Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Evangelicals are funny.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: TheDude

Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

In comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible." -END SNIP

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...ote/index.html

It amounts to "no, the way I'm reading it is correct!" LoL

Posted by: fossten

Deville, I'm surprised at you. You snipped out Dobson's remarks. Isn't the article about Dobson's remarks? Why snip them out? That's not very considerate. It also undermines your headline. How are we supposed to laugh at Dobson when you leave out his remarks?

By the way, Obama is wrong, and Dobson is right. Furthermore, Obama is the same guy who mocked the Bible by claiming that Americans cling to it when they are bitter about having economic problems. What a tool he is.

I guess I have to do your work for you.

Quote:

He [Obama] also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, later adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Responding to the comments, Joshua DuBois, Obama's national director of religious affairs, said the Illinois senator is "committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for American families."

"A full reading of his 2006 Call to Renewal speech shows just that," DuBois also said. "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."

The comments come shortly after DuBois called Focus on the Family to suggest a meeting with the group ahead of the Democratic Party's convention in late August, according to Tom Minnery, the organization's senior vice president for government and public policy.

Minnery wouldn't say if any such meeting is planned, but said the group is open to it.

Dobson also takes aim at Obama for suggesting in the speech that those motivated by religion should attempt to appeal to broader segments of the population by not just framing their arguments around religious precepts.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values," Obama said. "It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason."

Dobson said the suggestion is an attempt to lead by the "lowest common denominator of morality."

"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?" he said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

"What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that 'I can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue," Dobson also said. "And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

According to Minnery, Dobson was particularly offended by a portion of the speech in which Obama mentions the evangelical leader and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

In the speech, Obama said: "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"

In response, Minnery said: "Many people have called him [Sharpton] a black racist, and he [Obama] is somehow equating [Dobson] with that and racial bigotry."

Dobson's comments follow the Obama campaign's recent efforts to increase its appeal among evangelicals, many of whom have expressed reservations about supporting Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Dobson himself has said he will not vote for the Arizona senator.

In an interview with CNN, Minnery said he doesn't expect Obama to make inroads into the reliably Republican voting bloc.

"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.

Minnery also said Dobson will probably continue his criticism of Obama in the future.

"Given our fact that religion seems to be such a relevant topic in this election again, we will defend the evangelical view vigorously," he said.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Deville, I'm surprised at you. You snipped out Dobson's remarks. Isn't the article about Dobson's remarks? Why snip them out? That's not very considerate. It also undermines your headline. How are we supposed to laugh at Dobson when you leave out his remarks?

By the way, Obama is wrong, and Dobson is right. Furthermore, Obama is the same guy who mocked the Bible by claiming that Americans cling to it when they are bitter about having economic problems. What a tool he is.

I guess I have to do your work for you.

Because I didn't want to post the entire article for reasons of space, hence I put the link at the bottom so anyone could continue reading.

By your subjective point of you, yes, he would be wrong.

Of Obama's point: "Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible", I find that logical. If you're going to govern based solely on religious scriptures, who is going to set the guidelines as to which scriptures you use, which you disregard and how you intrepret them?

Posted by: shagdrum

I am gonna go back to polishing my gun while I read my bible.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Sure you find it logical, and that's because his argument is specious. But when you dig deeper, as Dobson has done, you find that Obama is all about groupthink, and only the liberal group gets to decide what everybody thinks.

Read Dobson's remarks. What's wrong with trying to get legislation passed based on your personal beliefs, such as Dobson's example of partial birth abortion? It's done all the time, and it's how we govern ourselves.

Obama was cherrypicking Levitican law, for crying out loud. He doesn't know anything about the Bible; in fact, I'll bet a month's pay he had some researcher find the most obscure, outdated, only intended for the Israelites at the time passages they could think of.

The Bible isn't to be treated that way. The Old and New Testaments are to be taken in context with one another. It's easy to pick out stuff from the OT and say, "Aha!" But that fails when a Bible scholar shows you how the New Testament puts that in context. Obama's tactics demonstrate only that he is a nonscholar at best, and a hacker at worst.

