COMensarations
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The ‘Danger’ to Democracy — Part 2
Dr. ‘Focus on the Family’ Dobson vs. Senator ‘Change We Can Believe In’ Obama, via My Neighbor; a fisking.
I’ll preface this item with the honest statement, “I don’t pay much attention to the ‘good doctor’ Dobson”; evangelical christian that he is alleged to be. I haven’t read anything he’s written in the last 18+ years, i.e., ever since I became a REAL christian; January 1990. That is up until THIS business came up.
I’ve got too many other thinks on my mind to spend too much time following other real believers in Christ very closely. I figure that if they’re reading the same book and following it pretty much the way I understand English, they’re on the right track. Therefore they don’t need much from me in the way of ‘guidance’.
So that being said, when I scanned Saturday’s topics in the Pueblo Chieftain, I noticed a headlines that ALWAYS catches my attention.
Dobson’s rhetoric is damaging to democracy
You can read the article here, while its available without charge.
[Note: I think it reprehensible that the Pueblo Chieftain buries thinks and requires you pay for them, if you didn’t catch it within so many days. Some of our political issues go WAAAAAAY back; think WATER and/or SDS. Well beyond free access to an important article in the Pueblo Chieftain, by THEIR ‘lights’. And I consider this money-grubbing on their part as anathema to democracy. Much more so than Christian Piatt’s opinion about the ‘good doctor’ Dobson’s Freedom of Expression.]
Whenever I see someone saying something is damaging ‘democracy’, specifically the one US established, I pay closer attention. I do this because about 38 years ago, I swore to defend our democracy, when, in 1970, I raised my right hand and took an oath to defend it against ALL enemies; foreign AND domestic. During the course of the time spent in service, I nearly died several times. So, you can understand that I take this sort of think rather seriously.
The headlines proclaimed that the ‘good doctor’ Dobson might be an ‘enemy’ of the domestic persuasion. The thought intrigued me. Sort of what we call in the Army a yellow smoke-grenade....a visual ‘heads-up’ warning if you will. Or even if you won’t. Therefore, between bouts of doing code and/or database design, I decided to take a look at the article. And....having read it....I decided it was worthy of fisking,
So....here goes.....
“I know that by now, Dr. Dobson is a bit of a straw man, since he does put himself out there with such strong opinions in the media so often...”—Christian Piatt
Since when is it wrong to express ‘stong opinions in the media’? Or to do it ‘often’? I thought we were supposed to express our honestly held opinions. Especially in the ‘media’. You do you every week. Don’t you?
Why can’t the ‘good doctor’ Dobson?
“....but inasmuch as he reflects the views of a large contingency of the public, certain comments should not go unaddressed.”—Christian Piatt
GO for it!
“It’s no real surprise that Barack Obama, the presumed democratic nominee for president, is in his sights. There are so many things about Obama, his past and his policies that fly in the face of what Dobson and his cohorts espouse.”—Christian Piatt
Yes. Rampant racism IS an issue with a lot of people these days. The problem seems to be that it’s so often looked upon as a one-way street. That there is no dialogue. That one side has ALL the say and nobody....and I mean NOBODY...can gainsay them.
[Note: It is my considered opinion that anyone who makes a decision on an individual’s political views based on their ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’—for or against—has an ‘issue’ with racism themselves.
As a famous First Sergeant said, on the subject, to an Inspector General investigator, “When I look at that formation, I don’t see black, white, yellow, brown or red. All I see is ‘green’.
I’ve taken that sentiment to heart. And all I ‘see’ is Red, White and Blue....until proven otherwise.]
Not to forget other issues and/or positions of Senator Obama, I certain the ‘good doctor’ would take exception with; abortion, homosexual marriage/child adoption, etc.
[Note: Dr. Dobson reported that while Senator Obama was in the Illinois state legislature, he supported an act that would allow for the murder, YES, I mean ‘murder’ in the classic sense, of infants that had survived an abortion attempt. Here’s the scenario, as I understand it; (1) there was an abortion attempt (2) it failed and (3) the child was born alive. This act would have allowed the doctor to murder the living-breathing baby.
I have not confirmed this report. If any reader is familiar with that piece of legislation, I’d like to know about it.]
