GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I don’t mean to pile on, but I remain personally insulted and offended by Dr. Dobson’s recent commentary regarding religion and politics, and I’m glad to see that most conservative bloggers see things my way. Far more important than any offense I may have taken from Dobson’s comments, of course, is the damage that Dobson could do to the Republican Party in 2008 if he decides to apply his ambiguous and narrow religious test to each of the GOP presidential candidates in a very public manner. As such, I encourage conservatives to continue to call Dobson out on this subject, as many conservative bloggers have done already.
AmSpec sees things my way:
Dobson’s arrogance in this situation is shocking… What damns Thompson in Dobson’s eyes is that he doesn’t wear his Christianity on his sleeve. Perhaps Thompson feels called to live it as a good example, or witnessing to his close friends. Or perhaps he is not a committed Christian. Either way, Thompson’s failure to broadcast his Christianity, in a garish, public way, is not dispositive of his faith.
So does Ankle-Biting Pundits:
But what I do have a problem with is Dobson claiming that Thompson isn’t a “committed Christian”, and thus would not excite Christians to vote for him. Can someone please tell me what “committed Christian” means? I assume it doesn’t mean a Baptist who has been ordered to a mental institution.
Does it mean you have to mention “Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and Savior” in every interview or conversation?
Does that mean you have to go to a “born again” Church and sing along with the choir?
Does that mean you have to volunteer on so many church committees?
Have to volunteer at a soup kitchen?
Just how much do you have to do to pass Dobson’s “committed Christian” test and get his blessing for his followers to vote for you?
Blogs for Thompson opines that “James Dobson Strikes Another Blow to Conservatism.” And Adam C over at RedState had this to say:
Anyone who James Dobson doesn’t like, gets a bonus point on my ledger.
Heh. Meanwhile, Save the GOP is PO’d at Dobson:
This is what is wrong with the so-called Christian Right. Just because Thompson doesn’t talk about religion in speeches or use his faith to constantly justify his political views like a Sam Brownback he’s not a Christian? And then he goes on to praise Newt Gingrich, who is sosorry about cheating on his wives. Dobson, get the hell out of politics. You are ignorant, you are easily manipulated, and you do more damage to social conservatives then you do good.
UPDATE: I should also remind Mr. Dobson that Ronald Reagan was very private about his faith and rarely spoke about it in public. Apparently by your definition he wasn’t a Christian either then
And finally, Virginia Virtucon, a blog with a photo of Reagan in his prime on the front page, sums up the whole ordeal with this pithy line:
Whatever credibility that Dr. James Dobson may have ever had is in the toilet.
That’ll do, Virginia. That’ll do.
Look, Focus on the Family isn’t really my cup of tea, so I’m not particularly familiar with Dobson’s work in non-political areas. Given that “Focus” has earned the respect of many of the folks on this site that I respect, I’m sure that Dobson is an accomplished man in many non-political walks of life, and none of this commentary takes away from that. But those accomplishments do not give Dobson license to make the offensive and irresponsible statements that we have detailed today. By passing judgment on the religious faith of one or more Republican presidential candidates, Dobson is utilizing his influence in a way that could affect the next presidential election. By narrowing the parameters of acceptable presidential candidates to only those who are evangelical Christians who wear their faith on their sleeve, Dobson reduces the GOP field to a very few candidates, and may end up forcing many of our leading candidates to choose between the support of the voters that value Dobson’s judgment and the millions of Americans who are turned off by candidates who follow Dobson’s example. Further, by inserting his view that only evangelicals are Christians into this political commentary, Dobson only serves to offend millions of Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants, many of whom associate Dobson with the GOP as a whole and who may begin to wonder whether the GOP is a party they can support. And then there are the millions of non-Christians that Republicans have been trying to win over, such as conservative Jews, who won’t feel particularly welcome in a movement that disqualifies them from the presidency.
With great power comes great responsibility. If Dr. Dobson is going to continue to try and influence Republican and conservative politics, he needs to do so in a responsible, inclusive, and far more politically savvy manner. Politics is not religion. Dobson may believe that the only folks who share his spiritual distinction are those who are outspoken evangelical Christians. I disagree with that assessment, but to each his own. But if folks like Dobson decide to try and translate those religious qualifiers into requirements for being a conservative or a Republican, then one of two things will happen: either conservatism and the Republican Party will be destroyed, or James Dobson will be directed towards the nearest exit.
The latter is more likely.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Not that I have any sympathy for Dobson and his rhetoric in this particular instance, but I can’t help wondering if the many many people who are taking issue with Dobson’s comments would react the same way if he hadn’t made them about Thompson, but about Romney.
By the way, DaveG, nice shout out to Uncle Ben.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
If Rush Limbaugh is the Doctor of Democracy, what is James Dobson? Doctor of Idiocracy?
