To The Dobson Bashers: Suck It Up.
Wanting To Discuss A Candidate's Faith Does Not Automatically Make One A Religious Bigot
By Erick Posted in 2008 | James Dobson — Comments (90) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Some of you are out bashing James Dobson for his criticism of Fred Thompson not being a Christian. You know, if the election were held tomorrow, I'd be voting for Mitt Romney. But if Fred were on the ballot, I and a lot of my friends would be like, "Mitt who?" I'm a Fred Thompson guy, but until he enters, I'm voting for Mitt, though I've ceased considering myself a Mitt guy.
But you people who are so outraged by James Dobson need to suck it up and get over it. Your outrage over Dobson goes directly to my frustration with Hugh Hewitt -- instead of dealing with the issue, you want to make the issue out of bounds. Folks, that is what the left does, not what the right does. When the left wants to keep something out of bounds, it declares you a bigot in some way for dealing with the subject. Apparently now, when someone brings up a Presidential candidate's faith, you are also a bigot.
Let me put it to you very plainly and you can disagree all you want and you'll still be wrong -- some people have different values and place different emphasis on things than you and me. And they, just like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. And sometimes they have bigger microphones than you or me, but they are still entitled to their opinion.
Read on . . .
Now Hugh thinks Al Mohler, James Dobson, and I are religious bigots. The first two for not being comfortable with Romney because of his faith and me because I don't have a problem with their lack of comfort and their willingness to discuss it (yeah, yeah, I know, Hugh says he doesn't think that about those two people, but he's just selectively excluding them from his very general category that they'd fall into, but for his exception to prove his silly rule of bigotry). The reason Mohler, Dobson, and so many evangelicals are bigots in Hugh Hewitt's eyes and in the eyes of others, and the reason some of you are so frustrated with Dobson today, is because Dobson is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third.
Dobson wants a Christian to be his nominee and he, like me, is really frustrated that so many of the candidates in the race are Christian in name only. And I'm sure he is also frustrated that one of the front runners is not even a Christian. Some of you, I realize, are hitting the brakes here. Yeah, yeah, I know Fred was baptized, Rudy and Sam are Catholic, etc. This goes to the heart of the problem that so many evangelicals have -- there are lots of people wanting to call themselves Christians who are not actually Christ followers. "Christian" is the acceptable terminology for a secular world. Lots of people say they are, but there are actually not as many who actually, you know, follow Christ.
I'm not going to start a theological debate here, and I think Dobson can defend himself, but the key difference between a nominal Christian and a Christ following Christian, i.e. a real Christian, is that the former shows his colors by the inactive pursuit of his faith and the latter shows his colors by the active pursuit of his faith. Fred Thompson, I think Dobson is suggesting, falls into the former category. I haven't paid attention enough to know whether Fred does or does not follow Christ, though as others have said, if that is the case it'd probably put Fred on par with Ronald Reagan.
Sure, you have the right to be angry with Dobson expressing his opinion. But a lot of the outrage I've heard has been directed at Dobson for not pulling for the team, whereby the team is the GOP. Folks, James Dobson is on Christ's team. All others are incidental to that cause. You may not like it, but then again I really doubt James Dobson is too worried about your partisan outrage. And I'm right there with him, I don't care about your outrage over James Dobson speaking faithfully about faith, but I'd still vote for Fred.
UPDATED: For you late comers, it also seems today that Focus On the Family released a statement saying the Dobson quote was not accurate. He did not say he thought Fred Thompson was not a Christian, but that he did not know if Thompson was a Christian -- one a definitive statement and one pondering.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hillary Earns Endorsements The Old Fashioned Way — Comments (3) »
To The Dobson Bashers: Suck It Up. 90 Comments (0 topical, 90 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Dobson is a far less effective partisan, and a less effective conservative, than he would be if he were not, as you put it, "a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third." But it's real hard for me to say he has his priorties wrong in picking that order.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Is Dobson doing himself a favor ? I don't know what religion Katherine Harris is.(Universal church of the politically inept most likely). I didn't ask, because I knew what Bil Nelson stood for.
Personally I am not up on the candidates denominations, except for Mitt of course. The only reason I know Mitt is a Mormon, is that its been impossible to avoid.
I do know this whoever is elected by the Republican Party will be much more faith friendly than whoever is elected by the democrats. So Does Mr. Dobson raising these issues in this manner help the people who support him, or himself in seeing goals we all want.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Honestly, I think the reason most of us are upset is because we thought Dobson was a more Biblical person than that. To claim that someone is 'not a Christian' because they aren't e member of your denomination seems anti-Christian to me. Just because he's a Church of Chirst guy rather than a Baptist doesn't make him less of a Christian than Dobson. I thought Dobson was above this sort of rhetoric. I think it is very irresponsible for him to be making comments like this. Fred Thompson is a "real" Christian. If Dobson thinks someone else (i.e. Newt, who has had 1, probably 2, extramarital affairs) is a better candidate, then so be it. Don't go making claims like "he's not a Christian" about a guy who IS a Christian! Look, I am a Christian and I go to a Baptist Church (I consider myself a Christian, not a Baptist) and I like Newt. I do not think Newt has much of a chance of winning any general election and I have some reservations about him myself after reviewing his history and his book, but if he were the nominee I would vote for him. I adamantly disagree with what Dobson has said about Thompson.
