Anyway, Keith Olbermann (who has proven that he is a journalist of some substance, in my opinion) responds. And I think he nails it.
MSNBC - : "More importantly, at some point, some of these people are going to wake up to find that the great secular assault they see on their children was, in fact, a bogeyman created to hide their own bad parenting. If they can’t convince their own kids of the appropriateness of their religion and values, then the religion, the values, or the convincing, must not have been very good. Ask my folks if I was an easy sell - yet most of my tenets turn out to have been their tenets - not my teachers’, not television’s, not the secular world’s.
It goes back to the core of the Dobsonian point of view here: the fear of the “pro-Homosexual” agenda. That may be the way he delicately phrases it, but it is not shared by most of his followers who emailed me. They were clearly angry that there was no anti-homosexual agenda. And one of the most fascinating things about the studies of homosexuality in this country is that while there is still debate between the creationists and the environmentalists, I’ve never heard anything suggesting that a child is more or less likely to be gay, depending on whether he’s taught not to hate nor be intolerant, of gays.
Schneeberger finishes his piece with the hope that I’ll experience the same kind of epiphany he claims to have in 1997. “Let’s pray, if he ever does, that he comes up with the right answer - and not because it may lead to fairer reporting. But because it may lead to a redeemed life.”
Hey, guys, worry about yourselves. You’re spewing hate, while assuming that for some reason, God has chosen you and you alone in all of history to understand the mysteries of existence, when mankind’s existence is filled with ample evidence that nobody yet has been smart enough to discern an answer.
You might try keeping it simpler: did you help others, or hurt them?"
6 comments:
Great point, Leighton. I have been thinking about this issue of arrogance and the death of humility, and it seems like you hit on it. The arrogance comes from "knowing" what God thinks--and being persecuted and in a siege mentality is easier than one that actually dialogues with the culture. The real truth is that there are numerous families out there--liberal, conservative, straight, gay--who worry about what their kids are watching, consuming, learning. None of them want their kids sexualized too early, or taught hatred or bigotry.
I don't believe that Dobson is power hungry, and just out for attention. Nobody likes to be made fun of, and I don't think it's logical to say that Dobson took a weeks worth of name-calling for attention. The Gospel all by itself is offensive (to our prideful sin nature) so it's not unusual to face rejection, mocking, etc. That's just part of discipleship. Jesus told us that would be the case. And contrary to the prosperity Gospel that is too often preached in America, Christianity is not about 'giving to get' riches, fame, or any other worldy thing in return. The point of preaching or communicating the Gospel is repentance. The repentance is from sin, and if we can't talk about what sin is, then the church has become a social club focusing on the fellowship aspect of it instead of a place to grow in our Christian walk and helping others along that same path.
Roger
Roger, let me point out a few things. A) it isn't illogical at all, it is highly possible that Dobson wanted attention and thought that his attack would be taken more seriously. B) regardless of the logic or intent, if Dobson had read his bible, he would know that the proper response is not to savage his critics, or has he not read the "turn the other cheek" part? He could have responded with humor and grace, but instead, responded with arrogance as he has before. Dobson doesn't think that normal, average people (Christian or non) can criticize him. That is arrogant and not Christian. If you really think that it isn't about getting rich, then maybe you should inquire a little more into Sir Dobson, Robertson and Falwell's bank accounts. They have all done very well.
Lastly, we agree. The church should address sin and morality. We disagree on what that means. When the church addresses the environment, poverty, and racism in a meaningful way, then I might take this homophobic nonsense seriously. Until then......
Oh, and btw, reading the Bible to conclude that you are doing the right thing if you are mocked and rejected, then you need to acknowledge that includes the Reverend Phelps (god hates fags), the Klan, and the aforementioned Robertson. Just being mocked and reviled doesn't mean you are following Christ. It just means that they are assholes.
Hi, Roger. I know you want to be balanced in your discussion....I have some of the same concerns about the "Christian right." However, you should look at Focus on the Family's main web page and read the letter Dobson has posted there explaining his "side" of the whole affair. (I read it last week--hopefully it's still there.) To me, he sounds neither arrogant nor hateful. Just thought you might want to take it into account. Thanks.
I'm sorry!! I meant "STREAK" on that previous post, not Roger. Duh....
Yeah, sorry. A press release from Dobson doesn't take away from the years of his arrogance. Am I even handed about Dobson or Falwell? Probably not.
Post a Comment