James Dobson: The Shooting Happened Because We Allow Abortion and Gay Marriage

Yes, he no longer runs Focus on the Family. Yes, his views shouldn’t really matter anymore. To millions of (mostly older) evangelical Christians, though, James Dobson is still as influential as ever.

And this is how he uses his pulpit: To tell the world that the shootings in Newtown occurred because we allow abortion and gay marriage to take place in America, basically shoving our collective middle finger in God’s face.

Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I’m not talking politically, I’m not talking about the result of the November sixth election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.

I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn’t exist, or he’s irrelevant to me and we have killed fifty-four million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.

And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that’s what’s going on.

That’s a version of Christianity even younger Christians are turning away from: The notion that God is so upset about women controlling their own bodies and gay couples getting the same rights as straight people that he takes his vengeance out on a group of innocent children and their teachers.

Even if that God existed, He wouldn’t be one worth worshipping.

Dobson has done us all a service by making evangelical Christianity so unpalatable to decent human beings that they want little to do with it. In the process, he’s also made himself irrelevant to the next generation of Christians. They don’t see him as a leader. They see him as an asshole, and rightly so.

Still, I wish more Christians would speak out against people like him. They can do it in their own language if they want. It’s basically shooting fish in a barrel at this point, but every little blog post and tweet condemning people like Dobson, Huckabee, Robertson (if and when he gets around to saying something idiotic about the massacre), and their ilk helps.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Piet Puk

    Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Greed. Hunger for power. Self aggrandisement. It’s pretty standard stuff, actually. They wouldn’t do it so consistantly if it didn’t work.

      It’s also immoral, but that doesn’t seem to bother them much.

  • cxmiller10

    Are you aware of http://www.facebook.com/TheChristianLeft? That’s more than a simple blog post or tweet. It may be only a fraction of self-professed Christians in the U.S., but it’s not negligible.

    • RobMcCune

      Yes, notice they don’t exploit tragedies so they don’t often get posts criticizing them.

  • http://twitter.com/nicoleintrovert Nicole Introvert

    I’m very happy that my husband has started speaking up about things like this to his family members.  He’s a Christian and progressive but his family (especially extended family) post these sort of hateful things.    I never want to rock the boat and put him in an awkward position, but I’ve started to speak up too.  Letting them know, “Hey… you are talking about ME.  Is it okay with you that you are hurting me? Is that part of your value system?” 

    It’s hard though… even when my husband speaks up they start telling him he doesn’t REALLY know Jesus… and many other logical fallacies galore. 

    I suppose that is the point of me coming out as atheist, or for him coming out as a progressive Christian. Showing the people in your life who say these hateful things that they are hurting people that they know and even love.

    • Baby_Raptor

      I feel you. My fiance was raised Christian and for the past couple years has been expressing a lot of doubt. The doubt started before he even knew me, but they didn’t know about it til after me, so obviously it’s all my fault. (mutter, grumble, swear.)

      Anyway, yeah. It’s really heart-hurting to watch him struggle against this. Sympathy hugs to you and your  man. 

      • grindstone

        Right there with you, with a twist. My spouse’s family was negligibly Christian whereas I had been steeped in it from a young age. I was already leaning agnostic when I met my husband and he had practically no theological background, so we were cool. Now his family have embraced Joel Osteen and conservative evangelicalism and are so very annoying. They are still ignorant of basic tenets and have zero Bible exposure but constantly mouth off platitudes, quote their ridiculous “books”, and blame me for corrupting their son. My MIL was first off the block to send the “not welcome in schools” email. Luckily my spouse sees it for the inanity that it is and enters the fray so I don’t have to…I would not be as nice as he.

  • jose

    We  allow abortion and gay marriage and our last mass shooting happened 22 years ago (gay marriage was illegal back then, btw). Incidentally, we have restrictive gun laws. I’m sure one thing has nothing at all to do with the other.

    Too bad for conservatives America is the only country that counts.

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

    Even if that god existed, I wouldn’t worship him. Murdering children because he’s having a hissy-fit is beyond evil.

