Robot Theology -- Can a robot who doesn’t believe in a Creator be an “intellectually fulfilled droid?”
Spongy Strawmen and Clueless Critics -- While I'm admittedly suspicious of the motives behind the "We are Family" video, the attack on Spongebob Squarepants by Dr. James Dobson is laughably misguided. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Dobson but conservatives – and Christian conservatives in particular – need to stop attacking fictional characters. Fictional characters don’t exist and so cannot truly be representative of any particular point of view. Strawmen arguments are bad enough when they are made of straw; they are even worse when they are made of sponge.
But the silliness of Dobson’s attack on a pro-tolerance cartoon character pales in comparison to the cartoonish attack on Dobson by the intolerant Jeff Jarvis. The usually lucid media critic calls Dobson a “religious nutjob” and provides “a list of news shows stupid enough to have this Dobson clown on the air as if he actually has (1) anything to say, (2) a constituency of size and sanity, (3) a brain.”
The fact that Dr. Dobson was hand-picked to be on numerous government task forces, served as an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for over a decade, has a program that is heard on 3000 radio stations and 80 television stations, and has sold millions of books on child psychology shows that he has a brain, a constituency, and “something to say.”
For a media critic, Jarvis is embarrassingly ill informed about one of the most influential media personalities in the country. Perhaps he should take a lesson from Spongebob and learn to be a little more tolerant of people with whom he disagrees. Maybe then he wouldn't make such shamefully ill-informed statements.
(HT: Hugh Hewitt)
Update: Focus on the Family clarifies Dr. Dobson's position on the video:
From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth.
The press release says that the problem is with the "video's sponsor" but doesn't mention that the sponsor in question is the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is only one of many sponsors). It appears that Dobson was misunderstood. But by invoking the name of Spongebob rather than the SPLC, he has only added to the confusion. I think the point would have been more effective if he had limited his criticism to certain groups that sponsored the video rather than with the video itself.
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to jump on Dobson’s gaffe, especially considering that it was merely a minor error in focus. Dobson speaks to millions of people a day on hundreds of topics a year so it is unlikely that he will always have every detail nailed down before he speaks. For the MSM and prominent bloggers to dismiss him over this issue, though, shows that they are more concerned with getting in a cheap shot than they are in engaging him on the real issues that he addresses.
And to end on a note of self-flagellation, I should be ashamed at having trusted that an editorial in the L.A. Times would be based on fact rather than innuendo. I should have known better. Mea culpa, Serge. You were right.
Dutch Treat -- To my pleasant surprise, I discovered that EO was mentioned in a national newspaper's article on religious blogs. I was even more surprised to find that the nation was The Netherlands and the paper was the Dutch daily Trouw:
In Amerika, waar volgens onderzoek tweederde van de internetters wel eens geloofsgerelateerd surft, maakt een blog als Evangelical Outpost met één stelling over de onmogelijkheid van de evolutieleer direct honderden reacties los. Nog dagen gaat de discussie op hoog niveau door.
I don’t read Dutch so I’m not quite sure what it says (something about what I wrote about evolution, I think). Still, I’m flattered to be included in the article. (I do find it a bit ironic, though, that I’m mentioned in a Dutch paper while I’m working on an article about that country's euthanasia policy.)
Anyone out there know anything about the paper or speak the language well enough to know what the article is about?
Update: Coyote from Sounding the Trumpet came through with a translation:
In America, where according to research 2/3 of all web-surfers sometimes surf religion related sites, a blog like Evangelical Outpost can generate hundreds of reactions by making one statement about the impossibility of evolution. The discussion continues for days at a high level.
The "impossibility of evolution?" Um, that's not what I said. Oh well, all publicity is good publicity, right?
Sloan Siege Ends -- A couple of week’s ago I wrote about the long-term vision of Baylor University, the schools embattled president Robert Sloan, and how the school had the opportunity to become for evangelicalism what the University of Notre Dame has become for Catholicism: a place where scholarship and faith can assume their complementary roles.
Today the siege on Sloan ended with him stepping down and assuming a role as the school's chancellor, a post with no administrative responsibilities. This is sad news for those of us who thought the university might be able to regain its Christian distinctiveness while becoming a major research university. Without Sloane at the helm, this will likely be the end of Baylor 2012.
(HT: Daniel Robinson from NeoTheolog who claims he had nothing to do with it. Uh, huh. The fact that he started at Baylor two weeks ago had nothing to do with Sloane’s ouster? Come on, Mr. Robinson. How gullible do you think we are?)
Update: Hunter Baker, who wrote an article about Sloan for NRO, thinks that the change won't derail the school's vision. Maybe the news isn't as bleak as I had imagined.
Liber Fever -- Reading the title of Nick Hornby’s latest book -- The Polysyllabic Spree: A Hilarious and True Account of One Man’s Struggle With the Monthly Tide of the Books He’s Bought and the Books He’s Been Meaning to Read – reminded me of my own literary struggle: I continue to buy books even though I have more than I will ever be able to read.
At the time of my divorce in the mid-‘90s I had over 2000 books, most of which I had bought at thrift shops and used bookstores. I cherished my small library as my most prized possession and was almost in tears when I had to give them up. Being forced to move into a rented room for newly impoverished bachelors, though, left me no choice. I rented a U-Haul for a day and sold my treasure to an under appreciative book reseller. It was the only time in my life when a loss of material possessions caused me true pain.
Since then I’ve reacquired nearly 1000 volumes and add more by the week. If I stopped blogging, sleeping, and working, it might be possible for me to read them all in the fifty or so years the life expectancy charts say that I have left. But even while I know I won’t read all the books I now have, I continue to buy even more. I even buy books that I am almost certain that I will never get around to reading. What accounts for this addiction? Is this a common mental disorder or a rare malady that afflicts only bookish geeks? Is there some form of treatment that I should be seeking?
