Mezzamorphis

http:// says:

Dr. Dobson apparently thinks Christianity is a small tent. His spokesman is quoted in that article as saying (essentially) that they consider only evangelical Christians as Christian; I think excludes all non-Protestants by definition.

Also, the same spokesman, seemingly without realizing the joke, refers to Dr. Dobson as a practitioner of an occultist ritual known as “reading tea leaves.”

Bad form all around.

Jim (a Baptist, not that it matters here)

http:// says:

So let me get this straight, Clay. You can say that Mitt Romney is not a good choice because he’s Mormon but Dobson can’t say he doesn’t think Thompson will necessarily sit well with Christians? I’m not seeing a difference here. More troubling is that you think Dobson ought to shut up because he doesn’t agree with you. And Glenn Reynolds’ swipe at Dobson really wasn’t very grown up, either.

Brett Rogers says:

I think Dobson should keep talking. It’s exactly this kind of PR that lets us know how much weight to really give Dobson.

http:// says:

Dobson’s definition of “Christian” not only excludes non-Protestants, but it also excludes the majority of Protestants as well due to his emphasis on public testimony of faith. I can see questioning someone’s commitment to Christianity because of their works (ie: pro-choice Catholics, death penalty supporters, etc.), but James Dobson seems to be slamming Fred Thompson simply because he hasn’t heard him testify.

I see several problems with this.

1. Dr. Dobson is judging Thompson because he’s never heard him testify to his faith. I’ve never spoken to Dr. Dobson about MY relationship with Jesus. Does that mean I’m not a “Christian” either?

2. Dr. Dobson’s attack on Fred Thompson was premeditated. According to what I’ve heard, Dr. Dobson contacted the media himself to drop this nugget of wisdom. He can’t claim to be misquoted or misinterpreted in this case, especially since his spokesman reiterated the point when contacted.

3. Dr. Dobson’s support for Newt Gingrich seems to fly in the face of this statement. Is Newt Gingrich “more Christian” than Fred Thompson? I’ve never heard either of them testify to their faith, and I am not under the delusion that I can see the content of a person’s soul….so I would have to say “I don’t know.” Dr. Dobson would have to say the same thing if he were being honest here.

It’s too bad that a man who has done many good things has to make such a public blunder as this. Hopefully, Fred dismisses him in a “Reaganesque” fashion and adds another 5-10% to his poll numbers.

http:// says:

Holy fireballs, Batman, the guy is completely around the bend!

Yes, most Republican conservatives would prefer a Christian as their presidential candidate. However, electibility is the number one criteria at this point. Only two or three Republicans have a chance at this point, and, in no particular order, they are: Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudi.

We can all argue all day whether sex, race, and religion should count in an election. Pick-up any rug you wish, but they do count. No, most of us won’t want to admit to that, but we all make conscious and unconscious decisions when voting for President. Believe me, these three issues count.

Dr. Dobson would serve all sides by putting a sock in it, now and forever.

http:// says:

Tennwriter and D,

I addressed your comments in an update to the post. You’ve got good points, but the way Dobson made his views known is what set wrong with me. Thanks for your comments.

http:// says:

D, I see where you’re coming from, but I think you don’t understand what many of us find offensive about these comments.

Evangelicals may not vote for Rudy because of his stands on issues. That’s understandable, and everyone should make their decisions that way…..HOWEVER, Dr. Dobson’s statements on Thompson admitted that Fred’s positions on social conservative issues CONVERGE with those of evangelicals. Dr. Dobson’s criticism seems to be based on the fact that Fred’s not “vocal” enough with his Christian Faith, and the implication is that the lack of vocalization means that his Faith is hollow.

If this is allowed to stand as the official policy of the Evangelical Right, candidates will have to “out-Pharisee” each other to pander to this bloc of votes, which will make the Evangelicals look like Pharisees themselves, IMHO.

By admitting that Thompson’s works and stated public positions mesh with those of Evangelicals but still criticising his “lack of REAL Christianity”, Dr. Dobson is opening himself up to charges that his attack on Thompson is solely based on his advocacy for Newt Gingrich. This is a fight that never should have been picked, and I’m frankly disappointed in Dr. Dobson for picking it.

http:// says:

So a guy like Gingrich can cheat on his wife and divorce more than once, and that’s cool by Dobson.

Of course Bill Clinton is also as we all know a deeply spiritually committed Christian, and therefore could conceivably get Dobson’s support, but he sleeps with a different woman every night and lies incessantly.