And no snark or sarcasm intended or implied in this -- you are the first person since it happened that I've heard of, who took the position that it was not Biblical, or Christian, of Dobson to do what he did. And it's not a bad point.
Everyone else seems to be screaming because he dared question someone's commitment to the faith (which I think is legit in this circumstance) or because it might, *shudder*, hurt a GOP candidate.
Was that it was a "Foot in Mouth" disease moment- quite common to Dobson.
This was very much my position in this whole thing. You are completely correct that Dobson's priorities are aligned spiritually rather than politically. The question is whether he has exercised his expression of those priorities correctly. To me, it seemed unkind to point out a guy who hasn't made an issue out of his faith and say, "I don't think he's a Christian."
Unfortunately I don't have the exact quote (anyone have a link?) but I had understood that instead of saying Fred isn't a Christian, it was more like he didn't know whether Fred was or not.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
You are putting words in his mouth.
He has never claimed that you must be Baptist to be a Christian.
As a matter of fact, denomination had nothing to do with this. He was referring to the fact that Fred seems to have a low religiousity, regardless of what denomination he happens to be.
For that matter, other than Mormons, I can't think of any MAJOR denomination whose claim to Christianity I or any reasonable Christian would dispute.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
hopefully that keeps the "Recent diaries" list from being completely filled with rants about Dobson.
If Dobson had said "Thompson doesn't talk openly about his faith" then perhaps he would be talking about a legitimate issue for a "Christian leader." But he didn't do that. He said that Thompson wasn't Christian. It was a false statement, meant to hurt a candidate.
To act as though his statement was about Christianity and not politics is disingenuous. And I further doubt he is a "Christian first." He is a politician first. And this is how he plays politics. That's why he's a divisive figure.
Clout or not, Dobson's political attack on Thompson just made Thompson's stock go up a notch in my book.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
I find it interesting that you unequivocally state that Thompson IS a Christian. And that Dobson is a "political figure" first, before he is a Christian.
Do you know Thompson personally? Are you relying on a certificate of infant baptism for your statement?
Do you know Dobson personally? What are you relying on for your judgment about HIS Christianity?
Bottom line, a very large segment of Christianity does not accept infant baptism as evidence of faith in Christ. I'm not going all theological on you, and won't get into a theological argument here, but given that Dobson is an evangelical Christian I think it's pretty safe to say he falls into that group. Those of us in that group typically look for some external evidence of faith in Christ, as an adult, such as (but not necessarily limited to) a verbal profession of faith.
You seem to be falling into the very trap that you accuse Dobson of being mired in. Being, gasp, judgmental.
I come back to a statement I've made a dozen times today (so it seems), that prior to his harsh judgment of Thompson, Dobson went out of his way to praise his work on behalf of family issues that Dobson is concerned with. Pretty weak judgment if you ask me. But, you didn't.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You are wrong. You have a total and absolute bias against the Christian Right and are convinced that Dobson is peddling some sort of agenda other than his faith. This was demonstrated totally in your RedHot post of yesterday when you said
Anyone who James Dobson doesn't like, gets a bonus point on my ledger.
A lot of people, particularly moderates and those to the left of moderates, really don't like these uppity, holier than thou Christian leaders deigning to enter politics -- surely they want to force us back to puritan times!
Dobson is not a politician, heck, he's not even a minister. He's just a devote Christian you practices and preaches his faith and is deeply concerned about the social mores of this country.
Further buttressing this point is that it appears Dobson actually said he did not know whether Thompson was a Christian -- not that Thompson definitively was not a Christian. I think that just further demonstrates Dobson favors having a Christ follower as opposed to a nominal Christian as his candidate. Better the repentant sinner than the heretic, atheist, or blasphemer (note to Hugh Hewitt and others: I am making NO connection between heretics, atheists, and blasphemers and particular candidates).
in US News
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday."Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."
"We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."
Highlights are mine...
Pretty strong words from Dobson. He first says Thompson has come out strongly for the things the pro-family movement stands for. WHACK.
If we are fielding candidates who wither under this sort of viscous attack /snark> we need a whole new party.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Erick,
You first defend his comments as everyone saw them yesterday, and then say he didn't actually make those comments.
If all Dobson said was that he did not know whether or not Thompson was a Christian, no one would have had any problem .
Please note the quote above from US News. That is precisely the same quote Erick used in his blog yesterday. I got it from the link in his blog.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Attacking the religious right. There are a lot of evangelicals and traditional Catholics that I think make good religious, political leaders. I've argued for a while that Brownback would make a great face for the Religious Right.
And for what it's worth, I think Dobson is much better spokesman than Falwell or Robertson.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
...can make sure we never have to see Ralph Reed again (at least being associated with Christianity or with the Religious Right) will work for me.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Reed actually was a good organizer and a good public face for the movement at one time, but those years have gone by now.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
As the token Papist Director, I have to say I don't remotely understand why anyone gets their back up about this guy. He's a freaking family counselor, for Pete's sakes. I don't remotely understand why you care about his political pronouncements -- or indeed, his theological ones, if he's not firing them at you. Everyone who uses Dobson as a bogeyman -- well, let's just say I see their stock go down a notch in my book.
