Who’s the real fruitcake?

June 28, 2008

Guest Post by Morbo

The Carpetbagger noted this week that Ayatollah-wannabee James Dobson of Focus on the Family has launched a salvo against Barack Obama. After reading about it, I decided to listen to the entire Dobson broadcast. It’s quite enlightening — and it’s also one of the lamest assaults on Obama from the right wing yet.

First of all, Dobson and his radio sidekicks attack Obama for having the temerity to point out that not everyone in the country is Christian. They played snippets from a 2006 speech Obama gave to moderate evangelicals during which he made the perfectly reasonable point that non-Christians have rights too. This was enough to drive Dobson batty. He pointed out that 76 percent of the country is Christian. Fair enough, but I’d like to ask Jimbo a question: Where in the Constitution does it say they get more rights than the other 24 percent?

Obama then went on to make another perfectly uncontroversial point: that there are different types of Christianity in America. This is news to no one. A right-wing Southern Baptist in Alabama and a left-wing member of the Disciples of Christ in Connecticut are both Christians. They read the same Bible. They simply come to different conclusions. Again Dobson went nuts over this news. I’m not sure why.

Obama pointed out that we really can’t use the government to enforce a “Christian” agenda because there is no such thing. He noted that the Christianity of Dobson is not like the Christianity of Al Sharpton. On the air, Dobson went ballistic. How dare Dobson lump him in with Sharpton? Jim, you incredible dope, that’s not what Obama was doing. You see, he was making the point that you and Sharpton aren’t much alike at all.

Finally, Obama made the point that in this country, laws must have a secular basis.

He pointed out that people are free to oppose abortion but that they should not expect the government to ban abortion simply because some people believe the Bible calls for that. It was this statement that led Dobson to accuse Obama of having a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

Obama did not say that conservative religious people have no right to oppose abortion or that they are foolish for doing so. He merely said that an argument for basing public policy on a specific interpretation of the Bible will not fly in this country. Abortion opponents need some non-religious arguments. Nothing shocking there.

Perhaps in an effort to provide some balance, Dobson and his crew before signing off spent about two minutes slapping around John McCain for being soft on same-sex marriage. As efforts at balance go, this one fell a bit short: Prior to the criticism of McCain, Dobson and Co. had spent about 16 minutes slamming Obama.

The whole thing had an air of desperation about it. Dobson actually had to dig up a two-year-old Obama speech to parse, and this was the best he could do.

These guys must really be scared. Let’s work to keep them that way.

Exclusive! Exclusive! Exclusive! Exclusive!
A quick peek inside Fuckus on the Family’s HQ:

Here we see people rushing back and forth, faces locked in expressions of terror and confusion. Others sit in the corners and rock. A woman pauses to look at a poster of McCain and collapses, sobbing. No one pays her any heed.

The office is a complete disaster. Drifts of paper, piles of beer bottles, meth vials are scattered across the desks and floors.

The men and women of the Holey Prostitute Brigade chat and laugh in their section of the compound. No one has come up to see them for weeks but discussion of their clients’ many fetishes and flaws means conversation is always lively. Shall we stop to listen for a moment? Good Lord no, getting rid of the mental images would require a full frontal lobotomy. Onward!

Gradually we make our way to the hub of this frantic activity. The solid gold door with the ruby studded and suggestively shaped knob tells us we have arrived at the office of James Dobson. There is a loud bellowing from within and we wonder if this is what one would hear if a moose and a grizzly tried to mate. Anything is possible at FFHQ. But no, we turn the doorknob, spray our hand with sanitizer and peek in. There he is on his dias! Resplendent in latex and leather – James Dobson. He is waving his favourite wetsuit and demanding of his cowering minions:

“HE’S COLOURED!!! WHY ARE PEOPLE LISTENING TO A COLOURED MAN!?! CAN’T THEY SEE HE’S NOT WHITE?!? -”

His bloodshot eye fixes on ours. He smiles and pulls a three foot long dildo from his chair (we hope). We are discovered and must flee!

  • When you’re born again, you get a 2nd helping of constitutional rights – Otherwise, why bother?
    As much as I try to mock Dobson and his ilk, they really do seem to believe that people who disagree with them are 2nd class citizens and should have no protected rights. Once upon a time, if you read the Bible it gave you some understanding of…well… the Bible. Now, in Dobson’s delusional world, it makes you a constitutional scholar.

    Dobson is like the nutcase who wanders into traffic and waves his fist at every passing car. He should be treated as such.

  • I was wondering what the fruitcake interpretation was supposedly about. Thanks Morbo for going where I care not to tread.