March 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Excellent point Murphy:
Southern Baptists in particular have been very harsh in their rhetoric towards members of the LDS faith. I don’t understand why some differences in faith can incite that kind of rhetoric.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
This isn’t a big deal to me. If Dobson was a Republican or conservative figure you guys would have a definite point. He isn’t and doesn’t pretend to be. He wears his non-loyalty to the Republican party on his sleeve. He is leader of a pro-family Christian organization. He views these candidates only by how friendly to his agenda they will be. I really resent the accusations of pettiness on Dobson’s part. He is only seeking out the candidate who is mostly friendly to his agenda.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Not a supporter of Fred..
AND
Normally I would defend Mr. Dobson. I beleive he is an honorable Christian man who does good thing better than Falwell or Robertson.
However in this case he has gone too far to question one’s Christianity only God will do this on judgment day.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
[...] Kos opines and Race42008 summarizes. By Alex, 3/28/2007, 11:10 am [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Dr Dobson has the right to express his opinion just as much as Al Sharpton or black leaders have questioning if Obama is truly “Black” enough.
Just how much influence he or other Evangelical leaders are having on Christian voters is questionable. The current leader among Evangelical conservatives is Rudy Guliani,so it appears Christian voters are not as ridged ,inflexible ,unbending or just a bunch of lemings as Dr. Dobson’s statements might lead people to believe.
You can vehemently disagree with Dobson , but he has a right to advocate for his beliefs( just like some of the harsh critism of Republicans that comes from Michael Savage: throw him overboard too?)
All in all, I think when push comes to shove ,my guess is Dobson will much rather have any of the Republicans in office compared to what he is going to end up with on the Democrat side.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Truth be told most on this site will be in same boat as Dr. Dobson
March 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I’m not a Christian by anyone’s measure, Dobson’s or otherwise, but I always thought that Jesus preached inclusion among his followers. I don’t understand the biblical basis for people like Dobson and others to cast aspersions on other Christians. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Christian theocracy isn’t there just one authority on who is Christian enough? Or has Dobson been appointed membership coordinator by the big guy upstairs?
March 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Stuff like this is exactly why it shames me that the religious right consider them to be “conservatives.” Conservatives stand for smaller government, not bigger. I’m not saying that conservatism=libertarianism, although they are related. I’m just saying that to wish to control peoples’ morality based upon a sacred text, upon theology, is immoral and wrong.
It is exactly stuff like this that makes me sick…we should be judging people based upon competence, not upon religious beliefs at all. An atheist could very well be qualified to be president, but many people dispute that. Someone’s personal metaphysical beliefs have very little bearing upon their morality and their governing style. Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jainists can all be moral human beings. As long as a person does not impose their religious beliefs upon me, I’m OK with whatever they want to believe. I just want our President, whomever it may be, to put logic and reason before their faith in governing. I’m not bashing religion, I’m just bashing religion’s unfortunate influence upon public life.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Jake, the problem with applying actual Christian theological thought to these guys (i’m having to watch my language here) is that Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et. al are just using religion to control their flocks. They don’t really care about what Jesus actually preached.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Nusrat. . .I couldn’t agree more. I’m not against religion - I’m somewhat religious myself. I just don’t see why we can’t all live our own lives without imposing our religious beliefs on others. Anyone who wants to use their religion as a basis for voting their OWN choice is fine. Just don’t push it on others.
It’s ironic that we’re even having this discusion - about unwelcome religious imposition on politics - at a time when we’re bogged down in a sectarian war in Iraq where two sects within the Muslim religion are killing each other by the thousands.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
hey, jake…up there, you referred to “Christian theocracy” instead of “Christian theology”
A bit of a freudian slip, eh?
March 28th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
hahaha Yeah Nusrat I caught that mistake after I hit send. . .hoping no one would catch it, but on this site I should have known better. Nice catch. haha
March 29th, 2007 at 8:03 am
[...] this post at Race 4 2008 summarizes, condemnation of James Dobson for his comments about Senator Fred Thompson is legion across the [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
First, I think some poster on this thread need to take a deep breath, and not be so quick to transfer Dr. Dobson’s opinion to “evangelicals” or the “religious right,” as so many here seem so quick to do.
When Dobson has spoken before ( like after the GOP win in 1994, and after the losses in 2006), I have always believed that Dobson was speaking for Dobson, as a self-annoited political leader first, and secondly, as a spokesmen for his followers and listeners of Focus on the Family. Any generalizations here about the Christian right or evangelicals are weak at best.
Evangelicals really don’t have one spokesperson, nor does the Christian right. To say or imply that Dobson is their spokesperson is ignorant at best, disingenunous at worst.
cwpete-
Actually, the political spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard Land, in his last coomentary on morality among presidential candidates, was most complimentary OF Romney, when it came to marriage and the family.
Nusrat-
So morality shouldn’t have anything to do with governance. I think it was that king of logic himself, Aristotle, who said, “To consistently choose values over personal desires require s moral virtue.”
I certainly hope that whichever Republican might windup in the White House has that moral virtue when it comes to strengthening Homeland Security and the military. If you are only looking for an efficient and effective governments WITHOUT moral virtue, then you will be weel on your way to Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Please forgive my typos- the devil made me do them.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:13 am
[...] been living under a rock for the past 48 hours, you can get up to speed on the issue here and here. I think Erick’s piece is useful as it allows the dueling forces on this issue to begin [...]