If Dobson had said "Thompson doesn't talk openly about his faith" then perhaps he would be talking about a legitimate issue for a "Christian leader."
I'm curious, Adam: What are legitimate issues for Christian leaders? May the Pope or the USCCB speak about abortion? How about euthanasia? May the LDS folks speak about gay marriage? May they even call other people "non-Christians?"
But he didn't do that. He said that Thompson wasn't Christian. It was a false statement, meant to hurt a candidate.
Or, possibly, it was an off-the-cuff observation by a non-pol. You know, giving that whole benefit-of-the-doubt thing.
To act as though his statement was about Christianity and not politics is disingenuous. And I further doubt he is a "Christian first." He is a politician first. And this is how he plays politics. That's why he's a divisive figure.
Adam, respectfully -- and for all our shots these last three years, I sincerely mean that adverb -- do you have any idea what you're talking about? I mean, do you actually pay attention to what this fellow says and does, other than when he hits the front page of the Post?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm curious, Adam: What are legitimate issues for Christian leaders? May the Pope or the USCCB speak about abortion? How about euthanasia? May the LDS folks speak about gay marriage? May they even call other people "non-Christians?"
They can talk about whatever they want. But if they are going to tell someone they are or are not a Christian, then they are stepping over what I think is a legitimate thing for them to decide. And I respond accordingly (discounting their views and presuming a possible political purpose).
Not that all the other things you list are political issues, not personal issues of faith. There does seem to be a difference.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
But if they are going to tell someone they are or are not a Christian, then they are stepping over what I think is a legitimate thing for them to decide.
I don't think you are being accurate here. No one, Dobson included, thinks Dobson has the right or power "to decide" who is or is not a Christian. Let's be honest in this discussion: the issue is the propriety of Dobson expressing his opinion about someone else's faith.
Well, two points.
Christians are fully well entitled to judge the merits of another's faith. Sorry, buckaroo -- same way I can say that someone who sits in a Catholic pew, but denies the Catholic teachings on the nature of Christ, the right to life of the unborn, and the inherent dignity of every human, from conception to natural death, is not a Catholic, but just pretending to be one, so can some other Christian legitimately (if incorrectly) say I'm not a Christian. The Good Lord gave us tongues to use to go with our free wills.
The second point is, I take this as further proof that you have no idea who Dobson actually is.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Considering that Dobson rarely discusses politics in public, and almost never in the context of his radio show, I think that really is an unfair statement.
I also would add that Dobson is a fan of a number of candidates I know you happen to like.
After some cursory research, I will say that I thought Dobson was more political than he is. Although Focus on the Family does get involved in policy making and politics. There is a difference between Dobson and Rick Warren.
That being said, I would be more bothered by this comment if it had come from Falwell or Robertson.
Allowing someone like Dobson to judge people's Christianity doesn't seem like a good path for us to go down.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
political work, such as it is, comes in the form of "Voter Information Guides".
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Dobson mostly stayed out of commenting on politics until 2000 (thought FoF did provide various resources to people before that), and the only reason he got in was because he was so concerned about the direction the country was going in and decided it was right for him to use his influence to motivate his listeners to become involved.
the voter guides they provide.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I don't object at all to Dr. Dobson being a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third. So am I, or so I try to be. I certainly don't expect him to be a good GOP soldier.
First, I will say I disagree with Dr. Dobson's theology; which doesn't make him a bad person, it just means we disagree. Fred Thompson is a Christian; he may, for all I know, be a bad Christian -- but then, for all know, the same may be true of Dr. Dobson, or of me. My point is, it is unfortunate, this habit of many Evangelicals to say So-and-so "is a Christian" -- meaning, not by some objective standard, such as, he's baptized, or he's an active church-goer, or has made some profession of faith, but rather essentially on the basis of some more subjectively measured level of enthusiasm or "fruits." It's too subjective: was Jim Bakker a "Christian" by Dobson's standards, right up to the point when his scandalous behavior became known? Measuring the reality of someone's faith this way seems clearly a bad idea to me.
Then, what really puzzles me is that while Dobson is dissing Thompson (who I don't have much enthusiasm for on, by the way), for not being a Christian(!), he seems to think the Gingrich -- with his many marriages and admitted adultery -- is the bee's knees!
Though, as Erick notes, it starts from a different assumption than Dobson does. Personally, I would describe someone who believes in the essentials of Christian theology as a Christian, but as a bad Christian if they don't live by the consequences of that theology. Dobson prefers a different and more stringent definition, as Erick notes. It's as much a semantic debate as anything.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
but then, for all know, the same may be true of Dr. Dobson, or of me. My point is, it is unfortunate, this habit of many Evangelicals to say So-and-so "is a Christian" --
1. It is true that nobody but God can really know the heart of a person, and whether they have really repented and accepted forgiveness for their sins.