    • MM

       Ditto.  I know a lot of atheists say they’d believe in god if he just showed up…well, maybe I’d believe, but I wouldn’t follow.  I think I’d rather burn in hell on principle than worship a callous, jealous, angry, egomaniacal douchebag for all eternity.

      • Jim Hudlow

        If “he” showed up he would no longer be god. He
        would become something tangible and empirically able to be investigated. His
        supernatural veneer would be stripped away and any sane person would hold this
        clown to account if any part of the abrahamic religious atrocities and ridiculous
        demands are due to his actions or desires. No one would follow such an entity.
        He must remain supernatural to remain viable to the sheeple.

        • Blacksheep

          Jesus “showed up” , and claimed to be God. Hundreds, then thousands, then millions followed him. This began with people who knew him, walked with him, lived with him. 

          So I disagree – people would – and did – follow such an entity. They may have been wrong, or delusional, but they surely followed.

          • WoodyTanaka

            “Jesus ‘showed up’ , and claimed to be God”

            Where in the bible did the Jesus character claim to be the God character.  Not any “I am who am” jive, where did he say, “Hey, I’m God.”?

            • Blacksheep

              John 10:30-33
              30 I and the Father are one.”31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”That’s just one – there are many more. 

              • cipher

                Here’s a newsflash for you, which of course, you will neither believe nor accept (so why am I wasting my time?) – they wouldn’t have thrown stones or put him to death for claiming to be God; it isn’t against Jewish law. Taking God’s name in vain is, but that, he apparently wasn’t guilty of. If he claimed to be God, they would have regarded him as a harmless eccentric and ignored or tolerated him.

                It speaks to the accuracy of the entire series of accounts – but I’m sure you won’t let that trouble you.

                • Blacksheep

                  In my opinion you are incorrect about that, not because I don’t want to accept it, but because I have knowledge in this area. It was considered blasphemous to even say the name of God, let alone claim to be him.

                  BTW – Can we disagree without your post being sprinkled with catty litttle comments?

                • cipher

                  You’re simply wrong, and there’s an end to it.

                • Blacksheep

                  Cipher I’m quite sure that I’m correct, thankfully the boxes will keep getting smaller so we don’t have to waste each others time.

                • cipher

                  Go ask a rabbi instead of your Christian apologists.

                  In the meantime, here: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/israel/feldman.shtml

              • WoodyTanaka

                Sorry, Blacksheep.  Nowhere did he say, “I am God.”  Indeed, repeatedly, in John 10, Jesus talks of himself and his Father as being two different people:

                “I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father..”

                So does that mean that Jesus and the sheep are of one identity?

                “For this reason the Father loves me…”

                How is this not referencing a second individual.  It makes no sense for one to talk about the reason another loves him if they are the same person.

                “This charge I have received from my Father…”

                Did he give something to himself??

                “My Father, who has given them to me…”

                Gramatically referencing different individuals.

                “I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

                So is he saying he is the son of himself? 

          • Cecelia Baines

            How about some proof of this. Some artifacts in the historical records? There is NONE. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Goose Eggs. Nyet. Poof.

            Your book does not count as proof.

  • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

    So all these breathtakingly bold and stupid jerkoffs are REALLY convinced that because their god is so heartbroken by abortion, he punishes the human race by murdering a bunch of little kids in the most violent way possible?  Yeah.  OK.  Hey, at least it wasn’t bears this time, right?

    Fuck you, Dobson.  Fuck you, Huckabee.  Fuck anyone who thinks that this horrific act against innocent children is a punishment for the actions of adults that they disagree with.  And fuck you to the 10th power if you believe that and still worship said god.

    • http://twitter.com/MaryWakulik Mary

      Wishing there was a, “Love” to click on!
      Also, for your avatar :)

    • SeekerLancer

      Thanks, you saved me time by summing up my thoughts.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’ve seen more than a few Cons comment that they simply don’t get how Liberals could get upset over the shooting because we have no issues with abortion. I’m half tempted to fire back that, since their god is doing this as judgement, and their god is supposedly holy and just, what right do they have to be upset over it?