An Open View of Abortion -- Although I often find myself disagreeing with his views, I’ve always admired theologian and pastor Gred Boyd. Even when his conclusions are unsound (i.e., open-view theism) he often attempts to derive them from Scriptural based premises. Unfortunately, his views of abortion – that first-trimester abortion may be acceptable – are rather disappointing and based on sloppy thinking. The idea that you could be “truly pro-life” and vote “pro-choice” is akin to a 19th century American claiming that they are in favor of treating African-Americans as fellow human beings but still plan to vote in favor of slavery.
JivinJehoshaphat and Imago Dei go into more detail on the subject, exposing the flaws in Boyd’s reasoning.
Christian Carnival -- Mark Sides has the the latest Christian Carnival.
The Evangelical Identity -- Dr. Andrew Jackson has a one-day blog series on the topic of the evangelical identity. Posts in the series include:
Distracting Future Lawyers -- While sitting in his law school class at UC-Hastings, Russell Wardlow noticed one of his fellows students reading EO (along with Lileks and The Command Post). At first I was flattered, but then I noticed that the class was “Criminal Procedures” and wondered if the student wasn’t merely doing research on the procedures of criminals. (I’m not saying that the three of us are criminals but there is something a bit shady about James, Alan, and me.)
Anyway, if you're “Mr. Hastings Law Reader” drop me an email and let me know who you are. I promise not to reveal your name publicly. I take attorney-criminal confidentiality very seriously.
Bad News Sells -- Does the mainstream media really focus on negative news about Iraq or is it just a misperception. Chrenkoff decided to examine the evidence by focusing on a typical day's news coverage. Imagine what he found...
17. If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
1
I'd always harbored the (false I guess) hope that you'd call me when the inevitable happenened . . .
posted on 01.21.2005 10:14 AM2
Shady? Me, yes. James, maybe. You? No way ... besides, you have the Lord on your side.
posted on 01.21.2005 10:36 AM3
You want to know something? 5,000 people were killed in the Kobe earthquake in the mid 90s. Know what the local Long Island paper had screamed across its headline?
"5 Long Islanders Killed in Earthquake."
The fact is, news that affects consumers of the news sells more than news that doesn't affect consumers of news.
So that's all that Chrenkoff found.
Try another media conspiracy...
posted on 01.21.2005 11:17 AM4
I really don't get the 'they only cover the bad news!' thing. I mean, bad news is news. "Things go according to plan" just isn't news, y'know? Deviations from the plan or surprises? That's news. And that's why it should be troubling that news organizations are picking up on the registration of Iraqi voters; when it's unusual that things are running smoothly, ya know the situation isn't good.
posted on 01.21.2005 12:19 PM5
JPE "Things go according to plan" just isn't news, y'know?
I think you have hit on the unexamined assumption that most of the mainstream media has. News isn’t simply what isn’t “going according to plan.” "What is going right" is as newsworthy event as is "what is going wrong."
But what is really wrong with the idea that only the negative can be construed as “news” is that the news is the basis for almost all punditry and public opinion formation. How are people supposed to make an informed decision on whether the war was beneficial when all that they are told is when things are going wrong?
6
Amazingly, the news today, January 5, 2021, is not that different than it was 16 years ago.
:) (see title)
posted on 01.21.2005 1:16 PM7
I think you have hit on the unexamined assumption that most of the mainstream media has.
And almost always has had, I'd hasten to add, which suggests that some liberal bias or anti-war bias isn't a very plausible explanation for the negative coverage. A bad-news bias? Maybe, but I'd still contend that good news isn't really news, and thus there's no bias, per se. I don't immediately phone everyone to tell them I made it to work on time. It's just expected. I may, however, tell someone if the bus breaks down on the way to work.
That just seems to make intuitive sense.
posted on 01.21.2005 2:03 PM8
I too am sorely afflicted with Liber Fever as my wife (and Amazon) will attest. My eldest daughter has incipient signs of catching the disease as well.
posted on 01.21.2005 2:46 PM9
"What accounts for this addiction? Is this a common mental disorder or a rare malady that afflicts only bookish geeks? Is there some form of treatment that I should be seeking?"
To answer a likely rhetorical question...
There are forms of compulsive disorders where people collect things. I remember seeing a 20/20 story on a guy that compulsive went to yard sales and swap meets, etc. Basically buying things made him feel good about himself so he kept doing it.
If you think this is really developing into a problem then the most common cure is to evaluate something before you buy it. Ask yourself if you need it and why you want it. This helps you opt out of the feedback loop of impulse buy, feel good about yourself, buy more. Evaluating re-engages your mind and requires more you to make conscious decisions based on rational merits.
posted on 01.21.2005 2:47 PM10
Is this a common mental disorder or a rare malady that afflicts only bookish geeks?
It's very common among bookish geeks. I have a library that's overspilling its allotted room and causing quite a bit of havoc. I also know the pain of having to ditch books. It sucks.
Is there some form of treatment that I should be seeking?
Only thing I can think of is to read the classic text of our affliction: Walter Benjamin's Unpacking My Library.
