Dobson vs. Dobson: Moments after saying liberals "despise this country and its freedoms," he claimed Focus on the Family is "not political"
During the October 16 broadcast of his Focus on the Family radio show, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson claimed that "here at Focus on the Family, we're not political." Yet only minutes earlier, Dobson remarked to his guest, conservative radio host William Bennett, that "the liberal community" and the media "despise this country and its freedoms, and they're doing everything they can do to undermine it." Later in the broadcast, Bennett suggested that Democratic congressional candidates advocate "the course of action that Osama bin Laden wants us to take." In response, Dobson declared that "I fear that some of our leaders will follow that same pattern" of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who "appeased the Nazis and [Adolf] Hitler."
During his interview with Bennett, Dobson asked: "[I]sn't it amazing that there is such a sizable number of people in the media and in the liberal community that despise this country and its freedoms and they're doing everything they can to undermine it?" Bennett replied, "It's never been this bad in terms of the media."
From the October 16 broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio show:
BENNETT: There's a story going around now, I've heard it more than once, that in Iran -- you know, a lot of Iranians are pro-American -- that at the beginning of the Iraq incursion, they put signs on their roofs saying, "U.S. Air Force, come here next. Your neighbors right across the way. U.S. Air Force Academy, come here next." Because America represents the hope -- you know what [former Soviet dissident Natan] Sharansky tells, you know the stories about Sharansky being in the prisons in the Soviet Union and then tapping the messages about the United States [inaudible].
DOBSON: Hmmm. Yeah. Given that historical fact and the way it is today, isn't it amazing that there's such a sizable number of people in the media and in the liberal community that despise this country and its freedoms, and they're doing everything they can to undermine it?
BENNETT: It's never been this bad in terms of the media. I wouldn't say that presidents haven't had it this hard; they have. Lincoln was one, Washington before he was president -- I mean, you talk about touch-and-go, you know, facing the greatest military in the world without equipment, without money, without manpower, and with an awful lot of the country being loyal -- still being loyal to the crown. But in terms of the media, it has never been like this.
[...]
DOBSON: All right, we're right around the corner from an election.
BENNETT: Yup.
DOBSON: And here at Focus on the Family, we're not political. We do care a lot about the issues, but would it not be appropriate to say to our listeners, regardless of what your political affiliation is, and regardless of how you see the candidates that are going to be voted on very shortly, I beg you to think about the security of this nation and ask yourself, "Do the people that I'm putting in power understand this threat, and are they willing to confront it?"
BENNETT: It's a great question. It's a great question and, um, I have a lot of trouble supporting people who want us to take a course of action which is exactly the course of action that Osama bin Laden wants us to take.
[...]
DOBSON: You're a great student of history, Bill, and I'm sure what's taking place now recalls the late '30s and early '40s in Britain, where Neville Chamberlain appeased the Nazis and Hitler. Thought he could negotiate, thought he could somehow make friends with them, somehow impress them, somehow not anger them. And you know what happened -- 50 million people died. I fear that some of our leaders will follow that same pattern and appease those who will destroy us.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
from biting it so often...
Christofascists pose no threat to America.
Tommy is comfortable in the fact that the Constitution forbids the establishment of a theocracy. Well, it does, but one more Supreme Court appointment and that protection's not worth the paper it's printed on. If they can undo Roe v. Wade, they can undo any past ruling which protects us from the Christofascists. Rhenquist always insisted that Separation of Church and State is a myth, as does Antonin Scalia. If they get the majority on the court, the states will be free to enact whatever regressive laws they want to...and I'm not just talking about Baby Jesus on the courthouse lawn. One more appointment...
Clarence Thomas has stated in a written opinion that the First Amendment does not prevent individual states from establishing their own official religions.
One more appointment.
"The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well".
******************************
But let me ask you since you play in fear mongering silliness Land - How can you say for certain that if a few more secular leftist judges aren't appointed to the Supreme Court, that they will not interpret the free expression of religion their way and demand it be done off all public property. That anyone doing so will be arrested and jailed.
See, anyone can play the hysteria game. My scenario has as much chance, probably more, than yours. You take a few nuts on the right and extrapolate that into some theocracy scare on the whole country. It's a good thing even your own Democratic party wouldn't touch your Christian bashing with a 10 foot pole.
Extremism lives on the fringes, where it, along with your views apparently, will linger and whither away.
Then people will be forced to build their own churches totally separate from publicly-owned buildings! They won't be able to use government-owned property for religious observances! The horror! Dogs and cats will mate in the streets!
in Matthew 6:6! They won't be able to "pray... in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men!" Oh no -- if they can't do that, how will they prove that they're more righteous than anyone else?!
have to pay taxes and get off the government teat! I wonder if they could survive the real marketplace of ideas without government welfare.
