Focus on the Family has sent a letter out telling us what is going to happen if Obama is elected. It sounds like the end of the world. And I guess that is what they believe, or at least want us to believe.
It appears that God has whispered into their ear these warning and instructed them to let all of us know... to be warned. One can only imagine that we will soon be reading the Gospel According to Focus on the Family, the Gospel According to James Dobson. We have long awaited these new testement of God. And I am sure that it will be in God's sacred and holy language, English.
And all along I thought that Church and State were separate. No more! God does not want that. God has decreed to Dobson and others that Ameica is God favored land. One can only wonder what these self proclaimed prophets have to say about all those other nations who thought they were God's favored.
In following posts are the letter, and two posts from two different news sources about the letter.
Enjoy... but rememeber, time is now, time is here... ready yoursleves and your families, and your loved one. The end of the world is coming.
Orthodox Christmas in January?
3 years ago
2 comments:
I think the following article tells it all. You can read it and more at: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/focus.html
Move over George Washington. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, wants to take your place as father of our country. But rather than being a true father -- one who helps us mature into individuals -- he is little more than another Pharisee, setting himself up as a religiously-based political dictator bent on getting us to support his personal view of legislated morality.
And what's even worse, Dobson goes to great length to use Scripture to support his view, and yet according to Time magazine he doesn't even have any formal theological training. In short, Dobson, using his position as a radio psychologist, has set himself up as our moral authority and asks us all to blindly follow.
But don't take my word for it. The following are quotes from Dobson and from other media reporting about Dobson's activities. In them you'll find Dobson clearly putting his ideas forth as the Gospel truth and asking all of us to act on them as if they were directly from God. The text in bold is my emphasis.
In the January 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"Focus on the Family immediately joined the Family Research Council and other conservative organizations in getting out the word. Using our radio program and this monthly letter, we asked for a massive response from our listeners."
"Again, Focus on the Family threw down the gauntlet, We devoted our broadcast to this danger on three separate days, almost begging our listeners to flood the White House, the attorney general, and the Congress with letters of protest."
"One issue concerned the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, which has worried me for years. I devoted a portion of my letter in January 1993, and again in July 1994, to the threat posed by this dangerous document. More than 150 countries around the world have already adopted it within their borders."
"The state of Oregon narrowly passed the nation's first euthanasia law, which almost defies comprehension. If the courts permit it to take effect, physicians will be allowed to assist their willing patients in killing themselves. The implications of this legislation are so ominous that I will devote a future letter to that topic."
"In May, I discussed this legislation in my monthly letter and warned of the many dangers that lie ahead."
"What ... I have called a `civil war of values' continues to rage."
"Focus on the Family will continue to fight for moral values. And we'll try to keep you informed of the threats coming against the institutions of marriage and parenthood. But we do need your financial support to get the job done."
Here Dobson clearly admits to using his newsletters and broadcasts to ask us to do his bidding. And it is clearly just that -- his bidding. He often uses phrases like, "I devoted" and "I have called" and "I discussed" to point out his moral beliefs, but in his calls for action, he presents his causes as nothing short of God's own.
In the March 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"Perhaps this explains the statement I made on the radio last month, which some of you questioned. Let me express it once more. I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby. "
"Never will I use my influence, however remotely, to support the shedding of their blood."
"These are challenging days, to be sure, and there are other issues I wish we had time to deal with."
Here is admits he has an influence, and he admits he will use it support those things he believes and to condemn those things he condemns. And to those who questions him, he simply rolls over them to reiterate his personal beliefs.
In the April 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"If you read my March letter, you know we have been very concerned about the Republican presidential hopefuls who, like the Democrats before them, are trying to tiptoe away from the pro-life position....I am determined that they will not do it in secret."
In this letter Dobson proclaims himself as our presidential watch dog. He is "determined" to be the one who sets the moral standards for our political leaders.
In the May 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"To help us prepare for the congressional battle, let me present various points of view and then propose what we at Focus on the Family think is best for or nation's children."
"Many people, myself included, believe that the deterioration of public education in recent years can be linked directly tour inability to reach values and show respect for God in the classroom."
"Speaking again for Focus on the Family, our vision is for a just and righteous society...."
Obviously, Dobson, through his Focus on the Family organization, has a personal "vision" for our country -- one he feels we should be fighting for in the United States Congress.
Speaking on religious freedom in the July 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"That concern led ... me to Capital Hill last week for a meeting with House Speaker Newt Gingrich."
"What is needed is a central registry through which violations of religious freedom can be reported. Henceforth, Focus on the Family will serve as the repository of that information, which will later be reported."
"From the early days of our ministry to the present, I have felt compelled to defend the principles of righteousness within the culture."
"We have stymied the U.N.'s Treaty on the Rights of the Child, at least to this time."