I still fail to find anything funny about what Dobson said. I think you jumped on this story without fully reading it and certainly without fully understanding Dobson's point.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Who cares what Dobson has to say, thinking he alone has the inside word on Bible interpretation. He self-servingly waves the Bible around like a stick and beats everyone with it.

I find it both interesting and amusing that Biblical literalists pick and choose which portions of the Bible are literal and which are not.

Talk about distorting the bible. That is a skill and art that almost every religious leader is an true expert at. What about how this Dobson distorted the bible to justify this war in iraq, or bombing of civilians anywhere in the middle east by our Jewish allies. A war started by his "pal" in the Whitehouse.

There is little difference in what Dobson's asserting than what a 'leading conservative figure' in the Iranian theocracy would say, other than replacing Christian with Muslim. Believe in what you want, but yes, we need to agree before you enact laws for everyone based on your belief system. That's what a democracy is about.

It's intellectually refreshing this time around to see both candidates marginalizing the likes of Dobson and focusing
on real problems instead of the narrow self aggrandizing MYOB "issues" he concerns himself with.

Dobson and his followers have had their day in the sun with 8 years of talk to God Bush(now with a 71% dissapproval rating by the American people) and many the typical voter IMO is tired of religious rhetoric being thrust into the campaigns like some kind of narrow litmus test.

From today's Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_9684554

TWO Shines Light on Distortions of James Dobson Following Attack on Obama

PR Newswire
Article Last Updated: 06/24/2008 03:04:30 PM MDT

NEW YORK, June 24/PRNewswire-USNewswire/--

TruthWinsOut.org (TWO) responded today to Focus on the Family leader James Dobson's attack on Barack Obama. On Dobson's daily radio show, the right wing leader accused the Democratic nominee of "distorting" the Bible. This charge was odd, considering Dobson has been blamed by at least seven top researchers for "distorting" their scientific findings.

"James Dobson is a serial distorter and has consistently twisted the work of respected scientists to support his political agenda," said TWO Executive Director Wayne Besen. "It is the height of hypocrisy for him to point fingers and accuse others of distortions. It is clear that Dobson has little credibility and has tremendous difficulty with the truth."

In the past two years, at least seven researchers have accused Dobson of manipulating or cherry picking their results to back his anti-gay teachings. Letters and videos documenting the concerns of these respected professors can be viewed at TruthWinsOut.org.

The first researcher to step forward was New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. On Sept. 14, 2006 Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson that stated: "I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine... What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work."

The most recent scientist to claim Dobson distorted his work was University of Minnesota's Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H. In a letter to Dobson dated April 28, 2008 he wrote, "I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of 'Focus on the Family.'"

Other leading researchers who have taken issue with Dobson's use of their work include: Dr. Kyle Pruett, Professor of Child Psychiatry, the Yale University School of Medicine; Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University; Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths College in London; Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia; and Dr. Judith Stacy, Professor of Sociology, New York University.

"We urge the media to report the facts and allow America to see the real James Dobson," said Besen. "He portrays himself as a beacon of morality, but he is really just a tower of half truths."

_______________________________________________

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Hate, fear and gross distortions(lies) are part of Dobson's MO but it's not going to work this time, especially if a lot of frustrated conservatives stay home and sit out the election.

How amusingly ironic

Posted by: 04SCTLS

from the cartoonists

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Who cares what Dobson has to say, thinking he alone has the inside word on Bible interpretation. He self-servingly waves the Bible around like a stick and beats everyone with it.

I find it both interesting and amusing that Biblical literalists pick and choose which portions of the Bible are literal and which are not.

Talk about distorting the bible. That is a skill and art that almost every religious leader is an true expert at. What about how this Dobson distorted the bible to justify this war in iraq, or bombing of civilians anywhere in the middle east by our Jewish allies. A war started by his "pal" in the Whitehouse.

There is little difference in what Dobson's asserting than what a 'leading conservative figure' in the Iranian theocracy would say, other than replacing Christian with Muslim. Believe in what you want, but yes, we need to agree before you enact laws for everyone based on your belief system. That's what a democracy is about.

It's intellectually refreshing this time around to see both candidates marginalizing the likes of Dobson and focusing
on real problems instead of the narrow self aggrandizing MYOB "issues" he concerns himself with.

