James Dobson's flying monkeys are at it again. The Word from the King of Chaos, the Wicked Pitch from the West is here--the Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America--designed to scare the beJesus into us. I wondered how long it would be before JD would once again offer us a toxic blend of bad theology, Rovian politics, and hide-under-your-covers fear appeals. Praise God and pass the gunpowder. This man likes the smell of gaypalm in the morning.
Dobson's Focus on the Family Action (Don't you remember that passage in chapter one of II Bealiah where Jesus encourages us to create cultural hit squads in case anyone disagrees with us and threatens our power?), feeling the pressure of being Left Behind, or Behind the Left, felt the need to use the power of time travel to scare us straight.
Sorry Barack. Dr. Dobson gave us the news: we got a bad case of loving you. Apparently, no pill's gonna cure our ill; and, in fact we are probably going to die miserable deaths at the hands of pornographic terrorists.
When faced with the likelihood of a Christian man being elected as a Democratic president, What Would James Do? It appears that he would scare the shit out of you.
According to Focus on the Fantasy, an Obama administration will result in a hijacking of the Court, ushering in nearly mandatory gay marriage, public elementary gay factories, the shuttering of Christian schools, adoption agencies, and publishing houses. Christian doctors and nurses, counselors and soldiers, teachers and broadcasters will all be out on the street. The Boy Scouts will be abolished. The streets will be littered with exterminated fetuses. We will terminate unwanted newborns like roaches. Our gunless citizens will be overrun by porn-juiced criminals. Americans will be killed abroad, and several major U.S. cities will be destroyed by terrorists. Our country will become communist, but for some reason at war with Russia. Israel will virtually cease to exist. Health care will become so rationed we will start euthanizing the old and infirm. Our economy will collapse, we will suffer electrical blackouts, while buying $7 gas.
Honestly, in the midst of all that, $7 gas doesn't sound so bad.
The letter is prefaced with a statement that includes a call for mutual respect.
Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect and cherish one another’s friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one another.Oh, yes, let's be respectful of the infidel wolves masquerading in sheep's clothing. Respect them until you get a clear head shot. If this is how you cherish friendships, all your enemies should shave their heads, move to Tierra del Fuego, and change their names to Chris (unless their name is already Chris, in which case they should change it to Terry).
Dobson and his kind are driving thousands of people out of the faith. They do so by devouring their young. They observe that young evangelicals may make up the margin of difference in this election. Then they tell them they are wrong. "We want you to be part of our Family, but everything that matters to you is crap. Now, sit up straight and repeat after me...."
On behalf of young evangelicals (one of which I'm not) told by Dobson they are wrong, let me say: "Are not. You are."
12 comments:
This morning, on my last long run before my marathon, I began ranting about politics and religion -- luckily my running partner is gracious and put up with me and joyfully sped up to run alongside my "what on earth is WRONG with the people of God" pace.
And I hadn't even seen this yet. How can anyone, in good conscience, print this? I want to be okay with the American church, think that Dobson and his ilk are merely misguided -- but turns out they are downright malicious. This is a slap in the face of communications ethics -- and Christian ethics.
I just looked at a friend's photos from a recent trip to Africa. She visited the slums and spent time with AIDS orphans. One picture was of a girl with her head on a table and a giant smile on her face as she ate colorful goldfish crackers. I commented "doing that for a child... THAT is missions." Why is it that American Christianity feels the need to strip the least of these of any security -- and then use scare tactics to make them submit?
That letter... that letter is the opposite of kingdom living.
Well I am a young evangelical voter (though a bit more of my evangelical faith...my faith in general...is lost every day because of men like Dobson) and I AM voting for Obama. So there Dr.! Nener, nener, nener!
The Revolutionary War was fought over freedom. Conservatives are fighting against the slavery of socialism today.
The Civil war was fought over the rights of the oppressed. Conservatives are fighting for the right (legal guarantee) to life of the most defenseless and exploited persons in our nation.
In WWII, we fought against the genocide of millions of Jews. Conservatives today are fighting against the age-ocide of millions of American children.
Why are you so surprised at how intense this "culture" war is raging? They are matters of life and death, matters of civil rights. When we are forced to choose between politicians who will fight for the unborn and politicians who will fight for the environment, how can Christians in good conscience smear us for doing so? Are there not ethical priorities that we must follow? I'm sorry, but there is no Gray (or Purple) Party... at least not a viable one. If young Christians and moderate Christians want to stop the increasingly militant polarization of Left and Right, then they'd better get serious about forming a political Middle. Because as it stands, they are still choosing one side or the other. As so long as our options are all but limited to pro-choice Democrats and pro-life Republicans, nothing will improve.
P. S. Why don't you refute the facts from which Dobson and Co. are extrapolating their rhetoric? As it is, you are only fighting rhetoric with rhetoric. You think that's doing any good at bringing harmony?
I don't care about bringing harmony with Dobson and his disciples. I really don't. Do I harm my relationship with them? Hope so. Does this make me wrong? Unchristian? Maybe. Just being honest here. Call it Matthew 23 rhetoric, or Bob Dylan's "Masters of War," I have no respect for anything they say. I hope they stop talking. I will not engage them. Just like I would not engage a holocaust denier or a conspiracy theorist who said we never walked on the moon. They are beyond ridiculous, and I only have so much time in my day.
