Dobson blasts Obama for 'distorting Bible'
Associated Press
Monday, June 23, 2008
Barack Obama
James Dobson
COLORADO SPRINGS — As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.
The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pretaped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
"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.
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 Minnery 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." Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.
He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
"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?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
The program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics.
Last week, DuBois, a former Assemblies of God associate minister, called Minnery for what Minnery described as a cordial discussion. He would not go into detail, but he said Dubois offered to visit the ministry in August when the Democratic National Convention is in Denver.
A possible Obama visit was not discussed, but Focus is open to one, Minnery said.
McCain also has not met with Dobson. A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said.
Dobson has not backed off his statement that he could not in good conscience vote for McCain because of concerns over the Arizona senator's conservative credentials. Dobson has said he will vote in November but has suggested he might not vote for president.
Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs.
June 23, 2008
7:42 p.m.
samsmargolis writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 23, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
What in the world does James Dobson know about the bible?
Oh yeah, that's right, he's been abusing it for the last 20 years to push an extremist Christian agenda.
June 23, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Dobsons good, he knows that it is a power position to have the opposition or the guests come to him. Come to his power base. He is a psychologists dream. He is as transparent as a window.
Dueling Christians, George Carlin probably loved this stuff.
June 23, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
Too, too funny Dobson. BTW the kettle returned your call and said to tell you to look in the mirror.
June 23, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
plzgetreal writes:
Sad, very sad. Hopefully man will not totally destroy all that exists before realizing GOD is merely the invention of man for the purpose of control and subordination of the masses. Dobson is living proof.
June 23, 2008
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
Seriously, I don't think it's possible to write better comedy than this. ;-)
Dobson lecturing anyone on the uses and abuses of the Bible is a hoot.
And what does Dobson know of the U.S. Constitution? How in the hell can he say that anyone is abusing it when he doesn't even know what it says.
June 23, 2008
8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I wonder if Dobson has ever preached the Sermon on the Mount to his flock, or is he too busy instilling hate and intolerance in them.
June 23, 2008
8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
James Dobson is crazy just like the rest of the believers in and followers of monotheistic religions.
June 23, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
patgallardo writes:
Obama,
doesnt take the word of God as literal direction. Most of this world views what"is right in there own eyes". The word of God teaches (Jesus same thing)vision is obeying the word of God!
With out vision nations will perish!With out being Born again(in other words your spirit is dead)you cannot understand spiritual principles.
sinner saved by grace
June 23, 2008
8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
rj1967 writes:
Dear Mr. Dobson,
Please, just STFU and go away. If I wanna know what you think, I'll go to your church and have a listen. Until then, leave me alone and go focus on your own family.
June 23, 2008
8:37 p.m.
urnfndbag writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 23, 2008
8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
"With out vision nations will parish!"
I agree!
Funny thing, though.
Religion lacks vision.
June 23, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Oh, and Dobson...
Nevermind. rj1967 covered it well.
June 23, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
James Dobson is a blight on Christianity.
June 23, 2008
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
rj1967:
** Until then, leave me alone and go focus on your own family. **
Well that is the problem. If more people were focused on their family somebody else wouldn't have to be!
June 23, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
well now that we have heard from the village shaman can we go back to substantive debates on policy?
June 23, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Sweetpickle: Christianity is a blight on Christianity.
June 23, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
plzgetreal writes:
** Sad, very sad. Hopefully man will not totally destroy all that exists before realizing GOD is merely the invention of man for the purpose of control and subordination of the masses. Dobson is living proof. **
Sounds strangely familiar. Oh yeah! Karl Marx. Do we have a Marxists in the midst?
June 23, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
gr8fun4me writes:
The only people that distort the Bible are you Dobson. You need to focus on your own family and keep judgments to yourself. We don't want to hear them. Just because you aren't going to have some stooge in the White House you go around spouting nonsense. All you religious zealots are no different than the the Taliban. You're trying to turn our government into a theocracy just like they have in Iran. I just hope enough people realize what you are trying to do instead of following you like a flock of sheep waiting for slaughter!
June 23, 2008
8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
becca00:
** And what does Dobson know of the U.S. Constitution? **
What do most Americans know of the Constitution? I find that most, possibly even yourself, know very little about it.
June 23, 2008
8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
gylizard1 writes:
Who cares WHAT Dobson has to say?..talk about trying to push your OWN agenda..he is not only a Bigot..but as homophobic as you can get. He doesn't care about a womans right to do what she will with her own body either. Let him get raped and be forced to carry a baby to term..see how he likes it. I am sure he is another closet case.."he dothe protest too much"..it will turn out that he is is paying male prostitutes like that other Church leader who got busted in Colorado Springs..guys like him are a total embarresment for our State. He was probably marching in the gay pride parade dressed up in drag..lol..I mean..he has to get out and let it all hang out sometime right? Just doesn't have the huevos to be honest about it.
June 23, 2008
8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
And why is this "news" rather than "opinion".
June 23, 2008
8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Funny. I see a lot of "tolerant" people on here. . .
until it comes to somebody else's belief system which is juxstaposed to your own.