2. There is a strong Biblical imperative for those within the church to judge those within the church (1 Cor. 5:12). The theme comes up several times if you read 1 Cor. to about 2 Peter. Those within the church have an obligation to ensure others within the church espouse and follow proper doctrine and refrain from sin. So anyone who claims to be a Christian is inviting criticism of their 'Christianess'.
This is one of the problems I have with Clinton, Obama, and others. They claims to be Christians but they are obviously NOT following Jesus in their actions and beliefs.
3. In Fred Ts case, you would generally expect to see someone who really cared about their faith be more vocal about it, but I don't think he has expressed any beliefs or performed any actions are clearly not Christian. And the older generation does tend to be more private with faith matters. The comment by Dobson was thus somewhat unwarranted and definitely unhelpful.
The thing is, if Fred was the nominee, Dobson would still vote for him. It was only Dobson asking the question I ask myself many times:
If I was ever charged with the crime of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict me?
In the world of presidential politics, this is not the end of the world.
But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
-James 2:18-
This is not a dividing issue. I think we are on the same side of the issues, it is just sometimes for different reasons.
but the headline should read
"Dobson Needs to Shut It Up"
The man has a irritating habit of making idiotic statements, and this one comes under that category. Fred Thompson has not even entered the race yet and Dobson is trying to play the role of kingmaker....he isn't up to the task, and I am tired of him thinking he speaks for the entire evangelical community.
Dobson has turned himself into our Al Sharpton.
That's a whole new level of silly.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
need a list of his idiotic comments?
He is rapidly veering toward inanity.
And with Sharpton. No comparison. Sharpton is a two-bit race hustler, modeled after Jessie Jackson.
Dobson runs a pro-family organization that, even considering some of the stuff Dobson says that can be considered over-the-top, does a world of good.
This particular incident is a huge tempest in a teapot. See the actual quotes from the US News article above.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Dobson probably is a political liability for saying things from his religious perspective that are not politically prudent, but that's a long way from Sharpton. Cyberspace lacks enough pixels to contain all of Sharpton's sins, but inciting race riots, arson and murder, willfully defaming innocent men, and propagating bigotry and anti-Semitism are up there on the list. There's a difference between an impolitic preacher and a remorseless and dangerous charlatan.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
a comparison to Sharpton is over the top....but he is becoming a liability.
Or is it putting things into their proper perspective?
is that I believe his comments stray from "Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third."
I think Dobson has a partisan agenda that supports Gingrich for the presidency, and is using faith as a smoke screen to cover that agenda. While in office, when exactly was Gingrich actively talking about his faith, witnessing to his strong devotion to the cause of Christ? When he was divorcing his wife over the phone, having an affair, or trying to turn Clinton's picadillos into crimes, ala perjury? I think Newt benefited by confession on Dobson's show, but the benefit lessens if the purpose was to run for President.
One of Hugh Hewitt's traits is that he develops deep loyalties, and pursues them to extremes. His loyalty to Romney definitely fits in this arena. He seems to feel that his expressions of loyalty, and attacks on those who disagree with him, will carry the day. It does not seem to be working with Romney. But Hugh is much less an issue than Dobson because Dobson reaches more people, people who are not political junkies like the rest of us.
Dobson has every right to question Thompson's Christianity, as a Christian, as an American, as a Republican. And the rest of the Republicans have the right to cry "foul" when he does, if his agenda is partisan instead of sprititual. Newt is not the Great White Hope. Thompson may be, or may not be, but many of us feel that he certainly is better than Rudy, McCain or Romney, and waaaayyyy better than Newt. Dobson, like Hewitt, now has a dog in the political hunt. The rest of the dogs are going to bark when they feel that something is unfair. Dobson would be more credible if he wasn't pushing Gingrich
Dedicated Christians seem to have less political ambition than less theologically dedicated but deeply conservative people, much like Churchill or Reagan. Their conservative political and/or moral beliefs appear to be rooted in their Christian rearing. Christians whose political views are directly and publicly tied to their religious beliefs are rare in the arena. John Ashcroft, George Bush, Rick Santorum are among the few. I don't believe that Gingrich belongs in that group. I think Dobson believes he does.
I think Dobson has a partisan agenda that supports Gingrich for the presidency, and is using faith as a smoke screen to cover that agenda.
As a sometime Dobson listener, nay, devotee, may I humbly suggest that you don't know what you're talking about?
Dobson is a Republican only because he's a conservative person who is thoroughly Christian. He comes from a long line of preachers, Methodist I think. His agenda, if you want to call it that, is to promote the cause of Christ, as he sees it.
Conservative Christians are uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. I guarantee you that if he came to see the Republican Party as unChristian, he would denounce it without as much as a rearward glance. I don't know what he would do then.
Anyway, I've never heard Dobson say he was Republican. I don't even know what his views on economics or national defense are. I think his world view is that we are individuals with rights, not a commune of the helpless. He has said so in so many words.
So while I would guess he's a Republican, and am certain he's at least a social conservative, I am completely convinced that his self image is that of a Christian. There is no other explanation that fits the facts.
