Let's Get Ready to Rumble!

I'm sure you've heard about the latest beef that one of the Dark Ones has started with O. Dr. James Dobson, from some Christian organization called 'Fuck Over the Familes,' just realized he has a problem with a speech I gave two years ago. Evidently news from the real world doesn't reach Dr. Dobson until much later than it reaches the rest of us. When you meet him be careful not to mention that the Soviet Union broke up. He is pen pals with Stalin.

Anypop, he didn't like that I pointed out the obvious in that you can't base public policy on biblical passages. Not that you can't have moral beliefs that are anchored in religion that then inform your politics. O's religion informs his politics. I would reserve nothing less for the rest of the O Nation.

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

Here is what the Time-challenged Dark One heard: "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, 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."

God, I love that level of insanity. It is so pure, so clean, so complete. It is simply breathtaking in its absurdity.

No prob, my boy Jim Wallis has got O's back, big time. Let it fly, Jay Dub:

First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

Blam!

Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands--so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good-- for all of us and not just for the religious.

Kaboom ! That sound you just heard, Obamabots, was a literary nuclear explosion. Asante sana, Jim. Much love to you and yours.