We have mega-churches where I live that are literally sitting on multi-million dollar lots in the prime part of town. If they had to pay property taxes....talk about weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth!
You put forth the scare scenario about an impending theocracy. I counter it with the scare scenario about jailing people practicing their faith.
There is no difference in the two.
Both would be undesirable. In fact, both could exist simultaneously. If states establish state religions, might they not jail people for practicing non-approved religions? Would wiccans be tolerated in Georgia in such a scenario?
Where we differ is on which scenario is most likely...a liberal court which forbids the practicing of Christianity, or a conservative court which allows states to declare Christianity their official religions. Hmmmm, seems obvious to me, since the Religious Right has spent years building a case and arguing that there is no Separation of Church and State; the groundwork is already there; they just need a sympathetic Supreme Court. I see no equivalent effort on the Left (to outlaw Christianity).
The point is there is no point. In arguing these hypothetical pie in the sky scenarios that have as much chance of becoming reality as Paris Hilton does in becoming an inhabitant of a trailer park. You can throw up these scare tactics and how is someone supposed to intellectually and honestly argue against them? You can't.
Look, I would be as opposed to living under a theocracy as much as you. I would be right there fighting against it as much as anyone. So would nearly every American, except a few fringe extremist religious nuts - and to spend time worrying about them is unproductive, we have real problems to deal with.
If you feel this is some real threat, and I suspect you don't as it's just backlash, probably justified, against Bush and his cronies, then I would hope you would be working to elect candidates who share your view that it could happen someday.
only that it could if we stay on our present course. You cannot deny that there are strong elements within the Republican party that deny the Separation of Church and State. If you do deny it, you haven't been paying attention.
That we're closer to the theocracy than an Anti-religious state. And you're delusional if you think those that support a seperation between church and state in the US are supporting that.
a theocracy would reduce the number of banned religions by exactly 1.
We all know you hate Christianity and the freedom people have to express their Christian faith. Enough, we have heard it all from you ad nauseum.
Who forces to you to believe anything?
We know you're a freedom hater 'cause Dobson and Tommy told us about you libs.
And they haven't done it yet. Try again.
I put forth a scenario, and you dismiss it as "never gonna happen". I accept that.
You put forth an equally extremist scenario, I dismiss it as "never gonna happen". You can't accept it because it doesn't fit your fringe extremism.
Very revealing.
1) The white racists of the US gain enough political clout to revoke the Civil Rights laws, making segregation and other racist transgressions legal again.
2) The non-white racists of the US gain enough political clout to make whites second-class citizens, just as African Americans were before Civil Rights.
Each one is equally outrageous, Tommy, and both are highly unlikely. Regardless, one of them fits current US politics more than the other.
There is a concerted effort on the Right to establish a theocracy, and deny Separation of Church and state. There is no equivalent movement on the Left to outlaw Christianity or any religion. The Left-leaning court in the last half century has only moved us back from the potential establishment of a theocracy. The Left's goal has always been religious neutrality.
There is a concerted effort on the Left and the ultra rich and very powerful ACLU to remove all aspects of religion from our country, and deny the existence of any Church in our Land. There is no equivalent movement on the Right to demand we all live under Christianity or any religion. The Left-leaning ACLU and their stack of lawyers in the last half century have done everything in their power, through the courts because they can't win in the legislatures, to remove religion completely from our culture and our lives. The maintstream Right's goal has always been freedom of religious expression.
is just a bald-faced lie, and you know it. At least my statement was true.
You live in the land of hypotheticals only when it suits your political agenda. Maybe you should move out of there altogether if you can't handle the climate,
This statement is not a hypothetical...
"There is a concerted effort on the Left and the ultra rich and very powerful ACLU to remove all aspects of religion from our country, and deny the existence of any Church in our Land."
It's a lie.
My statement was true. But, whatever.
Just one recent example below of the ACLU and their current mindset, but this ain't no hypothetical.
************************************
For almost a half century, LA County 's official seal has carried a tiny cross on it, as well as other images that are historically connected to the State of California:
When the seal was adopted 47 years ago, neither the ACLU nor Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) ever challenged it. Suddenly, the Southern Chapter of the ACLU has decided to sue. They're screeching that the 'Latin Cross' on the seal is a "sectarian religious symbol" and reflects an "impermissible endorsement of Christianity." Somehow, this escaped their attention for almost half a decade.
But that hardly rises to the level of " remov[ing] all aspects of religion from our country, and deny the existence of any Church in our Land."
If anything, it is a push toward government neutrality on religion. I probably would have let it go, but nobody's right to religious expression has been affected. (The government does not have a right to Religious expression)
Of course I am being more than a little facetious here, the point is all these hysteria driven hypotheticals are just that. Put out there for political reasons alone by both sides to drum up support for their own agendas.