11
Joe Carter :
No Joe. Remember the addage: When dog bites man, it's not news. When man bites dog, that's news.
posted on 01.21.2005 3:18 PM12
I'm with you on the book addiction. When I was first considering going into the ministry and was talking with a pastor who said that books are our tools and we should plan to spend the same amount on books that you would spend on a car. I told him I've always wanted a Jaguar. My wife was not amused.
posted on 01.21.2005 3:30 PM13
As a sidenote to the Baylor story, I've always found it ironic that the provost at Notre Dame is Nathan Hatch, who is a leading evangelical scholar and a graduate of Wheaton College. There has been some speculation that even though Hatch was passed over to become the president at Wheaton in 1993, he might be on the short list to succeed Duane Litfin when he retires.
posted on 01.21.2005 3:36 PM14
In a quick search, this is the best translation I could come up with...
In America, where according to research tweederde of the Internet-delicate sometimes belief-related surfs, makes blog such as Evangelical Outpost with? proposition concerning the impossibility of evolution leathers directly hundreds of responses loose. Still days continues the discussion at high level.
posted on 01.21.2005 3:41 PM16
LOL!
Joe, you should thank Larry Lord, jpe, and myself; without us, you'd not have gotten the "hundreds of responses" that made the Dutch notice so newsworthy.
Without us, you'd just have a few yeses...
(babelfish.altavista.com now does Dutch-English.)
posted on 01.21.2005 4:01 PM17
I happened to be listening to the radio show when Greg Boyd made his controversial remarks. One thing that is missing in the discussion so far is the complete context - which actually makes his remarks seem more inconsistent. He ticked off a laundry list of criteria with which he judges a political candidate. He took great pains to stress that Christians should be searching for "distinctively kingdom" approaches to issues like abortion or gay marriage (which means NOT availing of laws to enforce Christian morality), but then went on to say that he liked candidates who would implement policies that would help the poor. Well which is it? You can't proscribe abortion through a civic process, but you can proscribe poverty? I am sceptical that he truly has a uniquely Christian, self-consistent approach to public policy. I am speaking as a former attender of his church, and a great respecter of his integrity (I have seen it up close and in candid moments). He is participating in a debate on Christianity and public policy tonight. Too bad there is blizzard in the Twin Cities tonight.
posted on 01.21.2005 4:09 PM18
In America, where according to research tweederde of the Internet-delicate sometimes belief-related surfs, blog make separately such as Evangelical Outpost with one proposition concerning the impossibility of evolution leathers directly hundreds of responses. Still days continues the discussion at high level.
I couldn't agree more.
posted on 01.21.2005 4:17 PM19
I see Babel-fish has been used to translate for you.:^)
If that is insufficient, let me know, I'd be happy to contact a friend in the Netherlands for you. Blog on!
posted on 01.21.2005 4:27 PM20
"the attack on Spongebob Squarepants by Dr. James Dobson is laughably misguided".
Oh, really? Have you read this: http://tinyurl.com/4zbvp
----------------------
There is a Teacher's Guide on the [We Are Family Foundation] webpage, Writing for Change: Raising Awareness of Difference, Power, & Discrimination. One section is entitled, Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation . Its objectives: "Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Analyze and discuss the effects these forces exert in students' lives."
Here's how they define those terms:
Definitions
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.
Compulsory heterosexuality: Thee assumption that women are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence.
----------------------
Sorry, you've lost some credibility here.
21
Jeff H Sorry, you've lost some credibility here.
I think you missed my point. I am not saying that the group that produced the video does not have an agenda that should be of concern. But Dobson should target real people not some cartoon character. By putting the focus on Spongebob rather than on the group that is putting out the video it does nothing but give people a reason to dismiss his argument.
I'll say again, no conservative ever made a solid argument that changed minds by putting the focus on a cartoon character.
posted on 01.21.2005 5:56 PM22
"I'll say again, no conservative ever made a solid argument that changed minds by putting the focus on a cartoon character."
coughJOECAMELcough
Sorry about that. I'd quit smoking, except I don't smoke.
Anyway, I read somewhere (helpful, huh?) that the "We Are Family" organization that put together the "tolerance pledge" is different from the organization that Jeff quotes above. Apparently the underlings at FotF didn't notice the distinction between the two organiztions and passed the word up the chain that the two were one and the same.
Again, I'm not sure where I read/heard this (I hate to out myself here, but it might have been on NPR) so I'm prepared to recant if someone shows me I'm mistaken.
posted on 01.21.2005 6:24 PM23
For a media critic, Jarvis is embarrassingly ill informed about one of the most influential media personalities in the country.
Followed by: Joe's convincing proof of Dobson's popularity.
Obvious response: mere popularity doesn't demonstrate that Dobson isn't an absolute nutter.
[insert gratuitous Hitler reference here]
posted on 01.21.2005 7:03 PM24
Just ask if you need Dutch translations. I read and translate Dutch - my mother tongue, Afrikaans, derives from Dutch, much of my graduate education required reading philosophical and other texts in Dutch, and many of my friends are Dutch, Dutch-Canadian, or Dutch-American. And I once worked as a professional interpreter/translator ...
posted on 01.21.2005 7:19 PM25
I don't really care much about the sponge with the square pants, but I did see several reports that the cartoon is VERY popular is gay bars.
That said, I think that Dr. Dobson should find bigger fish to fry.
I've seen the cartoon a few times and don't see anything wrong, but maybe I'm just dense!
posted on 01.21.2005 7:51 PM26
Steven - I have kids in school. I don't think there are "bigger fish to fry" than an attempt to encourage the young and naive to accept homosexuality.
Daniel - It's the same organization. Their website is wearefamilyfoundation.org. Both the tolerance pledge and information about the video can be found there.
I am disturbed that more people aren't taking this seriously. Dr. Dobson may be attacking a cartoon character and that's a bit strange. But, that doesn't dimish the importance of this issue.
posted on 01.21.2005 8:08 PM27
"Daniel - It's the same organization. Their website is wearefamilyfoundation.org. Both the tolerance pledge and information about the video can be found there."
