Better late than never, a friend points out this "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," published in October by James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and fairly broadly criticized at the time.
It's long and hysterical-another sign of how beleaguered the hard-core Christian Right is feeling. Still more revealing, I count 18 paragraphs on homosexuality and gay marriage, versus four on abortion (aka, from a pro-life point of view, murder of babies). I found no instances of the word "divorce." "Adultery"? You gotta be kidding.
This is the kind of anti-gay obsessiveness and upside-down prioritizing that Rick Warren and others of his ilk and generation are moving away from. The more I think about Obama's choice of Warren to lead the inaugural prayer, the more I like it. Culturally, the moment is right to reach out to reachable evangelicals and marginalize the hysterics and obsessives who have all but monopolized their movement. The cultural left doesn't understand the difference between Warren and Dobson, but evangelicals sure will. And they'll know Obama and Warren are publicly declaring Dobsonism obsolete.
21 Comments for “Dobson v. Warren (2)”
posted by Bobby on
Sorry to say so, Jonathan, but the letter seems pretty accurate. I don’t think is hysterical, the letter is based on things some gays have done across the world.
The chapter on guns was pretty accurate, the chapter on abortion was 100% truthful. Did you know Obama wants to pass the freedom of choice act that would force doctors to perform abortions even if its against their conscience? Progressives are simply insane, they don’t believe in freedom, they believe that things should be their way and damn anything that stands in their way. I mean, this people want to judge Bush for “war crimes.” Since when is going to war a crime?
If you want to marginalize the hysterics and obsessives who have all but monopolized their movement, you better start fighting to protect their freedoms. That means freedom of speech, association, conscience, the right to bear arms, low taxes, etc.
posted by The Gay Species on
I suppose the 12-Step Rehabilitation Program for Homos at Saddleback suggests a less draconian approach than reparative therapy, but I don’t think of homophilia as “equivalent” to “substance abuse” and Al Anon.
The Jewish and Christian scriptures are unequivocal in their condemnation of same-sex relations, both “deserving death.” Saint Paul uses homophilia to demonstrate the sin of idolatry, the most serious biblical sin, and first in prominence of the Decalogue.
Of course, he also uses “judgment of others” as “no different” qualitatively from homophilia as the sin of idolatry, and Saint Jude is equally condemnatory, as is the Didache, The Teaching of the Twelve.
The truth of the matter is that sex in general is circumscribed for procreation and male-release only, primarily the latter, and women shall earn their salvation through childbirth. So saith the scriptures.
Thus, it is entirely consistent for Saint Paul and Jude to regard non-procreative sexuality as inherently “unnatural” (physis, in Greek), but worse, as a self-evident gesture of idolatry, worshipping the body of another that does not participate in god’s creative acts (and destructive ones, too).
Jews and Christians who contend with homophilia and wish the words were “otherwise” are simply wishing upon a star. The Romans 1:20 ff. is a defective argument, but then Paul does not claim to be a scientist, logician, or even smart, simply an oracle for the god he thinks has inspired his witness. Poor dude, though, did not even recognize Jesus when he went into that three-day psychotic episode on the Road to Damascus.
Oh, and Paul cannot be an apostle, despite his own self-serving identification to the contrary, since he did not witness Jesus in the flesh, and did not recognize his apparition on the Road. He’s a fluke. A charlattan. And, so, is most of the rest.
posted by Bobby on
Come on, Gay Species, the letter from the AFA did not mention biblical reasons to oppose us. It’s really boring to start debating Leviticus and romans 1:20, it doesn’t apply. As for St. Paul being a charlatan, who cares? It’s not important. Read the letter and then debate if you agree with the letter or not.
posted by avee on
This is the kind of anti-gay obsessiveness and upside-down prioritizing that Rick Warren and others of his ilk and generation are moving away from. The more I think about Obama’s choice of Warren to lead the inaugural prayer, the more I like it.
I don’t know what’s up with this embrace of Rick Warren, who compares gay marriages to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. Yes, I know he’s a “different” evangelical, because he’s against global warming and in favor of expanding the welfare state. I can understand why Democrats and liberals think that’s an advance; I think it proves he’s wrong about, well, everything.
posted by Jorge on
I hate to agree with Bobby, but I’ve been disturbed by a lot that I’ve seen in the past few weeks. The things I have heard some people say about the Rick Warren thing have been very troubling. At the same time, that incident is what tells me that Obama will not give the far left any more credibility or access than any average leftist would want to see (which is still too much for my comfort; I don’t think the left understands how dangerous the far left is, but then, the left says the same thing about the far right and the right).
posted by Bobby on
Glad we agreed on something, Jorge. As Sean Hannitti says, we are now conservatives/libertarians in exile! Keep on the good fight!
posted by Jorge on
I am not a conservative.