--
See the Academy
My personal bona fides are Southern Baptist of a very conservative stripe, born again, dunked not sprinkled, believe the Bible to be inspired, true, and the Word of God, and would like to see more members of our government who have biblical view of the value of life, personal responsibility, and public and private morality. Both parties are lacking in these attributes.
Other than this issue about Gingrich, I have only respect for, and agreement with, Dobson.
Gingrich is the only candidate, potential or otherwise, that has been interviewed by Dobson. (Not surprising, since the big three have their problems with Dobson and a lot of us.) And Dobson has made positive comments only about Gingrich, the smartest candidate, etc.
I also believe that Dobson is a conservative, since the Democrats have adopted, supported, promulgated, tried to give Constitutional protection to, every perversity known to man . It's not like he has a lot of choice in our society. And his view/support/etc. for Gingrich undoubtedly comes from his faith, moral views, views on biblical morality, social conservatism, whatever you want to call it.
So, as I wrote above, I "believe" that Dobson has a political agenda. That doesn't mean that his political agenda (if he has one) is his primary agenda. I did not write "know", which communicates a degree of certainty that I don't have on the subject. His comments on Thompson's faith certainly introduce a potential wedge in evangelical support for Thompson, which I believe to be his intention. Again, "believe", not "know". But, since Thompson has no record of supporting policy that is opposed to Christianity or morality, it makes his positive comments about Gingrich even more suspect.
Here's the deal. We as Christians want a government that is not hostile to biblical Christianity. Most of us want the candidate who is closest to our views, but is the most electable. Going to the wall for Gingrich makes no sense (to me) in this election. I think any Dem that runs is highly vulnerable. A good candidate can likely defeat Hillary!, Obama, whoever is on the Democrat horizon at this point. But not Gingrich.
Here's a last thing that I would point out. It looks like you interpreted my post as disliking Dobson, or being anti-Christian, or whatever. Not sure how you could read that into the post. But I think Dobson is supporting Gingrich. If so, then we certainly can question Dobson's choice in this matter. That doesn't mean we think Dobson is now the anti-Christ.
I doubt Dobson is really as calculated in his comments as you seem to think. He is not a politician and has a strong personality. Sometimes I think he just says what he thinks without being too machiavellian about it. That can be a liability at times, and he should probably be more careful, but I think reading into things too much may not be warranted.
Dobson's statement is not consistent with being a Christian first. Christians should not make a comment about a person implying that they are not Christian when they don't know the person.
How is that helping Christ's team? I don't see attacking people out of ignorance as proper behavior for anyone. (And note I am using the word ignorance in it's proper meaning, not as a euphemism for bigotry.)
Did I say Dobson was a bigot- no. I felt I was being quite generous by arguing that Dobson had really meant to say that he didn't know what Thompson's faith was, and that he just stuck his foot in his mouth.
As for the bigger issue: Is it appropriate to consider a candidate's faith in accessing him? I would have to say it depends on the meaning.
Now the meaning you are attaching to Dobson's choice of the word "Christian" is the old style term of "Christian behavior". I see this as a perfectly acceptable yardstick for candidates: 'Is this candidate's morals and values as evidenced by his life and faith consistent with the moral and values that I want in a leader- which is probably a result of my own faith.' That is a perfectly acceptable use of a candidate's faith and my faith in determining if I will support him.
On the other hand, if by "Christian" Dobson meant someone who holds the same theological beliefs that Dobson considers "Christian"- then I have a problem with that.
Considering that Dobson has made comments suggesting Romney may not be "Christian" enough is suggestive that Dobson is thinking more along theological lines. Particularly considering that Romney (along with Brownback, and I assume Thompson- though I don't know enough about him) is one of the better exemplars of Christain behavior.
I disagree with with using theological litmus tests. I don't think Jews should be excluded from Presidential politics.
I think the measure should be:
Theological tests- not okay
Moral Behavior test - essential
I think alot of problems are being caused because both you and Hugh Hewitt are conflating the two.
In fact, part of the reason I'm supporting Mitt Romney is because of his Christian lifestyle.
That said, Romney doesn't havev my vote locked down. I'm willing to listen to Thompson, but I don't know enough about him to jump on the bandwagon, and I find it strange that so many of his supporters don't seem to know much about him either. I mean, what I hear is good- I just need to know more.
In fact I find it amusing that so many of those who castigated Romney supporters for swooning for his movie star looks, and praising him to the stars despite his imperfections are now swooning for Thompson, praising him to the stars- even though they don't really know much about him. The only difference is that Mitt has movie star hair, while Thompson has a movie star voice (and is actually a movie star).
Now Thompson seems like a nice guy. I like the characters he plays on TV- but is that really him?
I know he voted for McCain-Fiengold, but that's not the deal killer it is with McCain- it's not like he sponsered it, and if Thompson now feels that it was a mistake, I'll let it slide. I just want to know more before I get excited about him.
Now I started hearing rumblings about Romney since this time last year and it took six months (and the catalyst of attacks on Romney here at Redstate) before I finally decided to tenatively support him.
