Saturday, October 25, 2008

The Prophet of Pretend: James Dobson's "2012 Obama Letter" spells the end not for America, but for Focus on the Family

[What follows is an incomplete, badly edited set of observations and even rants. I have been pondering what to say, and how to say it, since reading Focus Action's "2012 Obama America" letter last week. I was so angry initially that everything I wrote sounded the same way. Some of that anger, and a bit of the shrillness (sorry) are in the below. But I had to address this. So, consider the below an incomplete set of thoughts more conversational than scholarly. As far as Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family go, I may have to revisit them after the election is over.]

I've cut Focus on the Family's James Dobson slack in the past, even in my harshest critiques. Not any more. Dr. Dobson has long been involved in a project to return America to a "Christian era" which in truth it never enjoyed. His enemies are the usual suspects: "far left" Democrats, gays, liberals, commies, and apparently naive young evangelicals willing to vote for Barack Obama. But especially gays (and we'll get back to that issue later).

This all comes to light on Dobson's political website, Focus Action, where he has published his most nightmarish fantasy, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." This pseudo-prophetic work of fiction takes place in 2012, and the narrator is telling us all about how terrible the new Obamafied America is. In short, America has gone to hell under Obama's alleged wimpy / socialist / Muslim-friendly / terrorist friendly / gay-marriage friendly / just plain unAmerican leadership.

This may be the most harsh thing I've ever said on this blog. But with this letter Dr. Dobson has created one of the more overtly fascist things I've seen from the Christian Right (and that's saying something!). By "fascist" I don't mean swastika-wearing, Jew-gassing Nazis. I mean people who are interested in forcing their fellow citizens into their imagined perfect world, who use the very word "freedom" itself to attempt taking freedom away. Here's Webster's definition of the fascism I speak of: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Fascism works using fear and hate. Usually, it works best by creating fear of someone (the "Other") which quickly is focused into a hatred of that "Other." This technique requires dehumanizing the other, treating her or him as a 3/5 person, so to speak. From there, it is an easy thing to legally marginalize that person and even commit legalized violence against that person. (The above is one reason, by the way, for me personally supporting gay Civil Unions -- and more on that later.)

Now that I'm in that far I might as well take it all the way. The Evangelical / Christian Right's treatment of women, also echoed by Focus on the Family, is fascist. This is where my personal pot of water comes to a boil. And it is easily documented. Read the elaborate (though faulty) theological edifices of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC's Southeastern Seminary has systematically stripped women from all real roles of leadership, even from the pulpit and from the mission field, and offers what amount to Home Economic degrees to women. To drive that point home, no men are allowed to take the course.

But I digress. The letter's admixture of fear and hate seems intended to bring a populace toward an autocratic leader by causing them to hate a wholly imaginary other:

[H]ere is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator Obama is elected and the far-left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is written as a “What if?” exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation because every future “event” described here is based on established legal and political trends that can already be abundantly documented and that only need a “tipping point” such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.


This isn't prophecy, it is only a "pretend" letter from 2012... except it isn't pretend. Its Halloween-like scenario is, according to the letter's preamble, "likely or at least very possible." So what we're dealing with is a "prophetic" letter here, and since it is allegedly prophetic, it therefore presumably carries with it the authority of God. James Dobson is thus made a virtual pope of Protestants, a voice we fail to heed at our own peril. (Remember those "young evangelicals" who voted for Obama? He's talking to YOU!) So, as our Christian authority on all things from family to White House, to whom we should listen without criticism, we shut off our brains and open our gosling mouths wide as he stuffs the worms of fear and rage down our throats: why we MUST NOT vote for Barack Obama!! Feel the wiggle?

Documented? Sure. Like there's a few footnotes. I and others have exposed numerous books on alleged "satanic ritual abuse," some of which were chock full of footnotes. I recall one book in particular which had multiple footnotes per sentence, yet with a bottom line that was patently bogus (it claimed that a massive intergenerational satanic "cult" of high-up politicians, money men, and religious figures was controlling world events). What I learned is to pay attention to the text and what it claims, not some sort of massive footnoting enterprise there to offer the appearance of actual scholarship. The text itself is what I find so incredibly, shockingly offensive. The footnotes rarely actually apply to the central fear and hate mongering "future" the letter claims to know about.

