I have recently been participating in a political forum, that, in all honesty, is probably beneath my skills as a commentator. That is not said out of lack of modesty--it's just that the forum in question is so poorly moderated, and the majority of its contributors so ill-informed, that engaging the subjects that come up is rarely substantive, and debunking some of the posts made by other contributors is rather like shooting fish in a barrel.
The same could be said, perhaps, for a post that attempts to analyze the issues that come up in Dr. James Dobson's recent criticism of Obama's "twisted theology." I have to admit to enjoying a game of solitaire now and again, as well, so perhaps I just like shooting fish in a barrel now and again. However, I would like to think that my recent attention to Dobson's remarks springs partially from a legitimate interest in the issues involved.
As much as I might diss the forum in question (and believe me, it deserves to be dissed--the moreso for its being affiliated with a well-known name in political circles), the exchange was valuable because I managed to maintain a civil exchange with someone who clearly was not going to change his view of the matter, any more than I was. That goes to the crux of what I hear Obama saying in the speech Dobson criticized.
First, as this shows every indication of being a long diary, some quick personal notes: the primary purpose of this diary is not to be read, but to be written. I have a number of thoughts I'd like to get down, to clarify some issues for myself, and although I am quite welcoming of feedback, I do not expect it. It's an extra. From my perspective, generally, Dobson is probably just as well roundly ignored, as his words show little in the way of real reflection, and are in general misguided and ill-founded. My wife--who holds a PhD in the geosciences, and who has little patience for religious discussions of any kind--would find it extremely suspect that I would take anything Dobson said at all seriously, and I can't fault her for thinking that. While I do not share my wife's conviction regarding the value of religious debate, I am closely aligned with her in terms of belief: I "joke" that I used to be evangelical athiest, but converted to devout agnosticism--but that joke is reflective of a truth. Further, at present, among my projects, I am engaged in reading the entire Bible--I'm currently slogging through the morass that is Chronicles, and looking forward to the brief respite I will get between the end of that book and the beginning of Psalms. As much as I enjoy poetry, I don't think the Psalms will be particularly appealing to me.
So...why would I engage these remarks? Well, in the first place, there is the speech that is being criticized, which makes a strong case for both sides of this debate--the secular and the religious--to engage the language of the other, and to do so in a spirit of mutual respect. This is how I approached the question on the forum I mentioned above, and although I convinced nobody of anything they didn't already believe, I thought the conversation valuable because it helped to make some things clear to me. Then there is the fact that the entire question has been reduced to a couple of sound bites--which I think the primary signal of everything that is wrong with public discourse in America today. Few people actually go back and engage what was said, in context--textual analysis being, apparently, the exclusive province of Philosophy professors and advertising executives. While I don't claim the diary to follow is in any way an exhaustive analysis of the two men's views, I hope it extends somewhat beyond the level of the common soundbite.
With that thought in mind, some links, for anyone who wants to fully engage both men, and both texts:
Link to the Obama speech being criticized, in both text and audio form.
Link to the radio address in which Dobson's criticism occurs. (sorry, couldn't find a transcript)
The primary text being referenced by both men. (just in case you want to check the "facts")
An interesting sideline: side by side comparisons of some statements by both men.
It should also be noted, at the outset, that the Obama campaign has suggested a meeting take place between themselves and Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family representatives have not, to the best of my knowledge, responded to this suggestion as yet. I find this quite interesting, especially in light of the subject of the above disagreement on theological points, but we'll see what transpires in weeks to come.
I would like my diary to reflect the nature of the debate that took place on the forum, so, in the interests of that, here are some highlights, and, for that matter, some likely debate points you'll hear from both sides:
1) Dr. Dobson is neither a politician or a pastor.
On the conservative side: Dr. Dobson, in making the statements he did, is merely exercising his free speech, and he is doing so from the position of a man who is more learned than Obama in regards to Biblical matters. Further, liberals who criticize his statements regarding the Obama speech in question are wrong to direct their fury at someone who is not running for president, but is merely a concerned citizen that wants to point out Obama's fallacies.