Dobson and his followers have had their day in the sun with 8 years of talk to God Bush(now with a 71% dissapproval rating by the American people) and many the typical voter IMO is tired of religious rhetoric being thrust into the campaigns like some kind of narrow litmus test.

From today's Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_9684554

TWO Shines Light on Distortions of James Dobson Following Attack on Obama

PR Newswire
Article Last Updated: 06/24/2008 03:04:30 PM MDT

NEW YORK, June 24/PRNewswire-USNewswire/--

TruthWinsOut.org (TWO) responded today to Focus on the Family leader James Dobson's attack on Barack Obama. On Dobson's daily radio show, the right wing leader accused the Democratic nominee of "distorting" the Bible. This charge was odd, considering Dobson has been blamed by at least seven top researchers for "distorting" their scientific findings.

"James Dobson is a serial distorter and has consistently twisted the work of respected scientists to support his political agenda," said TWO Executive Director Wayne Besen. "It is the height of hypocrisy for him to point fingers and accuse others of distortions. It is clear that Dobson has little credibility and has tremendous difficulty with the truth."

In the past two years, at least seven researchers have accused Dobson of manipulating or cherry picking their results to back his anti-gay teachings. Letters and videos documenting the concerns of these respected professors can be viewed at TruthWinsOut.org.

The first researcher to step forward was New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. On Sept. 14, 2006 Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson that stated: "I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine... What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work."

The most recent scientist to claim Dobson distorted his work was University of Minnesota's Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H. In a letter to Dobson dated April 28, 2008 he wrote, "I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of 'Focus on the Family.'"

Other leading researchers who have taken issue with Dobson's use of their work include: Dr. Kyle Pruett, Professor of Child Psychiatry, the Yale University School of Medicine; Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University; Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths College in London; Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia; and Dr. Judith Stacy, Professor of Sociology, New York University.

"We urge the media to report the facts and allow America to see the real James Dobson," said Besen. "He portrays himself as a beacon of morality, but he is really just a tower of half truths."

_______________________________________________

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Hate, fear and gross distortions(lies) are part of Dobson's MO but it's not going to work this time, especially if a lot of frustrated conservatives stay home and sit out the election.

How amusingly ironic

All I see are a bunch of assertions. I see no proof that he distorted anything. I can prove that he's right about Obama distorting the Bible. Whether or not Dobson distorted the findings of these lefty profs is irrelevant, and is an ad hominem attack. It has no bearing on whether or not Obama really did distort the Bible - which he did.

And it's funny to hear a person act amused about the interpretive skills of Bible scholars when he himself has not read the Bible.

Dobson is a public figure; it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal whacko professors (child psychiatry? Oh, I can imagine what kind of stuff that dispute was about LOL) will say when they get criticized. All I can say is boo freaking hoo. Give me the details and I'll tell you what I think. Give me some facts instead of a bunch of whiny accusations and then we have a discussion. Until then, you're triumphantly sitting atop a pile of excrement you mistakenly think is a stack of facts. Just putting the word "truth" in the name of your website does not automatically mean you have the truth. Ask "Loose Change" about the truth.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I may be triumphantly sitting on a pile of excrement as you say but that hasn't changed my opinion that Dobson and others like him have had their day in the sun.(for now)
I will admit that I have an anti religious bias.
My parents sent me to Catholic elementary and secondary schools for 12 years where there was a manditory religion course in every grade and I was not pleased.
I always disliked going to church from my earliest memories and by high school was of Einstein's opinion that the Bible was "childish" and wishful thinking.
This is why I tend to dismiss religious zealots out of hand and religion itself IMO as a crutch for the mostly weak minded.
I think the Republican Party would be stronger and more broadly appealing if they gave the evangelicals the boot as somewhat seems to be the case with the selection of McCain as the republican candidate.
Ya McCain is mending fences but ultimately he seems to be a guy who considers religion a very private personal matter and only has lukewarm enthusiasm for the Dobsons of the world.
Obama may wind up comming off as the more religious guy in comparison to McCain because at least he's talking about these things.

Posted by: fossten

You admit your bias - check.

You admit this is only your opinion and not fact-based - check.

You're not trying to construct an argument here - check.

You think religious people are weak minded (that includes me?) - check.