Well, Chad, I must be a big freaking idiot then, because I did every kind of search I could think of at www.wearefamilyfoundation.org, including a Google domain search, and couldn't find the words "compulsory heterosexuality" anywhere on the site. However...
Jeff H. quotes http://tinyurl.com/4zbvp as saying the "Teacher's Guide" called "Writing for Change: Raising Awareness of Difference, Power, & Discrimination" with the section "Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation" is on the We Are Family Foundation site. It is not. It is on the Tolerance.org site (http://www.tolerance.org/teach/web/wfc/index.jsp), which is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC and the WAFF are not connected to each other in any way. The WAFF provides as a part of their web content the SPLC's "Tolerance Pledge" (read the offending document at http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp) as well as a link to the Tolerance.org website, but makes no explicit or implicit comment on anything else contained at the Tolerance.org site.
My point is that Dr. Dobson's staff should have figured this out before they went public with their campaign against Spongebob. But you and Jeff don't need to feel bad for making the error; Dr. D. did the same thing, so you're in pretty good company.
(Sidenote: I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family. I've recommended _Dare to Discipline_ to families under my pastoral care for years, as well as many of his other publications. I'm just saying his organization should have been clearer on this issue about "who did what to whom for how many cookies." If we Evangelicals really want to go after the people who are pushing the liberal sexual agenda in America, we would do well to ignore We Are Family; they're small potatoes. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a big gun. Dobson's poor research has us focusing our fight in the wrong direction.)
posted on 01.21.2005 9:29 PM28
I keeep telling you folks to deep six Dobson.
Don't you get it?
The more people know about this guy, the more they are likely to become convinced of the absolute truth: this guy is Koo-Koo for Cocoa Puffs.
posted on 01.21.2005 9:39 PM29
Liber Fever: Joe, I caught it real bad when an outfit moved into our area named "Ollie's Bargain Outlet", and it turns out they've got all kinds of brand-new-release Christian stuff, and some "old stuff", for unreal prices. After buying a bunch, I finally broke down and promised my wife that I'd read about 20 books that were stacking up before I bought a single one more.
I've only broken that promise to buy one book...so far. But there is hope; I am working my way through my to-read list!!! You can do it!
posted on 01.21.2005 9:42 PM30
http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid= 17669
http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp
31
Not to intrude, but there is something that begs for clarification. Long before Dobson made his remarks, SpongeBob was something of a gay icon. I thought this was pretty well known. Heck, Dobson is about two years behind the curve.
That said, who cares if he rails against Spongebob's homosexuality. Who cares if Spongebob is gay. As crappy as that cartoon is, I would have thought gay activists would be the ones protesting his homosexuality. It's like having Jim and Tammy Fae represent Christians. We all lose.
posted on 01.21.2005 9:59 PM32
1. Pray for Baylor, we could use it.
2. I've always had theories about SpongeBob's sexual orientation, but FotF is getting a little ridiculous. If your kids become homosexuals, blame their depraved nature, not the media they watch.
3. Books are amazing, but over 1000? That's a feat.
posted on 01.22.2005 1:28 AM33
James Dobson is great to listen to on the radio. Ive got nothing but respect for the guy. Don't agree with some of the things that he has written but who does? Put two people in the same room and they will disagree.
James Dobson is a gift from God to us. I'm very thankful for him and what he's done for America.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:50 AM34
Joe:
I put a longer reply on my blog today about the wacky world of James Dobson.
You really don't want a light shone here.
Dobson's as whacked as they come.
posted on 01.22.2005 10:24 AM35
Given the unimpeachable way in which mumon has supported his many accusation on this site, I know we'll all be rushing over to his site for the goods on Dobson.
posted on 01.22.2005 10:33 AM36
Oh, and I should have added that when he was alive, Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf reached more listeners than either Dobson or Hewitt.
posted on 01.22.2005 10:35 AM37
http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=17669
http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp
To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.
Mumon: Dr. Dobson is concerned that some folks may have to accept someone else's private behavior as someone else's private behavior.
Dobson objects to the promotion of immoral lifestyles as worthy of 'respect' (not just tolerance). The pledge carries the implicit suggestion that criticizing homosexuality is equivelent to racism. I personally subscribe to 'Don't ask, Don't tell'. I have a shockingly low interest in a person's sexual habits, until that person chooses to make it an issue.
posted on 01.22.2005 11:03 AM38
Dr. Dobson's lifestyle is immoral. It is immoral to slander the works and actions of others, as Dobson has done (don't believe it? Follow through the links on my post on this subject). Dr. Dobson has some serious psychological and sexual issues that he needs to resolve before he can pretend to be an "expert" on what is immoral or psychologically healthy or not.
And you know what? Dr. Dobson wants to be free to be disrespectful to people- and frankly, in civil society, when what one is talking about is only religious differences, that's basically uncivil, and disrespectful. And Dr. Dobson should be criticized on those grounds.
Dr. Dobson's got a long history of not being honest and truthful, and it's way past due that the media gave this guy the attention he deserves.
posted on 01.22.2005 11:23 AM39
::: But by invoking the name of Spongebob rather than the SPLC, he has only added to the confusion. I think the point would have been more effective if he had limited his criticism to certain groups that sponsored the video rather than with the video itself.::
Guess what? Dobson never did invoke the name of SpongeBob. That was completely made up by the Times. The criticism was never about the cartoon, but about the teacher's guide going with it.
A little more self flagellation is in order.=)
40
Guess what? Dobson never did invoke the name of SpongeBob.
