Dr. James Dobson vs. Barack Obama
Let me preface this article by saying this. I have been receiving a lot of hits on an old article concerning ways to contact Dr. James Dobson. That article was written earlier in this election season in an effort to get people to contact Dr. Dobson and encourage him to support Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for President. Since the flare up between Dr. Dobson and Barack Obama, I have had more than one comment on that article and on my contact page that seems to suggest the commentors think this blog is a way to contact Dr. Dobson. That is not the case. If you wish to contact him, you can do so at the Focus on the Family website.
The saying “the battle of the titans” is a saying we hear a lot. We here it used a lot in sports news, especially when two teams who have won a lot of games and done it in a handily fashion meet for the first time. I would say it also applies to the battle that is shaping up between Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President.
During the Republican primary season, Mike Huckabee was often called to task for reaching out to evangelical voters, accused of overtly pushing his religion by have a “floating cross” in the background of his Christmas message, and any other action or statement that could be construed as religious. Now, it seems that Barack Obama is “reaching out” to evangelical voters by talking about his faith and quoting the Bible. The media seems to be okay with this, unlike how they felt about Mike Huckabee and his religious background. This is not surprising, considering the liberal bias of most of the media. It does seem there is one person with the guts to stand up and call out Barack Obama for trying to reinterpret Biblical viewpoints to match his own.
During yesterday’s radio broadcast from Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson made it very clear how he felt about Barack Obama and the way he is interpreting the Bible. One may wonder why Dr. Dobson is weighing in on this matter, but in the speech that Barack Obama gave in 2006, which is the subject of the radio broadcast, Obama mentions Dobson and compares his Biblical viewpoint to that of Al Sharpton. You can listen to the broadcast at the link below.
Why is Dr. Dobson having such a problem with Barack Obama and his Biblical interpretation? I would contend that there is plenty to worry about, when it comes to Obama and the Bible. It would seem to me that his bringing up scriptures in Leviticus that talk about subjects that Jesus clearly overruled in the New Testament is just an attempt to paint Christians that believe in the Bible as extremists. Maybe it’s time for someone to call Obama on some of his beliefs, instead of giving him a pass because he happens to be the first African American to get this far in a Presidential election.
You know what strikes me as very odd and troubles me the most about Obama? It is how some people who you would think would know better are thinking about voting for the man. It has been reported that JC Watts, a man whom I respect, a former African American member of Congress from my home state of Oklahoma, is not sure he isn’t going to vote for Obama. Some Christians are even thinking about voting for Obama. How can anyone with any morals about them at all even consider voting for someone who is not only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but fights any effort to restrict the practice at all. Maybe they need to reread the Bible, the part where it says “Thou shalt not kill”.
Barack Obama would also have Americans believe that Christians want to remove anyone from this country who does not believe as we do. An excerpt from the speech in 2006 provided by MSNBC says:
“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.
That is simply not the case. No Christian I know wants to rid the country of anyone who is not a Christian. However, according to some counts, 76% of the people in our country say they are Christians. Maybe it’s time we start acting like Christians.
Focus on the Family–June 24, 2008
That’s my take!
Larry
Bill Bennett was on CNN this afternoon talking about Obama getting a “pass” from the press and nobody asking him the hard questions. He was infuriated with a press conference that Obama held and all the questions were marshmallows. Bennett very much wanted someone to make him publicly address why he is for leaving babies to die on a shelf if they were born alive during an abortion procedure. Sadly, no one asks Obama that question. I would … if he showed up on my front porch, it is the first thing I would ask him.
@Larry
“Barack Obama would also have Americans believe that Christians want to remove anyone from this country who does not believe as we do.”
Dude, are you serious? Do you really think that’s what the man was suggesting???
In actuality, there are so many things wrong with the broadbast hosted by Dobson and Tom Minnery that I wrote 2,000-plus words on it and didn’t come close to covering everything. That post is here, if you are interested: http://everythingafter.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/57/
Obama presented a rhetorical question when he made the comment about expelling all who were non-Christians. His point was to bring to light the different interpretations of the Bible. For sure, Dobson’s interpretation is quite different than Al Sharpton’s. In my post, I make the comment that Obama’s rhetorical questions seems like an easy one. There, one has only 2 choices to make. But in reality, which should a person choose out of the at last 10-plus major branches of Christianity in this country becomes a major question for someone who is wondering about the faith. But I won’t spend a lot of time rewriting what’s in the post. Read and respond if you like. I will respond back … in kindness.
Jeremy,
Thanks for commenting on my article. Let me explain the problem I have with Barack Obama and his faith. He wants to talk about being a progressive and while I do not have a problem with that, as such, it eats at me that he calls himself a Christian, claims to believe in the Bible, and yet he not only is pro-choice when it comes to abortion, he is continually fighting against any effort to restrict access to the practice. How can he claim to know to know Jesus as is personal saviour when he is for allowing complete access to the practice of murdering innocent babies? We are not talking about trivial differences of doctrine, but simply murder.