After the above mentioned introduction, the letter opens and immediately sets a tone for what will follow:

Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.


Get it? Being a Democrat equals being unAmerican. Despite the fact that more Americans this year are Democrats. Voting Democrat to James Dobson means loss of freedom. And what is his "freedom"? A return to 1950s America is no freedom at all, and no one wants that. Yet all Dobson's dark prognostications are "proven" by a fictional letter written by a fictional character in the fictional and very apocalyptic 2012 of the actual writer's fevered imagination.

So when I look up the hammer and sickle are flying over my head, right? Oh, wait. That's the movie "Red Dawn." Maybe "2012 Obama's America" could be a sequel. As far as "tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," that's my reaction to dinner trying to make a comeback.

Who, according to Dr. Dobson, is guilty for electing this cartoonishly evil slimeball dude with the overly dark skin to the Presidency?!

The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far left policies that had marked his entire previous career. They were wrong.


Dang, all those kids don't know how to vote. Maybe Focus on the Family should send someone with them to the polls to help them out. They should have done what the Benevolent Patriarch(alist) told you to do, and vote for John McCain. Sure, I know a few months back James Dobson said he'd never vote for or support John McCain, but I guess... he lied? This Obama dude has to be stopped at any cost!! Or is it more that Mr. Dobson and Focus on the Family are losing their grip over the present generation, that young evangelicals no longer even understand the scarey lingo and reactionary images Dobson presents as "Christian"? Could this be a power thing, the real nightmare for James Dobson in that his power base is aging itself out of existence? What about the fact that an estimated sixty-six percent of Hispanic Evangelicals are likely Obama voters? That doesn't bode well for Jim Dobson, either. We have seen the future, and it is brown and Democrat.

Here's a shocker! it turns out that Barack Obama is going to destroy the Boy Scouts of America, and/or make every scout the potential victim of a pedophile.

Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.


Sleep in tents with young boys?! Yikes, sounds like an Anne Rice vampire novel. (I will come back to this lie later.)


Elementary schools: “The land of the free”? Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children from such sessions, but the courts have ruled that they cannot do this, noting that education experts in the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health.


Wow, that is scary... as in ridiculous. If you really think the above is what voting for Barack Obama will lead to, I'll sell you Lake Michigan. Send me $20 and I'll email the whole thing to you. The above is fear-mongering. It is also, as if I need to note it, more "focus" on homosexuality, which seems to really be an interest of Dr. Dobson's. I mean, REALLY an interest. :

Businesses with government contracts: “The land of the free”? All businesses that have government contracts at the national, state, or local level now have to provide documentation of equal benefits for same sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in place in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle.


Two issues here, though arguing with a fantasy written by a right-wing hack is an exercise in stupidity of my own:

Issue One: If the government is funding (or helping fund) a business via using that business, shouldn't the government also get to call the tune as to fairness re hiring and firing in that business? That is, the government isn't forcing the business to do anything... unless that business wants contracts with the government.

Issue Two: as someone who thinks Civil Unions are a good alternative to Gay Marriage (in that they take care of both the gay couple's civil rights and the religious community's proper sense of ownership re what "marriage" means), I think Christians who fight the above sort of thing are being neither wise nor neighborly. By all means, let's attempt to stuff our own definition of moral reality down everyone else's throat, until and if they gain power instead. Then, with our having tutored them on how it is done (with cruelty, unreason, and depersonalizing uniformity) we can have our turn as victims. Not very smart, Mr. Dobson. But since you're the oracle of God and I'm just a poor mutt Christian trying to follow Jesus, I guess you win the authority war. I am the authority of nothing, and you may quote me.

Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as homosexual conduct or the claim that people will go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These policies followed earlier broadcasting and print restrictions that were already in place prior to 2008 in Canada and Sweden.


Oh, please. This reminds me of the crazy -- and false -- charge that atheists had sued the FCC to force removal of all religious programming from radio. Despite the fact that this was not true, the rumor refused to die and continued to resurface in various forms over the years. I guarantee you that we'll be hearing all the right-wing folks on the radio and TV for years and years to come, no matter who's in the White House.