“In a recent CNN Web site article, however, he took a moment to pick out some issues in particular.”—Christian Piatt
Let us examine them together.....
“The head of Colorado Springs’ Focus on the Family claimed Obama was guilty of distorting the Bible when he suggested that the rule of law cannot practically be based solely upon the Bible. To make his point with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, he pointed out that a nation governed by the literal rules of scripture would justify slavery....”—Christian Piatt
By ‘he’ you actually mean Senator Obama. Not Dr. Dobson.
I remember how a certain political party currently active in this environment supported the idea of slavery. Indeed, if you study your history, you’ll notice that the Democrats were principle cause of the American Civil War; a war that cost this nation 600,000 American lives. I recommend reading Bruce Catton’s account of our Civil War for deeper insight in to who was who and who did what.
But that’s ‘history’, tongue firmly in cheek.
What does Leviticus and slavery have to do with religion and government policy?
Was the Senator SERIOUS about bringing back slavery? I doubt it. And, if he’s supposed to be so well ‘churched’ and understanding of what is written in that Old Book, I’m curious as to why he brought up that red-herring of an idea. He SHOULD know better.
“....and would make eating shellfish an abomination.”—Christian Piatt
Again, why this red-herring? After all I should hope that 20 years in the pew with the good Reverend Wright ministering to him SHOULD have touched on Acts 10 at least once. Or maybe it was lost in all of Wright’s ‘GOD DAMN AMERICA!’ screed.
As I recall, there is a famous truism about how figures don’t lie, but that liars figure. And you don’t perceive that Senator Obama might, just MIGHT, be playing word-games about this business of what we ‘eat’?
Interesting. Or.....
....if you’re not a Hebrew....why is this particularly important, that you should mention it?
In truth, Senator Obama presented a series of fallacious arguments. Sort of so many ‘straw-men’, if you will. You should know better than to fall for them, when you claim Dr. Dobson is a walking-talking one himself.
“Dobson resented Obama’s position suggesting that he was making a relative mockery of the Bible’s authority by picking out what he called ‘antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.’ So if I understand this correctly, Dobson, who claims the inerrancy of the entirety of scripture, is saying that there actually are parts of the Old Testament that are no longer relevant?” ”—Christian Piatt
Hmmmm.....when did YOU last read Acts 10? What does it mean, Peter’s ‘vision’? Or was it just an hallucination brought on by hunger?
“Pray tell, then, which ones we should deem irrelevant, and which ones we should still embrace? And who exactly is the arbiter of this weeding-out process? Jesus?”—Christian Piatt
I suggest that if you can’t tell the difference, you should ask the closest minister to explain it to you.
“If you recall, Jesus said he did not come to get rid of the old law, but rather to ‘fulfill it.’ Though there are many takes on what exactly this means, along with every other phrase in scripture, many scholars agree that Jesus’ fulfillment of the old law meant that he was taking authority to another level, so to speak.”—Christian Piatt
So....you do seem to understand that for Christians, the new part of that Old Book trumps elements in the old part, as in shellfish.
“Rather than leaning on self-righteous, legalistic piety, we are to seek in ourselves the moral compass instilled in us by our creator. This is a gross paraphrase, of course, but time and again, Jesus challenged those scriptural legalists like the Scribes and Pharisees who used the laws of the Bible as a yoke, rather than a liberator.”—Christian Piatt
Did that include shellfish? And other things like stoning adulteresses?
But what does this have to do with Dr. Dobson being wrong?
“Dobson, however, in his “my way or the highway on right and wrong, seems ironically to be mired in the old way.”—Christian Piatt
I actually listened to both Senator Obama’s speech from 28 June 2006 AND Dr. Dobson’s comments on it.
I did not catch that ‘my way or the highway on right and wrong’. Maybe you could point it out to me. Or are you putting words in the good doctor’s mouth?
Does that qualify as “Bearing false witness”?
Is that the play here?
Interesting.
[Note: By the way, you can catch both Senator Obama’s speech and Dr. Dobson’s comments as spoken by themselves.
The Senator speaks for just under an hour. Dr. Dobson for just under a half-hour, but a lot of that is a testimonial for the departed Tim Russert.]