"We have tried unsuccessfully, but valiantly, to keep President Clinton from permitting homosexuals in the military and from assigning women to combat situations. We have fought for the unborn child...."
"Most recently we have opposed the efforts of Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to move his party away from its historic moral underpinnings and toward a `mush middle' that stands for nothing."
"We must keep a very close eye on these politicians who willingly accept the votes of conservative Christians and then ignore their concerns when their back are turned."
"I am in even greater disagreement with the Democrats who continue to support anti-family concepts at this time."
"I will continue to address the moral issues when I feel our friends need to know what is happening."
"To expect me not to speak on behalf of the things I believe -- and not to defend the voiceless, powerless unborn child -- is absolutely impossible for me. I would rather die than remain silent in response to that which I'm convinced is profoundly offensive to God Himself."
Wouldn't it be nice if we all could have "a meeting with House Speaker Newt Gingrich"? In this letter Dobson flaunts his ability to influence public policy, using you and me as his political pawns. He boasts of his influence in stopping United Nations resolutions. He boasts of his organization's role as a "central registry" of information on abuses of our religious rights. He sets himself up as judge of both Republican and Democratic leaders. He defiantly states that he would "rather die than remain silent" about what he "feels" we need to know about things he feels are "offensive to God Himself."
August 1995 Focus on the Family Newsletter Dobson writes:
"I want to talk to you this month about what could be the most important topic I've addressed in many years. This matter has profound implications for the institution of the family and for what we have called "the defense of righteousness," yet it will not be covered adequately by the secular press. Thus, I'm asking that you give particular attention to the words that follow. "
"...the obvious question to ask is, `What can we do to derail this gender feminism juggernaut?' I would make four suggestions which I sincerely hope my readers will implement."
"...I emplore you to contact your representatives in Congress."
If it were not clear anywhere else, in this letter Dobson spells out that his Focus on the Family organization is defending Dobson's view of "righteousness." He also makes it clear that we cannot trust other media to give us the truth, so he asks us to "give particular attention" to his point of view. How much more obvious can it be that he is setting himself up as our moral authority?
Other media outlets have been watching James Dobson and Focus on the Family, and they have also noticed that Dobson wants to be our moral leader.
The National Review, in an October 1995 article, wrote that the religious right was asking people to respond negatively to Clinton's home schooling agenda. The article relayed Moral Majority activist Mike Farris' use of James Dobson's influence:
"Then, Farris hit Christian talk radio (itself a burgeoning conservative resource), including Focus on the Family, the show run by James Dobson which reaches an estimated 3 to 5 million listeners a week."
Got a political agenda? As long as you have James Dobson and Focus on the Family on your side, you can use their "3 to 5 millions listeners" to flex your political muscle.
In the February 16, 1995-2008 copy of National Review, the magazine declared that the Wall Street Journal was attacking the conservative Christian right. The article goes on to state:
"The Journal sarcastically declared itself `neutral on the cutting-edge internal issue of whether the country's most powerful leader of the religious right turns out to be Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, James Dobson or Phylis Schlafly.'"
The November 9, 1995 issue of Time echoed the same idea when detailing who would take over for Billy Graham when he's gone:
"The gallery includes the highly political TV mogul Pat Roberston of Virginia, the iconoclastic politico-turned-evangelist Charles Colson who's also Virginia-based, and Colorado's radio psychologist James Dobson. Remarkably, all three are laymen and only Robertson has had formal theological training."
Dobson's activities have drawn the attention of some of the largest conservative news outlets as well as the more liberal-leaning Time magazine. His claims of being the moral authority for America have put him in the spotlight as a major political leader. But it's surprising that this leader, James Dobson, who bases his ideas solely on his interpretation of the Bible has no "formal theological training" to guide him in his interpreting. It's strange; people who would not dream of going to a doctor with no "formal" training eagerly follow the amateur theologian James Dobson in matters where their souls are at stake. Dobson even claims to have a ministry specifically aimed at hundreds of thousands of our pastors. This is akin to an amateur doctor giving advice to hundreds of thousands of our trained physicians, and then having our physicians follow it.
But amateur theologian Dobson angrily defends his role as the moral authority of the nation. In the January 22, 1995-2008 issues of Time, the magazine revealed Dobson's displeasure with former Education Secretary and conservative activist Willian Bennet. Time reveals:
"Bennet has been labeled `pro-abortion' by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family."
That row, and an argument over Colin Powell, originally erupted in the National Review in the October 19, 1995 edition:
"... Dobson had been criticizing Bennet for making supportive statements about pro-choice presidential non-candidate Colin Powell Dobson, in particular, had written a blistering letter to Christian Coalition executive Ralph Reed and Bennet about how they hadn't been touch enough on Powell; Dobson basically accused the two of being co-opted by the liberal establishment in their desire to be Washington players."
