Chances are you’ve heard about James Dobson‘s recent comments about a speech that Barack Obama made a little while back.
If you haven’t, then great, don’t bother looking into it. It’s the same old, same old, stuff that people like Dobson have been saying for a long time. Stop reading this post now and go do something else.
But, if you did already hear about, then you should read this blog post from Brian McLaren where he weighs in on some of the issues with what Dobson said, and (equally as important) how he said it. Here are a few choice quotes:
This week’s “Beloved Christian Broadcaster Attacks Beloved Christian Presidential Candidate” headline reflects at least seven patterns of unhelpful discourse I frequently see among the religiously vocal, whatever their political persuasion.
First, this Christian leader didn’t restrict himself to making judgments on Barack Obama’s statements; he inferred the candidate’s motives and judged them as well. Consider his use of the word “deliberately” in this sentence:
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”
The Evangelical leader in question – whose attempts at persuasion I would judge as average or slightly above average in the world of religious broadcasting – displays the common religious tendency to lapse into name-calling, which has predictable and unhelpful results. For example, he referred to Obama’s approach as “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.” This tendency to mock the opposition might be deemed excusable if it were a rhetorical icing on the cake of solid analysis, but lacking that analysis, it can hardly be called an improvement over the thoughtful speech by Senator Obama, given at an event at which I was present in 2006, which was being criticized by the respected Evangelical speaker.
Unless this leader and his political and religious allies can lift their level of discourse, their shared good ideas will be discredited along with their bad ones. The same goes for all of us. And unless more of us become more scrupulous regarding how arguments are made – even if we agree with the point they’re trying to prove – we will become less able to tell the bad ideas from the good ones.
Read the whole thing here.
Thoughts? Is Brian off base in his critique? Was Dobson off-base? Do you agree that HOW something is said is equally as important as WHAT is said?
Scot McKnight weighed in on this as well. It’s a lot more concise than McLaren’s, however, he does come to some of the same conclusions. For those people who have a tough time hearing from McLaren, maybe this other take on it would be beneficial to check out? Just a thought… (HT: David Swanson)
In the comments, John pointed us to a site with more info on what went down. It’s clearly Pro-Obama, but I still think it’s worth checking out because it doesn’t inject much opinion, it merely compares their statements side by side. The fact that, when presented in this way, Obama comes out “on top” should say something to us…
Oh very cool. Take a look at this website: http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
It does a good side-by-side comparison of Dobson’s skewed characterizations and Obama’s actual words.