    • Rwlawoffice

       Liberals and particularly atheists rant here about God being evil because of their idea that he allows children to get killed to use words from another post in this thread, as a result of a hissy fit.   Yet at the same time these same people promote abortion under the idea and fallacy that this human life is not worth protecting because it is either not yet a life or is simply a potential life and the choice of the mother overrides the right of the unborn to live. 

      Yes we conservatives have a problem with that. We view it hypocritical that a liberal in one breath would champion the right of a woman to kill her unborn child and then turn around and cry foul when other children are killed.  Such a distinction in the value of life is horrific yet in the name of choice, for any reason, including a hissy fit, is deemed by Liberals to be a right. 

      You can spare me all the comments that there are no children in the womb, etc..  I have heard them all before and all they do is prove my point. You make categories of life with different labels in order to rationalize choices.

      By the way, we have the right to be upset about it because we love children, born and unborn.  We mourn their loss and we want them protected from evil. We also understand that evil is in this world but that even when children are taken from us prematurely we have trust and faith in our God that He is with them and that we will see them again one day.  This faith gives us strength in a time of tragedy.  Not believing in an afterlife, I don’t expect you to understand that. But seeing all of those in Conn. that are receiving some solace from this faith at this time I am thankful that they have this faith to lean on.

      When an atheist screams where is your God now, it makes me wonder what right to they have to say that? Defining God the way they want Him to be and not wanting him to have any control over them are the same ones that say He is unjust when He fails to intervene when they think He should.

      • Cecelia Baines

        There are no words to describe you. You are a horror and evil vile piece of shit.

        And for someone who claims to be a lawyer, you are one of the dumbest asswipes around. Pity your clients.

        • Rwlawoffice

          So I advocate protecting life, both born andn unborn and I am deemed to be vile and evil.  Thank you for proving my point.

          • 3lemenope

            So you see this as a hypocrisy competition, and you’re in it to win it?

            • Rwlawoffice

              Not a competition, but I do think there should be an honest discussion.

              • Piet Puk

                Not a competition, but I do think there should be an honest discussion.

                Then stop cherry picking your holy book, stop being a hypocrite, stop using double standards, and show us your evidence of this god you keep talking about.

              • 3lemenope

                Then you should start by not making your entire contribution in this thread a long tu quoque of the tired form “don’t criticize my hypocrisy because liberals are arguably hypocrites too!”. That’s not the beginnings of an honest conversation, but rather the complete avoidance of one.

              • cipher

                You shouldn’t be allowed to use the word “honest”.

                BAN THE TROLL, HEMANT.

          • Cecelia Baines

            Your POINT? You don’t HAVE A POINT unless it is the pinhead tip on your cranium.

            You come here and spew absolute BULLSHIT that promotes such vile repressive shit. You are a Christian Taliban! Guess what? I am a woman and I am an E-Q-U-A-L to you, which must just make your Xian maleness freak out!

            I have also had an abortion, pay my own bills, speak up and lip off against men when they are wrong and refuse to marry….and I have sex. LOTS AND LOTS OF SEX!!!

            That must just make a little turd like you want to run to Texas lickity split to try and pass some pro-gun and anti-women/minority/gay laws..

            GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU WORTHLESS TOOL.

            • Guesty Guest

              Deranged capitalization is usually the province of nutters. Not saying you’re crazy, just saying from a drive-by guest’s glance, you seem crazy when you do it.

              • WoodyTanaka

                I’ve read one other of your posts.  You may not if Cecelia is crazy, but I know you’re a fucking asshole.

          • Edmond

            You have no idea how many “Christians” I’ve seen who say they can’t wait until there’s a scientific test to detect a “gay gene” in the womb, because THEN they’ll have a legitimate reason to abort.

            • Rwlawoffice

               Those people are sick and not following Christian teachings.  I would love to talk to them.

              • Edmond

                And tell them what?  That Christian A has a different interpretation of ancient Middle Eastern writings than Christian B?  We already know that.  Some of us also know that such writings are NOT valid for building a belief system upon.