The magazine GLAAD, in its February 1995-2008 release wrote:
"...James Dobson has been using his national radio show to encourage listeners to call AT&T and protest the telecommunications company's `homosexual agenda' (AT&T has sponsored the Gay Games and has offered employees a gay/lesbian workshop)."
"`Dr.' James Dobson has published a `Corporate America and the Homosexual Agenda Information Sheet,' This fact-less sheet includes the phone numbers for ten AT&T executives and Dobson's listeners are urged to call and demand that the company stop supporting `the homosexual agenda'...."
And in the May 15, 1995 issue of Time, a story on the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed revealed:
"Meanwhile, powerful figures on the religious right feel the G.O.P. isn't right enough for them, posing a danger for Reed if he continues to accommodate himself to the party's moderate elements. In March, James Dobson, head of the powerful Focus on the Family organization, fired off open letters to G.O.P. chairman Haley Barbour, complaining bitterly about the lack of immediate payoff from the November election. Fearful of compromising with `anti-family' elements, Dobson argued that it was time to fold the all-inviting `big tent' of the Republican Party."
I could go on quoting James Dobson and other media who watch him and Focus on the Family. But the point is painfully clear. Dobson uses his position as a radio psychologist to present his untrained biblical interpretations as our spiritual, moral, and political guidelines. With the fervor of a prophet, Dobson calls us to action as if he had a mandate from God to do so. And by doing so, Dobson has set himself up as nothing less than a twentieth-century Pharisee, misleading millions of believers in the name of Righteousness and Morality.
"Let he who is without sin be the one to throw the first stone...."
John 8:7
Before I let the above comment be posted, yes, I moderate the comments, but I think all have been posted except one spam and one that want me to review certain male products and offered to pay for uch reviews. Any way I visited the web site reffered to in the comment. While we do not know who posted the comment, the article he/she posted appears to be written by the following. I found the bio on the web site referred in the comment. I always like to have some idea whose ideas I am reading.
My name is Brian Elroy McKinley. My family and business associates call me Brian. But my friends call me Elroy or just "El."
Many people have written me asking what I believe about God and why I write what I do. To some I'm the devil incarnate. To others I'm a just a rotten Liberal. And to some I'm a believer using his God-given mind to search for real answers.
I used to think of myself as the latter. For many years I considered myself a Born Again Christian, having accepted Christ as my savior when still a teen. I believed in the Trinity, that Christ was God incarnate, that he was born of a virgin and died on a cross for our sins. I believed God raised him on the third day and that he would return one day. I believed the Holy Spirit was given to us so that God may dwell within us.
In fact, I still believed all of that when I first put up this Web site over six years ago. But over those years, as I watched a pattern of responses from "Christians" all over the world (this site has received over 27,000 email responses and has seen over 3 million visitors), I began to seriously doubt that what I had so deeply believed for so long was correct at all. Even those who greatly oppose me cannot agree on what it means to be a Christian. And as I challenged and challenged and challenged people to show me why their faith was the correct one, it all boiled down to one argument: people believe what they believe because it gives them some kind of personal experience. The whole thing has come down to an extremely subjective basis for determining truth - that is, that if I feel something extraordinary has happened to me because of my belief, then it must be the one true faith.
The problem is that all people of faith claim the same experiential support for their mutually exclusive dogmas. I've had Catholics tell me I was wrong because their experience showed them the Pope was the true authority and, therefore, abortion was wrong. I've had Conservative Christian Fundamentalists tell me the exact same thing, except they substitute the Bible for the Catholic's Papal Authority. I've had Mormons tell me the exact same thing, except they substitute their emotional testimony about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon for the Protestant's Bible.
Needless to say, this huge exposure to what people of "faith" truly believe has been a real eye opener for me. But that was not the biggest cause for losing my faith.
Jesus Christ, whoever he really was in the end, told the world we would know true people of God by their unconditional love. If there is any truth to those words, then the over 5,000 "true believers" who have written me to condemn my life to hell for speaking my mind have proven beyond a doubt that they are not people of God after all. But they surely believe they are. I believed I was. But when I stepped outside the neat little role models we played in our pews each Sunday, patting each other on the back for being such good Christians and asking each other how much we've grown spiritually this week, I realized that those who claim faith are no better off when their beliefs are challenged. They are mean, petty, and extremely abusive - all things I would consider the antithesis of unconditional love.
I have been condemned to hell. I have been called Satan himself. I have had multiple death threats for defending positions counter to the "true" Christian position. But even sadder than all of that is the thousands upon thousands of people who have written to say they would pray for me. Of course that sounds like a pretty good thing, most would think, but in fact most of those messages say roughly, "You are so wrong about God; I'm going to pray that God will open your eyes." This is nothing less than a declaration by these thousands of people that they've somehow got a better corner on the market of God's truth than I have. It is purely selfish and self-righteous on their part. Out of all those thousands only a handful wrote to say they would pray for both themselves and me in an effort to ask God to guide us all. Those people made me cry with hope that perhaps we will someday learn to look beyond our own need to be right about everything.