Uh, yeah he did. He wasn't as cracked-out as Falwell in the hilarious Tinky-Winky episode, but he did mention Mr. Bob by name, and the article was clear that the object of Dobson's attack was the video.
A little more self flagellation is in order.=)
Nah, just more reading comprehension.
posted on 01.22.2005 2:14 PM41
jpe: He wasn't as cracked-out as Falwell in the hilarious Tinky-Winky episode
ANOTHER cherished liberal media myth.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199902/0045.html
posted on 01.22.2005 2:41 PM42
DANIEL: "Jeff H. quotes http://tinyurl.com/4zbvp as saying the "Teacher's Guide" called "Writing for Change: Raising Awareness of Difference, Power, & Discrimination" with the section "Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation" is on the We Are Family Foundation site. It is not. It is on the Tolerance.org site (http://www.tolerance.org/teach/web/wfc/index.jsp), which is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center."
Sorry, Daniel, but you're clearly wrong on this. Take a look at the actual link:
http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/TEACHERS/pdf/section_1/1_05_uncovering_attitudes.pdf
And note that it is in the domain: "www.wearefamilyfoundation.org".
Further, if you read that file, you'll find this passage:
-------------------------
DEFINITIONS:
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.
Compulsory heterosexuality: The assumption that women are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual relationships. e institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage.
Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor,
childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge.
It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence.
-------------------------
That appears to be an agenda--and a rather radical one--to me.
43
Dr. Dobson's got a long history of not being honest and truthful, and it's way past due that the media gave this guy the attention he deserves.
Man, mumon, give it a rest. As long as you keep making these accusations without providing proof you're just spitting in the wind.
Unless you can provide proof--here, on this blog, where you've made repeated claims--then please, shut up about it!
Yes, this is me, calling you out, mumon.
posted on 01.22.2005 4:56 PM44
ANOTHER cherished liberal media myth.
Pfft. Wow, that linkless message board sure is convincing. If two random guys on a chat site think the story was a fabrication, I guess it must be.
Was that seriously the best you could do?
posted on 01.22.2005 5:33 PM45
Mr Ed:
Anyone can look through the web- I've documented what I've said in previous posts, and by pointing people to the IFAS archives.
It is you sir, who are perpetuating dishonesty.
It is time you started to take account for the fact you are covering up for James Dobson.
You may not like the message, but it has to be said: James Dobson is, in the opinion of many, immoral.
posted on 01.22.2005 5:41 PM46
jpe:
Turns out (see my posts today on my blog) a) Dobson never saw the video in question, and b) the video in question never mentions gays or homosexuality or anything like that.
Basically, Dobson lied. Just like he lied on the 10 Commandments Scam.
posted on 01.22.2005 5:42 PM47
Anyone can look through the web- I've documented what I've said in previous posts, and by pointing people to the IFAS archives.
I've read repeated accusation from you and not a single post citing proof. You may have at some point in the past but you can't expect to keep making the same accusations months later without pointing to said "proof". Also, excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what the IFAS archives are. Nor have I seen you refer to them.
So, I ask yet again, where can we get this "proof"?
posted on 01.22.2005 5:52 PM48
More on Dobson:
Here is a good reference on the Roy Moore 10 Commandments Scam. Be sure to read the decision linked to it, where the judge basically calls the whole event a scam for fundraising.
Here's Dobson's website's links on it. Notice, as the judge in Glassroth v. Moore mentioned, that this is being used as a fundraising scam: most of the links are to "resources" that have "suggested donations.
If you read the opinion, of course, there's sound legal basis for rejecting Roy Moore's stunt. Not that Dobson would tell you that, and of course he's telling lies by omission by doing this. Not one single link to the decision is mentioned. No attempt at explaining the other side is mentioned.
Dobson is simply dishonest, and his morality is in the sewer.
posted on 01.22.2005 5:52 PM49
Mr. Ed;
Google "Ineternet archive."
Put in "http://www.ifas.org", which is the website of the former "Institute for First Ammendment Studies," and search through there.
Do your own homework. But don't accuse someone of anything until you've actually done your own homework.
posted on 01.22.2005 5:54 PM51
It has been therefore indisputably proven that James Dobson has lied by omission in the Roy Moore debacle, and with the apparent intent to raise funds for his "ministry."
Game, set, match.
posted on 01.22.2005 5:58 PM52
Do your own homework. But don't accuse someone of anything until you've actually done your own homework.
I haven't accused you of a thing except baseless accusations which, until now, is what you've mainly provided. Making a claim that someone is a liar and then telling me to go out and find my own proof of it it ridiculous, no? Yes.
I've now read your blog and the seven points on Dobson which are mostly opinion and ad hominem attacks. Example? Point #3:
Dobson's a fraud, as can easily be seen on his website. He pretends to be a "child care expert," but he's really a Protestant religious bigot. I can't put it in any other terms. His website regularly posts lies, slanders, and misinformation about any other type of religious belief other than his own.
While you provided no proof of his slander and lies, not surprising, you also mistakenly present your opinion of the man as truth when his resume clearly distinguishes the man, like it or not, as an expert on child psychology.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:11 PM53
This cartoon characters video story has been been an opportunity for 'faith based bloggers' to engage others.
So, instead fights break out in threads and Jeff Jarvis is labelled intolerant.
Some faith based bloggers have not done themselves proud.
Knock yourselves out.
54
Here is a good reference on the Roy Moore 10 Commandments Scam. Be sure to read the decision linked to it, where the judge basically calls the whole event a scam for fundraising.