    There is a fundamental problem with these people with starts with the delusion that America was founded as a ‘Christian’ nation. Yes, most Americans were Christians, though a lot of our founding fathers were very undogmatic Deists, including George Washington. But they did not found this country as a ‘Christian’ nation because they simply would not have thought to. They didn’t live in the Balkins after all.

    What they did do, especially when writing up the Bill of Rights, is decide they had enough of religion as an instrument of the state and state as an instrument of religion, and decided one could do quite well without the other, thank you. Which is true. Any religion is corrupted and perverted when it relies on the state apperatus to operate.

  • TAiO—could you flesh that out by another 45,000 words or so? I might be able to find you a publisher.

    Oh—and beep is right about those doorknobs—they’re emerald. Everyone knows that Mullah Jimmie took over Emerald City. The fire-and-brimstone special effects in the main audience chamber work well for his snake-oil message—just like they did in that 1939 movie. It’s surrounded by poppies, after all—and Mullah Jimmie’s minions need their daily dose of opium.

  • Lance, don’t forget the Founding Fathers knew that when government and religion get a little too close, people get hurt.

    I’m not saying every ignorant Fundy wants to go back to the days when being the wrong religion (including the wrong flavor of Christianity) meant bloodshed and torture, but some of those fuckers probably have an iron maiden and a rack in storage. Just in case.

  • “Again Dobson went nuts over this news. I’m not sure why.”

    Ummmm, do you suppose it’s because he’s simply nuts? Sometimes he’s just more vocal about it than others.

  • When Obama hangs up his religion and leaves it outside the door during his campaign, I will believe he would govern as a secular President. Since religion has overshadowed his campaign, from the Wright brouhaha, to his own use of religion to campaign in the South, to his current exchanges with Dobson, I do not trust him to understand that state and fanciful belief must be kept separate. Given his own use of religion in his campaign, Obama has no business lecturing Dobson on this topic.

    A candidate’s campaign is his audition for the presidency. Obama can’t keep faith out of his campaign so I doubt he will do so if elected. Obama’s door will be open to all the church crazies (not none of them), since Obama, like the people answering the Pew survey, considers all flavors of idiocy equally compelling. Sam Harris calls this position theologically untenable. If you want fuzzy thinking, the all-flavors lead to heaven variety of religion is just as bad as anything Dobson believes. But then, religion isn’t about thinking. And the best thing for this country is someone who deliberately chooses not to think about important existential topics.

  • Dobson & Co are totally uninterested in xtian teachings/principles. His and others like him are seeking power, what is important is to keep the Dominionist agenda moving forward ny any means necessary.

    The bible makes such an easy tool since most of our fellow citizens don’t bother to actually read it and think about what the words mean or the context that the bible was written.

  • Mary, it’s my belief that as citizens of the United States and of the world, we have a responsibility to treat each other with respect. It’s certainly true that some religious people, especially those on the far-right fringe of fundamental Christianity, don’t do this. But instead of branding religion as “idiocy,” you could try taking the high road and showing respect toward religious people anyway. Not lumping them all together as unthinking idiots would be a good place to start.

  • The only thing that Obama is doing, Mary, is demonstrating that he’s not going to let the Religious Right maintain sole ownership of the term “religious.” The Constitution guarantees that he has just as much right to espouse his philosophy as Dobson does his—or you do yours. The fact that you insist on his “hanging it up outside the door” is nothing more than a demand, or your part, that he must unilaterally surrender that which the Constitution guarantees him, as a prerequisite for something that you’ve demonstrated—in both word and deed, for many months now—you’ll never give him.

    Your rhetoric is both devoid of value, and of meaning. If anything, it should be you showing some good faith as a first step; you, and the many others who have played either the “McCain-before-Obama” card, or the “sit-out-the-election” gambit.

  • Why should either political party be scuffling to claim the term “religious”? If this is a secular state with a secular government, religion does not belong in the campaign or the government. That is my point. That Obama is right in there, shoving Dobson aside as he panders to the religious right, troubles me because he clearly does not value the idea of a separation between church and state.

    The Constitution guarantees Obama the right to worship as he pleases (or not) as an individual citizen. It does not guarantee the president or any candidate for office the right to govern based on religious belief. In fact it states that the government shall not establish any religion, including the personal belief-system of the president. You all seem to have forgotten that Bush has illegally done this, one of the many things he should have been impeached for. The problem isn’t that Bushes faith-based initiatives were not passed by Congress (Steve Benen’s post) but that he attempted to pass such legislation at all, and that he has enacted his policies anyway via executive order. He has made a farce of the non-establishment clause. But that apparently doesn’t trouble you, Obama, or Steve Benen, since I assume you are all safely within that non-denominational religious bubble, singing Kumbaya.

