ACH, Traditional Reading
June 30, 2008
Ethics | Torah
(1 comments)
By William Berkson
Ok, folks. I'm peeved. I'm just curious if others are irritated by this kind of thing. Last week Dr. James Dobson said that Sen. Barack Obama was deliberately distorting "the traditional interpretation of the Bible" when he pointed out that the plain reading of Leviticus prohibits eating shellfish, and that the Defense Department would have a problem with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Sen. Obama's point was that political leaders would be wiser by not being sectarian in their arguments for public policy--which I thought was a pretty good point.
I actually have a lot of respect for Dr. Dobson, as he actually is devoted to helping families, and he doesn't trim his sails to the political winds.
But what kind of arrogance is that in saying "the traditional interpretation"? Surely he knows that Jews exist, and many still hold that eating shellfish is prohibited. And he knows that Quakers and Baptists don't agree on how literally the Sermon on the Mount should be taken.
Shouldn't someone be calling Dr. Dobson on this? He's entitled to his interpretation of scripture, both Hebrew and Christian Bibles. But he shouldn't be allowed to pretend that his is automatically the privileged, "traditional" interpretation, and that he is entitled to rap the knuckles of anyone who disagrees.
Comments
Post a comment
|
Print
Email
Comment
I am more disturbed by your expressed respect for Dobson in general, and your assumption that he is "actually devoted to helping families." How do you know? If I ran an organization entitled "Focus on American Values" would you say I am actually devoted to supporting American Values? You too have a right to your interpretation of what is devotion to a cause and what is helping; but like Dobson you express your assumptions glibly. I'm afraid I can't suddenly be upset at Dobson for making just another in a series of presumptive judgements he has made over the years.