Part of me thinks I should not put this on the front page, but what the heck.
Some of you are out bashing James Dobson for his criticism of Fred Thompson not being a Christian. You know, if the election were held tomorrow, I’d be voting for Mitt Romney. But if Fred were on the ballot, I and a lot of my friends would be like, “Mitt who?” I’m a Fred Thompson guy, but until he enters, I’m voting for Mitt, though I’ve ceased considering myself a Mitt guy.
But you people who are so outraged by James Dobson need to suck it up and get over it. Your outrage over Dobson goes directly to my frustration with Hugh Hewitt — instead of dealing with the issue, you want to make the issue out of bounds. Folks, that is what the left does, not what the right does. When the left wants to keep something out of bounds, it declares you a bigot in some way for dealing with the subject. Apparently now, when someone brings up a Presidential candidate’s faith, you are also a bigot.
Let me put it to you very plainly and you can disagree all you want and you’ll still be wrong — some people have different values and place different emphasis on things than you and me. And they, just like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. And sometimes they have bigger microphones than you or me, but they are still entitled to their opinion.
Now Hugh thinks Al Mohler, James Dobson, and I are religious bigots. The first two for not being comfortable with Romney because of his faith and me because I don’t have a problem with their lack of comfort and their willingness to discuss it (yeah, yeah, I know, Hugh says he doesn’t think that about those two people, but he’s just selectively excluding them from his very general category that they’d fall into, but for his exception to prove his silly rule of bigotry). The reason Mohler, Dobson, and so many evangelicals are bigots in Hugh Hewitt’s eyes and in the eyes of others, and the reason some of you are so frustrated with Dobson today, is because Dobson is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third.
Dobson wants a Christian to be his nominee and he, like me, is really frustrated that so many of the candidates in the race are Christian in name only. And I’m sure he is also frustrated that one of the front runners is not even a Christian. Some of you, I realize, are hitting the brakes here. Yeah, yeah, I know Fred was baptized, Rudy and Sam are Catholic, etc. This goes to the heart of the problem that so many evangelicals have — there are lots of people wanting to call themselves Christians who are not actually Christ followers. “Christian” is the acceptable terminology for a secular world. Lots of people say they are, but there are actually not as many who actually, you know, follow Christ.
I’m not going to start a theological debate here, and I think Dobson can defend himself, but the key difference between a nominal Christian and a Christ following Christian, i.e. a real Christian, is that the former shows his colors by the inactive pursuit of his faith and the latter shows his colors by the active pursuit of his faith. Fred Thompson, I think Dobson is suggesting, falls into the former category. I haven’t paid attention enough to know whether Fred does or does not follow Christ, though as others have said, if that is the case it’d probably put Fred on par with Ronald Reagan.
Sure, you have the right to be angry with Dobson expressing his opinion. But a lot of the outrage I’ve heard has been directed at Dobson for not pulling for the team, whereby the team is the GOP. Folks, James Dobson is on Christ’s team. All others are incidental to that cause. You may not like it, but then again I really doubt James Dobson is too worried about your partisan outrage. And I’m right there with him, I don’t care about your outrage over James Dobson speaking faithfully about faith, but I’d still vote for Fred.