That is one of my final problems with Dobson's comment- it seems to me we should be more patient with potential candidates and not start throwing elbows at them when we don't know enough to really judge them.
Just thought I'd indulge in some self-congratulation.
I figured that Dobson had only meant to express his lack of knowlege about Thompson's faith. Looking at the original quote, you have to admitt Dobson did so in a very clumsy manner.
The faith of the candidates always comes up in one way or another, if only to assure the voters that they are "church-going." I've learned to ignore this as rhetoric, at least when it comes to presidential politics. The realities rarely resemble the assurances.
So, with this cynicism working at my side, what does that mean for 2008? If not for Romney, it'd be politics as usual. But, since he's this generations version of JFK (first catholic), it has brought the question of faith closer to the front. That, and the media's general need to discredit anything religious.
I am curious about Romney, and a lot of that has to do with his beliefs. I'm not familiar with the Mormon faith and this is a good opportunity to learn. I also want to know things like how his faith influences his politics and how he handles contradicting issues.
Is this true of all the candidates (in terms of their faith)? No. That's not right or fair, but it's life.
R.J.
Here's how I responded to this on my blog, Save The GOP (www.savethegop.com):
It enrages me that fools like this are seen by many as leaders of the Republican Party, or of the conservative movement. This sickens me.
I don’t go around talking about my faith all the time. Some people do, and I occassionally will engage in discussion about it with close friends - it’s just not something I feel comfortable starting a conversation about with random people. Does that make me less of a Christian? No.
I don’t have a problem with more evangelical Christians who like to be more open about their faith. I think that for the most part they are wonderful people who feel compelled to share the faith. I just ask for equal respect from those of the more evangelical lean for those like myself who keep their faith relatively private in regular, everyday life.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
Do you feel guilty for being a Closet Christian. Or are you a Sunday Morning Christian, or a Chreaster Christian?
Guess what? I have no problem with any of that. Nor do I have a problem with Dr. Dobson. And I certainly am not about to say that my own lazy, underused faith is a better approximation to what Jesus wants than is his.
Dr. Dobson is not saying you need to "go around talking about your faith all the time." Just be ready, when the opportunity presents itself. Don't hide it.
--
See the Academy
"Stop the name calling"
"Do you feel guilty for being a Closet Christian. Or are you a Sunday Morning Christian, or a Chreaster Christian?"
Wow. Are we even having an argument or are you just telling me not to name-call, then proceeding call me names?
I don't hide my faith. I'm just not evangelical about it. And your snarky tone that my faith is somehow fake or not true is insulting and quite frankly you (and Dr. Dobson) have no business.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
And as long as we don't nominate some Papist acolyte of Rome we should be OK. We should press the RNC to insist that if some errant Papist seeks the nomination, he must turn from Rome, denounce their dogma and the superiority of the Pope and join a regular church.
Like maybe that L Ron Hubbard group that the little short actor guy belongs to.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Dobson just made it very hard to say he does good work. If I don't have the time to make a lengthy defense of the Man, I won't be lauding his work anytime soon.
Of course on the flip side, The church of the subgenius has some politically active people.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I no longer mind people like Dobson, and to tell the truth I don't even mind people like Pat Robertson all that much anymore either. I really think Robertson hit the nail on the head when he said we should send some people in to take out Hugo Chavez, and I wish he'd start saying similar things about Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. It would be a refreshing change from the British Navy, who have now apparently had it decided for them that giving up and being captured and paraded around as hostages are part of their duty.
That's a little outre, but so be it. When I was an atheist I loved every foaming-at-the-mouth leftist denunciator of Christianity and I favored their rights to speak, to organize, to influence their peers and followers, and solicit contributions for their cause. Dobson and Robertson, et. al., are a lot better people than the ones I used to hang out with. And when I disagree with what they say, I just tune them out.
even if it was sinking sand :>)...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I have a long post coming almost any time now about my newfound appreciation for country music which I'm sure will generate a lot of laughs, but the amazing thing is that I'm completely serious about that, too.
In the meantime, I really don't mind Dobson and Robertson all that much. I'm not an acolyte but in a lot of ways I support what they're doing -- which in most cases is more good work than bad, unlike a lot of my former friends.
I can wake up every morning and find dozens of things that are written in pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post that I object to much more strenuously than most of what Dobson, Robertson, et. al., say each day. So you can say that my "objection" frequency counter has changed in terms of the things it picks up on quite dramatically, and I think that it would be a good thing for the country in general if more people felt that way.
I'm always weary when a Christian leader gets involved in poltics, because invariable someone hears something, *gasp*, offensive™ and their credibility is shot, a la Falwell andd Roberston.
That being said, What the heck is wrong with questioning someone's faith? If someone claims to hold an ideology/philosophy, especialy in the public sector, we bloody well better question it! There are alot of Schmooze-balls out there.
I don't see any complaints when we question Romney's "conservatism." He's made claims, and we are rightly finding the truth of them. Honestly, most of America still claims to be "christian," and that, I think is what Dobson is gettin at: does Thompson live out the faith that he claims? Christ said: "By their fruits[actions] you shall know them." Dobson simply seems to be making the observation that he doesn't see any of the "fruits" in Thompson's life.