By the way, I think young Christians have found that middle of which you speak. In this election it's called Barack Obama. I sincerely believe one of the biggest problems he will face as president is facing down the liberals in his own party. There is a reason that unprecedented numbers of conservative intellectuals and news outlets are making the switch and endorsing him. He represents a middle way.
The polarization comes from people who value culture wars over real progress.
The polarization comes from people who sling words like "socialist." You know, as my friend Amanda observed, the GOP did the same thing with the word "liberal" in the 80s. It wore out, and now the new slur is "socialist." What's next? "Killer?" "Terrorist?"
A friend of a friend attended a local Palin rally on Friday. She was giving out free coffee to people. It was cold outside. She heard numerous members of the herd (probably righteous folks all) yell "kill him," "terrorist," and "nigger" when Obama's name was mentioned. She had to leave when people figured out she was voting for Obama. She began to physically fear for her safety.
Oh, man, I cannot WAIT to make my kid gay. Or a porn juiced criminal. Gay porn-juiced criminal? I'm gonna go stick my tongue in his ear right now.
Y'know, most everyone I know will most likely be voting for McCain. Not a single one of them would be found uttering the phrases you mentioned. To be real honest, I doubt the veracity of the report.
The race is tight. Character is revealed under pressure. I find this all very interesting.
The letter was obviously overkill... ok, perhaps the worst example of bad slippery slope argumentation i've ever seen. But it's also obviously hyperbole. It does contain nuggets of very concerning facts.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'moderate' is, but I cannot view anyone whose first priority as President will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as anything but madly liberal. If not liberal, then is there proof that he's had a change of heart? Even if he did recant his position, how credible would such a statement be, coming right in the middle of election season, where his very goal is to win the disenfranchised ex-Republicans? I don't trust a word the man says, frankly. And I don't see anything in his so-called 'faith' that is any more than the Social Gospel that reared its head in the late 19th-early 20th century (and was decimated by the Depression and WWI). He denies that faith in Jesus is the only means of salvation--that's heterodox Christianity, i.e. non-Christianity, i.e. paganism. Do you trust the man simply because his words are 'transcendently beautiful'? I will have to admit, he is quite a leader... America will follow him anywhere. They're ready for something... anything that's not GW Bush. And that scares the hell out of me. Does a far-Left America scare you at least as much as a far-Right America? I'm all for the far-Middle, but that middle has got to retain basic freedom where freedom is due, and the right to life. It's got to be small government and small corruption (no one on either side is dealing sufficiently with the issue of corruption).
On another note, Obama's community organizing "mentor" Saul Alinsky worries me. The guy dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer as the supreme forefather of radical revolution. Now that's inspiration.
I'm a little troubled, even perplexed, that you seem to buy wholesale into the idea of "progress". We've had long conversations about the Western idea of "progress" and the dehumanizing hell it's creating. On the one hand, you have free-market "liberals" (extremist capitalists) who worship the Invisible Hand, and on the other, you have ethical liberals (moral Left-wingers) who worship freedom of moral decision. Both of these are menaces to civilization. Unfortunately, on the whole I do not see much progress, nor much promise of it. Hatred, fear, violence, immorality, greed, self-centeredness, isolation... all exponentially overrunning our society. Socialism has proven to be the enemy of mankind, but can Democratic Republicanism save us from self-defeat?
Maybe this monster has just gotten way too big for us. Do you realize how drastically the tax rate has gone up over the last few decades? How massive government has gotten? At what point does it cease being a servant and start becoming the master?
The fear of $7 gas is perhaps the most quantifiable display of how out of touch he is: gas was recently over $10 in Europe.
As for the rest of it, I don't know how to respond. Seriously? More than a century after the lynchings on the central square, good Christian Springfieldians are gathering in public to shout "nigger" and "kill him" about a reasonable, intelligent, successful man who happens to be black? My mother recently did some calling on behalf of the Obama campaign, and one person told her to stop calling her about the "pinko fag." Have we really not come any farther than this?
Christians on the far right, being Christians, talk about love. Where is it? What kind of love is racist and violent?
What kind of "christians" call anyone nigger, pinko fag or utter phrases like "kill him". None that I know. And most of those you would in all likelihood classify as being on the far right.
More calm observations from Charles Krauthammer regarding the upcoming election:
"In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call.
But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. Okay. Start with economics.
Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown. Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.
Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.
On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved -- the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.
Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment -- a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation.
An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike Clinton in 1992, Obama is no centrist.
What will you get?
(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.
(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chávez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.
(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.
(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited -- $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending -- as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-redistributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.
The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning."
In my little corner of the world, #2 and #3 on his list bother me the most. One attacks free speech, the other would seem to deliberately disfigure the judicial system.
Well, I guess we all hear what we want to hear.
I still wonder how the Krauthammers of the world answer the Obama endorsements from Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, Susan Eisenhower, Doug Kmiec, Charles Fried, Francis Fukuyama, Bill Ruckelshaus, Ken Adelman, Timothy Ashby, Lincoln Chaffee, William Weld, Larry Pressler, Richard Riordan, Linwood Holton, Christopher Buckley, Andrew Sullivan, CC Goldwater, Jeffery Hart, David Friedman, and Wick Alison, to name only a few notable Republicans.
I can appreciate Krauthammer's opinions, but I think I'll stick with the perspectives of those who have actually been the makers of GOP policy who have switched to Obama.
Where are the Democrats and liberals who endorse McCain?
Or is Dick Cheney the best he can do?
Post a Comment