Obama vs. Dobson

Focus on the Family head James Dobson has slammed Obama for his interpretation of the Bible and pushing what he referred to as a 'fruitcake interpretation' of the Constitution. It's pretty juicy stuff, obviously and I can't say that I agree with it.

First of all: the Bible is where a lot of Evangelicals completely lose me. There's no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible. People have a tendency to cherry-pick which undermines their argument a great deal. Evangelicals can trumpet literal interpretations of the Bible all they want, but if you're against homosexuality because of the Bible, then it follows that you should be in favor of slavery, which the Bible approves of. Absolutes in morality are what evangelicals seem to be big on- and you can't pick and choose what you follow with 'God's law.'

Yet they do. Hmmm, kind of undermines the whole 'the Bible is the literal truth and should be obeyed as such' thing. I have to admit that my understanding of the complexities of evangelical theology may be limited, so feel free to correct me. But from what I get from my basic Christian knowledge, the whole literalism thing seems a little off to me.

Second of all: Dobson might have a stronger point 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."

If you ignore the slightly shrill quotes, the first graph is kind of a good point. People have faith. People believe what they believe. I think Obama is right in that pro-life arguments could be re-framed to appeal to more people, but Dobson kind of has a point in that if your opposition to any given social issue is religiously based, then you shouldn't soften your opposition and by extension, your beliefs just to appeal to more people.

The quotes I have to admit are a little shrill. And you have to wonder why we need to necessarily hew to Dobson's interpretation of the Bible or the Constitution. And is he even qualified to judge someone's interpretation of the Constitution?