Dobson Insists on Faith-Based Politics

James Dobson of Focus on the Family makes two main argument in a recent posting that was brought to my attention by 5280 magazine. First, the religious right didn't really lose in the last election, and second, the religious right should continue to make explicitly religious arguments to advance their faith-based politics.

As I've pointed out, the religious right got trounced in Colorado. Voters rejected McCain and his evangelical running mate, picked a United States Senator who penned a particularly eloquent defense of the separation of church and state, ousted a House member known for her faith-based views, rejected an anti-abortion candidate for state senate, and defeated the "personhood" initiative (which Dobson endorsed) by 73 to 27 percent. The religious right hardly could have taken a worse beating.

To "refute" this obvious fact, Dobson points out that voters in "California, Florida and Arizona voted to define marriage in their constitutions as the union of one man and one woman..." But that hardly proves Dobson's point. Defining marriage as heterosexual is hardly the same thing as endorsing the religious right's vicious anti-homosexual agenda. It is common to want to restrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples and still confer full legal rights to homosexual couples. In this case, many voters side with the religious right by coincidence.

Dobson simply ignores all of the other electoral outcomes.

But here is the more substantive point: Dobson calls on Christians to attempt to enforce their distinctly religious views through politics. Dobson rejects Barack Obama's stance that political policies must be based on "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Dobson calls on Christians to reject the "invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs."

And what are Dobson's priorities? "We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical principles."

Banning abortion is his first priority; discriminating against homosexuals is his second. (No serious person protests Dobson's right of free speech; that's hardly the issue.) And Dobson frankly admits that both these causes are particularly religious in nature. With an agenda like that, it's no wonder that most Americans (particularly in the Interior West) have rejected the faith-based politics of Dobson and the Republican Party.

Focus Offers Obama Nightmare

Westword pointed to a document from Focus on the Family titled, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." I figured I'd take a peek.

The document purports to describe events that could happen. "Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate," the letter predicts. How might this happen?

Obama could select three Supreme Court justices who are "far-Left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges." (Apparently the ACLU is still a scare word in some circles.) What is the harm in that? Does Focus on the Family worry about eroded economic liberties? Eroded personal liberties? After all, the purported concern of the letter is freedom.

The answer is no:

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court's stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual "marriage" was a "constitutional" right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex "marriage" violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The first thing to notice is that such a ruling would in no way restrict "our freedoms" in any way, unless by "freedom" Focus on the Family means the freedom for the majority to impose controls on the minority. Such a ruling would expand the freedoms of some. My freedom is in no way restricted if my gay friends get married. This hardly raises a blip on the Scarometer.

I am not much concerned whether gay couples go the route of "marriage" or "domestic partnership." But what is interesting is that this is the top concern of Focus on the Family, even though such a ruling would have no practical significance for the day-to-day lives of most Americans.

The Court might also further violate rights of contract and free association in the name of anti-discrimination. Obviously I'm against that. However, conservatives have hardly taken a consistent position on the matter.

Government-school training on the virtues of homosexuality? I doubt it. If it were a problem, the solution is to separate school and state. But, generally, evangelicals have been more interested in capturing tax-funded schools for their own purposes, not restoring liberty in education. Those who want school prayer and the tax-funded teaching of creationism can hardly whine when their opponents want to capture the same system for their own purposes.

"There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States." It's unclear to me why religious organizations should have the "freedom" to place children according to religious doctrine. Those organizations don't own the children.

Outlawing "offensive" speech from the Bible? Well, if the justices are ACLU types, we hardly need to worry about that. The irony of the evangelical movement whining about censorship is palpable. The evangelical movement poses the much more dangerous threat to free speech.

Controls on doctors? Again with the hypocrisy. Hello! Focus on the Family wants to throw doctors in prison -- or worse -- for performing abortions. I share the concern about controls on association and contract. But the religious right hardly offers a better alternative than the left.

Focus on the Family's concern with fertility treatments is especially laughable. Remember that Focus praised Amendment 48, which would outlaw most fertility treatments because they involve the destruction of fertilized eggs.

Focus on the Family then tries to argue that outlawing abortion and censoring pornography is somehow consistent with freedom. Notice that, in the same document, the same organization laments censorship of religious speech even as it advocates censorship on religious grounds.

For demographic reasons -- evangelicals tend to be more rural and suburban -- the religious right sides with gun ownership. Well, that's great. But in the general context of faith-based politics, such a right is practically meaningless, as the greatest threat to our liberty is the government.

Focus on the Family worries about Obama's foreign policy and health policy. But of course George W. Bush, the evangelical president, was a complete disaster on both fronts. (Bush did allow Health Savings Accounts, but at the cost of a massive expansion of health entitlements.)

The letter's closing paragraph states, "I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and though I don't know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately be accomplished." In other words, all of this concern expressed by Focus on the Family about freedom is merely a front. The organization doesn't fundamentally care about freedom; it cares about seeing God's alleged will imposed on earth.

Palin's Prayer Warriors

The October 23 Denver Daily News published a story about Sarah Palin's views on God and the election. I found a rough transcript of her interview with James Dobson, on which the news story was based.

Dobson said he and others have been praying for "God's intervention"; that "God's perfect will will be done in November the fourth." I.e., they think God has the ability to sway the election in favor of McCain-Palin, and they are asking God to do so. (The mechanism by which God would supposedly do this is unclear; apparently he would "touch people's hearts" or some such -- possess them -- in the voting booths.)