My spiritual journey has been a long one. I have worked in nondenominational fundamentalist churches, in Baptist churches, as well as in Presbyterian and Methodist churches. All those experiences taught me a great deal. All of those churches loosely agreed on the basic truths of the Christian faith. But they all differed in many important ways. At that time the only real problems I had with any of them was when they took their less important ideologies and held them on equal status with the fundamentals of the faith. This is when conflicts would arise. Because these non-essentials, as I called them, became greatly touted, each group generated its own culture of Christianity rather than seek to discover the universal truths of the faith that could bind all believers. Rather than spend our time searching for the heart of God, we often spent considerable resources defending our little corner of the Christian world.
With this as our reality, we faced an almost schizophrenic dilemma when we sought to put forth the idea that we were all "united in Christ." Rather than agree on the essentials and agree to share our differing understandings on the non-essentials, instead we simply adopted the unspoken rule not to openly criticize other Christians while we still continued to teach our particular brand of Christianity behind our own doors. This is dishonest at best, and it led observers from outside the faith to brand us as phonies. And they were right.
While still a believer myself, the single greatest argument I received for why I should not speak against Focus on the Family was that doing so would make non-believers think Christians are not united. The truth is, Christians are not united. But rather than confess our differences, which would have been honest, we glossed over them, which is why many non-believers continue to see Christians as espousing a fake unity. They don't see a highly diverse group of people united as the Body of Christ; they see a highly diverse group of people divided into their own clans who live in an uneasy peace in order to disguise the fact that they think their brand of Christianity is better than anyone else's.
Today I continue to believe in a loving God, but I can no longer claim the Bible to be his Word, nor can I claim myself to be a follower of the Christ most Christians follow. I have become one of the most liberal people I know. In reality, it was my search as a Christian that has led me to be more liberal in my thinking. In other words, I started out quite conservative theologically and politically, but through seeking to understand God and seeing how Grace is needed to heal the troubles of the world, I have been driven to adopt more liberal attitudes toward how we should treat others.
I do not believe abortions are wrong. I do not believe a person begins at conception. I do not believe God thinks that a single-cell zygote is equal with a full-term human baby, and I have not found any Scripture that makes me believe otherwise, which is why I wrote "Why Abortion is Biblical" and "Why Abortion is Moral." I've asked all my detractors to find a verse in the Bible that states that an abortion is the same as a murder. So far none have found one. All we have are verses from which we must infer (which is to interpret) what we should believe. And as soon as we interpret we are injecting our own thinking into our search for truth, making it suspect at best.
I also find no problem with homosexuality. It is a naturally-occurring part of life, and the use of the Bible to condemn, harass and belittle homosexuals is just plain evil. I wrote more about this in the article called When Christ was Gay. On a side note here, it's also intriguing how many people assume I must be gay to take the positions I take. I'm not. If anything, I like women too much.
Finally, I have a very hard time with the choices made by those who espouse "conservative" Christianity. It's not so much that they want to be part of the legislative process -- it's what they choose to legislate. Why do they want to legislate against abortion and homosexuality, both issues they interpret God is against, but they do not want to legislate in support of giving money to the poor, which most believe God is for? If they feel it is okay to legally force everyone in the country to live according to their beliefs in regards to reproduction and sexual orientation, why do they not want to force everyone to pay higher taxes (a national tithe) in order to feed the poor, house the homeless, and take care of widows and orphans? Why should one be law and the other be voluntary? This discrepancy leads many to believe Christians are merely using God's name to gain support for their personal political agendas. And when they do that they lose the ability to speak to those they want to legislate against. I wrote more about this in the article, " Why Will Perkins has lost His Voice." Me? I'm against legislating any kind of morality that has no unwilling participants. It is simply not up to me to legally force anyone else to live or believe as I do. I'm also against censorship, which I why I wrote the satirical essay, "Saving Our Children From The Bible."
I suppose in closing I should tell you that I'm a 44 year old man of Irish heritage. I live in Colorado and work as an Internet consultant. Before going into the Internet business I worked as the youth leader in several churches for nearly 15 years. I also worked at Young Life for six years. I've never worked for Focus on the Family. I have had written correspondence with them on many of the same issues I've now written about publicly. Sadly they never chose to enter into dialogue with me on the issues I raised. I graduated from College with a degree in Communications, and I speak Spanish and French fluently, and enough of seven other languages to get me in trouble in a bar. I also write poetry and write and sing my own music, which has never sold more than a couple thousand copies. But what the heck, it's fun.
Thank you for reading this far. Whether or not we agree, I appreciate all of your comments. You can email me at: el@elroy.com
Post a Comment