On the lib side: To claim that Dr. Dobson is neither a politician or a pastor is to narrowly define both terms, and in particular the latter. Dobson's website describes Focus on the Family as a "ministry," and there is a clear focus on Christianity in particular. Further, although he does not endorse a particular candidate in his statements, he may be endangering the 501-c-3 nonprofit status of Focus on the Family, which stipulates that "public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."
(My personal feelings, to the extent that they are at all relevant to the debate, are that Dobson can say whatever he wants: his comments threw a spotlight on a fine speech, one that many would not have encountered had he not thrown the national focus, however briefly, upon them. It also highlighted the fact that Obama is willing to sit down with Focus on the Family, but that for whatever reason, Focus on the Family seems a little nervous about approaching that meeting with any real enthusiasm. I wonder why.)
As to Dobson's status as a more "learned man" than Obama on Biblical matters, this pertains to a second area of debate, which is by far the more interesting to myself. That is
2)In practical terms, how does one interpret the principle of separation of church and state?
First point: "separation of church and state" is not a phrase that occurs within the Constitution. It however refers to the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Even a secular humanist such as myself can see that it is entirely possible to interpret the constitutional principle as being a prohibition against Congress making laws about any specific religion, rather than being an injunction against religion informing policy. Whether we like it or not, we're not so far removed from the caves that our government doesn't at least pretend to adherence to faith, and God (or the creator) does play a significant role in the founding documents. If we're really honest, we'd note that not only religion, but a specific subset of religions (namely, monotheistic religions) has already been privileged before we exit the Constitution. Jefferson, however, saw the first amendment as creating a "wall of separation" between the two, and James Madison also used the term, along with variants, in letters and other extra-constitutional documents. The concept of "separation of church and state" is more a metaphor, and appears much more frequently within Supreme Court documents--in other words, in the branch of government that is interpreting the Constitution.
In practical terms, the separation of the two has proven troublesome at all points in our history, and this is precisely what Obama's speech is addressing. The difficulty in debating the merits of Dobson's criticism lie in figuring out just exactly what his objections are--and how, precisely, he would defend those objections, even if allowed to base his argument solely on Biblical texts.
Let's take a quick look at the relevant passage--the one that throws Dobson into fits:
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And 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? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
I would like to point out the possibility that the only reason this speech even hit Dobson's radar, and the reason he has highlighted this passage in particular, is that he was blinded by the o'erweening luminescence of his own appellation, and that there is a name for that kind of response that has a firmer grounding in Greek mythology than it does in Christianity (hint: it starts with an "n" and it ends with an "arcissism"). However, my own deeply suspicious views being placed aside for the moment, I have difficulty understanding which part of this text troubles Dobson. Is it the blanket statement that there are people of other faiths living in America? The acceptance of their presence? Or is it, as Dobson suggests, a theological dispute? After all, Obama sets the argument up by positing a wholly Christian nation, and goes on to suggest that even given that impossible state of affairs, a theocracy would be difficult to implement.
There are several clues as to the source of Dobson's unrest, and one pivots around his use of the singular article "the" in the phrase "the traditional understanding of the Bible". There is no such singular tradition, and that's precisely Obama's point. Ignoring the constantly splintering nature of the Protestant wing of the church (and the Lutheran understanding of the Bible is a far cry from that of the Pentecostals), just look at the texts offered by Catholics, Protestants, and Greek Orthodox: it's the same book, only it isn't the same book. Obama's question stands: which one do we use? Far more importantly, however, are Dobson's objections that are largely predicated on the idea that Obama is wrong to reference Old Testament material in his illustration of how Biblical policy do not translate easily into secular policy. They don't, as any reading of the last three books of the Torah (Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) will quickly make clear. Go ahead. I invite you to reread those books, and to then fashion a workable modern government using the rules contained therein. I'll warn you: those books are by turns shocking and mind-numbingly boring. You will probably have the most trouble, not with arcane dietary restrictions, but with prohibitions against charging interest on loans, as well as implementing the "jubliee" years--during which all debts are forgiven.