I could go on. But as Jim Wallis of Sojourners and others have already done a fine job overall, I'd like to get a little more focused on one aspect of the letter that really bothered me.

This started off as me reading about Dobson's take on Barack Obama. But it ended with me angry over his treatment of gays. I am trying hard to live in a biblical space regarding homosexuality. I believe Scripture does place homosexual acts (as opposed to temptation / orientation) outside the pale of right Christian behavior. Yet at the same time, I am commanded to love my neighbor.

What I think Dobson has done, is doing with this letter, and apparently will continue to do is to abuse self-identified gay people. And he has done so using the exact approach once used against women militating for the vote and blacks working for their civil rights. He has identified the "other" as the enemy. This is curious, since I myself have suggested for years that homosexuality should not be confused with feminism or race-related issues but is rather an issue with unique characteristics, biblically speaking. Yet James Dobson's twisted fantasy story makes of homosexuality a sin of special nature, a sin that is sensationalized into something... how do I say it... pornographic. In short, I am left wondering if a parent would want the writer of this letter to sleep in a tent with the boys!

Perhaps worst in this shrill bit of rightist propaganda is the conflation of two totally different sexual issues: homosexuality vs. pederasty. Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than are their heterosexual counterparts. The entirety of the "Boy Scout" bit in this "pretend prophecy" is vile, cruel, and unloving in the most strictly Scriptural sense. There is so much else to loath about that letter, but for this one point alone I personally have moved from upset with Dobson to an anti-Focus on the Family activist. We cannot allow these cruel individuals and ministries to continue representing us to a watching world, much less our non-believing neighbors... some of who are gay!

We are required to bear witness to biblical ideals regarding sexuality, whether addressing homosexuality or America's norms re heterosexuality. But doing so, with great care and meekness and humility while admitting we too struggle with sexuality, is far different than Dr. Dobson's shrill, illogical, and immoral (yes indeed!) attack on our neighbors. I personally repudiate Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family as representing the Christian Faith I believe in.

And it makes me extremely sad, not glad, to say so.

15 comments:

Sara Z. said...

I personally repudiate Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family as representing the Christian Faith I believe in.

I join you in this.
And I get sad, because I remember listening to Dr. D on the radio 20 years ago when he had good advice on how to ask my parents for more allowance or how far one should go with a boy. (Um, not very far.)

chris said...

Jon,
I think this post is fair. You were much more kind and irenic than I can be. Alas the "fascist" term is thrown at the left by Christian Conservatives just as easily. Here are my thoughts own thoughts on the letter:

As literature it is really quite bad reading. The author makes assumptions
that any junior high student with critical thinking skills would laugh at.
The very first paragraphs seem to have to explain that the letter is very
plausible. One would assume because there isn't contained one forecast
that is actually plausible in it! (My favorite scene takes place in the
bookstores. I think Barnes and Noble and Borders would love it if their
customers were so agitated! They'd find a way to turn that into sales!
Name one book in recent history that has ever met with even a modicum of
such outrage.) The author is confused about many things, but mainly he's
confused about his opponents. He still paints all Liberals as a monolithic
mob made up of homosexuals, socialists, tree hugging, gun banning
Christaphobes. So long as he expects them to be as shallow and narrow
minded as himself they have nothing to worry about. It should be clear to
any Christian who cares about political discourse that the author here has
no real grasp of public policy. He can't see past his paranoia to imagine
life without power. Any Christian who must have political power in order
to live free is clearly not reading the Bible.

@bdul muHib said...

And here I thought perfect love casts out fear. I guess Dobson is reading a different Bible than I.

Benjamin Gorman said...

I ranted about this same letter, for the same reasons, and then posted a link to my rant (at unapologetic-conjecture.blogspot.com) on Jim Wallis' "God's Politics". Then I got flack for being to rough. At first I felt badly for my tone, but after some consideration I've come to think that pulling rhetorical punches in the face of evil is a kind of dishonesty that's just as bad as the danger of hurting someone's feelings. So, good for you!

druid said...