If Republicans put so much emphasis on the “Thou shalt not kill” message in relation to abortion – how come they have no problem sending soldiers to kill others? Killing is killing as long as someone ends up dead – there seems to be some serious consistency gaps in the way scripture is used by conservatives on these issues.
We go to war when there is a threat to our freedom or our very lives. Not too many babies out there threatening us.
I love how the only argumentive appeal you can make is based on pathos: “It’s Murder! Of innocent little babies! And people who threaten our Freedom! Or our very lives!”
Why does being a Christian seem to always involve sounding like Chicken Little?
Will Entrekin
How is protesting the murder of innocent babies sounding like Chicken Little?
The fact remains that Barack Obama is fighting abortion restrictions every chance he gets. Why doesn’t he choose life? Only he knows that and I don’t think our country needs to be the proving ground for his ideas.
Abortion isn’t “murdering innocent babies.” It’s fetal termination.
The fact remains that Obama should fight abortion restrictions every chance he gets. I wish I lived in a world where abortion wasn’t necessary, but I don’t. Too many stepfathers raping their daughters, too many birth defects based on environmental factors, too many busybodies believing they know what’s best for the world and who will “protect innocent babies” at cost of a woman’s life.
I don’t abide that.
The way you are stating your argument would lead one to believe that abortion is necessary because of the factors you mentioned. That is simply not the case. Abortion is desired by a lot of women, simply to get rid of the consequences of their actions. That is not to say daughters are not raped and birth defects do not happen, but they are not the reason abortion is so rampant in our day and time.
Many states make allowances for abortion, when the mother’s life is in danger. However, Barack Obama seems to want to make sure abortion is available on demand, to any woman that wants it. That is something I can not abide.
No matter which way you slice it, abortion is still the taking of a human life. Call it fetal termination, if you will, but it is still murder.
Not “necessary.” It’s a choice, and I’d fight to the death to support every individual woman’s right to make it.
Will,
With all due respect, if some women made the correct choice to start with, then the “choice” of abortion wouldn’t be “necessary”. It is still murder, the taking of an innocent life that has it’s choices cut short by someone else because they didn’t want to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy they didn’t plan.
What about the baby’s choice? What about the viable infant that has the audacity to be born alive during an abortion procedure …. Obama says that is not a person and to just let them die.
Regarding all the women who need abortions because of rape …. check the statistics, that number is so tiny, I can’t believe abortion advocates are still trying to use that as an excuse.
Regarding birth defects … so you’re an advocate for killing the less than perfect in the womb? What about those that have been born with defects, should we do away with them too? What about the teenager with a brain injury from football now functioning as a 5 year old?
Kerry,
It would be a sad situation for our country to get to the place where we are choosing who will live and who will die, even before they are born. If that happens, the moral decline our country is in right now will pale in comparison to the decline that will follow.
There are some things that I hope I would be willing to die for if that became a necessary option. Concerning abortion rights,
a poster says, “It’s a choice, and I’d fight to the death to support every individual woman’s right to make it.”
I would never want to die just to give someone else the right to kill the innocent. Many have died to promote ideologies such as atheistic communism, Nazism, etc. Many times these ideologies have not been willing to allow persons to make their own individual choices about many good or neutral things or policies. And these godless ideologies have left a path of death in their rejection of the basic teachings of Christianity and their pursuit of false human utopias.
“I would never want to die just to give someone else the right to kill the innocent.”
What “innocent”? What happened to original sin? I thought babies had to be baptized or they weren’t innocent, because of the stain of humankind thing. Isn’t that what Jesus died to save us from?
Also, speak of, another person who died for what he believed in. And how many “Christians” have killed non-believers in the name of “Christ”?
Will,
How in the world you come up with the idea that babies are not innocent is beyond me. How can a baby that hasn’t been born or is not of the age of accountability not be innocent? They know nothing of this world and the evil that is in it. Jesus did die to save us from the stain of sin, but those babies are not sinners. That does not come until they are of the age to know right from wrong.
As for Christians killing non-believers in the name of Christ, they are just as wrong as any other murderer.
Born-Again Christians don’t baptize their babies, because baptism doesn’t save. Baptism is for those who have reached an age of accountability and have accepted Jesus as their Savior. Baptism is a public declaration or symbol of their commitment to Christ.
“Regarding birth defects … so you’re an advocate for killing the less than perfect in the womb? What about those that have been born with defects, should we do away with them too? What about the teenager with a brain injury from football now functioning as a 5 year old?”
Well, I kind of believe in Darwinism, and the survival of the fittest, strongest, most intelligent, etc.
Which obviously leaves you out. Sorry.
Will,
I started to not even approve your latest comment, but I try to be very fair about my comment moderation. However, be warned that it is the last time you will make a comment like that on my blog. You can disagree with me or anyone else all you want to, but to make a personal insult to One Mom, or to anyone else for that matter is not acceptable. Again, disagree all you want, but do not make personal insults to anyone.
