Obama, Dobson, and "Fruitcake" Interpretations

Recently Obama made some comments that have drawn fire from James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Obama remarks:

"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?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

The point that Obama seems to be getting at here is that there is disagreement within the Christian community about what counts as Christianity. And, of course, there is such disagreement. It’s precisely these disagreements that lead to Christians of various stripes to accuse each other of not being ‘real Christains.’ I know lots of Baptists, for example, that think Catholics are (ultimately) all going to Hell. Are theological disagreements really that much of a shocker? I don’t think so.

Dobson seems to have taken offense here.

“Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

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

There are a couple of problems with Dobson's claims here. First off, he seems to be presenting a straw man of Obama's position, at least as I understand it. Claiming that we need to frame policy issues in non-sectarian terms does not amount to the idea that people do not have right to fight for what they believe unless there's complete agreement amongst them. That strikes me as absurd. Nobody expects everyone in the same religion to agree on everything before they have a right to express or try and persuade others to that view.

Secondly, Dobson claims that framing moral issues in non-sectarian terms constitutes appealing to the “lowest common denominator of morality.” There are a couple of points to consider here. But, why should anybody believe that framing moral debates in non-sectarian terms in fact constitutes the "lowest common denominator" of morality? It’s not like divine command theory and natural law ethics are unproblematic. Divine command theory suffers from the Euthyphro dilemma and natural law ethics supposes that nature includes a moral teleology. Both claims are dubious and the subject of lots of debate in philosophy. No philosopher or theologian that I know of has succeeded in demonstrating that either of these appraoches to morality is superior to other, non-sectarian appraoches like deontology or cosnequentialism. In fact, these are two of the most influential moral theories in the modern period. Until Dobson demonstrates that his view is superior I’m inclined to stick with my view that secular approaches to moraltiy are probably better off than religious ones, which bring me to my last point.

Yes, in a democracy Dobson does have to accept the fact that his religious/moral views do not trump the separation of church and state. And, that means that his preferred view does not trump everybody else’s especially when it’s not at all clear that his view enjoys the superior status he seems to think it does. It’s a democracy, not a Christocracy. I think Dobson is the one with the "fruitcake" interpretation of the Constitution because he seems to be ignoring the Establishment clause.

Comments

[Wayne from Jeremiah Films]

I've linked to your post from Obama difficulty in discerning biblical truth

[Al Christensen]

I read Obama's speech and I agree with what he said even though I'm an atheist. I continue to be impressed with Obama's ability to articulate thoughtful, nuanced concepts and with his courage to address sensitive areas.

On the other hand, Dobson comes across as the "fruitcake," as a man made ever more shallow by his particular brand of religious devotion. (Or maybe it's that his particular set of beliefs fit his pre-existing shallowness.) Of course he reacted to Obama that way. He'd just been told his way is divisive and unproductive. His natural response is to be even more divisive and unproductive.