June 23, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i am completely tolerant of dobson making a bigot out of himself on the national stage.
June 23, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
Awesome. Look to Dobson for a good take on the bible or constitution. That's great advice.
June 23, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
Another politician misquoting the bible for his own agenda. Yay...Obama the only change your making is getting rid of one corrupt politician for another.
Quick hint...Using the lords name in vain will send you to hell. Both republicans and democrats are guilty of it.
Everybody, just think for a second. Don't think about party affiliation but just think. If you were doing a job interview and that person lied about the bible, and misquoted the constitution would you hire them to work any job of importance. Much less as the president of the company.
June 23, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Yeppers. by the ad hominems rampant on this forum I can tell just how tolerant everybody is.
June 23, 2008
9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Hakj[ob]: So your point is that Dobson is just as ignorant of the Constitution as most Americans? News flash: Water is still wet, fire is still hot. Dobson's still an idiot.
If you have reason to believe that I'm as ignorant of the U.S. Constitution as Dobson, I'd love to hear it. Or if you want to engage in a discussion/debate about Constitutional Law, original intent, the Founding Fathers, Roger Williams, John Locke, or the godless state of our Constitution, then I'm all ears.
June 23, 2008
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
patgallardo writes:
Your right,
religion is superstition based on mans tradition,false teaching,humanism (mans dependence on man)and opinion.By being born again ones faith is directed by Gods word.The bible is the blue print for Gods world.Mans nature is at odds with God until we put our faith in his sons (blood) sacrifice on the cross and pays for mine and your sins. Until you put your faith in christ ones spirit is dead
Blessed are those are not offended by the gospel!
Sinner saved by grace.
June 23, 2008
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
becca00:
Who are voting for president? Why or why not? Try and keep it succinct.
June 23, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Obama threw the first stone, and like a spineless little weasel, is now crying like a 2 year old because Dobson stood up to him.
June 23, 2008
9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Hakj[ob]: I'm voting for the individual I find most qualified for the position come election day.
June 23, 2008
9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
Hey, Little Ricky: WTF are you talking about?
June 23, 2008
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
becca00:
Well that's about as generic as one can get. That's OK I understand why. But what qualifications for pres do YOU look for?
June 23, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
Did you read the most recent poll by time on "conservative Christians"? The ones who set in the pew?
Over 57% feel that Christ is no longer the only way.
June 23, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
beca.... try reading the article. It will help you understand it.
June 23, 2008
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
All you need to know about James Dobson is revealed in his description of a confrontation with his dachshund:
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
-James Dobson on thrashing his wiener (dog).
June 23, 2008
9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Hakj[ob]: I look for someone who is educated in and cognizant of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, I look for someone who is concerned about:
* Developing a legitimate energy policy
* Ending the fiasco in Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible
* Dealing with Iran in a forthright manner with diplomacy being the first and primary option
* Improving Social Security
* Bolstering the U.S. economy through sustainable economic policies
* Improving America's innovation capabilities by restoring science standards and funding
* Restoration of governmental checks and balances
* Restoration of civil liberties (ending the NSA warrantless surveillance program)
What I look for least in a candidate is what that person believes from a religious perspective. Most politicians will profess a faith in an Invisible Voo-Doo Daddy in the clouds, the same as the other 85% of deluded schizophrenics who hear voices, in order to satisfy the de facto religious test we have established for electability to office (contrary to Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution).
Neither Dobson, Obama, nor McCain get any points from me for professing their delusions of invisible friends in the clouds.
June 23, 2008
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
breckrider writes:
james dobson should get a back rub from ted haggard, they that would mellow him out
June 23, 2008
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
PajamaPulitzer:
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(Matthew 24:24 KJVA)
June 23, 2008
9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
becca00:
** What I look for least in a candidate is what that person believes from a religious perspective. Most politicians will profess a faith in an Invisible Voo-Doo Daddy in the clouds, the same as the other 85% of deluded schizophrenics who hear voices, in order to satisfy the de facto religious test we have established for electability to office (contrary to Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution). **
I could not agree with you more. Claiming to be something you're not just to get votes is just bad form all the way around. Though I know politicians have done this from the beginning of politics.
However, being knowledgeable in the Constitution as you are I am curious why you vote for any president at all? Especially since you know the popular vote doesn't count for the presidency.
I'm also curious as to how much weight you put on the domestic affairs as far as the presidency is concerned since their primary focus is on foreign affairs. This would be the reason the legislative branch and the executive branch are divided the way they are.
It would seem our time as voters then should be governed better by paying attention to those running for seats in the senate or house vs. the presidency. It would also seem we should be more interested in the next president's views on the differing foreign relations' dilemmas facing him/her. (I included her to cover future campaigns as well.)
June 23, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
The executive branch also has a significant impact on domestic affairs since the executive branch is responsible for setting the policies of domestic agencies, such as the DoJ (including the FBI), the EPA, HHS, TSA, Labor, etc., not to mention the domestic impact of nationalizing the National Guard for service in Iraq/Afghanistan. Therefore, the president plays a significant role in our government, and with one person being vested with that much influence and power, I would like to ensure that person is capable and understand his/her policy positions.