Sorry Jon, you lost me at "the religious community's proper sense of ownership re what 'marriage' means." I appreciate your taking down the loathsome swine Dobson, but nobody owns the language, and if churches owned "marriage" *I* wouldn't have been allowed to "marry" either. Some day I hope you discover the roots of your own blindness on this point.

Jon Trott said...

Druid,

You are right to point out my use of language, esp. the word "ownership," regarding the word "marriage."

There is in reality a layer of pragmatism here which I probably needed to explore further if I was going to raise the issue of definition of marriage at all.

We live in a pluralistic society, not as much a melting pot (the old paradigm, which implicitly suggests to me that we still end up with one enforced narrative) as a crazy quilt (many narratives, often competing). The trick -- and I rather obviously do *not* have all the answers for this -- is to make space for one another even while the sometimes palpable tension between the narratives remains.

My idea re "marriage" vs. "civil union" has to do with giving each narrative (the "Book-rooted" Judaeo-Christian/Islamic paradigm vs. more current definitions) space to exist. By legally giving gays the right to enjoy marital status, yet withholding the technical term "marriage" for the sake of other communities who define that term as one man and one woman in a sacred bond, is my unhappy attempt to find some sort of no-mans' land between the sharply divided narratives.

I see readily a number of weaknesses in this. If it is marriage in all but name, won't it be called marriage in the end anyway? And, haven't I conveniently left out gay men and women who believe they are attempting to follow Jesus just as I am? Yes.

That's the trouble. This isn't, as James Dobson would like to paint it, a war between godless gays and righteous believers. Such a construction fails reality.

It also, like me, fails Grace.

I should, I suppose, bring up the opposite side of this coin. What about marital constructions which include more than two people? Is there any reason that one day we should not change the definition of marriage to include three, or more, individuals willing to enter into such a commitment?

But my heart isn't in the above argument. I'm so burned over by the Christian Right's meanness that I continue hoping and hunting for another way to co-exist with each other rather than the so-called "culture wars." And down deep, I really care far, far less (well, not at all) about what people do in their own bedrooms. What I care about is (a) being truly Christian (Christ-like) in my thoughts, actions, and words, and (b) attempting to introduce others to Christ, Who alone can aid them in finding their way toward Him as they conform themselves to Him.

I am not a great Christian, nor a great thinker. That isn't false humility but simple truth. So take all the above as from a seeker after Christ rather than someone who really knows everything. I know less and less as I go along.

druid said...

You have just conceded that your opposition to gay marriage rests on principles that offend the separation of church and state. That's the inevitable logical result of saying that "marriage" should be defined according to some people's notions of a "sacred bond." Nothing remarkable about the concession; what's remarkable is that it doesn't set off any alarm bells for you.

Jon Trott said...

Druid,

I realize you operate from a veteran lawyer's background and thus are far more acquainted with legal definitions than I am. How would you define marriage from a strictly legal point of view?

Tom DeVries said...

In 1517 Martin Luther wrote The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. The objective of this act was to put the word of God into the hands of the people for their own interpretation.

The Christian Church is at a new age crossroads, not to dissimilar to where the church was in 1517. Christians trust, often with blind faith, the leadership of a handful of iconic leaders who have risen to power. Many of these evangelical leaders are increasingly polarizing as they pass the baton from one to the next. The present day baton was passed from Jerry Falwell to Dr. James Dobson. After numerous steps down this path, Dr. Dobson solidified his position in his recent, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America."

For 16 pages Dr. Dobson describes a fictitious world he envisions if Barack Obama were to be elected on Tuesday. As a conservative Christian Republican from West Michigan who was raised reading Dr. Dobson's devotionals at the dinner table, I find the content of this letter misleading, appalling and contradictory to the core values of Christianity!

Dr. Dobson's holds a degree in psychology. This means that he has studied and has displayed strong comprehension in understanding the human mind and how it processes information. When you dissect Dobson's "Obama's America" it becomes visible how he skillfully and dangerously employs fear as a manipulation tool to move public opinion

The letter begins by laying out that it's content is a series of "what if's," then falsely deduces that each of the changes described would be a "natural outcome" of Obama's election. Essentially he states that he cannot predict the future, and then he continues an attempt to do just that.