It just so happens the whole world has gone mad.
posted by TS on
you do well to point out what you do rauch.
dobson dne warren
the thing that makes me upset is not the purported “betrayal” but the obvious futility. Obama, like his predecessor Kennedy, thinks he has the potential to become some kind of superhero conciliator. I think he believes that both military wars and culture wars are basically just misunderstandings. And in some senses that’s just what they are. But definitely not in a pragmatic sense, and if you want to avoid a pragmatic sense, DON’T run for president of this godforsaken country.
posted by The Gay Species on
Bobby claims scripture should not be the issue, since the AFA letter does NOT mention scripture.
So, does Warren “rehabilitate” homophiles because he finds homophilia “disgusting,” as vomit? I don’t think so. I think his motivations are tied directly to the scriptures, and indeed, his website once cited those scriptures.
Those who look only at the surface are superficial. As long as roots of bigotry and homophobia are ignored, progress cannot be made. Sweeping the source of both bigotry and homophobia under the rug may hide it from Bobby, but not from 45% who take the Bible literally.
Those who are “cafeteria” Christians aren’t very good disciples. Indeed, you’ve set yourself as god, judging the merits of divine revelation, a true case of idolatry.
posted by BobN on
I’m not convinced of that Warren is much different from Dobson regarding gay issues.
Only the most generous reading of Warren’s comments finds support for California’s Domestic Partnership. I would argue that that reading is only possible if one wears blinders.
But Warren does seem nicer than Dobson (not a high bar) and, to my knowledge, does not beat puppies with a belt.
An improvement, I guess.
posted by Bobby on
Listen Gay Species, you can’t convince a Christian that homosexuality is not a sin anymore than you can convince a muslim that eating pork and drinking alcohol is not a sin.
You can agree to disagree and take the debate beyond that. Nowadays I’m not even interested in what people consider a sin or not. Warren’s homophobia is no different than that of an atheist who finds two men kissing disgusting. The irony is that if they get to know people like us, they get used to it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
The idea that Warren is some sort of big improvement over Dobson is pure poppycock. Warren says himself the only difference between the two of them is “tone”:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/warren-vs-dobson-difference-tone
“So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? “It’s a matter of tone,” says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree.”
posted by Jorge on
You can agree to disagree and take the debate beyond that.
Which is what people like Dobson and Dr. Laura have tried to do. In my opinion unsuccessfully–they only preach more effectively to the choir–but from what I see they are more often challenged on religious grounds than on all the grounds simultaneously. In fact it is because of science and social science that we have gained any ground at all.
Hmm, don’t know if that explains why slavery and killing sex abusers was dropped.
posted by Jorge on
Tone is pretty important.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “Listen Gay Species, you can’t convince a Christian that homosexuality is not a sin anymore than you can convince a muslim that eating pork and drinking alcohol is not a sin.”.
Not true. Many Christians don’t believe gayness is a sin – many Christians have been convinced.
Ultimately the reason why some Christians think gayness is a sin comes down to the same reason you said an atheist might be homophobic – the idea of gay sex is disgusting. That is the reason the anti-gay passages were put in the bible in the first place, its authors thought gay sex was disgusting. It has nothing to do with an imaginary god thinking gay sex was bad for some other unfathomable reason. Calling gay sex a sin is an excuse for homophobic Christians when the reality is as Bobby said that they find gay sex disgusting but want a more authoritative sounding excuse for their hatred.
Bobby said “Warren’s homophobia is no different than that of an atheist who finds two men kissing disgusting. The irony is that if they get to know people like us, they get used to it.”.
If you believe this then you have no reason not to believe Christians can be convinced gayness is not a sin – their homophobia is due to disgust, not the bible and that can be overcome with familiarity. If you don’t believe Christians can be convinced gayness is not a sin then you don’t believe Warren’s homophobia is no different than an atheist’s who finds two men kissing disgusting.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The Gay Species wrote, “Those who are ‘cafeteria’ Christians aren’t very good disciples. Indeed, you’ve set yourself as god, judging the merits of divine revelation, a true case of idolatry.”
Every Christian is a cafeteria Christian; some are just not honest about it. Show me someone who claims to believe and practice every word of the Bible and I’ll show you someone who is cherry-picking biblical verses, ignoring inconvenient passages, and mangling others. And tell me, what does it mean to take every word literally when the book is filled with figurative (i.e., non-literal) statements?