You can at least see that? It happens on the right with church burning scenarios, rampant gay rights scare tactics..........it's not exclusive from either side. The theocracy scare is just another in a long line of them, the newest one since Bush professes his faith so publicly - and that drives some on the fringe left NUTS!
Any future scenario can be used to scare voters, INCLUDING making them think that terrorists are going to follow our troops home if we leave Iraq. ADMIT IT.
But I will say this. Considering it is a hypothetical, neither you nor I know, do we? That being said, I don't trust Bush or Rumsfeld when it comes to leveling with the American people anymore on Iraq. They have messed it so badly over there that only the true KoolAid drinking Bush lovers accept their rhetoric hook line aand sinker. And that is sad, he is our President. I am sad over the whole thing, actually.
So, to answer your question, I don't know.
we agree.
There is no such concerted effort and unless you are completely delusional you know it.
It would probably take more than one more appointment. Thomas is the most extreme right now. The opinion I referenced is his concurrence here: [link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]
And I feel certain that Roberts and Alito had to give certain assurances to get their appointments. I think one more troglodyte appointment will cinch it.
State's favoring religion generally, honoring God through public prayer and acknowledgment, or, in a nonproselytizing manner, venerating the Ten Commandments.
*********************
Very sloppy for a lawyer to misrepresent so blatantly. You said above > "First Amendment does not prevent individual states from establishing their own official religions".
The opinion above does in no way establish some official religion. Read it again. Wow.
It depends...are they venerating the TC at government expense? Using my tax dollars? At what point does it become a "state" religion? How far do they have to go?
It depends...are they denying people to express their beliefsat goverment expense of prosecuting such an offense? Using my tax dollars? At what point are people in jeopardy of being thrown in prison for being religious? How far do they have to go?
The expression of their beliefs?
The wrong religion lands you in Gitmo, or rendition to a CIA happy camp for a "talk".
In the words of Homer J. Simpson, "I wish God were alive to see this."
The Thomas opinion I referred to isn't in Van Orden, it's in Elk Grove: [link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]
He references his Elk Grove opinion in Van Orden.
"Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution"
**********************
If from this, you conclude that we are anywhere near a Theocracy, well, let's just let the reader decide. Your original claim regarding this opinion was, at best, misleading.
it was accurate. Justice Thomas does not accept that the Establishment Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Said something about not accepting Stare Decis, that would be a very radical departure from traditional jurisprudence, for a SCJ can anyone here give the particulars?
Stare decisis (literally "to stand by things decided") is the fancy Latin term for following precedent. It's one of the most important jurisprudential principles because it allows for some measure of stability and predictability in the law. It's generally a good thing, but can make it difficult for bad decisions to get overturned.
Justice Thomas has exhibited an unusual lack of respect for stare decisis, even surprising Scalia. Thomas is probably the most radical justice right now, which, considering Scalia's views, is saying something.
"It's never been this bad in terms of the media." I agree with that...but, not how he meant it. Always everyone else's fault. The so-called 'news media' gives these crooks a pass on everything. When's the last time anyone heard anyone from the MSM really give it to Bush or Cheney, et al (save Olbermann)?
So, Bush's poor poll numbers are because of a witchhunt by the MSM? I can't believe how little responsibility these so-called conservatives take for their own actions.
It's a symptom of sociopathy...being blameful of others and never admitting fault.
It's not our country or our freedoms that we despise.
We despise you!
our country, our freedoms, or even James Dobson himself, easy though he makes it. What I despise is the system that makes it possible for him to make such appallingly slanderous lies about people, and not getting called on it.
And then, compounding the outrage, William "if we abort black babies, the crime rate will go down" Bennett ignores the fact that his side controls all branches of the government, the opinion-making media, and the corporate world, and still has the immortal gall to whine about how the conservatives are being picked on.
I would ask every Christian out there to ask fundamental questions about why they should support charlatans like these, as well as those in public office. They've done a lot of things in your name that, deep down, you know Jesus wouldn't approve of. And have they delivered on any of their promises? Hardly. The Christian community has been had, and unless they wise up, it will happen again and again.
From a theological standpoint, I don't believe that Dobson or Bennett will end up in Hell. But when they get to Heaven, they will have some explaining to do about their conduct down here.
make me like my dog even more. "He has no political agenda behind anything he does." (Will Rogers, paraphrased).
they said that they don't want the US government to play to osama's tune...I can only assume that means throwing the bush admin out of office. osama, in atacking the US on 9/11, wanted the US to respond with a large attack on a Msulim country thus making al-qaeda, a previously small group of terrorists, a popular organization. the Bush admin has worked diligently to ensure that Osama's policies were enacted. I guess that makes these rightwingnuts anti-bush.
as for the "liberals" hating our freedoms...ummmm...I thought that liberals stood for individual liberty, while christian conservative groups stood for limiting individual liberty. if anyone hates the freedoms americans enjoy, it is these knuckledraggers that want to turn back the freedom clock.