That is beside the point from "the tradition," however, which stipulates that Jesus' covenant of grace replaced the old covenant of works. There are two deep issues here. First is the problematic text of Matthew 5:18:
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
The "Law" would refer to the Old Testament, which Dobson suggests is irrelevant to Christians. Obama makes much the same statement in his rhetorical positioning of the Sermon on the Mount after Leviticus, which, oddly enough, would put both Obama and Dobson on the same side on this point...though not with Jesus in the above quote. Obama then goes on to address the precise objection that Dobson makes by citing a New Testament text--the Sermon on the Mount--and asking how that would in any way serve as a guide to practical policy. And he's right. If we tried to base policy on those words--some of the most well-known among those attributed to Christ--the Department of Defense would be gutted.
Anyone who has read up to this point would be absolutely right to ask, "Why spend this much energy on Dobson?" His theological stance is near laughable, even if you accept the precepts of Christianity--which I decidedly do not. The point, however, is to engage this part of the American body politic, and to try to establish a dialogue of some sort between reason and faith--which, if you actually read Obama's speech, is what Obama is calling for. If anything, the approach Obama suggests validates many of Dobson's views: Obama strongly suggests that religion does have a role to play in governance, and that secular calls to rid public space and public policy entirely of religion are as unworkable as basing policy solely on Biblical law would be. If anyone should be alarmed by this speech, it should be the secular wing of the body politic.
3) Obama's speech calls for religion to be excluded from public debate on policy.
This objection is laughable at the outset if one reads Obama's speech, and yet it is very persistent in the current debate. In Dobson's terms,
"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?"
This is largely in response to the following passage in Obama's speech:
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
Difficult indeed, because what many evangelicals read in the above block quote is exactly the opposite of what is being said. On this front, I think there are some pretty clear signals that Obama is willing to reach out to the opposite camp...a prospect that I, personally, think they're afraid of. Also, a full reading of the text of the speech suggests that Obama is serious on this front...it is all about engaging many different forms of faith, and suggests (as I might not) that religious belief has a place in governance, but that we need to be able to embrace many forms of that faith. This all seems common sense. In my ideal world, we'd step up to the plate and more fully take responsibility for our own actions, instead of attributing them to some omniscient being. But that's the point--that's my ideal world. It's not Obama's, and it's not the majority of Americans. The point of this being that there are people on the left that would fault Obama for even engaging this subject. He goes into some detail on that front in the speech as well.
I, as a self-described leftist, might well have a problem with a candidate who is willing to sign on to the idea that Christianity informs our government. However, as Obama very clearly points out in his remarks (and is, in my estimation, right to do), the Christian tradition is not limited to our legislation, it is an important component of our language. Once that tenet is accepted, it is merely a matter of accepting that legislation, as humans understand it, requires that we use language, to understand why the Christian tradition must be engaged by anyone seeking to govern us. Personally, I disagree very thoroughly with the likes of both Dobson and Sharpton, but I also understand that if discourse is ever to get back on track in the US of A, religion has to be engaged. Personally, I think the biggest mistake the left has made, in recent years, is to allow a political party that has demonstrated its almost complete lack of values to claim that the left does not possess any values. It'd be time to rectify that, and if that means getting real familiar with the Bible, so be it. If the truth be told, I've been waiting for some time for precisely such words as are contained in Obama's speech to be given due consideration by the public at large. If nothing else good comes of this election cycle, I may be able to salvage at least that much in the way of hope.