As for Darwinism and the survival of the fittest, etc., I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Larry: I personally insulted someone? I merely commented on what I perceive as someone’s intelligence (or lack thereof). That I did so struck me as odd, too; you’d think someone with a PhD in public health (or at least pursuing one) would know better.
I wouldn’t want someone anti-choice being in charge of public health. The public health considers women’s right to choice, because otherwise, people will resort to back-alley abortions with clothes hangers. It’s a bit like gun control; you regulate it, you end up with a situation where only the criminals have guns. My father always used to say locks are for honest people; take away women’s access to abortions and they won’t stop having them–they’ll just start finding other places to get them, most of which wouldn’t be as medically sound as the places that currently offer them.
Onemom irked me with her comment: “We go to war when there is a threat to our freedom or our very lives.” It is the very Christian problem of calling other people threats to our lives and then thinking that Christian terrorists’ bombing of abortion clinics is a fight on the right side.
I don’t expect you to agree with me; chances are, I know, you won’t.
And finally; well you can’t disagree with Darwinism, can you? It’s evolution; it’s not something to disagree with–it’s something to understand. You have about as much chance of disagreeing with gravity as you do disagreeing with Darwinism; you still can, if you’d like, but it’s not going to let you fly.
Will,
Yes, if you question someone’s intelligence, I believe that is personally insulting someone. As I said, disagreeing is one thing, but I felt your comment was insulting. I wouldn’t let someone insult you and I will not let you insult someone else on my blog.
As for One Mom’s comment, if you think for one minute that she thinks that a “Christian” terrorist is okay for bombing an abortion clinic, then you do not know her very well. She can chime in her on her own accord, but let me say this. The reason I put “Christian” in quotes is that there is no such thing as a “Christian” terrorist. The people who have bombed abortion clinics are just as wrong as the people who committed the unspeakable acts on 9/11 and anyone else who does anything like that.
As for Darwinism, I can very well disagree with it and evolution. It is a theory, not a scientific fact.
Well, Larry, if you read it that way, that’s fine. I only question the intelligence of people who don’t display any. Like when you say “It is a theory, not a scientific fact.” You must not know very much about either, nor what science is, nor what it does, to make such a statement.
I don’t personally believe that’s an attack; I just think it’s commenting on your intelligence (or what I perceive as your lack thereof).
But I’ll go away. I can tell when I’m not wanted. You take good care.
“I wouldn’t want someone anti-choice being in charge of public health”. Hmmmm.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, as Surgeon General of this Country (the very head of Public Health) was/is very pro-life, and also the very reason I pursued my career in Public Health.
Just because someone holds a different view point than you Will, that makes them stupid? Wow, so much for diversity and understanding. You have an incredibly isolating and narrow view of people. I seem to recall a leader in Europe that decided that only people that agreed with him and were just like him had the right to live. I also seem to recall that in the end that world view didn’t work out so well for him.
What you refuse to understand is that I am so much more than just stopping abortions. See not only do I promote health, I also promote PREVENTION … be it disease prevention or the preventing of an unwanted pregnancy. I would love to see every pregnancy greeted with happiness and joy, but until people stop doing things for pleasure without considering the consequences (in this example an unwanted pregnancy), that will be hard to do. That is also why I promote adoption. There are so many couples unable to have children that would love to welcome these little ones into their homes and their hearts, even if the child wasn’t “perfect”.
Larry,
I have added this blog post to the site http://discoverobama.com
I think you and your readers may find the site interesting.
What is such a shame is that in a country with as many millions of people as we have, we are left with the two who are now running for presidency. Is this the best we have? No, it isn’t the best we have, but what we see now is what we get.
One thing that amazes me is the fact many people will vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, not even considering his views on important issues. In my opinion, Senator Obama is a very dangerous man, and should not be elected.
I know someone who used to comment on Obama’s lack of patriotism (no flag on his lapel), not saluting the flag, not acknowledging God, etc., but has now changed his tune. He recently said, “it’s time for a black man to be in the White House.” Reading between the lines, what he really said was “let affirmative actions work at the highest level.”
We must bombard heaven with prayer, asking God to deliver our great nation. There is always hope.
I am bothered that Obama is pro-choice. But I wish Republicans would quit focusing on this one aspect of a candidates’ platform. There are many areas of sanctity of human life that Republicans fall short on. What about caring for the children of the women who chose to keep their infants (Palin line item vetoed money for a home for pregnant teenagers), caring for the uninsured and providing health care for all, the poor elderly, and the death penalty. I know what the old testament says about eye for an eye, but do we follow all of the Levitical laws or just those that are convenient.
Perhaps one day we will have a Democratic candidate, who is willing to acknowledge the problem with abortion, but until then I have to weigh out who I vote for based on something more than one topic.
Jill,
You are sadly misinformed about Sarah Palin. She did not line item veto money for a home for pregnant teenagers. Please see this article to learn the truth.