I now know to skip all of your posts from now on - checkity check.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

[quote=fossten;399379

You think religious people are weak minded (that includes me?) - check.
[/quote]
I said mostly weak minded.
I'm careful to add qualifiers so as to not use too broad of a brush.
This doesn't include you fossten. You are very strong minded and passionate in your arguements.
The only weakness I've seen in your posts is when you said we should bomb our enemies into the stone age.
That seems a little short sighted given the complexity of the political situations in these places.
Bombing has never changed the will of the people being bombed (Hiroshima and Nagasaki excepted) and it never will.
Ground troops are always nessesary to win a war with all the nasty consequences.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I said mostly weak minded.
I'm careful to add qualifiers so as to not use too broad of a brush.
This doesn't include you fossten. You are very strong minded and passionate in your arguements.
The only weakness I've seen in your posts is when you said we should bomb our enemies into the stone age.
That seems a little short sighted given the complexity of the political situations in these places.
Bombing has never changed the will of the people being bombed (Hiroshima and Nagasaki excepted) and it never will.
Ground troops are always nessesary to win a war with all the nasty consequences.

Ah, you almost made a good point there, but that pesky exception of Japan is exactly what makes my point. Once we nuked Japan, the war was over. They said no mas. The only thing Islamic terrorists understand is force. Talking to them looks weak in their eyes. For more interesting reading, google the Barbary Wars. We essentially bombed cities with our ships until the Caliph gave up trying to collect his "fees" for shipping.

If, as Israel is correctly preparing to do to Iran, we remove our enemies' capability to harm us for, say, 50 years or so, there is no need to occupy.

If you believe that there is a real war of terror against the US, you must also believe that the principal players are the Saudis, Syria, and Iran. The Saudis aren't building nukes, they only train terrorist bombers. I'm satisfied with our security here at home so far, so I view Saudi as a nonthreat at this time.

Syria and Iran have to go, however. And if they go, we can leverage that into a diplomatic victory over the Saudis.

I'm open to the idea of taking the kid gloves off the Israelis and letting them do the job, which means it would get done right. We don't need to be trying to export democracy around the world as much as we need to be maintaining our own personal freedoms. Israel is a good example of a limited government democracy that has a free people. Let them set the standard for the middle east.

All I'm saying is if we're going to go to war, let's get it done and leave. No media this time.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

For once you and I agree on something.
I say bomb the hell out of countries that want to start sh!t.
We won't be any more hated than we are right now, so lets do it and get on with other things.
We have always been the police for the rest of the world so, perhaps we need to grow some balls and wipe Iran, and similar countries off the face of ther earth.
Bob.

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I may be triumphantly sitting on a pile of excrement as you say but that hasn't changed my opinion that Dobson and others like him have had their day in the sun.(for now)
I will admit that I have an anti religious bias.
My parents sent me to Catholic elementary and secondary schools for 12 years where there was a manditory religion course in every grade and I was not pleased.
I always disliked going to church from my earliest memories and by high school was of Einstein's opinion that the Bible was "childish" and wishful thinking.
This is why I tend to dismiss religious zealots out of hand and religion itself IMO as a crutch for the mostly weak minded.
I think the Republican Party would be stronger and more broadly appealing if they gave the evangelicals the boot as somewhat seems to be the case with the selection of McCain as the republican candidate.
Ya McCain is mending fences but ultimately he seems to be a guy who considers religion a very private personal matter and only has lukewarm enthusiasm for the Dobsons of the world.
Obama may wind up comming off as the more religious guy in comparison to McCain because at least he's talking about these things.

I agree religion is a very private personal matter...old school of thought.

For those lucky few that are "strong minded" and don't use religion as a "crutch" I will make this promise. If I live my life correctly and am lucky enough to end up in Heaven and at that time happen to receive a collect call from any one of the "strong minded" individuals from the 9th Level of Hell, I will decline the call.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Dr. Dobson Has Just Handed Obama Victory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-..._b_108989.html

Senator Obama just took another giant step toward winning the presidency. Actually, someone who considers himself a sworn enemy of Senator Obama took the step for him. Dr. Dobson of the Focus On the Family radio program (and evangelical media empire) has aired a program in which he attacks Senator Obama, the Senator's theology and his credentials as a Christian. With enemies like this Senator Obama doesn't need friends.