Dr. Dobson begins with a discussion of a shift in the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to the left. He describes Obama's appointment of two new liberal justices to the land's highest court. That would result in a general 4-4 lock vote on most of Dobson's platform issues with the tie break vote falling on moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a likely occurrence. This fails to properly lay the groundwork for Dobson's radical forthcoming argument so he fabricates an unlikely scenario that Justice Kennedy resigns under the pressure of being the tiebreak vote in nearly every circumstance. Still not satisfied with the outlandishness of his own creation, he indicates that Justice Antonin Scalia will unexpectedly resign due to health reasons in 2009 and is also replaced by someone not in agreement with his ideologies. As unlikely as it is in reality, this solidifies the ground for Dobson's "the sky is falling" exercise.

With the unlikely groundwork laid to his liking, Dobson delves into the issues of same-sex marriage. First of all, Obama is not a proponent of same-sex marriage; he merely believes that same-sex couples should have equal rights as married couples. He advocates marriage being between a man and a woman just as John McCain does. In this section Dobson makes a series of outlandish statements such as: "The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys."

He implies that any homosexual scoutmaster would inevitably partake in inappropriate sexual behavior with young boys. This is blatant fear mongering and is insulting to all of mankind especially in the shadow of the ironic state of the Catholic Church's tragic struggle with the conduct of Christian priests. How is this any different than parents hiring a female babysitter to stay overnight with their sons for a night away? By Dobson's outlandish definition the female babysitter will certainly partake in inappropriate activity with the boys merely because she is inclined to have an attraction to the opposite sex in general. Still, the prospect scares many people!

Dobson then goes on to design 9 other similar outlandish scenarios regarding same sex marriage, which, again, Obama does not even support.

Then Dobson moves to unjustified claims about how Obama will shut down all public school prayer, no longer allow young churches to rent public school buildings for worship, and that he would remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

Dobson claims that an Obama presidency inevitably brings about the loss of a right to bear arms for Americans. This is hard to believe from a President who is well respected as a Constitutional Law specialist who is widely known as a strict constructionist. But can you smell the fear yet?

If now you are thinking, wow, what could be next...I'll tell you...somehow homeschooling won't be allowed anymore. This section made no sense so I can't even begin to address it.

In Dobson's fantasy world, terrorists attack on US soil in 2009, multiple times, and killing hundreds. Dobson negatively presents that Obama would continue to send foreign aid to poor people that live in countries that are the breeding grounds of terrorism. If you ask me, US involvement in wars abroad is the best recruiting mechanism Al-Qaida could ever wish for! For Dr. Dobson to blame foreign aid sent to the innocent victims that live in these nations as a root cause of terrorism is illogical, but also is very scary.

The next section of Dobson's fantasy world is my favorite part! He indicates that Russia takes over the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria! Wow, I'm sure none of this would be happening if we had a Republican, president at the helm that meets Dobson's definition of a Christian. Meanwhile, in Dobson's story the rest of the world seems to sit on the sidelines unable or unwilling to take action on Russia's newly found desire for world domination. Obama is to blame for it all! Our fear grows again!

Dobson touches on Hugo Chaves and connects them to the Democratic Party. Last time I checked socialism is scary to Americans.

In Dobson's dream world Obama's energy plan fails to produce any renewable energy and simultaneously cuts energy access to reduce carbon emissions causing scheduled nationwide blackouts! Isn't that a terrifying prospect?

For the record, Dobson discusses, with disgust, the idea of reduction in carbon emissions. Is this Dr. Dobson claiming that we are no longer to act as stewards of God’s earth? Quite frankly, that scares me!

Dr Dobson, I'm only on page 13 of your "Letter" and you have already gone so far over the line I think it would be counter productive to continue to dissect it point by point. This entire letter is out of line and is obviously defined to incite unjustified fear in its readers. You are tainting the wonderful work you have accomplished!