And Dobson couldn’t support me as a candidate, since I am an atheist, even though I have been married 20+ years and would never dream of cheating on my wife and lead an exemplary moral life.

You know what, Dobson? Screw you, pal.

When do these deeply religious and committed Christians ever actually have to abide by their alleged principles? I am getting damn tired of this stuff.

The sooner we Republicans slap down clowns like Dobson, loudly, in public, the better.

submandave says:

D: I don’t think Clay saying “I don’t think Romney, as a Mormon, is electable” is equivalent to Dobson saying “I don’t think Thompson is a Christian.” In the former, Clay is making a prediction concerning other people’s perception and reaction to a fact about the candidate (i.e. Romney is a Mormon). In the latter, Dobson is profering an opinion about the candidate and then making a prediction concerning other people’s reaction assuming they share his perception. Considering that Dobson is undeniably in a position to help shape that perception for many people his comments are far from passive analysis. Please note that the quoted portion in the article is where he says “I don’t think he’s a Christian,” not where he opines on the reaction to such an assumption.

http:// says:

ditto to what Chester White said. I am far more “christian” in my behavior and actions than 90% of the evangelicals out there. But I’m an agnostic, so I must be evil.
Since when did it matter more what you say you are than what you do?

http:// says:

I think Jan and Chester have pointed out the main flaw in current Christianity. It’s like Ghandi said, “Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” We try to put out such an image of how perfect we are, so when we fail it’s big news. See Ted Haggard for a great example of this. We need to love everyone, regardless of faith. We’ve taken to lobbing hand grenades over the theological walls to prove points and it’s done nothing but hurt our cause. We can and will disagree about our faith, but what does more to show our own faith? Loving someone despite our disagreement, or going scorched earth on them?

http:// says:

Clay,
I doubt I’m in that much of a disagreement with you. I expect we’d line up on most issues.

1. Newt does have a lot of baggage–but if we saved him from the Mediot Attack Machine, that would embolden a lot of our current paladins.

That said, I don’t think he has a chance. However, a race in which Newt is say, in third place, and loses is a lot different race than one in which John McCain is in third place and loses.

I’d like to see Thompson, Romney, and Newt duking it out (politely) in the primaries rather than some other trio. It would be a much more conservative race that way.

2. Tired of Christian Conservatives? Hmm, I tend to think the Socons are on the edge of the rising tide. The opposition is frantic, screaming, acting out, and that does weary people who desire peace and tranquility (which includes me), but keep up the pressure, and the opposition will break.

The last thirty years have been a rollback of Liberalism, and a reinstatement of Conservatism. We need to continue.

Chester,
Let me commend to your attention three figures from the Bible.
1. King David–termed ‘a man after God’s own heart’ and also, unless you believe the worst speculation about Clinton, a man who did horrible things including murder a battle buddy to cover up the fact David had gotten buddy’s wife pregnant, and thus much more horrible than Clinton. And its not like David didn’t have plenty of women–he was an ancient king after all.
2. The Pharisee and the Sinner. The Pharisee stood on a street corner, prayed aloud, complimented God on his good luck in having such a wonderful guy as this very moral Pharisee.

The Sinner stood a long way off in shame, and threw himself on his face, and asked for mercy.

And in this story, no one says the Pharisee was not a wonderful guy. No one challenges him on his long list of good deeds. God doesn’t smite him down for lying.

But who went down to his house justified by God that day?

I’ve long thought that a sort of Neo-Puritanism might spring up in this nation after the collapse of “Just Do It”. It would be a hard, judgmental code of behavior. You can see such springing forth from the Church of Gaia and St. Gore. But I fear a return of Christianity which will have the form, but lack the true spirit.

Christianity is a relationship. From that flows morality, and even when that flow is blocked, the relationship is still there.

This is different from a code of behavior one follows because you think its right.

And I suspect you disagree with my view of the world’s nature, but I would rather you disagree with actual Christianity than some figment in your mind that you think is Christianity.

