James Dobson’s true colors
James Dobson does a really great job talking about family dynamics from a fundamentalist Christian point of view. Unfortunately he has also become a force in politics, wielding tremendous power for his anti-science agenda. And now he has made it clear that his allegiance to this country comes second to his ideology:
Dobson, the influential founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, has said he is supporting Miers’ nomination in part because of something he has been told but cannot divulge.
He has acknowledged speaking with Karl Rove, Bush’s political adviser, about the president’s pick before it was announced.
On Tuesday, Dobson said, “When you know some of the things that I know that I probably shouldn’t know you will understand why I have said … that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.”
- Houston Chronicle: Evangelical Leader’s comments on Miers spur interest
So you know something, James? Something pertinent to Miers’ nomination that you are not sharing with the rest of us? And you’re gloating about it?!
And the man fancies himself a patriot.
Notes:
- See also, Boston Globe: Dobson spiritual empire wields political clout
- Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Dobson and the Miers nomination, and Bork bashes Miers nomination (containing a good post-discussion of the term; “activist judges”), and Anti-intellectualism and the Miers nomination.
- ***Dave, Swell.
- Here’s What’s Left: Strict Constructionist
So either the man can’t be trusted (“I have a secret—oops, shouldn’t have told you that”) or he’s dripping with pride. Neither commend him as a Christian, I should think.
Although I disagee with Roe vs Wade and can’t find even by a lot of stretching any constitutional right to abortion, I still don’t like the idea of packing the court with fundamental Christians to get it overturned. The hell of it is that once things started swinging back to the far right they could go all the way to the far right and back to the blue laws that it took so long to get overturned. Damn. Ain’t they a middle ground there somewhere? Well, maybe if the judges would just make the decisions based on the constitution and if lawlamers had the gonads to make law that was not up to interpretation by the courts—