    Religion is idiocy. I have as much right to say that as any religious person has to say I will be going to hell for my beliefs or that I am evil (or have no morals, or whatever) because my beliefs are not theirs. The religious show the non-religious no respect whatsoever and I owe them none in return, especially when “respect” is defined as turning a blind eye on the stupidities enacted in the name of faith.

  • YDV – Mary only thinks all Christians are idiots because Obama is one. In her usual tone deaf way she got the thesis of this little essay exactly backwards.

    Meanwhile, when we’re talking about why the founding patriarchs set up the Constitution as a religion-free zone, I’ll add that quite a few colonists were descendents of people who came here to escape the state-sponsored religious intolerance of the Church of England. Some of them turned right around and refused to tolerate other faiths – we have a statue on our State House lawn here in Boston of one martyr to that practice.

    Even though the 30 Years War was more than a century in the past by 1787, the conventioneers still had many examples of coercive governmental behavior in favor of some particular sect to draw on from contemporary Europe. Todays fundies would have us forget or unlearn all that.

  • Mary – you do indeed have a right to spout stupidity as much as any religious extremist anywhere within our borders – when you exercise that right, don’t be too surprised if people decide that you’re stupid.

  • Mary, considering we have not yet had an atheist president I’m curious whether your ‘worry’ extends beyond Obama. There are religious people and there are religious nutcases. You do yourself no favors lumping the former in with the latter simply because you don’t like the Democratic nominee.

  • Stephen1947 — what exactly is the point of calling anyone you disagree with a name? Do you imagine it changes their minds or bolsters your arguments? All it does is discharge some of your own angry feelings. Instead, why not examine why it makes you angry when I call religion idiocy, especially when you acknowledge my right to do so. Do you need others to agree that religion is wisdom, in order to feel secure in your own faith? Do you have a tendency to want everyone in the world to believe the same things you do — if so, why, when you profess tolerance? Your response to me is an example of one of the things I consider pernicious about religion — its insistence that everyone must believe it based on faith and the corrollary that those who do not are messed up (or stupid, as you called me). As Sam Harris points out, if you accept the tenets of faith it inexorably leads to the conclusion that other beliefs must be eliminated, so this grand study showing how tolerant religious people are becoming instead demonstrates mainly that people are moving away from their faith and holding their own beliefs less firmly — a finding highly consistent with other recent surveys. Except for Stephen1947 — kudos, guy.

    The framers of the Constitution ducked the religion question, just as they ducked the slavery issue and the issue of votes for women, because they were trying to form a unified government out of a set of states with very different practices. That’s why there is intolerance at the state level but tolerance at the federal level. You can attribute that to philosophy on the basis of personal writings of various people involved, but it was ultimately a pragmatic act. Because it was pragmatic, it has ensured our nation’s longevity and relative absence of conflict over such issues for several hundred years. If you bring religion back into the picture, you bring conflict with it. Does anyone really want that?

  • Mary:
    I’m going to give your coments far more respect tha I usually do, simply because it allows me to make several points that tie in with them, and with the subject of the post.

    To begin with, let me state that I have been an atheist for over 45 years. I would gladly agree with you that religious ideas deserve little respect — if I am engaging in a philosophical debate with religious people. But the one thing that you miss is that religious people — like any group of people — deserve respect, even if you disagree with them, even if, as is some cases, you find the results of their thinking horrific. It isn’t just politeness, but taking the time to understand where they are coming from enables you to answer their arguments better, and every so often they do get the message themselves. (Right now one of the strongest opponents of the religious right is Frank Schaeffer, who with his father did much to create it in the 70s and 80s.)

    Maybe I can make the point by using a prominent Hillary surrogate and supporter as an example. In Ohio, the particularly horrible Ken Blackwell — with his ties to both Rod Parsely and the much worse Bill Gothard — was running for Governor in 2006. The Democrats, to stop him, ran a Congressman who was and is also an ordained minister, Ted Strickland, just to keep him from claiming the entire Christian community, and, hopefully, to show the people of Ohio that Christianity means more than the narrow, twisted ideas of a Parsley or a Dobson.

    This year is particularly hilarious, because we have a totally secular politician on one side, trying desperately to reach the RRs and failing miserably because he doesn’t understand the language. On the other hand, we have a sincere Liberal Christian showing his fellow Christians that you can be both progressive and a Christian.