As I read the speech, he's simply stating that Christian principles are necessarily tempered in matters of governance, because they do not lend themselves to straight across translation into policy. If what the Bible has to tell us about legislation is not translatable word for word, it has, somehow, to be interpreted into the language of legislation...and interpretation is everything. Dobson, by virtue of citing some monolithic "traditional" understanding of the Bible, suggests that he's privy to the true interpretation. Which, perhaps he is. Trouble is, we don't know for sure, and there are a lot of people claiming to be privy to exactly the same thing--and their messages don't agree with each other. If religious thinkers wish for their contribution to public discourse to be treated with respect, they need to offer respect in turn. If I am to not claim that one's religious views are the only reason behind a particular policy stance, I need to be given reasons that do not have, as their sole origin, religious texts--even if the original desire for those laws sprang from Biblical study. Surely Christians are a hardy enough lot to "walk into the lion's den" of secular discourse and explain why they think a particular Biblical tenet was a viable one for secular law--i.e., give reasons beyond solely citing personal faith. Again, there is good reason for this: there are several laws in the last three books of the Torah that would not be to the benefit of modern day America.
Obama does not say that you shouldn't oppose abortion--he says that in order to get a ban on it effectively legislated, you need to be able to engage the policy making process. That process may require some compromise, sometimes with people whose views you find objectionable. There's nothing particularly offensive about that observation: it's Politics 101. If I engage faith, I expect my interlocutor to return the favor and engage reason. The process needs to be reciprocal if we're to make any meaningful progress at all. While that's maybe not what some of the more fundamentalist-minded Christians think ideal, it's also a far cry from the bitter, bitter pill Mr. Dobson has made it out to be.
4) Hitting the wall: Obama's speech is craven political opportunism, and not a reflection of his faith.
If you encounter this argument, you should know that the debate is over, and do what you can to extricate yourself. The logic goes thus: if someone on the left end of the political spectrum engages religion and belief, it is purely for cynical reasons. If they do not, they lack values. I'm sure seasoned politicians develop a very keen sense of precisely where the point of diminishing returns occurs in this discussion. If a reader can get past the bias that says it would be impossible for anyone to honestly hold Christian beliefs and yet be a liberal in terms of social policy, Obama's engagement of faith becomes very apparent. The left is not made up entirely of pagans and atheists, though yes, some left-leaning thinkers are pagans and/or atheists. The visible political left, in fact, is decidedly Christian, but with the ability to acknowledge the pluralistic nature of modern society, and the need to accommodate other faiths.
Obviously, I do not subscribe to the notion that this speech is an extremely elaborate and cynical ploy on the part of Obama to use religion for political gain--he has too much invested in this discourse. However, he remains a politician, and the charge is--if not fair, at least expected. Even if he is manipulating religion to his own political ends, you could say the same, quite easily, about many politicians on the right. What's interesting about engaging this is, at this point, some will argue that politics isn't about discourse in the first place: it's about numbers. If you have the votes, you get the laws you want, and it doesn't matter how you get the votes. An interesting argument to follow the one charging Obama with political opportunism in the speech being criticized, to be sure.
Personally, I don't think having a majority of people vote legislation in that defines a duck as a four-legged mammal makes that definition any more right. I'm not an "ends justify the means" thinker. To me, the ends and the means are one and the same. That's just how I think--and that's a fair portion of the reason I enjoy hearing Obama speak. If his actions, either as a senator or as the President match the words in the "Call to Renewal" speech, I can't see him being anything but good for our country. If, on the other hand, politics is truly nothing more than garnering a set number of votes, by whatever means may be at your disposal, by whatever opportunistic strategies you choose, then the government will suffer (and I would argue, already has suffered) as a result. Perhaps that's what America truly deserves, because the idea behind democracy, as I understood it, was that nobody was more fit to govern the people than the people. If the people do not see clear to rise above political opportunism--whether by Obama, Dobson, or any other political or non-political player, then, apparently, that's the government we want.
As the old saying goes, as you sow, so shall you reap.