I'm a simple man so I would like to bring this discussion back to the simplest of Christian values. Something that I'm certain will resonate with Dr. Dobson and Christians throughout our great nation -- WWJD? That's right, What Would Jesus Do?

Would Jesus be publishing outlandish, manipulative fear based propaganda? Would Jesus be implying that homosexual Boy Scout leaders are sure to commit unwanted acts on scouts? Would Jesus be advocating "human progress" at the cost of the degradation of his earth? Who would Jesus vote for? I'm pretty sure McCain would not be a sure thing!

In an online discussion one young woman made an insightful comment in to our discussion of Dr. Dobson's recent letter that sums up my thoughts. "This is why in graduate school, at a public university, the word "Christian" was such a bad word, because these are the people and beliefs many non-believers associate with "Christians".

Dr. Dobson, I commend you for much of your work. You have helped many Christians in their personal and spiritual lives. But I argue that, without intention, your “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” drives people away from Christianity. Your increasingly extreme form of evangelical Christianity rarely resonates with many of the people who seek and need Christianity the most.

I hope and pray you will refrain from further works similar to your "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America" that are misleading and that have such strong potential to encourage people to form negative views of Christianity.

We can be thankful for advocates of Christianity like Rob Bell who preache a Christianity of inclusion. We can be thankful for Christian leaders such as Rick Warren who opened the Presidential debate on religion to a forum of relevant questions. One in which society was free to make their own judgments of the candidate’s Christian values. Warren did this in the same spirit that Martin Luther placed interpretation of the Bible back in the hands of the church body in 1517. He provided people with clear neutral information. This is truly evangelical preaching that brings converts to Jesus Christ by a means which Christ himself would be proud!

Express your democratic right to vote on Tuesday by supporting the candidate you believe will bring the best future for America. Make your selection based on facts, not fear.

A concerned citizen of the USA

-- Tom DeVries

druid said...

"Marriage" is a civil contract between two people to share their lives. It carries certain legal privileges for which there is no equivalent under any other construct (your separate-but-equal-style alternative notwithstanding).

Nobody's telling the churches who or what they can view as a "proper" marriage. Nobody I know cares what the churches think. If y'all don't want same-sex couples marrying in your sanctuaries, it's fine with me. There are actually a lot of gay churchgoers out there, and as the veil of oppression lifts they will move out of your churches and into others who seem to better understand the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In the meantime, what we're fighting over is the power of the state to discriminate against citizens in recognizing a marital contract (and granting the attendant privileges) based solely on their sexual preference. Claiming to "own" that issue on "spiritual" grounds is immeasurably offensive.

Metavista said...

Well, history will be the judge, now that the matter is beyond the help of Dobson and his cronies.

In 2012, will anyone remember this letter?

Karol said...

This letter is one of the most outrageous things I have seen during the entire time of the campaign. As an evangelical Christian I am deeply offended.

It seems James Dobson might be having second thoughts too since the link to the letter on his web page no longer works.

We have a lot of work to do to show the world a different kind of Christian, the Christian that is obedient to the greatest commandment, to love God and love our neighbor.

bob brown said...

Jon & Friends:

I think Dr. D did a slide job into some pretty deep doo when he posits all these dire things in four short years. Plus, as all have ably pointed out, his back-to-the-future letter is full of fear mongering.

However, let me tell an old timer story. Back before hippies roamed the earth in the late '50s, as young'uns we all were taught many things that have since changed in the modern era.

Let me limit this yarn to just two examples:

Tolerance: Back then tolerance meant very clearly that I didn't think much of you (and perhaps your kind) and you felt the same back at me. But, for the 'good of the order' whatever the undertaking might be, we would put all that aside (while conceding nothing else) - I would work with you and you with me to achieve the common objective. We would leave the scene maybe with our prejudices intact, or not. However, it was our undeniable right to be so.

As I grew up and eventually worked in corporate America we gradually arrived at a new definition of Tolerance driven by your friends and predecessors on the Left.

Tolerance now means, for example, that when you say you are a Lesbian, if I am not willing to publically affirm and, yea even, CELEBRATE your Lesbianism then I am INtolerant and thus a bigot.