A scam implies an attempt to get something dishonestly. But your own post states the following:
A fund-raising letter from Coral Ridge President Dr. James Kennedy included a donor-response form which read, in part, 'I want to help provide for Justice Moore's and the Ten Commandments' legal defense. Also, use my gift to continue sharing the life-transforming Gospel, through new editions of The Coral Ridge Hour and all the ongoing work of Coral Ridge Ministries.'
If the fund raising letter tells CRM's supporters that they will be using funds for evangelical outreach as well as Judge Moore's legal defense then WHERE is the scam?
posted on 01.22.2005 6:20 PM55
If the fund raising letter tells CRM's supporters that they will be using funds for evangelical outreach as well as Judge Moore's legal defense then WHERE is the scam?
Kennedy is clearly connecting it to Roy Moore's stunt- he is, in effect, blatantly using Roy Moore's stunt for his own ends.
It is a scam, because Kennedy is acting as though he has some moral principle at stake here, when all he is doing is shamelessly using a guy who can't respect the rule of law to raise funds for himself.
And all of that is as proven as the earth orbiting around the sun.
While you provided no proof of his slander and lies,...
I've previously quoted his website wherein he slanders non-Christian religions. You can - again, search this website or my own for details.
You, as I recall, denied he was lying, but, sir, that's your support of Dobson's false witness, not my false witness.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:30 PM56
It is a scam, because Kennedy is acting as though he has some moral principle at stake here, when all he is doing is shamelessly using a guy who can't respect the rule of law to raise funds for himself.
Of course you should know, as we do, that all you're doing here is assuming a motive by Dr. Kennedy when you couldn't possibly prove it. Either way, motives are moot. There is no scam if the presented uses for donations are clearly stated.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:45 PM57
Here's some links I literally got in seconds, which should tell you everything you need to know about James Dobson and "Focus on the Family" [sic] and the theocratic movement in the US in general:
(Note the links to berkshire.net's IFAS website are dead, unfortunately)
All you might want to download about the religious right
You know, Concerned Women for America used to have a discussion forum but they shut it down when they discovered that they wre being shellacked intellectually by social liberals, and they were being disrupted by some very unsavory "Christians."
posted on 01.22.2005 6:47 PM58
You, as I recall, denied he was lying, but, sir, that's your support of Dobson's false witness, not my false witness.
You recall incorrectly. I only called on you to prove your claims or shut up. Again, please do not be so quick to defame my character without support.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:47 PM59
Mr Ed
"Intent" is not necessary in this case. He's bearing false witness against the American people, who have created the legal system responsible for Glassroth v. Moore.
60
Here's some links I literally got in seconds, which should tell you everything you need to know about James Dobson and "Focus on the Family" [sic] and the theocratic movement in the US in general.
Yes, I'll be sure to read every point of the clearly unbiased "Queer Resources Network" and the "SkepticTank". If course you know that this means nothing. I can provide the same amount of negative opinions about the two organizations you just linked to. We're talking specifics here. And I'm asking you to provide specific examples to support your claims.
posted on 01.22.2005 6:52 PM61
By the way, for the QRN to say "Focus has also extensively used the AIDS plague to advance their abstinence-based views regarding sex education" is more than a bit hypocritical considering how shamelessly the Gay lobby has abused the AIDS statistics in the name of quashing the "gay plague" label.
posted on 01.22.2005 7:11 PM62
Mr Ed:
So you're saying that progressives should immediately ignore links from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians?
Really?
I tend to think they make my case best of all in their own words, verbatim.
Why, take, for example, oh, I don't know, say, James Dobson. He worries that fictional cartoon characters are being "exploited" to prevent him from being disrespectful towards those whose religious views are different from his own.
His organization said that in its own "clarifying statement." Why shouldn't I use those words?
posted on 01.22.2005 7:58 PM63
JEFF: "Sorry, Daniel, but you're clearly wrong on this. Take a look at the actual link..."
I stand corrected. Forgive my implication that you and others hadn't done their homework on this.
posted on 01.22.2005 8:19 PM64
Bene Diction: "Some faith based bloggers have not done themselves proud."
Perhaps...but others are simply trying to provide a measure of accountability to the community, as you were. Not a bad thing overall...
posted on 01.22.2005 8:23 PM65
Examples of Misrepresentation
mumon writes: So you're saying that progressives should immediately ignore links from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians?
No. Rather, I stated quite clearly the message I was trying to convey. Again, I quote myself, "We're talking specifics here. And I'm asking you to provide specific examples to support your claims."
Links to anti-Focus on the Family organizations tell us nothing. Giving us specific quotes to what those organizations say that supports your claim does. I'm not weeding through pages of propaganda to try to prove your assertion.
mumon goes on: I tend to think they make my case best of all in their own words, verbatim. Why, take, for example, oh, I don't know, say, James Dobson. He worries that fictional cartoon characters are being "exploited" to prevent him from being disrespectful towards those whose religious views are different from his own. His organization said that in its own "clarifying statement." Why shouldn't I use those words?
Here is a prime example of misrepresentation. While mumon claims that using Dobson's own words verbatim will indict him, he then goes on to twist Dobson's words to be more provocative than they really are in order to support his own claims. But wait. I thought Dobson's own words were enough to indict him as a bigot and a liar? Let us then turn to Dobson's website--for all intents and purposes this can provide us with an example of what Dobson's own words would be on the subject:
Dobson website: From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth. We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that's beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads. The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video's sponsor. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.
*emphasis mine
posted on 01.22.2005 8:39 PM66
Yeah Daniel, I guess. It is the blogosphere and we all get our say, there have been good posts and as usual the discussion went a lot further than accountability. Blog on!
posted on 01.22.2005 8:43 PM67
To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.Mumon: Dr. Dobson is concerned that some folks may have to accept someone else's private behavior as someone else's private behavior.
