In a 2006 speech in which Obama called on his party to elevate its discourse and respect the right of evangelicals and others to express their faith in public settings (readable here on his senate website), he said the following:
[I]f 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?
I get the impression that Obama expects us to answer “Neither.” What do you think? If I were either Dobson or Sharpton, I might wonder what Obama was trying to say.
But hey, at the behest of Al Gore, Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson agreed on something and make an ad about it. What did they agree on? Oh, never mind. So maybe we should look forward to seeing Sharpton and Dobson on the same page on "something." Pat said Al was “a nice guy” and “fun to be with.” If you say so, Pat.
It looks like Dobson, having already declared McCain persona non grata, has now done the same with Obama. Dobson’s point of departure is the passage cited above, and a couple of other statements in the speech (go here for an introduction, and a link to the relevant audio clip). I was not impressed by the quality of Dobson’s exegesis of Obama’s speech. On the other hand, the speech in question is not one of Obama’s better ones.
I also discussed this today on my blog (antiquitopia.blogspot.com). I did not look at the whole speech by Obama, though. And I thought that Dobson's response had the typical media difficulty of removing the context of Obama's remarks. What I was struck by was the lack of clarity in either Obama's remarks or the cut-and-paste job. The point about Al Sharpton vs. James Dobson was fine--we don't want anyone dominating. The points about Leviticus and the Sermon on the Mount, however, seem to need a little more investigation. Placing kashrut next to slavery seems a bit rash, although they appear in the same group of laws (although much of the legislation on slavery seems to assume it rather than sanction it). The idea that the defense department would not survive the application of the Sermon on the Mount may or may not be true. But "Blessed are the Poor" may not be a bad social program. Yet the larger point seemed to be made: modern governments cannot use ancient texts (at least by themselves) hallowed by a particular group as a normative basis for the law and Constitution of the country due to the separation of Church and State. Kashrut may be fine for a particular group, but should not be enshrined in national law. Same goes with the Sermon on the Mount.
Dobson's point that the legal traditions of Leviticus are not operative in discussing Jesus' message seems quite wide of the mark as well. But, as I said, you can read what I wrote earlier today on my blog if you find this at all compelling.
In other Religion and Politics news, you might also be interested in a recent article from the NY Times on Obama and Muslims, with Muslims feeling snubbed by Obama, which I also discussed today on my blog.
Posted by: Jared | June 24, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Thanks, Jared, for commenting here. You are quite thoughtful, and your blog makes an interesting read.
Posted by: JohnFH | June 24, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Dear John,
Thanks for posting Obama's speech. I must say that I find nothing wrong with it and I am inspired by it, perhaps more so than the speech on "race and religion". I think Obama is right that as Christians we cannot impose our Christian beliefs or ethics on non-Christians. In a political discourse we must use reasons and seek common ground based on justice and fairplay understood by Christians and non-Christians alike. I also like the statement that he is running to be Senator of Illinois and not Minister of Illinois. Though I would be a pro-life because of my Christian beliefs, I respect Obama's pro-choice stance as a politician who might come to this view on the basis of his own personal Christian beliefs or sense of justice for women.
Posted by: Tony Siew | June 24, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Tony,
thanks for your peaceable words in a world dominated by people who do poor imitations of fire-breathing dragons. I wish you and your family well as you take on teaching duties in a seminary. That you may be a blessing there, as you have been to us who have visited your blog.
Posted by: JohnFH | June 24, 2008 at 08:19 PM
I'm listening to Dobson's comments right now. I think he took what Obama said a little too personally. But he does well to question several of Obama's liberal cliches.
Posted by: James Pate | June 25, 2008 at 08:03 AM
I liked Dobson better when he was trying to help parents raise their children. He's leveraged his huge influence for political influence. I can't say I blame him for that although The Citizen grates on my nerves quite often.
Posted by: David Ker | June 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Both my congregation, and my wife's congregation, make use of Focus on the Family materials. Some of it is very well done.
But even my Dad, who is pretty much on the same political page as Dobson, whose ministry he supports financially, has written to tell Dobson that he confuses things by his political activism.
Posted by: JohnFH | June 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM