For quite some time the Main Stream Media, especially prime time television has claimed that they are not attempting to shape our culture, but are simply reflecting it. They claim that the overt presence of promiscuity, homosexuality and drug use displayed in a positive light is nothing more than what they see in real life. Also the marginalization and denigration of religion, faith, morality and even Conservative politics, they claim is also a reflection of the reality they perceive around them. That their limited view of reality would then become—not an effect, but a cause—of the shape of our society, they are oblivious to, we politely assume.
But then there's James Dobson.
In the 70's, focusing tightly on efforts to strengthen America's, and the world's, families, he gathered a very large audience of people who sought his books, tapes and radio programs for guidance in strengthening their own families. It took almost two decades for the press to stop referring to him as a minister. He never claimed he was one; he's a licensed psychologist. But as a Christian, an outspoken one at that, the MSM—seeing through their tunnel vision of only their own micro-culture—was convinced that any and all outspoken Christians were red-faced, bible-thumping ministers screaming for death to sinners and larger donations. But Dobson's efforts coincided with the growth of the alternative media, and as Christian and Conservative radio grew, then the internet, the MSM found they could not silence him with misinformation as they had so easily done others in the past. He was able to speak to millions, daily, and correct any distortions.
Being a non-profit organization, his outreach, Focus on the Family, couldn't directly be involved in influencing politics, although, much to their chagrin, Liberals knew that out-spoken Christians would always be able to influence politics indirectly, because politics are about grasping for power, and morality speaks strongly on the abusive use of power. As long as morality was being publicly taught, politics would be influenced.
In 1981 Dobson founded the Family Research Council as a separate entity, to more directly become involved in the political process. As a private citizen, he has that right. Liberals were furious because, while they routinely used Liberal churches and quasi-religious organizations to directly influence the political process, they "were allowed" because they scoffed at the idea of morality. Conservatives, on the other hand, were supposed to be hamstrung by moronic laws Liberals forced on them to prevent the very thing they, the Liberals, continued to do. But the FRC was completely legal and while Dobson fame and popularity were built through the operation of a non-profit organization, he, nonetheless is a US citizen and had the right, as any other individual, to voice his political opinions and influence the political process, apart from the non-profit organization he ran. He still kept his involvement marginal, to avoid as much backlash from the MSM.
But here we see the double standard use by the MSM. While they claimed to reflect society, they accused Dobson, who as an individual was very much in tune with the views and opinions of the bulk of Conservative Christians, as attempting to "unfairly" shape society, by voicing those same views his millions of listeners espoused as individuals. Dobson's view of abortion actually matches a larger percent of the US population than the MSM's view of abortion. Yet the MSM claim they reflect society, while he is trying to influence it. Dobson's views on marriage, fidelity, promiscuity, faith, family, even homosexuality reflect the views of a much, much larger percentage of the American public than the views the MSM espouse on those subjects via the slant they put on the news as well as entertainment shows.
When a sizable number of people exiting the polls in the 2004 election cited family values as the prime reason for their choices, choosing speed of coverage over their own bias, the MSM rushed out with that news, then spent the next 3 years desperately trying to convince the American public that what they had reported actually wasn't true, that family values weren't an influential part of that election. But they're also going on the offensive with James Dobson.
For some reason they are playing the game that while the political opinions of any and every Liberal movie star, TV star or musician are not only acceptable, but should be heeded—the political opinions of James Dobson, (who last I checked is still an American citizen), are somehow a sinister attempt to bully the nation into following only his ideas. They've gone to the extreme of stealing his private emails to release to the public, then act as if those private emails were somehow public statements.
The MSM claim family values had no effect on the 2004 election, but the intensity of their assault on James Dobson, preceding the 2006 as well as this election, shows that they obviously don't believe it, and are frightened of him. Conservative Christians present a frightening voting block to the MSM. We are not easily swayed. We have no "leaders". Those the MSM like to claim are our "leaders" themselves don't claim that title, and you'd find few Conservative Christians who would acknowledge them as anything other than in an influential voice—not the "leader". I don't always agree with James Dobson, in fact I rarely listen to his program, but I do on occasion, and I've read many of his books. But I do respect him, and listen to his opinions, not to blindly follow them, but as the vast majority of Conservative Christians, to weigh them against out own understanding of scripture, morality and logic. The MSM are very frightened of voters that think. Voters that think and take the time to research issues and candidates scare them silly. The MSM have influence among people who feel, react and emote, but don't really take the time to think a lot. Fortunately that demographic tends to also be marked with a sizable amount of apathy therefore they don't tend to vote in large numbers. Conservative Christians do think, and pay attention, and aren't as easily swayed by bells and whistles. The MSM feels they can change that by removing the Dobson factor. They just don't get us, do they.
Posted by Danny Carlton at May 21, 2008 7:06 AM
Comments
Thank God that Dobson's influence is on the wane. He has set back the Enlightenment at least 100 years almost single handedly.
Dobson is a unrelenting tyrant. Now that Bush's days in office are numbered, the rest of us can look forward to Dobson's return to AM radio obscurity. Amen!
Posted by: Josh at May 22, 2008 9:50 PM
Dobson's influence is not on the wane. He's got just as large an audience as he always has. And the so-called "enlightenment" supposedly happened centuries ago. Why are you living in the past?
Dobson's influence, also, has nothing to do with Bush. You Libs need to get over your obsession with Bush. He's not even very conservative, yet you guys go bonker over wild accusations based on nothing.
I'm not "Lib". I consider myself a Christian who believes that God's work should be left to God.
No doubt Dobson believes he's doing God's work. The arrogance of such a belief should be self evident to a thinking mind like yours. Dobson is nothing less that a manifestation of the American Taliban. Simply put, he gives real Christians a bad name.
Posted by: Josh at May 23, 2008 4:17 PM
In other words, you're another pseudo-christian pretending that apathy, vacilation and endorsement of sin are "christian virtues". No wonder you hate Dobson so much.
Sorry Danny. "Leaving God's work to God" is NOT the same thing as "endorsement of sin".
No doubt Dobson believes that Christains should just take his political beliefs as some kind of gospel. Rejecting Dobson as a demogauge is my responsibility as a Christian. I for one think Fox News Christians are a disgrace. And I'm an independent political thinker Danny, not a "Lib".
Dobson wants a theocratic government in this country. I was raised believing the Constitution means something. And I was also raised believing that embracing the Constitution is NOT incompatible with being a Christian, regardless of what Dobson, Tony Perkins, and their ilk parrot daily.
Danny, would you mind explaining why you think it's "good" to NOT leave God's work to God?
Thanks.
Posted by: Josh at May 24, 2008 11:18 AM
Sorry Danny. "Leaving God's work to God" is NOT the same thing as "endorsement of sin".
It is when what you claim is God's work is what we are expected to do. John the Baptist was executed for criticizing a political leaders immoral act. Yet Jesus said of him, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." [Matthew 11:11]
No doubt Dobson believes that Christains should just take his political beliefs as some kind of gospel.
No, and he's never once said so. He offers his opinion just as many others do. It just happens to be an opinion you disagree with, so you've determined it's evil, and he has no right to the same freedom of speech as you and other Liberals have.
Rejecting Dobson as a demogauge is my responsibility as a Christian.
No, as a fake Christian, twisting the real Gospel message.
I for one think Fox News Christians are a disgrace.
Say what? Who are "Fox News Christians"?
And I'm an independent political thinker Danny, not a "Lib".
No, you're a Liberal.
Dobson wants a theocratic government in this country.
You're also a liar. Dobson has never, ever said such a thing.
I was raised believing the Constitution means something. And I was also raised believing that embracing the Constitution is NOT incompatible with being a Christian, regardless of what Dobson, Tony Perkins, and their ilk parrot daily.
They don't say that. You are lying again. The perverted interpritation of the Constitution that Liberals want to impose on everyone, is incompatible with Christianity, but then it's also incompatible with the Constitution itself.
Danny, would you mind explaining why you think it's "good" to NOT leave God's work to God?
Because you seem to claim the arbiter of what is and isn't "God's work". Defending the unborn, marriage and the family are all things we must do, not sit back and let you and your Liberal friends destroy them.
It is when what you claim is God's work is what we are expected to do. John the Baptist was executed for criticizing a political leaders immoral act. Yet Jesus said of him, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..."
John the Baptist was not a political power broker. Have you forgotten that Bush's sole estimation of Harriet Myers' viability as a Supreme Court Justice (Myers was a lawyer, but never even a judge) was Dobson's endorsement?
John the Baptist never appeared on Fox News or Sean Hannity's radio show. Simply put, Dobson is a Fox News Christian who rejects all other Christians who do not share his political beliefs as pseudo-christians (remind you of anyone?).
No, and he's never once said so. He offers his opinion just as many others do. It just happens to be an opinion you disagree with, so you've determined it's evil, and he has no right to the same freedom of speech as you and other Liberals have.
Wait, you're saying that Dobson does not espouse a particular political dogma? Are you serious?
I've read enough of your blog that I believe I have some sense of your political philosophies. Nothing would make you happier than having all legislatures and judicial benches packed with men just like James Dobson. And that, Danny, would be a theocracy. I grew up in the 70s. My family never needed "strengthening". Or later, when I raised my own children, never did I need the advice of an old school authoritarian like Dobson.
And for the record, by political philosophies are closer to Bob Barr's than anyone else in contemporary politics. I'm not particularly fond of the Libertarian Party, but I do consider my self a "little l" libertarian.
Danny, the kind of zealotry that you espouse gives rhetorical weapons to zealots of other faiths. No doubt you can find all sorts of scripture that will justify your strict authoritarian views. But is it right? Men like Dobson are twisting scriptures to conform to their agendas. Evil? I never said "evil". Dobson is a businessman, first and foremost. His income comes from people who buy his merchandise and provide a media audience that drives advertising revenue. His net worth exceeds our combined net worth many times (perhaps hundreds or even thousands) over. Christians don't need people like Dobson to tell us what to think.
I say again that people like Dobson give American Christianity a bad name. Surely you're not suggesting that "it's not zealotry when we do it"?
Finally, I believe God forgives you for accusing me of being some kind of "false" Christian.
Posted by: Josh at May 27, 2008 11:36 AM
It is when what you claim is God's work is what we are expected to do. John the Baptist was executed for criticizing a political leaders immoral act. Yet Jesus said of him, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..."
John the Baptist was not a political power broker.
Oh, really? When he publicly condemns a political leader? By what standard do you then claim Dobson is? Seems a rather childish semantics game you're trying to play.
Have you forgotten that Bush's sole estimation of Harriet Myers' viability as a Supreme Court Justice (Myers was a lawyer, but never even a judge) was Dobson's endorsement?
Right. Bush had known Myers for years. They went way, way back.
Liberals have been fond of nominating politicians with little legal, let alone judicial experience to the SCOTUS. Felix Frankfurter was never a judge and practiced law less than one year before he entered politics. Abe Fortas went from law school, straight to politics. Other Supreme Court justices who had never served as a judge before becoming a meber of the SCOTUS, Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, William O. Douglas, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, Harold H. Burton, Tom C. Clark, Byron R. White, Arthur J. Goldberg, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and Antonin Scalia. And that's just those appointed since 1937
John the Baptist never appeared on Fox News or Sean Hannity's radio show.
Aren't you cute. Because there was no TV 2000 years ago, that defines who John the Baptist is. Next you'll be sayign that since John the Baptist never wore a tie, he's in a different category. Does the phrase non sequitor mean anything to you?
Simply put, Dobson is a Fox News Christian who rejects all other Christians who do not share his political beliefs as pseudo-christians (remind you of anyone?).
Really, where has he said anything like that? Is lying becoming so second nature to you that you assume no one will actually call you on any of them?
No doubt Dobson believes that Christains should just take his political beliefs as some kind of gospel.
No, and he's never once said so. He offers his opinion just as many others do. It just happens to be an opinion you disagree with, so you've determined it's evil, and he has no right to the same freedom of speech as you and other Liberals have.
Wait, you're saying that Dobson does not espouse a particular political dogma? Are you serious?
Can you not even read? There's a difference between espousing a belief and demanding everyone conform to your belief (the way you and your Liberal cohorts do). Dobson may espouse his political beliefs in certain forums, but he does not demand people conform to them. He, as every American, does have the right to express desires for certain laws. Just as you and other Liberals are fond of laws that infringe on religious liberties, freedom of speech and attempt to force everyone to endorse immorality, Dobson and other Christians want laws that leave people free to practice their faith as they see fit.
I've read enough of your blog that I believe I have some sense of your political philosophies. Nothing would make you happier than having all legislatures and judicial benches packed with men just like James Dobson.
Except that James Dobson has never expressed a desire to run for political office. Be that as it may, what you are trying to criticize me for is wanting politicians that agree with me. Who doesn't want more politicians that agree with them? Why is that "evil" only when it's Conservatives, but "good" when it's Liberals like you?
And that, Danny, would be a theocracy.
Not in the least. Webster's defines a theocracy as a, "Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity." Neither Dobson nor I have ever advocated such a thing. You do know what Webster's is, don't you?
I grew up in the 70s. My family never needed "strengthening". Or later, when I raised my own children, never did I need the advice of an old school authoritarian like Dobson.
I've met plenty of people who live in filth, and claim it's just as good as any other place. Just as there are no 100% healthy people, there are no 100% healthy families. We all have areas we can work on. the ignorance on the 50's and 60's led to people assuming kids got raised with little effort. Many people learned that that isn't so, and worked to better the environment their kids were raised in. That were Dobson helped. If you want to be like the Black Knight in Monte Python's Holly Grail, armless and legless and claiming it's just a flesh wound, go ahead, but don't expect people to take you very seriously when you then criticize Dobson for offering to millions what they very much wanted and needed.
And for the record, by political philosophies are closer to Bob Barr's than anyone else in contemporary politics. I'm not particularly fond of the Libertarian Party, but I do consider my self a "little l" libertarian.
Most Liberals in denial are the same way. Take Bill Maher for example. Still claims to be a Libertarian, when everyone knows he's as Liberal as Ted Kennedy.
Danny, the kind of zealotry that you espouse gives rhetorical weapons to zealots of other faiths.
Right, Rosie, we Christians are worse than the 9/11 terrorists.
No doubt you can find all sorts of scripture that will justify your strict authoritarian views.
I don't use scripture to justify anything. I use scripture to find the truth. You, of course, wouldn't be very familiar with that concept, though, would you.
But is it right? Men like Dobson are twisting scriptures to conform to their agendas.
Give one example of Dobson twisting scripture.
Evil? I never said "evil".
So "unrelenting tyrant", "manifestation of the American Taliban", "demogauge" and "wants a theocratic government" are good things?
Dobson is a businessman, first and foremost.
Nonsense. There are tons of things he could be doing to make more money. If he were unpopular, then he would be condemned as a crackpot. if he's popular, then he's condemned as a businessman. In order for him to deliver the resource he's prepared, they have to be paid for. It's a sick cathc-22 that says that if he has the monehy to send it out for free then he's evil because he's rich and pushing his stuff on people. If he charges for it, then he's evil because he's "making money". So if you get a pay check you're evil--unless you're Liberal, then you're good, because you're one of the elite who are above the rules peons have to follow.
His income comes from people who buy his merchandise and provide a media audience that drives advertising revenue.
Are they forced to buy his stuff, or listen to his programs? No, they choose to. He offers what people want--good advice of family, child-rearing, marriage, etc.
His net worth exceeds our combined net worth many times (perhaps hundreds or even thousands) over.
So, it could be a whole lot more if he were really in it only for the money.
Christians don't need people like Dobson to tell us what to think.
First, he's not telling anyone what to think. He's simply offering his opinions and advice. Second, aren't you, by the same definition telling people what to think by posting comments here? Oh, yeah, you're one of the Liberal elite and not under the same rule you slap on to other--less enlightened--people.
I say again that people like Dobson give American Christianity a bad name.
Only to those who hate real Christianity.
Surely you're not suggesting that "it's not zealotry when we do it"?
Any other words you want to put in my mouth?
Finally, I believe God forgives you for accusing me of being some kind of "false" Christian.
No you don't. You're angered that you've been discovered for who you really are.
The certainty that you dismiss others of your faith that do not subscribe to the Townhall/NewsMax/Fox News orthodoxy is astonishing.
I have nothing in common with Bill Maher. He has stated in essence that all religion is inherently flawed and serves only to provoke conflict and keep us eternally embroiled in meaningless bloodshed. I believe that religion should transcend politics. And I believe that faith, when properly applied, is a liberating experience, not the experience of bondage that Dobson espouses.
Clearly, your allegiance to Dobson and all the he stands for is unshakable. I hope for your sake (and your families') that you are not as stubborn and pig-headed about everyday life.
The black-and-white world you live in, where anyone that disagrees with the Pious James Dobson MUST be a Liberal, is the world of a zealot.
I pray for you Danny. Thanks for allowing me to post my views here.
Posted by: Josh at May 27, 2008 2:55 PM
Post a comment
NOTE: I am under no obligation to preserve the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or your comment will be removed.