I vote for president because, even though the president is not elected by popular vote, the electors in the electoral college are quasi-elected based on the popular vote of the state. Moreover, since we are presented with a full ballot of candidates, I get to vote for president, senator, representative, state and local officials, and state and local ballot initiatives, all at the same time.
(I don't care if you use "him," "her," or "it.")
June 23, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
I am a moderately conservative Christian, but I kind of liked what Obama had to say here. The man has got to exorcize his own demons (Revs. Wright, Jackson, Sharpton) anyway. If he has to throw them off (and he does), why not try and toss them on top of the Dobsons and Haggards of the world at the same time?
Obama is too liberal and inexperienced, but he's got some merit.
June 23, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
patgallardo writes:
Since you realize my views come from the authority of scripture and most views are not. Its interesting you mention "science"as your views are based in a canidate.The word science according to websters means knowledge of facts learned by study,observations.(by man.)The word warns believers of false science or "knowledge".
Man has countered with the religion of science to eclipse the truth of scripture.If Obama preaches global warming how dare I dont believe. If I preach the Gospel in love I am intolerant!
Im just the messenger I have been given marching orders by the Word of God to share the truth.
Sinner saved by grace.
June 23, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWBushwacked writes:
Well, hackj, Dobson can have his own opinion. I can have mine. Just because I disagree with him does not make me intolerant. I do not have to tolerate an opinion or philosophy that engenders more hatred and intolerance. If to disagree with him ever meant death (oh yeah, he is that dangerous), I would die. Was it not an American who said "Give me liberty or give me death"....Dobson is an oppressor to many.
June 23, 2008
10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
GWBush is the greatest president since Teddy Roosevelt.
June 23, 2008
10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
becca00:
You are right. But if you notice, the exec branch can: suggest, plan, and strongly persuade, but it is the legislative branch that provides final approval. Sometimes this is mere cursory but it is final approval none-the-less.
** electoral college are quasi-elected based on the popular vote of the state. **
Yet they have been known to go the other way as well.
June 23, 2008
10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
psychoChicken writes:
Dobson once again providing even more material for South Park. You gotta love it...
June 23, 2008
10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
patgallardo writes:
The beautiful opportunity of the gospel comes from blood of a loving saviour to save the world from its self.If I write you a check for a million dollars and you dont cash it the check is worthless the same with salvation.If you dont recieve Jesus offer?
Salvation is not redeemable and the blood is on your head.The word warns me if I dont blow the horn of warning the blood is on my head.You dont agree with what I say and you can attack me and discredit my views just remember those words are not mine!They are quotes from the word of God.If your spirit is dead you have no fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom!
Sinner saved by grace.
June 23, 2008
10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
GWBushwacked:
** Well, hackj, Dobson can have his own opinion. I can have mine. Just because I disagree with him does not make me intolerant. I do not have to tolerate an opinion or philosophy that engenders more hatred and intolerance. If to disagree with him ever meant death (oh yeah, he is that dangerous), I would die. Was it not an American who said "Give me liberty or give me death"....Dobson is an oppressor to many. **
Does Dobson engender more hatred and intolerance? Or does he engender more hatred and intolerance from those who oppose his strong stance on certain moral issues?
I see a man who knows what he believes and believes it very strongly. I too believe homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that murder, gossip, drunkenness, witchcraft, and many other things are a sin. I also believe that as such, a person will NOT see the kingdom of heaven. Yet I have had them all at my table as friends throughout my life.
Tell me then, am I too intolerant and engender more hatred?
June 23, 2008
10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Aahhhhh, I love the smell of fundies raving in the evening.
Doesn't anybody ever watch T.V. any more?
June 23, 2008
10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
wow:
** Doesn't anybody ever watch T.V. any more? **
Not as much fun.
June 23, 2008
10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
LOL, probably true...
June 23, 2008
11 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"The word warns me if I dont blow the horn of warning the blood is on my head."
God's marketing strategy. Thank you Pat, for bringing that up.
The problem with Dobson and his ilk is that he feeds on the fears and insecurities of those weaker than him. He is a parasitic charlatain, peddling salvation in heaven with one hand, and doling out damnation here on earth with the other.
It is one thing to preach the word of god to your flock, and trust them to follow your advice. It is entirely another to incite a superior attitude in your flock that engenders a mentality of derision for "different" people. Dobson is a first class liar and manipulator at the strings of the Family Values puppet.
Love and obey your Lord in your life, not in mine. And for pete's sake, stop "tolerating" me, and just be polite and amicable.
My mom always said, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.
June 23, 2008
11:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghostmaes writes:
There are some issues that go beyond religions grasp.(believe it or not super believers) The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian myths were written for people 6,000 years ago in another part of the world.
Over that time civil rights for the weak have become the human standard. Accepted as elemental to all civilizations. Our nation will be judged in time by future generations (and judged by the invisible world) by how we protected the least among us. The poor, the hungry, the homeless.
I wonder how does gay bashing and denial of their civil rights help this cause? How does forcing women to have babies they don't want helping the cause?
