’s painting himself in this highly religious aura.”

Dr. Dobson: “And then says, go read the Bible. Go read the Bible, I mean as though he is some kind of Biblical authority."

Pot, meet Kettle.

Interestingly, Dobson says he only just found out about Obama's 2006 speech to Jim Wallis's "Call to Renewal" group. Really? A potential Democratic nominee delivers a seminal speech on religion and progressive politics to an audience of key opponents of Dobson's right-wingery. The religion of the speaker becomes fodder for all sorts of questions and controversy as the primary season gets going, offering great motivation for interested individuals to dig up what the speaker has previously said about religion. Yet it takes two years for that speech to ping on the Focus on the Family radar? Wow -- maybe the Colorado Springs Caliphate really isn't ready to counter an inspired and surging Religious Left.

----------------
Update 2008.06.25 08:25CDT: Jim Wallis was in the seats for Obama's speech two years ago. Wallis calls Dobson on his own deliberate distoritions and speculates on the real reason Dobson has launched this barely coherent deceptive attack on Obama:

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 like 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 James Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long.

Dobson needs to get back to focusing on the family, since American politics is about to leave him behind.

Fruitcake? Well, James Dobson Would Know...

James Dobson is taking to the Focus on the Family airwaves today to accuse Senator Barack Obama of distorting the Bible. Dobson takes issue with Obama's keynote address to Jim Wallis's "Call to Renewal" group in June 2006.

I've linked to this speech before. In it, Obama discusses his journey to Christian faith, his understanding of how to put that faith to work, and how he sees Christianity informing politics. It is a sensitive, thoughtful speech about the need to "tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America." Obama tells us that Americans understand that "something is missing" in a life that revolves around mere material pursuits. He says the black church, "in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man," helped him "see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope." Obama says his very intentional faith is indispensible:

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey [Senator Barack Obama, "Call to Renewall Keynote Address," Washington, DC, 2006.06.28].

The proper theological response is, "Amen, brother!" Instead, James Dobson is saying that Obama is "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." For good measure, Dobson also labels Obama's position on abortion "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

Fruitcake? Is that a political assessment, a theological assessment, or a psychological assessment? The latter is the only one Dobson is remotely qualified to offer. Remember, Dobson is a psychologist* with a doctorate in child development. He's never had any formal theological training. Of course, neither has Obama. My wife has more theological training than the both of them, and independently of our political leanings, she has yet to spot anything "fruity" in Obama's pronouncements on religion.

Fruitcake doesn't strike me as the sort of word I would expect a pious man like Dobson to use in describing Obama's sincere effort to discuss faith in the public realm in words intended to promote understanding and practical action. Obama actually defends the idea that religion has a proper and vital role in public discourse, a position Dobson and his followers supposedly embrace... or does that only apply to religion that supports their political agenda?

Fruitcake sounds more appropriate as a description of the "theology" Dobson's fellow traveler Alan Keyes tried to use against Obama in the 2004 Senate race. From Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech:

Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. [Obama, 2006.06.28]

Be sure to watch the video so you can hear the laughter and disdain for Keyes's words. Obama is saying that religion isn't about calling other people fruitcakes and claiming God wouldn't vote for them. Religion is about translating our beliefs into good work in this world.

If you listen to Dobson's full speech online, be sure to give the text it critiques a fair read as well. Heck, you can even watch Obama's speech on YouTube. But don't expect a flashy arena speech. No silver-tongued devilry, just intelligent talk about faith and action. Part 1 is below; you can find the other four parts on YouTube.





*Wikipedia slips up: their current entry for Dr. Dobson says his California psychologist's license lapsed in April 2008. However, the link Wikipedia provides to the California Board of Psychology indicates Dobson has renewed his license (number PSY3203) through April 2010.

----------
Update 18:08 CDT: An ELCA pastor from the Delaware-Maryland synod offers an insightful breakdown of Dobson's manipulative, defensive, and deceptive commentary. To think some people are willing to pay good money for Bible study materials from a charlatan like Dobson.