Palin replied:

Well, it is that intercession that is so needed and so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power or prayer and that strength is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation and I so appreciate it. [Dobson says, " Well, you hear that everywhere you do, don't you?] I do, and that is what allows us to continue to be inspired and strengthened. And it's just a great reminder also when we hear along the rope lines that people are interceding for us and praying for us; it's our reminder to do the same, to put this all in God's hands, to seek his perfect will for this nation and to, of course, seek his wisdom and guidance in putting this nation back on the right track.

If McCain is elected, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the most powerful political office in the world. If she becomes president, she will think that God placed her in that position and that her duty is to impose God's "perfect will" on the nation.

Meanwhile, as Myrhaf reviews, Rush Limbaugh has called on those who reject faith-based politics to leave the Republican Party. Read the transcript.

There can be no doubt -- because leading Republicans have gone out of their way to remind us -- that the Republican Party is the party of the religious right. Palin's comments have prompted me to again think seriously about voting for Obama (rather than nobody).

If Palin does become president, several things might mitigate her damage. She would (probably) face a Democratic Congress, which would (probably) block the worst possible Supreme Court nominees. She is inept, so she might flub the job so badly that she'd be enormously unpopular. And, regardless of her performance, the American people might revolt against her overt and overriding faith-based politics. I don't think I need to outline the worst-case scenario.

Did Dobson Break Vow to God?

The AP reports that eight members of American Right to Life Action (ARLA) were "escorted" from the premises of Focus on the Family. But isn't Dobson the Grand Poobah of the religious right? What's going on?

ARLA explains:

American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson for violating his public pledge in which he invoked the name of God, by declaring that he is voting for John McCain. ARTL members will protest Dr. Dobson at his headquarters at 8655 Explorer Drive in Colorado Springs on Thur. Sept. 4, beginning at 7:45 a.m.

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life on video and to hundreds of thousands of Christians, Dr. Dobson stated, "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby." (See pledge video below [at the linked page].) James Dobson has endorsed John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

American RTL Action calls upon Jim Daly, the president of Focus, to take down the video of Dr. Dobson's pledge which still plays for tourists at their Welcome Center. Dr. Dobson has broken the public oath which he repeated over a period of years including on his Focus on the Family radio program in March of 1995 saying, "I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby," referring to the rape and incest 'exceptions,' "which are a window to the soul of a 'pro-life' candidate," said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.

"John McCain funds the killing of countless children," said the group's director of research Darrell Birkey, "for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist." The official Senate.gov site documents McCain's Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office documents that McCain's vote authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal as the law states, SEC. 507. (a) "funds are appropriated in this Act" that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

[[Outside brackets in original:] Of course National RTL misleads Christians on Republican candidates by ignoring their pro-abortion votes; and they claim that McCain: "Voted consistently against federal funding of abortion," by ignoring his votes that funded abortion; funded dissecting the tiniest children; gave millions to Planned Parenthood; etc. A NRTL 100% rating is a near-certain indicator that a Republican is pro-choice with exceptions.]

"Dr. Dobson is violating the pledge he took before God," said Birkey, "by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate's rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by John McCain's long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding of the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls."

"In violating his 1990 pledge in which he invoked the name of God, Dr. Dobson has lost the moral authority to speak for Christians," said Curtis. "He can speak for Republicans who do not fear God, but he cannot speak for the Body of Christ. Jim Daly, please remove that video of Dr. Dobson's broken pledge from the Focus on the Family Welcome Center; you dishonor the Lord as you portray Dr. Dobson as principled and as keeping his oath before God."

Last week ARTL Action unfurled the massive Sheets Of Shame abortion protest sign on a mountain overlooking the DNC in Denver. "American RTL will expose both Republican and Democratic politicians who advocate the killing of unborn children," said Curtis, who is also a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. And ARTL Action reminds Dr. Dobson that Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount warned His followers against invoking God's name in an oath, and regardless, forbade them from breaking their word. In the New Testament the apostle James wrote, "Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

John McCain repeatedly votes to give millions of dollars to foreign and domestic abortion providers including Planned Parenthood. One week after pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani dropped out of the primary race, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain. And his Sanctity of Life campaign webpage doesn't even mention the words conception, rape, incest, fertilization, nor the phrase human life amendment. Further, McCain refused to co-sponsor U.S. Senator Roger Wicker's life-saving S.3111 and refuses to endorse Colorado's historic Personhood amendment initiative which is on their statewide November ballot. "McCain is as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15," said Birkey, "a wolf in sheep's clothing, manipulating Christians into voting for someone who continues to kill the innocent preborn."

American RTL Action has a test for a Christian to rank his own loyalty to God as compared to Republican politics. A believer need only consider whether he approves of Dr. Dobson violating the pledge he made before God to increase the chance of victory for a Republican in November. As Jesus said, "No man can have two masters," yet Focus on the Family leads Christians to worship the Republican Party as an idol. American Right To Life Action urges everyone, please trust and obey God above all.

Please read this letter from Focus on the Family
which admits that Dr. Dobson has compromised on the pledge he made before God and then, sadly, tries to justify that blatant sin.

The first thing to notice (other than the fact that the members of ARLA are crazy) is that Dobson didn't actually make a vow to God, as the headline over the AP article claims. (If he had, I don't regard the breaking of a pledge to an imaginary being as quite as bad as breaking a pledge to a real person.) So Dobson's support of McCain and Palin, both of whom oppose abortion, when their opponent is hesitantly pro-choice, is a "blatant sin," according to ARLA. Talk about over the top. (I agree that Dobson has done wrong, but his fault is pushing faith-based politics, including abortion bans.)

ARLA wants to ban abortion from the moment of conception, even in cases of rape or incest.

Pay attention, people! The religious right is serious about banning abortion. Deadly serious.