June 23, 2008
11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
lea writes:
This looks like the speech to which this article refers: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628...
As I understand the Rocky article, Dobson claims that Obama shows a misunderstanding of the Bible when he compares eating shellfish with the Sermon on the Mount. This is a common confusion that people have, so I thought it would be worth trying to explain it from a Christian point of view. The short answer is that there are three categories that biblical commands/principles fall into: (1) civil law, (2) ceremonial law, and (3) moral law.
Civil law was part of God’s ruling of His theocratic kingdom in the Old Testament that allowed the people to live in an orderly society. Since we no longer live in a theocratic kingdom, many of these rules would not be applicable to our society. Ceremonial law included such things as dietary restrictions, festivals, and the sacrificial system and was put in place to set the nation apart and point to the messiah. Christians believe that these were all fulfilled by Jesus Christ, so the foreshadowing version should not be followed today. Moral law includes rules around ethical behavior which are true for all people and should still be obeyed today. Of course, these overlap each other a bit, i.e. civil laws are usually based in some moral principle, but the distinctions do exist.
I’m not a theological scholar, but hopefully this clarifies one of the points that Dobson is making - Obama’s misunderstanding of the Bible when he attempts to equate a ceremonial law with a moral law.
June 24, 2008
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"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?" Dobson said
The answer, Dr. Dobson is "no". Put your heart at ease, sir. Here is what the Senator said..." ...the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people."
Presumably the senator said this because non Christians vote and debate the issues just as Christians do. If you are Christian, and you care about the issues, reframing your arguments in a non- biblical frame work can get your point across to more people.
I personally believe that the issues are, for Dobson, less important than using religion as a beating stick. Or belt if you prefer.
June 24, 2008
12:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghostmaes writes:
Dietary codes? Old testament doesn't count? This is irrelevent.
Presidential candidate Obama was simply pointing out the absurdities of the prevailing myth. Which was written for a different set of people a long time ago.
Are we going to outlaw lobster because Jewish folklore says so? Are we going to implement the sermon on the mount as national defense policy? Will Karma become legislated? Will all women be forced to wear head scarves?
Where does the myth have to end before it interferes with reality?
Reality says all men are created equal. Their are no second class citizens in the USA, not exactly true but a mission inherited. To make a more perfect union.
These words are worth fighting for and against those who damage the weak, like Dobson.
June 24, 2008
12:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
msmam writes:
I am OK with Dobson not voting for president :)
June 24, 2008
1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
rappaport writes:
I am 60-years old, and I've never read so much "intolerance" in one forum! There is TRUTH and there are FACTS, and there seems to be an awful lot of confusion with this, on the subject of Obama vs. McCain. James Dobson knows a lot more about the Bible than does Obama---that's TRUTH, and that's a FACT. This can be judged by the statements Obama has made concering "Biblical verses", in his various speeches. He's way off base in his understanding of the writings of the Bible. I'm sure Obama is a very good man, one who loves his country and his family. And he is young and inexperienced---and this is FACT, also. I personally do not like some of Obama's anti-American "friends", but that's a "choice" he has made in his own life, and just like the rest of us these choices have come to haunt him, as well they should. Sometimes our "misunderstandings" with each other are a generational thing. It's difficult for young voters today to know about the pasts of some of these friends in Obama's life. And, as a true believer in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, it saddens me that so many younger people don't really have much belief in anything, any more! I take much comfort in the Bible, where God tells us that He takes the simple and foolish things of this world, to confound and confuse the wise and intelligent.
June 24, 2008
5:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Some people forget the Bible was written by man, and it's their interpretations in the book. I'm 64 rappaport, and get sick and tired of these religious zealots pushing their agenda on me. Numbers of atheists are on the rise, and it's no wonder when you see guys like Kenneth Copeland saying God wanted him to have that 20 million dollar plane paid for by people trying to buy their way to heaven. I want a man in the white house that worries about the issues at hand, and I sure don't take into account the bible when voting. Unless it's a preacher running....
June 24, 2008
5:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Openminded1 writes:
Now I can see why and how, so many wars get started behind religion.
June 24, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
When is anyone going to realize that Dobson is just a corporate version of Jim Jones or David Koresh.
I'm not saying christianity is a cult. I very much believe in God and do respect that religion can unite people for good reasons and causes.
But Dobson isn't trying to unite people to help fight starvation, poverty, war, etc.
He is building a power-base of like-minded people so that he can pursue his political agendas as well as build a personal fortune, purportedly based on his religious ideologies.
And to achieve his desired results he is playing every card in the divisive decks...'US VS THEM' and 'IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US'.
He is to religion what Karl Rove was to the GOP.
This is Religion, Inc.
Dobson is an enormously wealthy man, earning millions of dollars a year. His COMPANY...and it IS a company, Focus on the Family, takes in many more millions every year.
http://www.5280.com/issues/2006/0608/...
The point is that Dobson is selling faith to make himself rich and powerful.
It's time for people to wake up and realize that faith is free. You don't need a calling card or someone else's intervention to talk with God.
If you're buying your faith from Dobson, whether it's with your pocketbook or your conscience and soul..you're paying too much.