This process took the Left about a generation to accomplish this re-definition. Very Stalinist, don't cha know (Thanks, Sara :-) )

Equality: Back to the late '50s and early '60s and living South of the Mason-Dixon --- I started seeing these buttons on people's jackets/shirts in two variations: One - a totally black button about about 2 inches in diameter with a white equals sign " = " in the center. Two - a totally white button with a black " = "

It was explained to me that this Civil Rights movement was about equal rights for Negroes and that they should have all the rights to live, educate, work, vote, move about and consume just like White folks.

As a young man, though raised in a bigoted, racist household and society - 'colored' water fountains, schools, housing, motels etc., the Equality concept seemed reasonable and right. But what I found out, over time, was that the people who contolled the C.R. movement really had other cards that they weren't showing.

Again they used re-definition of words, Equality was what they were fronting with the hope that I am many others would bite for C.R. based on the definition we already had.

Once hooked, we found out that a host of other items was covered under the rubric of Equality that for some C.R. advocates extends all the way to Reparation Land.

Note that story #2 has generated in many people who share my history, a healthy skepticism of the Gay Rights "Equality" movement.

Why did I tell these little stories? I think Dr D. is doing time compression. The bad things that y'all Lefties are attempting to accomplish take much longer than four years.

Are Dr D's individual horror stories probable, even on a longer trajectory? Probably not by specifics.

The problem is that many of us who are Conservative or Libertarian think the fundamental direction y'all want to go is both wrong (in a moral sense) and ultimately will be destructive to the very fabric of the U.S.

The good news for your side is that y'all have had firm control of Academe for several generations. It has produced a society of younger people who share much more of the Liberal agenda. Staying subject consistent, ask a typical under 35 if they believe in gay marriage.

They say yes, without consideration of the fundamental that once you redefine marriage as anything other than one man and one woman (the One's postion BTW), you must logically consider other permutations and combinations (3 men 5 women, old school Mormonism, etc.) of consenting adults. Maybe to hard core Libs, the resulting total redefinition is OK.

The problem is not being anti-gay from our perspective, but being pro traditional one man/one woman marriage (which was Jesus' position)

I apologize if I wandered a little...

With the Ascension to D.C. of the One in January plus healthy majorities in the 'Duma'...er House and Senate, the Liberal agenda will go forward nicely.

I don't think y'all will be bothered much by the Republi-neuter-cans.

Our current R Pres, the failed R candidate, and most of the other elected R's authored/went along with the Socialist bailout. How can the R's point fingers at Pres. O as some kind of Commie?

I counsel patience to the Left.

In another 15 years, it truly will all be yours. You won't even need the re-education camps because most of us (who have my perspective) will be gone to our 'reward' or inactive enough to be out of your way.

Choose wisely, Lefties.

May the Lord have mercy on the One and the whole shootin' match.

//bb

Caspian Rex said...

I know your post was from some time ago, but I just read it, and then read Dr. Dobson's "Letter." Hoo boy. I've thought Dobson was a little bit of a whack job for quite some time now, but I don't think I quite realized exactly how nutso cabana the guy truly is. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not nearly as liberal as I once was, and even though I voted for Obama, I have some deep reservations about how effective he's been thus far. But this thing by Dobson is..."outrageous" is not too heavy a term, is it? Homosexuality, homosexuality, homosexuality...it seems that's all Focus on the Family can EVER focus on! I wrote to the good folks at FOF a couple years ago, and expressed my disappointment that they were so focused on gay marriage, and rarely mentioned the impact of divorce on families. They replied with a note saying that, on the contrary, they took divorce very seriously, and how could I think that homosexuality was all they criticized?!? But, "by your fruits ye shall know them..."

Anonymous said...

You know, people each time make comments when anything is predicted to come to pass in 2012, like “obviously that is if the faction is hush here.” You do realize that the Mayans suggest the faction will end on Dec. 21 (or 23rd)? So in all strong if anything is affluent to happen in 2012 there is solitary the slimmest feasibility that the world will secure ended first it happens.
[url=http://2012earth.net/global_economic_crisis_2012.html
]harmonic convergence and 2012
[/url] - some truth about 2012