Dobson v. Obama - Update

Earlier in the week I posted about blowhard James Dobson's verbal attacks on Barack Obama's Christianity and his hissy fit over the fact that Obama does not view the disingenuous, un-Christian Daddy D as the final authority on what religious beliefs are permissible. If Obama is guilty of selectively picking Bible passages, then he's a rank beginner compared to Dobson who uses the Bible to (1) line his own pockets with money and (2) denigrate and foster discrimination against others. No one, including Dobson gets to dictate to others what they must believe. We stilll have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, although Dobson clearly wants that right reserved only for those who follow him like mindless sheep. Thankfully, others see Dobson for the hypocrite that he is, including a fellow evangelical, Peter Wehner, who takes Dobson to task in a column in today's Washington Post. It doesn't get much more fun that watching one evangelical bash another evangelical. Here are highlights from Wehner's column:

*

As an evangelical and conservative who has deep concerns about Obama's policies and political philosophy, I nonetheless welcome such a statement by a leading Democrat. . . . Obama was doing what people like Dobson have long urged: making the public square more hospitable for people of faith and calling for a halt to their demonization. Obama made his case in ways I found to be respectful and authentic.

*

Dobson took particular umbrage, for at least one obvious reason, with this passage from Obama's speech: "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?

*

Dobson was critical of Obama's biblical references here and suggested that he had set up a series of straw men to support his "confused theology." But as I understand him, Obama was pointing out why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras.

*

[Obama] 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. . . . appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren't sufficient in a pluralistic nation.

*

There are certainly reasons for evangelicals to have concerns about Obama -- based on his extreme views on abortion, judicial nominees, Iraq (his plans for a precipitous withdrawal would probably trigger mass death and perhaps even genocide) and other issues. But 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.