Dobson objects to the promotion of immoral lifestyles as worthy of 'respect' (not just tolerance). The pledge carries the implicit suggestion that criticizing homosexuality is equivelent to racism. I personally subscribe to 'Don't ask, Don't tell'. I have a shockingly low interest in a person's sexual habits, until that person chooses to make it an issue.
Some elementary logic here: The pledge says you should respect people with different beliefs. By definition mutually exclusive beliefs cannot both be true at the same time (in other words, "UFO's visited the earth" and "UFO's have never visited the earth" cannot both be true). But the pledge's own terms, a person who seriously took it would have to recognize that 'respect those with different beliefs' cannot mean the same thing as 'accept the different beliefs of others'. Hence respecting homosexuals as human beigns is not the same as accepting homosexual sex as moral etc.
As usual Christians (I'm assuming the author above is one) reveal more about themselves than those that they criticize. The author is so obsessed with homosexuals that he cannot even understand the Engish language. What if the pledge made no reference to sexual identity? Would he be crying here about having to respect Satanists, Gia worshippers, athiests etc.? Why not? Those groups would be covered by 'beliefs'?
BTW, homosexual is not the same as lifestyle.
posted on 01.22.2005 9:26 PM68
As usual Christians (I'm assuming the author above is one) reveal more about themselves than those that they criticize.
As usual? Come on, Boon, now you're revealing more about yourself than "Christians".
The author is so obsessed with homosexuals that he cannot even understand the Engish language. What if the pledge made no reference to sexual identity? Would he be crying here about having to respect Satanists, Gia worshippers, athiests etc.? Why not? Those groups would be covered by 'beliefs'?
The objection, as I read it, is twofold: first, its about raising the idea of different "sexual identities" to children who have no concept of the idea of a sexual identity anyway. Second, its about using the public school system to promote divisive issues. And to deny that it is divisive or to claim that Christians are the only ones making it divisive is to ignore the whole last Century in regards to this issue.
posted on 01.22.2005 10:40 PM69
Mr Ed,
Why don't you take people at their words? Look at what he wrote:
"Dobson objects to the promotion of immoral lifestyles as worthy of 'respect' (not just tolerance)."
Nothing here is said about the age of the child being too young to mention the idea of 'sexual identities' (which, BTW, can easily refer to gender as well as orientation). Specifically what is being criticized here is respecting those who have immoral lifestyles.
"The pledge carries the implicit suggestion that criticizing homosexuality is equivelent to racism."
This reading into things is a prime example of what I'm talking about it. If 'sexual identity' was removed from the pledge why not object to it for respect of religious beliefs? Why no 'implicit suggestion' that criticizing athiesm is equivelent to racism? Because the author can only see homosexuals and even when they aren't there he imagines they must be in hiding.
"I have a shockingly low interest in a person's sexual habits, until that person chooses to make it an issue."
Yet a person's sexual habits has not been made an issue by anyone but this poster. The pledge says nothing about respecting choices of sexual behavior nor does it follow logically that just because you respect someone you approve of either their beliefs or acts. As I pointed out, this reading would lead to an absurd conclusion if applied to the 'beliefs' section of the pledge.
"Second, its about using the public school system to promote divisive issues. And to deny that it is divisive or to claim that Christians are the only ones making it divisive is to ignore the whole last Century in regards to this issue."
Now you are just sinking into incoherence. What does it mean to 'promote divisive issues'? Do you sprout such nonsense when the 'divisive issue' is the Ten commandments in a courthouse? The idea of tolerance (which is equilivant to respect in this case) is not a divisive issue because those opposed are not even able to mount an intellectual argument on their behalf. The only way you can make it divisive is by pretending it is about something it is not.
70
Bene So, instead fights break out in threads and Jeff Jarvis is labelled intolerant.
Jeff Jarvis admitted that he is intolerant. Apparantly, for Mr. Jarvis, he believes in tolerating other people's beliefs only if he doesn't deem them to be "intolerant."
71
Boon,
FYI, half of the quotes in your last post which was addressed to me were not written by me. But let me address your points anyway:
Nothing here is said about the age of the child being too young to mention the idea of 'sexual identities' (which, BTW, can easily refer to gender as well as orientation). Specifically what is being criticized here is respecting those who have immoral lifestyles.
I was referring to the latest memo on Dobson's website here.
This reading into things is a prime example of what I'm talking about it. If 'sexual identity' was removed from the pledge why not object to it for respect of religious beliefs? Why no 'implicit suggestion' that criticizing athiesm is equivelent to racism? Because the author can only see homosexuals and even when they aren't there he imagines they must be in hiding.
But its not hiding; its in plain site. There is not other reason to include the phrase "sexual identity". Failing to recognize this is, well, just don't get any sand in your ears. It's heck trying to clean out.
Do you sprout such nonsense when the 'divisive issue' is the Ten commandments in a courthouse?
A courthouse is not a classroom. Those in it on a daily basis are not children.
The only way you can make it divisive is by pretending it is about something it is not.
Which is? If its about gender then why not use the term gender?
posted on 01.23.2005 1:37 AM72
Sorry, the link to Dobson's site is here:
http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=17669
posted on 01.23.2005 1:38 AM73
I know Joe. I read that at Buzz Machine.
He listened to you and Mr. Hewitt and responded.
But he hasn't been rude to his commenters that have preached at him, and mocked him, he engaged you in his post with civility compared to some of the people from here and Hughs and elsewhere that were less so.
So you took the info you had at the time.