No, I'm not talking about Dobson energizing liberal Democrats. I'm talking about Dobson energizing his fellow evangelicals to vote for Senator Obama.
I first met Dobson when I was on his program back in the early eighties. At that time I too was an evangelical right wing agitator. I describe my encounter with Dobson and my journey from the heart of the Republican/evangelical right to sanity in my book CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.

In the bad old days Dobson gave away 150,000 copies of a shrill bestseller evangelical screed of mine called A Time For Anger. (There was a lot more money in the God business than working as a legitimate author let me tell you! If any of my novels made the kind of money my evangelical books did I'd be set! ) Along with my late evangelical leader father Francis Schaeffer, like Dobson we were busy welding the evangelicals and the Republican Party into what amounted to a new party of soft theocracy. I changed my mind and got out in the mid eighties. But I have plenty of friends still in the evangelical movement, and they say unequivocally that Dobson's time has passed.

Dobson is one of the Evangelical religious right old guard. He's to the right what Nader is to the left. Like the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others Dobson has alienated as many evangelicals -- let alone moderate Christians -- as he's inspired. In fact, ever since he tried to get Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) fired last year Dobson has found himself painted into a reactionary corner. Many evangelicals still fear him and so won't denounce his posturing power-plays but they also despise him.

Cizik is the future of evangelicalism. Dobson is the past. Cizik is a strong environmentalist advocate on the issue of global warming. Dobson tried to get the board of the National Association of Evangelicals to fire Cizik because of that fact. Dobson said that Cizik's environmental beliefs ran counter to what Dobson thought was in George Bush's best interests. He also said that the environment distracts from the favorite issues Dobson raises most of his funds on: abortion and gay bashing. But Dobson failed. The board of the NAE rejected Dobson's power play, for the same reason many evangelicals will reject his telling them how to vote this year. Dobson also failed in stopping John McCain (who failed to kiss Dobson's ass sufficiently) from becoming the Republican nominee.

If you're one of many Americans who thinks that the war in Iraq was a mistake or believe that the Republicans have run the economy into the ground or think that perhaps the chaos George Bush unleashed in our foreign affairs has something to do with the price of gas at the pump... then you have Dr. Dobson to thank -- personally. No one worked harder to get Bush elected then reelected. Dobson delivered his millions of dupes. But now many of them see through him and like most Americans, are appalled by Bush.

Nevertheless Dobson has -- for eight years -- been George W. Bush's personal shill. In return Dobson has had ego-stoking "access" to the White House, or rather to the lackeys in the White House laughing at him but charged with stroking Dobson and the other pompous asses masquerading as religious leaders.

But the new generation of evangelicals is sick of being labeled as backward rednecks because of their association with fossils like Dobson. There are many evangelicals like Cizik too who are not all about homophobia, nationalism, war-without-end and American exceptionalism or the Republican Party.

Like Cizik they believe that the America has a responsibility to do something about global warming, poverty, AIDS, human trafficking and other issues. They see through Dobson and the other so-called pro-life leaders, who have actually done nothing to reduce abortion. In fact Dobson has increased abortions because of his "abstinence only" crusade.

As a result of his power grabs and bullying of other evangelicals, not to mention his telling people how to vote and pointing them to the failed W, Dobson & Co. have zero credibility with a growing number of otherwise conservative evangelicals who happen--this year--to be looking favorably at Senator Obama's holistic Christian-based world view. Unlike Dobson they like Obama's theology just fine.

All that was missing to put the frosting on the Obama cake was for Dobson to attack him. For Obama to win all he needs to do is peel off a chunk of heretofore solid evangelical Republican votes. Dobson just handed Obama those votes.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"

Posted by: TheDude

"In fact Dobson has increased abortions because of his "abstinence only" crusade."

If true, that's a "LoL", but in a sad, sad way.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"

There isn't one substantive thing in that article that is true. I laughed all the way through it. Talk about an article that parodies itself. Seriously, dude. Consider the source. HuffPo? You've got to be kidding. Frank Schaeffer is a writer? Yeah, so am I. So what.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I'm glad it amused you fossten.
Dobson was a 1 day story and I don't think he hurt Obama any, it may have helped him.
Obama is quick on his feet responding to attacks.
I can't wait to see him and McCain debating.
It's going to be quite entertaining.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I'm glad it amused you fossten.
Dobson was a 1 day story and I don't think he hurt Obama any, it may have helped him.
Obama is quick on his feet responding to attacks.
I can't wait to see him and McCain debating.
It's going to be quite entertaining.