June 24, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
rushrulesbaby writes:
Thank God we have dedicated pastors like Dr. Dobson! Thank you Dr. Dobson!!!
June 24, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
SDaedalus writes:
There are both religious and political issues at work in the Dobson and Obama spat. On the surface there is the religious/theological issue -- which this blog has been largely limited to -- but underneath, and more interesting, is how this demonstrates the turning of the political weathervane in the pursuit of evangelical Christian voters.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the theological substance, Obama's general religious point is consistent with his political strategy to reach young evangelical voters. That demographic is emerging within the religious world as aspiring to a multi-faceted understanding of Christian obligations rather than the classic 'culture war' version of Christianity that so strongly influenced the GOP and America politics for the past 20-30 years. For example, while abortion and homosexuality may still be important issues to younger evangelicals, poverty, war & peace and environmental concerns may be considered equal or greater in emphasis in how they live out their faith. This is in sharp distinction, and perhaps in direct reaction to, how the established order (as personified by leaders like Dobson) has narrowed its interpretation of Christian faith to conform to and enable the political ambitions of a single secular political party…one that over the past 8 years has dramatically fallen short on a range of Christian ideals.
Obama’s campaign may be cynically exploiting this self-inflicted wedge within the evangelical movement or genuinely hoping to capture the energy and passion of faith-motivated citizens to help pursue his vision for governance. Either way, Dobson’s heated response may unintentionally reveal his anxiety over the changed political landscape within his own religion, and the country as a whole. I’m sure Obama’s campaign is in no way surprised nor upset in having Dobson so passionately drawn the distinction.
June 24, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
This is some funny thread.
So have you guys settled on an answer yet?
How many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?
I'm dying to know.
/snark
June 24, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Obama is to Christian as Jackalope is to zoo exhibit.
June 24, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
1968camaro writes:
Dobson has guts and is not afraid to stand what he believes in. He has good morals and seems to care about what happens to this country if a president like Obama was to get in. All you people who have nothing but negative to about what Dobson believes in are cowards and are the haters. Seems Dobson has love for this country and cares about the future. What do you all care for, only your sorry pathetic self. Hope you all remember this country was built on Christianity and has become a great nation because of it. Dig in your history you morons! Look at your money you pay your bills with. "In God we trust". Dobson is a man who is not afraid to speak his mind in public, but seems to scare many of you or you would not respond the way you do. Must also be some truth in what he believes in or would not push the buttons he does.
June 24, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
If Mr. Dobson's real goal was to reduce abortion, he would be asking why women get abortions and from there suggesting ways to avoid that alternative. I believe that Mr. Dobson and other groups used the abortion debate for their own financial purposes.
A recent study showed that 2/3rds of women getting abortions were mothers already and the reason they gave for their abortion was the benefit of the already born children and their opinion that their other children would be deprived by the new one. Policy analysts should address abortion in that context, which of course brings up economic and class issues and issues about the support of children.
June 24, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
1968camero; If Dobson had any guts he would be doing his bidding in open debate in a public forum, but he does not. He hides behind his microphone spewing his hatefull monologue. I have found that people who are as radical as him always have something to hide. Who do you see Dobson hanging out with. It certainly isn't the poorest of the poor as Jesus would have done. Every time you see him he is hanging out with the richest of the rich who have a conservative agenda. Instead of spending money on that monstrocity of a complex in Clorado Springs why is that money not directed to helping more poor people. This is not what tithings are for. For centuries religions have spent money on megolithic churches when it should be spent elsewhere. He is a phoney and allways will be. The Bible even warns of false prophets such as him.
June 24, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaggy writes:
Dobson should know better than to question the plastic majesty.
His blind pigeons will label anyone a bigot who dares goes against their messiah.
Obama should look at his own church and it's non negotiable commitment to Africa and the black people.
Obama is no "uniter".
Obama is a divider who likes to make race an issue.
We are all finding out who the bigot truly is as Obama gets peeled like an onion before all the world to witness.
I might add, it is a rank onion indeed.
June 24, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
M2 writes:
The pot calling the kettle black.
You must be a fruitcake to be affiliated with Hocus Pocus on the Family in any way.
It scares me that people like this actually exist in real life and not just on TV.
June 24, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
kodijack writes:
I don't who is a bigger embarassment to Colorado, James Dobson or Douglas Bruce.
June 24, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
Openminded1 writes:
Now I can see why and how, so many wars get started behind religion.
Every few years the planet gets overcrowded and needs to have a few "seats emptied". In the long run it does work to everyones advantage. Even now there is a worldwide shortage of gas, food and clean water. Have patience, get comfortable and watch the action (from a distance).
June 24, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
nmbronco1 writes:
The only real fruitcake is Dobson, and he and his followers make a laughingstock out of all Colorado. Dobson has twisted views on both the Bible and the Constitution. If it weren't for freedom of speech and capitalism, Dobson would be unknown outside his circle of misguided followers/zealots.
June 24, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Dobson is like Bush in one big aspect.
He won't engage in public dialogue with anyone who isn't part of his choir.
