Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Dobson's choice

from CNN:

Evangelical leader Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

Ironically, it seems James Dobson can't decide if he'd like to be the pot or the kettle. Take a look at this excerpt from his criticism of Obama's efforts to gain evangelical support, aired on his radio show yesterday.

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

Dobson and [Tom] Minnery [senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family] accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

It sounds like Dobson is saying that certain Old Testament texts that no longer apply are not equal to Jesus' teachings. Which would those be? It's okay to eat shellfish but we should still stone homosexuals? It's legitimate for Focus on the Family to pick and choose which verses in Leviticus are valid but not Senator Obama? Dobson could take his statements about Obama and level them squarely at himself, pointing his wagging finger in the direction of his mirror.

Besides all that, Dobson has chosen not to support McCain because he is not far enough to the right. In fact, he may not vote for a presidential candidate at all.

As the poet John Lydgate said: You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

1 comment:

Jan said...

Dobson is ridiculous.