    People need to be reminded that religion is not just the province of the mean-spirited and intolerant. Catholicism is Fr. Drinan, as well as Pope Benedict, Protestantism is far more than the LeHayes and Dobsons present it as, Judaism is Haim Beilak and Brian Lehrer, not just Joe Lieberman and the Likud.

  • Syndicated columnist Roland S. Martin (via The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin, perhaps the first daily gazetta in America to make the full-on switch from print to virtual publication) reveals what may be An Inconvenient Truth about Dr. Dobson (emphasis added)–said Inconvenient Truth worth “swift-boating” the Religiopolitical Right with throughout Indecision 2008:

    James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is in the news as of late for ripping Sen. Barack Obama over a 2006 speech dealing with faith and public policy.

    My issue isn’t the speech or Dobson’s criticism. I want to know why in the world we in the media keep holding Dobson up as an influential Christian leader or evangelical leader when the guy says with his own mouth that is nothing of the sort?

    In a radio interview discussing the speech, Dobson was critical of Obama for saying: “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 it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?”

    Dobson took offense to that and made this interesting comment: “I am not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development from the University of Southern California. And there is no equivalence to us.”

    Yeah. I had the same reaction you likely did. Here is a guy who is often declared a religious leader who now says: “Nope. Not me.”

    Now, if the guy who is held up as an evangelical leader says he’s not, then why do we even care what he has to say about religion? Why even play up his reaction to an Obama speech–or even his criticism of McCain–in a religious discussion, when that’s where it shouldn’t be?

    This is part of the problem when religious conservatives and nonreligious conservatives try as mightily as they can to roll moral issues, family values and religious values all into one ball.

    They are not.

    For instance, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was the leader of the Moral Majority, which advocated a host of “moral” issues that didn’t have a particular religious bent. This has been seen as a Christian movement, but you can be a moral person and not be a Christian.

    Later, the Rev. Pat Robertson launched the Christian Coalition, which was much more religiously focused than anything before.

    In the past few years, we’ve seen Dobson–by virtue of his radio show on Christian radio stations, columns and Web site–be seen as a major figure in the religious movement. But he’s not, and it’s about time that we stop associating him that way.

    There are a number of people in this country who are religious and who choose not to identify themselves with either of the major political parties. And this is one of the reasons. The commingling of “family values” with religion seems to provide certain groups with a sort of authoritarian voice on such issues when they don’t deserve the platform.

    It’s fine to call Dobson a family values leader, if you will. But don’t insult those individuals in the faith community who are truly ministers, reverends, theologians and evangelists. They’ve earned it.

    Dobson’s just a psychologist with a doctorate in child development. So his views on religion are just his; he’s not a faith leader of millions.

    Nou u weet.

    (The Afrikaans for “Now you know,” in case anybody asks.)

  • Vincent, there was a book review (I think here) about a week or two ago that contrasted Obama’s religion with that of the Clintons and Jimmy Carter, who also hold strong views. It stated that the latter believe in a wall of separation between their religion and their acts in government whereas Obama does not believe in such a wall of separation, based on interviews and his writings. That is what concerns me about Obama.

    Before that came out, as others can attest here, I was complaining because Obama stated in his campaign literature that he was “called by God to run for the presidency.” I stated then that his beliefs were anathema whereas Clintons were not, because she has never stated anything remotely resembling a God-driven political agenda in any political material or speech. When the stuff about Wright came out, my concerns were heightened because the mixing of Afro-centrism and religion (although traditional in the African American church) showed the same mingling of church and politics. I said so at the time. I also complained about Obama’s Gospel campaign tour, something Clinton had no equivalent for, despite also being from the South and being a religious person.

    As a non-religious person, I do not expect an atheist president. I don’t mind a religious president or even one who uses astrology (as Reagan did) as long as it doesn’t guide decision-making (as it apparently did for Reagan) or justify substitution of religious dogma for real-world evidence. I was very upset by Bush’s religiosity because it conflicts with my own desire that our president live in the real world, make decisions guided by reality (not wishful thinking) and rely on evidence to guide policy. Obama fails that test for me.

    Many people claim a faith that they do not live by. They attend church on Sundays as a social activity and rarely read the Bible, think about their church’s teachings, or engage in religious behavior outside those few hours. That’s fine with me. When someone does more than that they become dangerous because the more one uses faith to guide action, the further one travels from the sources of information that can and should be the basis for behavior. Some people lump other good things in with religion and then claim that religion is the basis for them. I wish to be clear that I am not saying people shouldn’t have morals, ideals, empathy for others, or a dedication to good works, all things that the non-religious have in abundance and that are independent of religious faith.