Obviously, Dobson is afraid to have a dialogue in a public forum with anyone who hasn't already bought what he's selling.
Dobson pontificates from his bully pulpit, but when he feels the need to respond to anything that might require a back and forth dialogue..that always goes through his hired gun/spokesperson/publicist, Tom Minnery.
June 24, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Who would Jesus torture?
June 24, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Conservapedia – when you just don’t want the truth
June 24, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
GodzillaSr writes:
welcome to colorado......where they won't allow gay marriages BUT they'll allow an idiot like this run rampant.
ah, so much fodder....so little time.
June 24, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
Anyone who claims to be a christian DISTORTS the bible. No? Well then, why aren't you following it's logic?......
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. It was not Adam who deceived; it was the woman, who, yielding to deception, fell into sin...Man is the image of God, and the mirror of his glory, whereas a woman reflects the glory of man. ...man was not created for woman's sake, but woman for the sake of man... Women should keep silent at the meeting. They have no permission to talk, but should keep their place... If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home... ( 1 Corinthians 11;2-10; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14.)
Corinthians contains some of the best-known phrases in the New Testament, including (depending on the translation) "all things to all men" (9:22), "without love, I am nothing" (13:1) and "when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child" (13:11).
people tend to pick and choose parts they like in the bible. You can't do that. It's all or nothing. To reject half the stuff in it, is to reject the book as false.
all religions pretty much cancel each other out. Each one, INCLUDING christianity state in some form that if you do not accept and follow their religion, you will go to hell. That means everybody! is going to hell! How ridiculous is that?
June 24, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
The Foundation of the "New" Testament IS THE OLD TESTAMENT.
1). Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2). I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3). I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4). When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5). I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6). A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7). Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8). Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?
9). I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10). I have a friend that owns a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends
to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
June 24, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
Founding Fathers did NOT force feed us the "One Nation Under God" line, that is B.S.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the motto 'In God We Trust' came about not at the time of the Constitutional Conventions, but due to increased pressures to recognize God on coins and money during the Civil War. In April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Amendment authorizing the motto to be placed on the two-cent coin. It appeared on various coins throughout the years, and appeared on paper money in 1957. The phrase was eventually printed on all paper bills, superseding the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) adopted by the Union in 1782.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
June 24, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
IF the POPE were the C.E.O. OF A DAY CARE CENTER, HE WOULD'VE BEEN ARRESTED THE MINUTE HE HIT THE TARMAC FOR COVERING UP SO MANY CASES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A CHILD
BILL MAHER
on Larry King, talking religion
honestly, it's worth it to listen carefully, not daydream and deny in typical religious anger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEUNJr...
June 24, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
PajamaSoiler:
Here's some background on the idiot you idolize:
From an article in "5280" magazine.
****************
Myrtle Dobson was an amiable and social woman, but she didn’t hesitate to whack her son with a shoe or belt when she felt it was required. Consequently, Dobson writes, he learned at an early age to stay out of striking distance when he back-talked to his mother. One day he made the mistake of mouthing off when she was only four feet away and heard a 16-pound girdle whistling through the air. “The intended blow caught me across the chest, followed by a multitude of straps and buckles wrapping themselves around my midsection.” The girdle incident did not dampen his defiance, however. One evening, after Dobson’s mother forbid him from going to a dance, the recalcitrant teenager told her that he was going anyway; she picked up the telephone and called her husband. “I need you,” she said.
The article continues: “‘What happened in the next few days shocked me down to my toes,’ writes Dobson.”
His father canceled the next four years’ worth of speaking engagements, put the Oklahoma house up for sale, and took a pastor’s job in San Benito, Texas, a small town near the Mexican border.
In the Dobson household there were “a million rules…regulations and prohibitions for almost every imaginable situation.” Dobson recalls being “chewed out for using the expression ‘Hot dog!’ and forbidden from uttering ‘darn,’ ‘geez,’ or ‘dad-gummit’ because they were considered shorthand swear words.”
Even more alarming, Dobson admits in one of his books that as a child he arranged a fight between two mismatched dogs. The battle involved a tenacious bulldog and a “sweet, passive Scottie named Baby,” and Dobson provoked it by throwing a tennis ball toward Baby. He writes what happened next: “The bulldog went straight for Baby’s throat and hung on. It was an awful scene. Neighbors came running from everywhere as the Scottie screamed in terror. It took ten minutes and a garden hose for the adults to pry loose the bulldog’s grip. By then Baby was almost dead. He spent two weeks in the animal hospital, and I spent two weeks in the doghouse. I was hated by the entire town.”
****************
He's a crackpot raised by two sociopaths, and if you admire him, you are sick in the head.
June 24, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
gwats writes:
Is James Dobson a religious leader or a Politician? You can't serve two masters, Jimmy Boy! He seems to have just enough knowledge to make him come off as a fool. He really needs to remove the 'Rafter" from his own eye so he can help remove the 'Splinters' from the eyes of others. That's from the Bible, James..... the book you quote from but have obviously either never read or took to heart?