Obama's an empty suit. The guy couldn't lead the country with Ronald Reagan's brain. This is the same guy who agreed with the DC gun ban until yesterday, when the SCOTUS overturned it for good. Now all of a sudden he's for the SCOTUS decision. What a buffoon. It's truly amusing how you're fooled by him.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Him and his wife are both highly educated, intelligent tenacious political animals who have run a better more adroit campaign than their formidable opponents.
Just the fact they have gotten this far this well is an impressive achievement irregardless of your views on their
(and McCain's) fitness for the office.
I'm also especially impressed how Huckabee hung in the race just to torpedo Romney's bid because he hates his guts, thus giving non religious low charisma RINO McCain the Republican nomination.
As a dramatic series this presidential race has rated 5 stars with it's twists and turns.
I'm waiting for the attacks MonsterMark keeps alluding to
and Obama's responses.
It's not really what a skilled politician says so much as how he says it that counts with most regular people, present company excepted of course.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

The SCOTUS DC handgun ruling is not as black and white as it initially appears to be.

I think that the issue is now a dead one as a wedge issue that will hurt Democrats. Obama now only has to say that he respects the decision and will abide by it, and point out that the court did not rule out reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

The NRA will never support him, but most gun owners don't belong to the NRA.

There are a lot of lawsuits coming down the pike, but I think the NRA is going to be sorely disappointed because I believe the courts will uphold registration requirements, the ban on certain types of weapons, place restrictions etc.

The most important message that this decision gives to the gun lobby is that the second amendment is not absolute.

This is really a gift to the fortunate Obama coming at this time, deflating it as an issue in the campaign.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Him and his wife are both highly educated, intelligent tenacious political animals who have run a better more adroit campaign than their formidable opponents.
Just the fact they have gotten this far this well is an impressive achievement irregardless of your views on their
(and McCain's) fitness for the office.

Actually, they haven't run a good campaign at all. They have had willling accomplices in the media providing them with cover and puff stories to prop them up. If they were treated fairly this wouldn't even be a race. News stories about Obama outnumber stories about McCain nearly FOUR to ONE. And yet, despite all the help for Obama from the media, they're tied in the latest Gallup poll.

Quote:

I'm also especially impressed how Huckabee hung in the race just to torpedo Romney's bid because he hates his guts, thus giving non religious low charisma RINO McCain the Republican nomination.

How do you know he "hates his guts?" Why do you say things like that?

Quote:

As a dramatic series this presidential race has rated 5 stars with it's twists and turns.
I'm waiting for the attacks MonsterMark keeps alluding to
and Obama's responses.
It's not really what a skilled politician says so much as how he says it that counts with most regular people, present company excepted of course.

This isn't some football game where you root for your favorite team, although that's how most people treat it. This is about choosing the best man for the office. Obama is a putrid choice with no qualifications. So what if the man is good at lying to people on the campaign trail. Obviously he's good, since you've fallen for his garbage.

McCain's not qualified either, but for different reasons.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

How do you know he "hates his guts?" Why do you say things like that?

maybe hates is too strong a word but check out some of these links

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tart=40&s a=N

Evangelical Huckabee doesn't like Romney because he's a Mormon and was trying to buy the nomination.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

This isn't some football game where you root for your favorite team, although that's how most people treat it.

You realize of course that football is a war like game as is a political campaign.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

The Times they are a changing.
Obama can lose the election but McCain can't win it.
He will be out finessed and outmanouvered by the Obama machine.
You guys underestimate Obama which only helps him.

_______________________________________________

Is Dobson's Obama Hit Backfiring?