As to your silly charge about setting oneself up as god and practicing idolatry: first of all, the true idolatry is biblical fundamentalism. It is a particular form of idolatry known as bibliolatry. Second, judging the merits of what is claimed as divine revelation is the human condition. If God did not want me to use my brain to think for myself, She should not have given me one. And declaring one’s own beliefs to be eternal, unchanging, divine truths that cannot be questioned is not civil discourse but sociopathy. It amazes me how habitually some people talk as if the divine authority of the Bible were unquestioned. Excuse me, but in my country we are entitled to believe as we choose, and I while I value the Bible as a cultural document, I do not choose to accept an ancient Middle Eastern text as the be-all and end-all of human existence.
It is staggering that so much of what passes for religious discussion in this country is at such a primitive and willfully ignorant level. Face it: you don’t have the ability to enforce your doctrines on the rest of us. You are not the authority, in either a scholarly or a legal sense. To quote a great man, stop worrying about the mote in your neighbor’s eye and start worrying about the beam in your own.
posted by Bobby on
“Not true. Many Christians don’t believe gayness is a sin – many Christians have been convinced.”
—My best straight friend for many years believed that it was a sin, but he never disliked me because he considered himself a sinner as well. So he went to gay bars with me, talked to me, and ironically, now he supports same-sex marriage.
“If you believe this then you have no reason not to believe Christians can be convinced gayness is not a sin”
—I’m not interested in convincing them of anything. Many christians don’t like my sexual orientation but they do like me and my honesty/bluntness. I am convinced that someday Christians will accept same-sex marriage just like they accept strip bars, porn in hotels, tattoos, cursing, and other sinful behaviors. Eventually they evangelical movement will get tired of fighting us and move on to other causes. I sincerely believe that.
posted by Jorge on
Mote?
Most of what I’ve seen as religious discussion (at least on the gay issue) has either been “We’re Christian and you’re not”, “You’re Christian, go away”, or “I’m a REAL Christian, you’re not.” Which isn’t a religious discussion at all. It’s a power struggle. And it’s always fascinating how the speaker always claims to either be in the majority or to have some kind of unquestioned authority.
Nothing wrong with power stuggles, but you don’t get much but garbage out of them if you’re trying to pretend it’s a serious conversation.
posted by The Gay Species on
Now. Rosendall is not only committing idolatry, he’s redefining sin. Biblical testimony no where equates biblical fundamentalism with idolatry. Nowhere. Indeed, the testimony is claimed to have privilege that cannot be questioned. Even Jesus insists not one letter of the law and the prophets is changed by his ministry. But, Rosendall is changing idolatry to biblioidolatry.
Now I almost agree with Rosendall. The worship of a book (not necessarily fundamentalism) as Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews are won’t to do is not substantially different from the worship of our lover’s bodies, golden calves, or Shakespeare’s poetry. Displacing god by any artifact, not to mention a book or a lover, is to commit idolatry.
But fundamentalism vs. biblioidolatry is not inherently sinful. In the Catholic tradition, itself highly fundamentalist, does not place scripture above god, as the Evangelical equivalences do. If we indict “fundamentals” as sinful, then the fundaments of loving another man by man is called into question. Fundamentalism per se is not a sin. The scriptures may not exclude it, but even the most rudimentary literary theory cannot sanction it. But, to place a book, even “scriptures,” above god is self-defining idolatry. To place ourselves in judgment of what is “true” and what is “false” — assuming the Bible is god’s word — is idolatry.
Saint Paul is more consistent than Rosendall. Idolatry, the first command of the Decalogue, state “no other god before me.” But then someone has to read that, interpret it as fundamental, and to affirm it is true, so a vicious circle ensues.
I admit it. I am my own best, and worst, god. That way I don’t have to cavil over Yahweh’s incessant circular and irrational claims. I prefer reason and ethics to god and obedience.
posted by The Gay Species on
I saved Rosendall’s comment, “It is staggering that so much of what passes for religious discussion in this country is at such a primitive and willfully ignorant level,” for separate comment.
Now he’s the judge of what passes for “religious discussion.” Is he ordained by god to render this judgment, or is he sitting in judgment of others, as if he is god, to dispute those he disagrees with, and with whom Jesus (Mt. 7:1-5) and Saint Paul (Rom. 1-2) insist he must not do: Judge others.
While Jesus and Saint Paul might indict Rosendall as an “idolater,” I simply indict his Fallacy of Special Pleading: “I can, you cannot.” No, the fallacy is not in the Bible; it is known as sophistry since 500 B.C.E. Greece. Some, like Jesus, call it “hypocrisy.” Vitters, Craig, Spitzer, et al. are not the only culprits of the error, but it is not a sin, according to the Bible.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Rosendall speaks clearly and makes sense. Gay species I can’t understand.