“As if his condemnation of Obama’s take on the Bible was not enough, he topped it off with some old-fashioned name-calling, suggesting that Obama leads by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” that he deliberately is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter...”—Christian Piatt
If you listen to both the speeches at the web-site, you just might appreciate Dr. Dobson’s point about the ‘lowest common denominator of morality’. It has to do with what the Senator said when he suggested that all laws must satisfy all people; of every faith if they are to be enacted by Congress. And I have to agree with Dr. Dobson when he says that’s a lot of hooey. Otherwise, we couldn’t have a law against religious human sacrifice, because I’m sure SOMEONE would want to do such a heinous thing.
“....and finally that his understanding of the Constitution is nothing more than “fruitcake interpretation.””—Christian Piatt
Heck. I’ve seen professors of Constitution Law from allegedly reputable institutions of ‘higher learning’, expressing ‘fruitcake interpretations’ of the Constitution.
Not to forget what I had just said (above). It’s a fruitcake idea to think that in order to initiate legislation we must satisfy EVERY religious belief system in this country.
“It’s not as if Dobson simply is trying to tear down the Democratic candidate for the benefit of Republicans, either. He already has claimed he will not vote for McCain, so in essence, if he can’t find a team who will take him on his terms, Dobson is resolving to take his toys and go home.”—Christian Piatt
Going ‘home’. Interesting. Home is where the heart is; or so the saying goes. And, as I’ve read it, that Old Book says pretty much the same.
Personally? I won’t vote for McCain either. Why? Because he broke his oath to his country when he enacted McCain-Feingold which restricted freedom of speech during an election cycle. It strikes a blow at the First Amendment. Something he swore to uphold and defend.
In my understanding, based on the SAME OATH I TOOK in 1975, when I took the oath of office as a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the United States, he is an oath-breaker and a traitor. I cannot and WILL NOT violate my own oath of office, just because Senator McCain is the ‘lessor of two evils’. Indeed, I think he is the greater of the two, having proven himself so on the floor of the United States Senate.
“Though this is a trite metaphor....”—Christian Piatt
Hardly. It’s rather accurate. Why you declare it a ‘trite metaphor’ I find much more interesting.
“....it’s actually a disturbingly serious situation. It’s actually more like a village under siege that opts to burn their own spoils to a cinder, rather than watch the enemy have any chance at them.”—Christian Piatt
Hmmmm....
....I guess you never studied military history. ‘Scorched Earth’ is an effective technique, militarily speaking. Especially when your foe has nowhere else to gather the necessities of Life; food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Just ask Napoleon or Hitler, vis-a-vis their Russian campaigns.
But what’s your point here? That Dobson is being an obstinate little boy because he won’t vote for someone he thinks is unworthy of the office?
“The risk, then, is that a generation of evangelicals who have been otherwise politically active will determine it’s better to do nothing than it is to stay engaged and work within the system for what they believe. More than a blow to either major party, it’s an Achilles’ heel for democracy itself.”—Christian Piatt
I doubt if they’ll be politically ‘inactive’. Rather, they’ll vote for someone else or they’ll not vote for a candidate on the ballot.
We’ll vote on other issues important to us.
“The name-calling is one thing, but effectively urging your followers not to participate in exercising their constitutional right to vote is entirely another.”—Christian Piatt
I didn’t hear Dobson say people should not exercise their constitution franchise.
In his speech, Senator Obama suggested that we all need to read our Bibles. He certainly more than most evangelicals I know. And even such as they should be diligent in their study. But YOU need to study your civics.
By the way, you’re coming across like Senator Obama vis-a-vis his poor grasp of the Bible here. Voting is not a ‘right’. If it WERE a ‘right’, it could not be taken away from because because they’re a convicted felon.
Also, in the Dobson interview, I didn’t hear anywhere near as much name-calling as you’ve claimed here.
“If you don’t like McCain or Obama, fine. Write someone in on the ballot, but for goodness sake, don’t sit at home and do nothing.”—Christian Piatt
In Colorado, a candidate for the presidency has to be ON the ballot. Write-in’s don’t count for squat.
More tomorrow....
....on the REAL ‘danger(s) to Democracy’.
Next entry: The 'Danger' to Democracy — Part 3 Previous entry: The 'Danger' to Democracy — Part 1