It took awhile for people to dig up the whole story, no point in beating yourself up,you and others updated info as it became available.
I'm not the civility police or the comment police. I've read a lot of blogs and comments regarding this, and I'm going to bed and sleeping in, it's been discouraging.
A comment at Dr. Byron's looks at tolerance very well. I appreciate the courtesy I received in this thread. Thank you.
74
Joe: If I offended you or any of your commenters, forgive me.
posted on 01.23.2005 2:14 AM75
Bene Joe: If I offended you or any of your commenters, forgive me.
Disagreeing with me never offends me (especially when it's so polite).
Besides, I always cut you more slack because of the "language barrier." Since you're a foreigner and don't really speak the language misunderstandings can happen rather easily. ; )
posted on 01.23.2005 2:19 AM76
I blame the Canadians...
I keed!
You make some good comments, Bene. It's good to get someone who doesn't always agree.
As long as they do it nicely - which you usually do.
posted on 01.23.2005 7:22 AM77
Mr Ed:
I've quoted links from FOTF itself, showing that they basically kept the truth away from their patrons (by not linking to the Glasroth v. Moore decision or similar material), and then creating a "crisis" and then shilling for money.
That's immoral.
Here is a prime example of misrepresentation. While mumon claims that using Dobson's own words verbatim will indict him, he then goes on to twist Dobson's words to be more provocative than they really are in order to support his own claims. But wait. I thought Dobson's own words were enough to indict him as a bigot and a liar? Let us then turn to Dobson's website--for all intents and purposes this can provide us with an example of what Dobson's own words would be on the subject:
No, Ed. Please try to keep the facts. Now watch closely now, I expect you to be able to do this on your own:
1. From Dobson's site as quoted by Carter:
Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth.
2. From the original NYT article:
The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.
I've seen the video for myself. Rather than correct his statement, Dobson refused to correct the record, in effect, lying.
In fact, furthermore, FOTF said, "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," ... "It is a classic bait and switch."
Look at the video. You can view it from a link on my website. Go ahead. Look at it, and tell me that this spokesman from FOTF was telling something like the truth. And remember, everybody else on the net can see for themselves.
On the other hand, Hugh Hewitt, who still has less listeners than Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf did, thinks the "mainstream media" hasn't been honest, but hasn't provided a scintilla of proof on that.
To me, it looks like the religious right got caught red handed, and are trying to shift the blame to anywhere but where it rightly belongs.
posted on 01.23.2005 8:38 AM78
Il y a vérité dans cela. Je ne comprends pas toujours.
ar arr arrrr Merci.
79
Bene Il y a vérité dans cela. Je ne comprends pas toujours. ar arr arrrr Merci.
Hey, you never told me you spoke Russian... ; )
posted on 01.23.2005 12:32 PM80
David Sarasohn today brings back another of James Dobson's more pronouncments.
Dobson... said of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., "I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Later, when asked about it by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Dobson responded loftily, "George, you think you ought to lecture me on what being Christian is all about?"
Now, for anybody whose read the Christian psychiatrits M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie, one could clearly see that the premises of Dobson's statement are lies: How can Dobson know who the people of God are? (Dobson's statement must assume that to have any validity.) How can Dobson claim that Sen Patrick Leahy "hates" the people of God? (Leahy was perhaps dealt with more honestly, if crudely by Dick Cheney).
This type of dishonesty is redolent of the evil that Peck speaks about in his book.
Of course Dobson's statements above- like his "SpongeBob" moment, are due to pride and arrogance. So Dobson's got a huge plank in his eye. What is confounding to me is why Evangelical Christians, of whom a subset complain about not being treated fairly in the public square are so willing to let a Dobson get a free pass over and over again.
Look folks, if you want cred in the public square, have the common decency to admit that Dobson's not what your ideal is or should be, cut your losses and move on.
posted on 01.23.2005 3:12 PM81
I do need better proofreading ... but you get my drift...
posted on 01.23.2005 3:29 PM82
"But its not hiding; its in plain site. There is not other reason to include the phrase "sexual identity". Failing to recognize this is, well, just don't get any sand in your ears. It's heck trying to clean out."
You're missing the point. What does the pledge say about sexual identity that it doesn't say about religious beliefs? Nothing. If you conclude the pledge requires you to accept homosexuality then logically the pledge also requires you to accept alternate religious beliefs. But this reduces your reading to absurdity since religious beliefs are often mutually exclusive (i.e. "Mohammad is the true prophet of God" "Jesus was the son of God & messiah" "The Messiah has not come yet" are all statements of various religions but they cannot all be believed at the same time).
If you really believed the pledge says what you say it does about gays then you have to object to every other part of the pledge too.
posted on 01.23.2005 5:20 PM83
What does the pledge say about sexual identity that it doesn't say about religious beliefs?
Beliefs about sexual identity are a form of religious belief.
And that's why - as a non-Christian- I tend to be wary of such things.
posted on 01.23.2005 7:50 PM84
I too tend to be wary of such things for adults. If you're 35 years old and still get off by calling someone a faggot or mocking their race you are probably such a big loser that none of your victims even cares what you think (those that are actually violent, though, are a different matter).
Kids, though, are quite cruel to each other & if this is a paradign that subverts that cruelity then I have no problem with it at all. I'm not sure my logic was understood.
If the pledge requires you to accept homosexual behavior as moral because it includes sexual identity then it also requires you to accept beliefs from various religions and non-religions (like atheism). But that is absurd since there's a huge amount of beliefs that are mutually contradictory and cannot both be accepted as true at the same time. Therefore this method of reading the pledge either reduces it to meaninglessness or is deeply flawed.
posted on 01.24.2005 8:32 AM