Thursday, Jun. 26, 2008 By AMY SULLIVAN

James Dobson, left, and Barack Obama.
Left; Brooks Kraft / Corbis for TIME: Alex Brandon / AP

After years of attacking Democrats with relative impunity for their supposed moral failings, Evangelical leader James Dobson surely didn't expect to suffer much of a backlash when he trained his sights on Barack Obama. Over the years, the party had practically cowered in fear and gone into radio silence when the head of Focus on the Family targeted one of its standard-bearers. So in a campaign that has already proved to be anything but predictable, the counterattack on Dobson this week epitomized the new, fraught political climate that Christian Right leaders like himself face.
Related Articles

Obama's Play for the Faithful

Earlier this week, Dobson used his popular Christian radio program to denounce a 2006 speech the Illinois Senator gave about the place of religion in public life. He took personal offense at the fact that Obama had referred to him by name in the same breath as Al Sharpton, using the two to illustrate the range of differences that exist within Christianity. But he also expressed outrage at Obama's assertion that individuals can be moral without being religious. "He oughta read the Bible," said Dobson. Obama, he charged, was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview."
But less than 24 hours after Dobson's radio broadcast, www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com was up and running on the Web. The site displays both Dobson's charges against Obama and Obama's own quotes from the 2006 speech. It also features a statement condemning Dobson that reads in part: "James Dobson doesn't speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide; he doesn't speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible."

The website was the handiwork of a coalition of Christian leaders headed by Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Texas pastor and Bush family friend who led the benediction at George W. Bush's first Inauguration. The group came up with the idea for the site a while ago, and figured it was just a matter of time before the good Dr. Dobson would give them an opportunity to unveil it. And they're not the only ones pushing back against the Christian Right leader's broadsides. The Matthew 25 Network is a political action committee formed in early June by Mara Vanderslice, a Democratic strategist who oversaw religious outreach on the 2004 Kerry campaign and remembers well the perils of remaining silent in the face of attacks on that candidate's Catholic faith. Within hours of Dobson's program, the PAC had raised $4,000 for radio ads that will run next week in the Colorado Springs market, Dobson's home turf.

Vanderslice and her co-producers at the Eleison Group, a new Democratic consulting firm founded by Hillary Clinton's former religion adviser, Burns Strider, plan to expand to other stations that carry Dobson's Focus program.

It's hard out there for a Christian Right leader. Last December came and went with barely a peep about a grinchy liberal "War on Christmas." The Republican nominee, John McCain, has refused to make the pilgrimage to Colorado Springs, telling the Focus on the Family leader to come to him instead. But the biggest problem is that Democrats — and Barack Obama in particular — are determined to make a play for a bloc of voters over whom Dobson and his colleagues have traditionally maintained exclusive control. And those voters seem willing to listen.

Obama's willingness to talk about his faith, including his decision to become a Christian as an adult, has resonated even with religious conservatives who disagree with him politically. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals was part of a gathering of Christian leaders Obama convened earlier this month, and he says, "There was no way I could leave that room not knowing this was a fellow brother in Christ." The Democratic candidate has also been an outspoken critic of what could be termed "certainty" theology — the idea that real Christians have no doubts about their rightness.

This language, combined with the Obama campaign's aggressive efforts to reach out to religious voters, has made it hard for the Christian Right to paint Obama as a secular bogeyman. His opponents have numerous lines of attack — is he a secret Muslim? A black nationalist Christian? A wishy-washy liberal Protestant? — but all seem to accept the basic premise that Obama is religious, which is key in a country where 70% of voters say they want their President to be a person of faith, according to Pew Research polls.

Obama's theological beliefs are clearly more liberal than those on the Christian right. But it's the beliefs of the latter that are fast becoming a minority. A new Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey of 35,000 Americans reports that 70% agree with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life," including 57% of Evangelicals. No less a figure than George W. Bush responded "no" when asked in 1999 if he believed heaven is open only to Christians. Those evolving, more relatively open-minded attitudes are one reason Dobson's organization has steadily lost members and revenue over the past five years.

Dobson and his colleagues have also been stymied by a new generation of Evangelical leaders who stubbornly refuse to join the political fray. When Saddleback pastor Rick Warren welcomes Obama to his church with open arms or Mike Huckabee declares that Obama's religion and his former pastor should be irrelevant issues in the campaign, they undercut the criticisms made by their elders in the Christian Right. In 2004, there was near-universal agreement by religious conservatives that their "non-negotiable" issues were limited to abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage. But Warren and others now insist that the environment and poverty and health care reform are legitimate concerns as well, and the people in the pews increasingly agree with them.