June 24, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
Love is not jealous or boastful (1 Corinthians 13:4)
...God is Love(1 John 4:16)
I the Lord your God am a jealous God ... for the Lord, Whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (Exodus 34:14 and 20:5)
God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all... God is love...[Love] thinketh no evil (John 1:5b, John 4:16, 1 Corinthians 13:5d)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. ...Do they not err that devise evil?...I know that thou [God] canst do all things. (Isaiah 45:7 Proverbs 14:22a and Job 42:2)
June 24, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoRick69 writes:
Isnt one mans' interpretation of the bible another mans "distortion"? And what does Dobson know about the constitution anyway?
I wonder who's votes he is trying to divert.
June 24, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
tpiland writes:
Who cares what Dobson or his cult of sheeple think?
June 24, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
I'm still worried that SpongeBob is turning our children gay.
June 24, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Charles B, thanks for the bio. It explains a lot about Dobson. No wonder the man has shaped his adult life around seeking power and control.
June 24, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
rickg: "Obama threw the first stone, and like a spineless little weasel, is now crying like a 2 year old because Dobson stood up to him."
Did you actually read the article in full? Obama made a comment about Dobson, and Dobson made a retort to that comment. Nowhere does it say Obama then gave a second response to that retort.
In other words, your accusation is based on something that didn't happen.
June 24, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
Obama, McCain, and Taliban Dobson all imbibe on the same snake oil, a baby jew morphed / transmogrified into an anti-Semitic Christian god because Jews recognized a fraud while the credulous, ignorant, gullible Gentiles imbibed on drink the blood / eat the flesh. Richard Grimes: Deicide.
Deicide Corner: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father…Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and thy daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Matt. 10:33
June 24, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
"A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said."
James Dobson, the Pope of Colorado Springs.
June 24, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
As Kinky Freedman says, (who is much more Christlike than Dobson) "May the God of your choice Bless You."
June 24, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
expatman writes:
As someone famous said, "I love God, it's his fan clubs I can't stand."
June 24, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
mccain is going to have to kneel at the foot of mt. crazy dobson at some point if he hopes to stay within reach. he can't win without the increasingly superstitious american taliban and their high priest has yet to give the blessing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
June 24, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
PJ: Nice succinct response; sums it up well.
But, a lot of crazy stuff in the OT, no? I'm no big fan of Paul either, for that matter. Kind of a quiet heretic in my church...
June 24, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
The Bible is subject to a lot of different intertipations. and if any one is guilty of distorting it.. it is these ultra right wing Zealots.
Another good reason we must never elect one of them to the presidency as they want to force their view of things on everyone else.
This kind of b s none issues keep coming up with Obama because they can't find any other more significant issues to attach him on!
6 months and counting
---------Jan 20 2008---------
Can,t come soon enough!
June 24, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleye writes:
lea at 11:52 p.m. had a great explanation about the different kinds of laws contained in the Bible (civil/ceremonial/moral). Of course, many people in our nation don't believe anything in the Bible (as this thread demonstrates so clearly). That's people's right in this great country of ours.
However, if Obama is going invoke the Bible and try to woo Christians, he would do well to understand the distinctions that lea outlined. Otherwise, he will continue to tick off both Christians and non-Christians.
BTW, I'm absolutely no Dobson fan.
June 24, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Gosh Diff, you've got a few typos there.
But as to the message, let me just say that it's not only the "ultra right wing Zealots" who "want to force their view of things on everyone else". To wit, (1) affirmative action programs that basically validate reverse discrimination, (2) gay marriage that provides legal recognition, protection and benefits for alternative lifestyles, and of course (3) ever-more-progressive taxation of the wealthy to take a greater share of their income than of those less affluent.
I'm not saying the above policies are indefensible, nor am I asking you to defend or rationalize them. I am just making the point that ultra-lefties are just as much into forcing their beliefs on others, as are ultra-righties.
June 24, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Dobson...OY VEY...typical of the GOYIM. If anything is fruitcake..it is Dobson and his cultish followers who think they can use their voodoo religious POV on American civil liberties. When will they ever learn to live and let live?
They should simply worship as they like in their church, temple, mosque, etc. Live their lives in accordance to their own faith....but leave our civil rights to AMERICANS and keep their religion out of it.
Quite frankly Dobson and his ilk are the Chiristian Taliban of this country.
June 24, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Davies: How is approving of gay marriages forcing anything on you? Are you under the mistaken impression that you would then be forced to marry someone of your gender? If not, then it's not your business and nothing is being forced on *you.* As it is now, you are forcing *your* morality on others. Pot, meet kettle.
June 24, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
davies, i kind of get the feeling that you're having some confusion about the "choice", or lack thereof, in terms of "alternative lifestyles".
do you believe that homosexuality is a choice?
June 24, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Davies obviously can't understand the difference between exclusion and inclusion.
"Lefties" aren't trying "force their beliefs" on you, Davies. They simply believe that it is unfair to exclude people from equality.
I challenge you to tell us what TANGIBLE effect allowing gays to marry will have on you.
On the other hand, the "righties" have a well established record of trying to exclude others or deny them the freedoms to make choices and decisons for themselves.
Their actions have VERY TANGIBLE effects on the lives of the people that they target.