It's scary that even with things as bad as they are, there are still 30+% of American in the same camp as these guys. I don't know how bad it would have to get for people to jump ship.
And I agree that the most dispicable thing is the lack of personal responsibility. The blowhards like this actually inspired me to read the Bible to learn about what is written vs. how it is brought up in public debate. Anyone who is a true Christian should be complete appalled with these people. I'm not a fire and brimstone kind of guy, but I hope there is a special place in hell for people like Dobson.
It would be a dream come true. THAT is what these fake preachers and their God Squad are really about. Jesus? God? They just get in the way of the Money, Power, Fame. Didn't Jesus say that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven? Phoney, power hungry and losing focus on what Jesus was about. And that perhaps is the saddest thing of all.
I'm wondering why Dobson denies something so obvious. To the best of my understanding, FotF is an organization that, in a nutshell, wags its finger at things that don't fit into their right-wing worldview (like legal abortions and gay marriage). According to their website, religion is their primary issue, but considering what I've heard from them, they might as well just admit to having an agenda. It's not like they're the only people in the world with an opinion.
Doctor Dobson, wasn't Jesus who said love your enemies?
Now I understand the desire to protect your people from attack but I don't understand how killing tens of thousands of innocent people in a country that had NOTHING to do with attacking America is accomplishing that goal.
To say we have to stay involved in a war we should have never started because Osama Bin Laden wants us to stop is beyond ridiculous. Invading Iraq has to be the only reason OLB would have to love America. We diverted our resources away from pursuing him; we removed one of his enemies from power and when we leave, Iraq will become a religious state instead of a secular one. And we'll have lost thousands of our own soldiers. Ever day we stay in Iraq is another day that OBL thanks Allah.
Whether we stay or whether we go, the jihadists will use it for propaganda. So why are we letting OBL dictate US policy? We can't go because OBL will claim victory? Let him claim it and let's end this debacle.
What exactly has to happen for US to claim victory? We've already toppled Saddam. A new government has been elected. Let claim our own victory and move out.
The tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of people killed in this misadventure in Iraq were people that, according to Christian belief Jesus suffered and died to save. I wonder if Dr. Dobson and his ilk think that God loves Americans more?
That said, what I really would have liked to hear something is along this line from Dobson: Well, Bill, it was quite a gamble to get into Iraq but the President decided to roll the dice. He hit the jackpot when they found Saddam but he's been stuck playing a losing hand for a while now. But when the chips are down, you've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. What do you think, Bill? Bill? Bill? Where d'ya go?
Hal
and Bennet's quote;
"without equipment, without money, without manpower, and with an awful lot of the country being loyal -- still being loyal to the crown. But in terms of the media, it has never been like this."
Sounds a lot like a description of Iraq.
"without money" is accurate, because although it's being stolen from our pockets and going elsewhere, it's really just IOU's. Or bad credit.
What a desperate little man Dobson is. Trying to hang on to his pathetic fairytales while astounding us with his keen historical mind.
Which freedoms do liberals despise? I'm a liberal, and I can't think of any. Maybe Dobson is referring to his freedom to impose his religion on the rest of us through force of law? That must be it. Okay, I hate that freedom.
Lots of great comments on this thread.
Same to you. It's just that Separation of Church and State is my hot button issue. Does it show?
...I suspect there would be hell to pay by those who've taken his message and turned it into a moneyand power-driven political movement. Dobson is one of the worst... and it turns my stomach to read his latest political musings.
I remember this same kind of "they want to kill us all" scary-talk during the Cold War. Lots of nuts like Dobson wanted to kill 'em all before they killed us. Anything short of full-scale military action is considered "appeasement" by the bed-wetters, then as now.
Well, we "appeased" the Soviets for 50 years and where did it get us? 50 years of relative peace, followed by the collapse of our enemy. Sounds pretty good to me.
And look how well Bush's "pre-emptive war" strategy has worked in Iraq. Yeah! More of that!
Thank god we didn't "appease" Saddam. I feel so much safer now.
And hey, remember how Iraq was supposed to serve as an example for the other members of the Axis of Evil, Iran and North Korea? How they'd be quaking in their boots at our might, and wouldn't dare try anything foolish like test a nuclear bomb? Doesn't really seem to be working, does it?
Why we're in Iraq. With the central government in disarray, the big oil companies are circling like sharks. My guess is that Exxon, Mobile, et al will be running what's left of Iraq in a couple of years...with Bush and Cheney on their boards of directors.
>> DOBSON: And here at Focus on the Family, we're not political. We do care a lot about the issues...
Because their biggest issue is hating liberals.