The man's entitled to an observation, especially one that he himself admited was a guess from a distnace.
And it is ABSOLUTELY "christian" to question another's belief!!! Don't give me any of this post-modern drivel about "judge not." It is my duty as a Christian brother to call a fellow believer on inconsistencies. If, in my claim to be a Christian, I am not living an obviously Christian life, I would want my brothers and sisters to do the same.
"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate
It is my duty as a Christian brother to call a fellow believer on inconsistencies.
Then Dobson could have gotten on the phone and called Thompson. But making a public statement about it seems more like a political statement than a concern.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
The (what should be)public faith of a (potential)public official is open to the scrutiny of all. If the fellow publicly claims, or people like campaign drafters claim for him, I have every right to publicly question those claims.
"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate
And why is the post bar so close to the preview bar?
"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
“The reason some of you are so frustrated with Dobson today, is because Dobson is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third.”
That misses the reasons I found Dobson's behaivior obnoxious.
a) He persumes to speak for an awful lot of people when he
1) announces which GOP candidates are 'Christian' enough to meet the Dobbs standard.
2) preemptively attempts to exclude a candidate from the race based on his interpretations of their spirituality.
b) He acts in a very inconsistent manner in apply the faith-based litmus test. Thompson may not have just come back from a mission, but he seems pretty straight-up in his beliefs compared to candidates who have.
1) Had serial marraiges and divorces. (Rudy and Newt)
2) Participated in large-scale fraud. (McCain and the rest of the Keating Five)
3) Claim that an entire new book of the bible exists after The New Testament. (Mitt Romney being a Mormon)
So Dobson claims to speak for an awful lot of people, and does so with a very selective and inconsistent standard. If a candidate really is required to live by the book to such an extent that Fred Thompson is an infidel, I doubt the GOP will be fielding a candidate in the Presidential Election of 2008. It's a good thing that James Dobson speaks for far fewer people than he would like to. That's the only thing here that I think truly sucks.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
So Dobson claims to speak for an awful lot of people, ...
He does?
I must have misread where he said "I don't think that ...", then. It sure sounded to me like he was speaking his personal opinion. In fact, it sounds to me like you're putting words into his mouth that he didn't say.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The US News quote is reprinted here.
Dobson made no effort to speak for anybody else but himself, and he was quite generous with his comment about Thompson standing up for issues that pro-family people care about.
This is really far from "obnoxious" behavior or commentary.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
"'We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,' Schneeberger added."
This is the thing that *really* bugs me... how effective a *spokesman* can Schneeberger be when he says that Catholics et al. aren't included when they use the word "Christian"?!?
I hope someone clarifies *that* comment for me.
Eric you come out swinging in defense of Dobson being entitled to his "voice" and proclaim on the front page for us to "suck it up".
No way, I'm tired of sucking it up while "men", human beings, who sit in leadership positions of faith based organizations or churches, take the role of God AND talk politics.
Opinions voiced blah blah, he said she said, is that really the point though? I don't agree with the bigot posts but what does seem to be missing, and for me at least it's important, is that this is about politics. In this case he, Dobson, or the rest of the faith based talking heads for that matter, are talking about a person/people, not an issue.
So why does that matter to me? For one thing, most religions say God is the one that pases judgment and can see into another persons soul and finds them worthy or not.
Another, it's about money and tax related issues, if he/they want to talk politics fine, pay taxes, if not shut up. With some of the stuff coming out of the Catholic church recently on immigration issues, as a Catholic I cringe when I see the quotes floated on TV and the recent political activism.
Then some of the recent blogs about other religious figures making proclamations about Newt and Rudy re their personal lives. Is the political stage where people of faith are supposed to make an impact or is it supposed to be about bringing people closer to God? Public condemnation is anathema to their supposed role, hows that for hypocrisy! Have they now supplanted God and sit in judgment from behind their tax sheltered pulpits?
I saw a Catholic priest on Hannity and Colmes a few weeks ago after the priest had written an article tearing Sean apart for not being a good Catholic, then on TV he proceeded to do the same thing, he judged another mans moral value and had never even met him. Dobson and the rest are no better and this public abuse of their pulpit stands in stark contrast to the faith they try to impart.
When I think about the power of the "religious right" in my dream world, it's about influencing policy through it's people, teaching morals and right from wrong. I also believe in encouraging people of faith to be active and participate in the selection of officials at all levels of governance to help keep America a country of moral values.
But to make or pass judgment in public, no. If they are actually concerned and real people of faith, then let them reach out to those they call sinner and try to bring them to the "light", that's their role, not to play God.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
(at least, it seems so)
Back when I was still a very conservative Christian, I thought Dobson was just a sweet-voiced, family radio host. I used to listen to his show on my hour and a half drive between the farm on college on the weekends in Oklahoma. But once one catches the fist of the most conservative religious ideologies, one tends to look a bit more closely at its leaders.
