Obama responds to Dobson

CNN Reports:

“Any notion that I was distorting the Bible in that speech, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make that argument,” Obama told reporters on board his press plane Tuesday night.

“Someone would be pretty hard pressed to make that argument,” he told reporters aboard his campaign plane. “It is a speech that affirms the role of faith not just in my life but in the life of the American people, that suggests that we make a mistake by trying to push faith out of the public square.”

“I do make the argument that it’s important for folks like myself, who think faith is important, that we try to translate some of our concerns into universal language so we can have open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us,” Obama said. “And I do suggest that the separation of church and state is important. But there’s no, no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”

And, not to be outdone, Dobson’s colleague said,

“There is no need to ‘make stuff up’ as it relates to Sen. Obama’s interpretation of Scripture and the role of religion in the public square. His statements and record make clear his questionable perception of both. … He is editing God’s word to fit his liberal worldview, and the more exposure his views on these matters get, the more obvious this will become to American Christians.”

But, if you read my earlier post of the transcript, it is clear that Dobson “made stuff up”, or at the very least, did not choose the clips of Obama’s speech that related to the point Dobson was attempting to make.

Religious types (and I include myself here) are accustomed to talking to people who are generally like-minded and are willing to “give a pass” on some of our mistakes.  That can lead to an overinflated sense of influence and competence.  When our comments enter the realm of professional politics, we are no longer given that pass.  It is as if a bunch of amatures are attempting to play with the pros.

Dr. Dobson got caught.  He took two year old comments out of context and entered the fray.  I’ll guess that his regular listeners will flood him with support and contributions.  That’s too bad.

Pondering Pastor

Dobson vs. Obama: Dobson needs a “chill pill”

Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, isn’t very happy with being named in one of Barack Obama’s speeches.  In today’s Focus on the Family broadcast, the following “exchanges are made”.

[My comments are indented and italicized]

The set up by the co-host: “Before he [Obama] diminishes you, Dr. Dobson, on the subject of religion, he diminishes religion itself.  Play that first cut and let’s listen to him.”

Slots Talk from LOPP/Md

The following was prepared by the Lutheran Office of Public Policy – Maryland, Lee Hudson, Director.  The Maryland Legislature has put a slots referendum on November’s ballot.

—-

Slots Talk from LOPP/MD-the Markets

The ELCA social statement “Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood For All” (1999) objects to gambling as a public revenue source because it’s regressive; it taxes the poor greater than other demographics (page 12). A common rebuttal by gambling proponents is that gambling doesn’t target any demographic; it’s simply a recreational activity on which people chose to spend disposable income.

That’s disingenuous: there’s a gambling industry business plan that understands how to reach and keep its market. Maryland’s current gambling public typifies it. Most money wagered in Prince Georges County on the Maryland Lottery is from lower-income households. It’s similar in other jurisdictions. For state-sponsored gambling to succeed (“success” means achieving revenue projections) that public has to be expanded significantly.

The slots business plan is associated with the propensity of retail gambling to produce addiction. Problem, pathological gambling rates among the general population double out to fifty miles from the sites. The rate is higher among lower income African Americans according to a University of Chicago study. Currently gambling activity is increasing among younger people. Both demographics are target markets for the gambling industry.

For that reason the selection of two sites, at Laurel in Anne Arundel County and at the Harbor in Baltimore City, has been made to realize revenue projections. The Laurel site will get its share of military personnel (a target market) but its real value is its proximity to Prince Georges County and a key demographic density, modest income African Americans. The State’s revenue estimate calls for Laurel to provide $500 million in gambling losses. Baltimore City is expected to produce another $400 million.

The ELCA objection to unfair taxation is legitimate. Central Maryland is supposed to provide $900 million of the projected $1.3 billion in gross slots receipts. The two Central Maryland sites will contribute 70¢ of every dollar the State hopes gamblers lose. Within the gambling demographic retirees, low-income people, young people, and minorities dominate and are abundant around these two sites.

Revenue estimates for those two high volume sites are an assumption based on local minority, retiree, and poverty densities. Baltimore County is a subdivision with a large number of retirees that like to gamble we’re told. It’s assumed many will find their way to the Inner Harbor site; but Baltimore City’s large, minority and poverty demographic will provide a lot of the players. There’s another retired demographic in Montgomery County and considerable discussion has taken place about whether it will find its way to Laurel. It may not; but the Prince Georges County density of preferred demographics will, and revenue assumptions are based on that.

Gambling is an uncomplicated economy: disposable income is spent on the wager transaction. Around each location, slots will compromise local economies. At Rocky Gap and Ocean City, two destinations now billed as family-friendly for instance, slots will consume available disposable income and damage tourist economies. Slots are fed by local, disposable income. That’s why slots increase poverty and decrease local economic activity.