Okay, I’m stopping before our genteel host decides to charge me bandwidth.

http:// says:

Clay, my good man, this is very simple. Christians would vote for a conservative Jew, whatever the left-wing wack jobs may think, and so they certainly will also vote for a non-Christian who is not an atheist. Lots of precedent. Washington was no Christian, although he refused to go there with anyone. He never attended church in his life, and was not known to even speak upon Christianity once. He was, indeed, a beliver, though- of that there is much evidence. The same would be said for Franklin, although he obviously was not president. Jefferson was president, however. Atheist love to claim him, but he also was not that. There can be no doubt he was not only not Christian, but disliked the religion as well as all others of which he was aware.
Lincoln was atheist until later in life. This was likely due to his great personal loss and anger at God rather than pure conviction. He came to see the hand of God during his struggle in the war, and was humbled by it.
All in all, we don’t care whether Thomson is or isn’t Christian, but we do care if he has the balls to hold fort in an exremely hostile environment here and abroad, and to this question we do not know much in his favor yet.

http:// says:

Clay, my good man, this is very simple. Christians would vote for a conservative Jew, whatever the left-wing wack jobs may think, and so they certainly will also vote for a non-Christian who is not an atheist. Lots of precedent. Washington was no Christian, although he refused to go there with anyone. He never attended church in his life, and was not known to even speak upon Christianity once. He was, indeed, a beliver, though- of that there is much evidence. The same would be said for Franklin, although he obviously was not president. Jefferson was president, however. Atheist love to claim him, but he also was not that. There can be no doubt he was not only not Christian, but disliked the religion as well as all others of which he was aware.
Lincoln was atheist until later in life. This was likely due to his great personal loss and anger at God rather than pure conviction. He came to see the hand of God during his struggle in the war, and was humbled by it.
All in all, we don’t care whether Thomson is or isn’t Christian, but we do care if he has the balls to hold fort in an exremely hostile environment here and abroad, and to this question we do not know much in his favor yet.

http:// says:

Dear submandave:

I agree that Dobson speculating on someone’s Christianity is not a good thing. However, the issue of electability was the point.

Other: Has Fred Thompson even announced he’s running? And how much scrutiny has he actually come under? I would venture to guess that once the media/competitor anal exam began, he would have some things to answer for. And he certainly will be asked to clarify his religious beliefs.

At this point, I would guess our real primary contenders will be (in no special order) Romney, Giuliani, maybe McCain, and Newt and Thompson if they decide to run. None of them are perfect. For myself, I don’t have any faith in the official morality of our government leaders of either party and consider them only Caesars who need to be rendered to. But maybe I’m getting old.

http:// says:

You need to fix your comment about Newt with the Contract with America. All 10 items on the list were brought to a vote, and 9 of the 10 were passed in the House. I’d say Newt did his part as Speaker.
http://www.winningthefuture.com/UserFiles/CWA10Year.pdf

That still doesn’t mean I particularly like the guy.

Fred Thompson? I like most of what I’m reading about him, except that he voted yes on McCain-Feingold..that worries me.

http:// says:

Since Dobson has effectively told me that I am not a Christian (since I’m not his type of Christian, which is apparently the only kind), I therefore have no reason to pay any attention to anything he says.

I don’t support Thompson, but I think some of Dobson’s defenders here are missing the point. It is not whether Dobson is supporting or opposing Thompson — he obviously has the right to do as he pleases in this regard, and to urge his followers to do likewise — the issue is the gratuitous insult Dobson directed at Thompson and at tens of millions of good people, who consider themselves good Chritians regardless of what a narrow-minded bigot thinks.

http:// says:

You said your remaining complaint is over Dobson’s unsolicited phone call to Gilgoff to make his statement on Thompson. That sounded strange, so I did a little research. On U.S. news site, in another story about the phone call, there’s this quote from Gilgoff:

“After being declined interview requests for more than a year and a half, I was obviously shocked to get a phone call from Dobson out of the blue yesterday,” Gilgoff says. “But I was gratified to learn that he thinks my book gives him a fair shake. I set out to write a book free of bias, which is difficult to do on a subject as radioactive as the Christian Right.”

Now it makes sense. Gilgoff was on CSPAN just last week complaining that after the less-than-flattering title to his book came out (which happened before the book was published) he was shut off from further access to Focus on the Family and he felt like he didn’t get a fair shake from Focus. Then, a week later, he gets a call from Dobson telling him that the book fairly represented Focus. That has to be the connection and reason for the phone call. Then they get into a discussion of current politics, and guess what – you get Gilgoff’s article that started this whole thread and you suspect bad motives on the part of Dobson. You may need to re-examine that.

http:// says:

Clay,

Looks like Focus did exactly as you suggested in your last comment. Listen to today’s Focus radio program and the first few minutes are spent addressing the issue, and complaining that Gilgoff didn’t get it quite right. If Dobson made any mistake, it was in talking to a MSM reporter at all.