Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Excellent.

One would think that even if one agreed with James Dobson, one might hope that he'd take the Bible as seriously as he says he does. Jesus tells us in the Book of Matthew, that if we have disagreements with others, there is a particular way to air those grievances. The first step is a private one-on-one meeting, not an attempt to use religion as a stunt to score cheap political points.

But then apparently James Dobson doesn't have a problem "distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused Theology."
 

I plead guilty to slapping James Dobson around in this space, which is not private, regularly.

But ... live by the media, die by the media -- and my earnest prayer is that James Dobson's media self dies under the glare of scrutiny, the ridicule of joyous non-dogmatic believers, and the criticism of the nonbelieving who don't give a rat's how the Bible is read, one way or the other.
 

Actually, I think he's close to losin' it. He knows he's one of the last diehards with a true national footprint.
 

The part that struck me as bizarre was Dobson presuming to claim that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution. It would be one thing for someone who makes a living peddling religion to say Obama misinterpreted scripture because that's (sort of) Dobson's turf, not Obama's, but for Dobson to slide on over into to claiming to know more about the Constitution and constitutional law than Obama when that's Obama's area of expertise (he taught it for 12 years at the University of Chicago) is downright weird.

Dobson used to occasionally say something that made sense, but more and more he's sounding like the lights are on but no one's home.
 

"Actually, I think he's close to losin' it. He knows he's one of the last diehards with a true national footprint."

So does anyone know if Dobson is still refusing to vote for McCain, or has he changed his mind on that? I can't imagine that a publicity whore like him would give up that kind of access and diss the Republican political elite.

Though maybe he's just wising up and realized that he's been played for a fool by Rove, et. al. That would, at least, be one positive outcome.
 

Another big inconsistency is Dobson straining to distance homself from Al Sharpton -- "I'm a psychologist, not a preacher!" -- and then going right on to practice biblical exegesis and church history without a license.

And he calls Obama a fruitcake! L and OL.
 

I think he's still not "supporting" McCain. Not sure.

"Whore" is such an ugly word. ... He's just easy.
 

For the record, again: I don't dislike the man personally, and I am in no position to judge anyone's immortal soul.

But, I think he is a threat to liberty, and as such, he must be opposed.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Easy? Yeah, definitely. As the old saw goes, a slut is someone who has more sex than you do. LOL. Maybe that applies to political hacks too. A political slut is someone who sells their soul more often that you do. A whore, however, gets paid. Dobson gets paid. Actually whore is probably the wrong word, since prostitutes know they're being used. Dobson hasn't, so far, figured that out -- even when the evidence is clear, eg. Rove calling evangelicals "ridiculous", "out of control", "goofy" and "The Nuts" came to light, yet they continue to lick his boots.

But that's only a judgement about his actions and intelligence, not his salvation. I'll leave those judgements to God. Well, God and the fundies, since that seems to be their favorite pass time, who am I to take it away? ;)
 

I dunno, Dobson got one right: Shellfish IS Ok ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/24/85624/4834/980/541083

This is the trouble with lettin' folks read their own Bibles, they start thinkin it means stuff that the Right People didn't sanction!

Dobson probably should have picked a better day to blast that two-year-old speech. The initial coverage got buried under the Pew Forum report that showed most Americans are more religiously tolerant than he is.
 

Blessed are the fruitcakes, for they shall be the keepers of the rum.
 

Re, "The initial coverage got buried under the Pew Forum report that showed most Americans are more religiously tolerant than he is."

But wou'dn't that be seen by the fundalicious as affirmation that he's right? Tolerance is not seen as a virtue among true b'lievers of any sort.
 

As a fundamentalist conservative, I want to take this opportunity to thank all you reasonable, sweet liberals for your non-judgmental attitudes. :-) Mom2
 

Well, we *are* reasonable, we *can* be sweet -- and we for damn sure WILL judge the way Dr. Dobson uses his power, misuses the Bible and makes an idol out of American Life As Dobson Sees it.

None of which has jack to do with the kind of judging we're admonished to avoid. His immortal soul is in God's hands. His media presence, his two-faced persona -- "man of God" when convenient, "just a psychologist" when convenient -- are absolutely fair game.

He's wrong. He is a threat to liberty.
 

"I want to take this opportunity to thank all you reasonable, sweet liberals for your non-judgmental attitudes. :-)"

Glad you added the smiley in there, perhaps you realize the irony of that statement too. ;)
 

It should surprise no one that a fundie would come and accuse us liberals of hypocritical judgmentalism. In the first place, as ER notes, the whole question of judgmentalism is one of ultimate significance. Commenters are not suggesting that Dobson is outside of God's grace; indeed, I for one do not believe anyone - Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Karl Rove - is outside the reach of God's grace.

The issue isn't Dobson's status before the throne of God, but Dobson's status before the American public. The issue isn't one of judgment, but rather discernment. St. Paul called it "testing the spirits". Jesus used the agricultural metaphor of "fruits". In other words, we are checking Dobson's words against other words he has spoken, as well as Obama's words, and finding them lacking a certain intellectual and spiritual legitimacy.

An even bigger argument against the entire thrust of Dobson's argument is historical. The practice of ignoring the Old Testament legal verses - from the "ox goring" statutes in Deuteronomy to the cleanliness regulations in Leviticus and all in-between - is part and parcel of a larger historical trend rooted in Christian anti-Semitism. I think most people remember being given "Bibles" at some point that were actually New Testaments, with the Psalms attached as an afterthought. Is it any wonder Dobson feels it is OK to claim that the Levitical codes can be ignored (except, of course, for the parts that refer to sexual purity, which apparently still apply)?

James Dobson only speaks for James Dobson. Barack Obama only speaks for Barack Obama. Indeed, all of us and each of us only speak for our own, individual, selves at any given time. This is a good thing.