Do you need me to list them for you?
June 24, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
50something writes:
I am astounded to see how many people are incredibly vicious and hostile toward Christianity!
If you hate a person because of what they stand for, turning on a whole faith does not change the truth built into it.
Sad world, but it was prophecied long ago.
June 24, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
AC: I was almost hoping someone would bite on that one.
Legalized gay marriage would FORCE adoption agencies to recognize a gay couple as the equal of a traditional mom-and-dad married couple for adoption purposes. It would FORCE a woman giving up a child for adoption to accept that the child could be adopted by married gay partners. Legalized gay marriage would FORCE employers to offer spousal benefits to gay marriage partners (if the employer offers such a benefit at all). To the extent that those additional benefits cost more money, it FORCES the employer to pay more cost, or provide less benefits to others. Legalized gay marriage would FORCE a landlord to rent his/her property to an openly homosexual couple, regardless of the landlord's personal beliefs.
All this of course probably seems fine to you, but you fail to recognize the concerns of people who very clearly have moral objections to such a union, or to such a sexual relationship. You can call them bigots if you want, but to me that's just an easy way to dismiss people whose moral beliefs are different than yours.
So yes, legalized gay marriage would be FORCING a liberal value or morality on others who may not share that viewpoint and may be directly and earnestly opposed to it. NOW WAIT FOR IT: Again, my point is not whether or not far righties attempt to force their values on others; my point is that far lefties like to do the exact same thing, and don't seem to recognize the fact.
June 24, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
zivo24 writes: "On the other hand, the "righties" have a well established record of trying to exclude others or deny them the freedoms to make choices and decisons for themselves."
YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET!! The whole shame of the religious right is how they conveniently use "their" bible, Torah, Koran, Code of Hammurabbi, or holy book when it suits them, and even worse for the purposes of EXCLUDING Amercicans of their civil liberties.
When there is proud history of religious leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel who fought for civil rights in this country; that is the contrast of the dark side (Dobson/Falwell/Robertson/Agudath Israel/the Taliban, etc) of religion and the enlightened.
June 24, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
davies - yeah - I was typing quick and someone walked in so I submitted it without a good proof read.
1) can't argue that one - it is due for a change as anything that gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage based on race is WRONG
2) It is NOT a requirement that anyone participates in a gay marriage. The left view leaves it as a mater of choice. Freedom of Choice IS one of the basic things this country is all about.
3) Greater taxes for those who can most afford them IS a basic tenet from well over 100 years ago, and is the redistribution of wealth and that is more an economic position. nothing to do with forcing a god or your understanding of god on someone else
What we are talking about though is the very basic thing this country was founded on - religious freedom.
the ultra right wing religious I should have said - not so much as the right wing from the political view (tho they often do join forces)
These zealots want and indeed expect that everyone views god, and the bible as they do, thus taking away the personal choice to believe, worship, and conduct ones own life as they chose
In this world there are a lot of fine, honest, trustworthy and honorable people, who live their life that way, not out of some fear of punishment in hell or reward in heaven. They live their life in that manor as a simple mater of choice.
The Religious right is far too involved in politics and have far too much influence. It's time for some change and tolerance.
The pendulum swings and the things will balance!
01-20-08!
June 24, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoRick69 writes:
To make it legal for homosexuals or lesbians to marry would totally undermine what heterosexual marriage is all about. Instead of trying to make yourselves fit in to that category, why not be creative enough to come up with your own ceremony. Call it something different. Is it just that you want to be recognized legally by the state and have marriage privileges, or is it that you want to flaunt and ridicule traditional marriage by invading it? To try to suggest that gay marriages are or should be traditional in the sense of normal is quite a stretch. I have nothing against gay people and think that they have every right as the rest of us to be happy, but please don't try to bend the rules already in place for traditionalists.
June 24, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"To make it legal for homosexuals or lesbians to marry would totally undermine what heterosexual marriage is all about."
interesting opinion, bronco69'er...why?
"Legalized gay marriage would FORCE adoption agencies to recognize a gay couple as the equal of a traditional mom-and-dad married couple for adoption purposes. It would FORCE a woman giving up a child for adoption to accept that the child could be adopted by married gay partners. Legalized gay marriage would FORCE employers to offer spousal benefits to gay marriage partners (if the employer offers such a benefit at all). To the extent that those additional benefits cost more money, it FORCES the employer to pay more cost, or provide less benefits to others. Legalized gay marriage would FORCE a landlord to rent his/her property to an openly homosexual couple, regardless of the landlord's personal beliefs."
so...what you're saying, davies, is that it would FORCE people not to discriminate against homosexuals.
the horror.
June 24, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
50something, people who are criticizing Dobson are not necessarily hostile to Christianity. If that's what you're inferring, not sure.
At any rate, I'm a Christian myself and think Dobson is a thug who has hijacked the true meaning and purpose of this faith. I also think it's people like Dobson who are responsible for driving countless people away from Christianity.
If certain Biblical predictions that Christianity will eventually be a mass-persecuted religion come to fruition, I personally will lay the blame at people like Dobson who make the faith look so ugly.
June 24, 2008