So it's no surprise that the old lions of the Christian Right are suddenly sputtering. "This is raising my blood pressure," admitted the normally calm, Mr. Rogers-sounding Dobson at the end of his radio show on Tuesday. Just a few weeks earlier, the conservative columnist and former Moral Majority vice president Cal Thomas wrote an essay calling Obama a "false prophet." Placing Obama's "Christianity" in quotes, Thomas charged that the candidate's statements about religion — including his belief that non-Christians can get to heaven — prove that he does not understand what it means to be a Christian.

But if the grassroots reaction is any indication, the attacks on Obama have been largely self-defeating. After Thomas' column ran, dozens of regional papers that carry it were flooded with letters to the editor — and they were hardly in liberal bastions. In places like Augusta, Georgia, and Lubbock, Texas, people wrote in to criticize Thomas' attack on Obama. "To suggest that anyone is not a Christian because they do not adhere to Cal Thomas' narrow interpretation of what a Christian should believe," wrote one Texan, "is extremely intolerant, ignorant, and downright insulting." Barack Obama couldn't have said it any better himself, and this election year he may not have to.
Sullivan's new book, The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats Are Closing the God Gap (Scribner), was published in February

Posted by: fossten

Gee, I know what I'm about to say is anecdotal, and not the clear, well-researched, fact-laden article that Time Magazine put out (massive sarc), but I'm an evangelical and in my eyes Dobson is right and Obama isn't even close to being in the same galaxy.

Letters to the editor. Big whoop. Probably came from HuffPo's "writers."

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ok
but Dobsons infuence is waning and Obama will get more young Evangelicals supporting him than McCain.
Obama is responding to this opening , stimulating debate, desecularizing himself as people both democrat and republican get to know him better, whereas McCain doesn't even want to discuss it publically while trying to mend fences with the nose holding old guard who are now yesterdays news.

The rugged individualism tenet you subscribe to means
people can form their own ideas and conclusions beyond the help offered by the self appointed telling them what and how to think.
Just as you feel Dobson is right other Evangelicals especially younger ones "the rugged individuals" have their own views of him not nessesarily like yours.
The conservatives will not be able to pin the "secular liberal" tag on Obama as they have successfuly done to DuKakis, Gore and Kerry in previous elections.

Do I sense some dejection here as to how things have unfolded, ie Obama treated like a rock star, his co opting and neutralizing the religious, taking ground that should be McCains, but that McCain seems uncomfortable embracing.
Obama's playing a very hardball game here defying the conventional wisdom.
His upcoming tour of Europe and the Middle East will generate daily favorable headlines in all the worlds press and media, allowing him to set the tone, leaving McCain to react in the small print.
People will start to think that with this much good will towards Obama
from other countries America's standing and security in the world will improve.
He'll hammer away at McCain as a Bush 3rd term which works well especially with Bush's immense unpopularity where 75% of the people rightly and wrongly blame him for the countries troubles.
I think you're already resigned to an Obama victory.
As an Evangelical did you ever think that fellow Evangelical Huckabee, not being able to win himself, would scuttle Romney, giving the nomination to McCain who winds up losing a good part of his base to Obama who comes out as the more religious guy.
The Lord(if there is a personal one)works in mysterious ways.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Do I sense some dejection here as to how things have unfolded, ie Obama treated like a rock star, his co opting and neutralizing the religious, taking ground that should be McCains, but that McCain seems uncomfortable embracing.

No, you don't. Unlike you, I know that what we see on this planet isn't all there is. I'm looking forward to an afterlife spent in Heaven with my God and frankly I know that we're screwed either way with McCain or Obama. I couldn't care less which one gets elected at this point. The sooner Obama tries to burn the Bill of Rights, the sooner the civil war will start. McCain would just drag it out and turn the entire southern border state region into Aztlan.

Right now I'm focused on my own family's survival of the coming collapse, and I don't have enough emotional energy to worry about what might happen if so and so gets elected. I was merely pointing out for the Obama suckers that the Messiah is a creation of the media and nothing more. NOTHING MORE.