Dobson is arguably the single most powerful force in American Christianity today. He is (again arguably) the single most powerful force in Christian politics...and yes, it is most definitely a political force...which is fine...whatever. Since Robertson has very openly slipped into his dotage, Dobson has quietly maintained and increased his political influence. It is no surprise that the average Christian Joe thinks he's neither a minister nor a politician...that's exactly how Dobson wants it to appear. His stealth has been his most abiding method for success.
He is from a a very particular sect of Christianity--the Nazarenes (I come from Mennonite stock...also "very particular" Hah!). When Dobson says, "I don't think he's a Christian," there's a window into his theology that you might have missed. There are some very specific "talking points" that Thompson has probably left out of his vocabulary. These points are essential to Dobson's definition of what a Christian must be. Likewise, when he supports Gingrich, you must understand that it probably matters less how Newt has lived than that he says some very specific things that classify him as an acceptable Christian to Mr. Dobson. Dobson is, by the way, after the fashion of the Nazarenes "sanctified"--he considers himself to be sinless, and incabable of sinning. There are two landmark moments in a Nazarene's spiritual life: when they become a Christian, and when they become sanctified.
I recommend reading "James Dobson's War on America" by Gil-Alexander-Moegerle. Although the book is, in the end, pretty whiny, it is nonetheless written by the co-founder of Focus on the Family. Gil perspective is hard to discount as he was Dobon's right hand and co-host for many years.
The assertion has been made here that Dobson is "not a minister, just a family counselor." Actually, Dobson is a bit of a chameleon in this respect. When he wants to influence people politically, it is expediant to play down his role as a Christian minister to avoid the appearance of electioneering. When he was taken to court by Mr. Alexander-Moegerle, however, Dobson claimed Church status for his organization to avoid prosecution.
Make no mistake...Mr. Dobson intended his remark about Thompson to undercut Thompson's campaign. James Dobson is fully aware of how many people listen to him and trust him implicitly as their "sweet-voiced family counselor." He is fully aware of the political power his seemingly innocuous statement has.
You've said a lot, but what exactly is your point? I'm sure that he knows that he has influence in the Christian community and no one is claiming that he doesn't.
...was simply to provide information and a perspective that most Redstate readers may not have heard. There has been some debate here as to whether Dobson was making a casual, "off-the-cuff" remark, or making a direct attempt to influence the political landscape. I believe the latter to be true. I stated why I believe it and provided some background regarding my source of information about Mr. Dobson.
That's all.
Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha. In terms of any reasonable discussion of Dobson and FoF, your sources are just out to lunch.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Gil Alexander-Moegerle, the author of the book I cite, helped James Dobson start Focus on the Family and was his right-hand man and co-host of Dobson's radio show for many years. While I freely admit that his book comes off as the last sigh of a wounded friend, it nonetheless provides an insight that is worth considering.
I know nothing of Murtha and Pelosi. Nothing. Well, that's not true, their Democrats as I understand...politicians which I disdain, and villains in the eyes of Redstate readers. :-)
Basically, as I understand your comment, if my source has an unfavorable opinion of someone you favor...he's out to lunch?
And I just spelled "they're" as "their". Hahahah! I'm a moron!
And it's summed up in your final paragraph. It also flies in the face of Dobson's actual quote, reproduced upthread.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Guilty as charged. I struggle every day with both of these flaws in my very human character. Nonetheless, I copied my quote of Dobson from the quote upthread, and I don't think my discussion of him has dramatically varied from the wide ranging opinions displayed in this thread of comments. Some people here think he's a problem, some think he's just fine. I happen to think he's trouble and I've provided information that is probably unknown to most Redstate readers. Make of it what you will. You may disagree with my position, or the information I've presented, but you provided no rebuttal of any sort to counter it.
"Dobson is, by the way, after the fashion of the Nazarenes "sanctified"--he considers himself to be sinless, and incabable of sinning. There are two landmark moments in a Nazarene's spiritual life: when they become a Christian, and when they become sanctified."
Having grown up in the Nazerene Church, I think you are very wrong. I never heard sanctification taught this way. As I recall, their doctrine very much provided for "backsliding" into a sinful state of condemnation from which you would have to ask again for forgiveness. This is opposite the concept of once in grace, always in grace.
Sounds like the farm was better for you than college.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Written by the man who helped Dobson found Focus on the Family, and who was the co-host of Dobson's radio show for many years, James Dobson's War on America describes Dobson's Nazarene background and details the singular instances where the ideology you question was experienced.
That's all I know. Beyond that, as has been declared, I am quite ignorant, but I have not said anything for which I do not have a source. I do not doubt that your Nazarene experience varied from Dobson's--just as my Mennonite experience varied from others in Mennonite Churches both in my area and around the country.
Indeed, the farm was--and remains--a wonderful place for me. I was in fact happier there than in college, so in some sense you are quite correct: the farm was better for me than college.
"That's all I know. Beyond that, as has been declared, I am quite ignorant"
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
by leaders/preachers/ministers of various faiths is fair play or meant to be part of the ministry?
All character/intent issues aside, how does this fit into conservatism?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Freedom of speech. What could be unfair about it? It isn't part of ministry as it relates to the Gospel of Jesus Christ exactly, but if what you believe doesn't affect your worldview and therefore your actions, what good is it?
has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.