  • Mary thinks it’s just fine to call a whole category of people idiots because the profess some religious faith or another, but doesn’t think it’s too cool when I call her stupid for doing it. Double standards, anyone? BTW, Miss Quite Contrary – I’m also an atheist, which I have stated in other comments on other posts. But even if I weren’t, I wouldn’t decide that all atheists are stupid just because some of them act like you do.

  • Prup, I didn’t call religious people idiots. I called religion idiocy. Do you see the distinction? It is the essence of “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

    I have given religion far more respect than the religious have given non-believers. For one thing, I have read the entire Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, taken comparative religion courses in college, and have taken the time to understand religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism, not just the differences between Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians. I know the basics of Christian Science and Scientology. So, when you suggest that I do not know where they are “coming from,” I think you are doing me a disservice. I understand the evangelist religious culture (despite years of summer Camp and exposure to the Billy Graham crusade) but am unfamiliar with the local politics of the religious right that you described, so that was helpful.

    If you are suggesting that Obama is better than some other religious politician, that may be true, but why did we have to select the worst of the two we had available when Clinton was running? And, why should I be happy about electing Obama solely because he isn’t as bad as Bush was or because we could have had Huckabee — that seems to be your argument above?

  • The real fruitcake is one who never reads a speech thoroughly (or distorts its contents) and goes on radio for thirty minutes lambasting and criticizing creatively excerpted portions of that same speech for selfish political gain thereby inadvertently revealing himself or herself as a hypocrite. If you want me to explain any of my comments, feel free to write me.

  • Thank God Obama really isn’t Muslim huh? My god, a non christian becoming president is impossible in the land of religious freedom because the right makes it an issue every chance they get.
    Dodson is no preacher. He’s a psychologist so what makes him an expert on the bible or anything else for that matter.

  • The truth is Dobson spoke the truth. The Obamites are undoubtedly screaming and foaming at the mouth of a truth about their Demigod. He is a pretender and a liar! Obama sat in a church 20 (COUNT IT 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) years listening to anti-white, government rhetoric. He learned well. Obama uses the same tactics Wright uses in his sermons, but in the political arena. Obama is a lair! He hates whites and government, How can he not after 20 years of brainwashing…The Democrats will do anything to win, including using Obama to further their so called case..God help us these creeps win! We will be twice as bad off!

  • JESUS REACHED OUT YO ALL ESPECIALLY SINNERS. HE SAID TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. BY THE WAY BARACK IS ALSO SCOTCH-IRISH. HIS MOTHER’S GRANDFATHER CAME FROM IRELAND. HE IS AN AMERICAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

    DANIEL

  • Any coward who supports abortion has the blood of babies on their hands.

    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

  • Obama is not catering to any religion, despite his wearing his religion on his sleeve as of late.

    What he’s doing is making the case that the right doesn’t “own” Christianity, that different Christians come to different conclusions all based on the same faith, and while many of his opinions are rooted in his faith (or at least confirmed by the interpretation of his faith), it’s a fool’s errand to lay claim to any sort of faith-based political agenda, exactly because of those differing opinions from people of the same faith.

    I guess some people are too stupid to get it.

    Though, I’m not mentioning names, Mary.

    I consider myself an optimistic agnostic (I wouldn’t be surprised if there was something bigger and better than us, and I keep hoping one day we’ll all find out what that is, but thus far, nope). I recognize that there are good people, smart people, who use religion as an aspirational and inspirational tool, part of the drive to be a better person, and make the world a better place. I really can’t fault people for feeling that way, even if I don’t believe in God the same way they do.

    It’s the Bushes and Dobsons and Falwells of the world I loathe, people who use religion to reinforce a narrow worldview, and justify the lack of respect they afford others who think different. The divine right to do what you want because you suffer under the delusion that God likes you best. They’re the ones that are dangerous, as are the Cheneys & Roves who aren’t really religious at all but are perfectly willing to use faith as a blunt instrument to hammer their will out all over the people.

    And, if it needs to be said, I don’t have much use for the thundertards who can’t tell the difference. But again, I’m not mentioning Marys…NAMES! Not mentioning NAMES. Sorry…Freudian slip, there…boy is that embarrassing.

  • If you are suggesting that Obama is better than some other religious politician, that may be true, but why did we have to select the worst of the two we had available when Clinton was running?

    Ay, there’s the nub (and rub).

    Perhaps we could get some eternal cheese to go with that eternal whine?

    • Comments are closed.