                There’s something very wrong with a system which proclaims “Thou Shalt Not Kill” but which FIVE MINUTES LATER starts listing all the different reasons that people should be killed, like the “heinous crimes” of being gay, or not yelling loud enough during a rape.

                What do we get from 2 Christians debating doctrine?  “Jesus came to fulfull the covenant of the Old Testament, those rules no longer apply”, says one.  “You’re wrong,” says the other, “Jesus said not one letter of the old law has changed!”  The two of you could argue about these make-believe laws until Armageddon, and we’d still have no way of knowing which was true (if either) beyond your own opinions.

                Abortion may not be a happy choice, but it’s the WOMAN’S body, and it’s remarkably presumptuous to tell her what to do with it, and with whatever’s IN it.  Many pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway, which only makes it look like God doesn’t know how to use his own chemistry set.

                While you and your “fellow” Christians are debating what no one can ever know, the rest of us will do our best to get by on REAL information about REAL people who exist.  This may mean making a tough choice between a fully-fledged adult, and a lump of cells which resides inside her body.  And we choose to do it WITHOUT the guidance of people who thought it was an abomination to shave or eat shellfish.  They have nothing to offer us.

                Get back to us when you all decide if gay people should be aborted while in the womb, or put to death later.

                • Blacksheep

                  Christ said only to throw the first stone if one is innocent… and the new Testament did abolish those laws. There’s no argument. Christ said he came to fulfill the law, meaning that he is dying instead of us.

                • Cecelia Baines

                  Yeah, and Spiderman said he is going to totally stop the Green Goblin.

                  The POINT? Both stories have as much foundation in reality as the other.

                  Your user manual, “The Bible” means diddily shit. It is a made up fable. And your fables do not get to run other peoples’ lives. The sooner you get over that, the happier you will be.

                • Blacksheep

                  Cecelia, I have nothing to “get over”…you seem to feel that I’m angry or upset about something.

                • Cecelia Baines

                  Look scum-sucker, you started to go off on how gog was great after the Newtown tragedy and now you play the pious and friendly Xian card.

                  You are the lowest of the low and you need to just go away, and you do need to get over your belief in a book of myths being a guide for all of us.

                  Fuck you.

                  I have no respect for you at all. I do not respect your views, you as a person or anything else about you. You are a little turd. Yes, I am taking a cue from Hitchens behavior because people like you do not deserve any courtesies.

                • Blacksheep

                  In response tp your skinny post below: I don’t think you are even reading my posts. I think you are throwing all of your rage against Christians at me. I know that because the things that you say I did in most of your posts have nothing to do with me. And believe me, the way you are speaking is anything but “taking a cue from Hitchens.” 

              • Piet Puk

                And another  ”No True Scotsman” Fallacy..

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Not at all. Saying someone is not following Christian doctrine is far different from saying they are not true Christians. For example a mathematician may get a problem wrong but they are still a mathematician. Same thing here. A person may call themselves a Christian and be one but be mistaken on Christian doctrine.

                • Piet Puk

                  That depends on your personal interpretation of what christian doctrine is.
                  For one it is “love thy neighbour”, for the other it is “love thy neighbour, unless he/she is gay”.
                  What christian A thinks is wrong, christian B thinks is right. It is just a matter of what cherries you pick.

                • Blacksheep

                  Piet, you and I could read the Bible together, and I believe we would agree on what it says. (Not on whether or not it’s God’s word). I believe that we would agree that “Love thy neighbor” means just that.

                • Piet Puk

                  I highly doubt we could agree on what is says, given the many, many translations. 
                  Not to mentions what it should mean, according to the many, many many different kinds of christians out there, now and in the past.

            • Blacksheep

              I’ve never heard anything like that in my life – you’ve heard that from many Christians? Where do you live???

              • Edmond

                Online.

                • Blacksheep

                  I looked online, couldn’t find – you “you have no idea HOW MANY I’ve seen – can you show a link? (not to an african lunatic, obviously).

      • Cecelia Baines

        You know what, you are a fucking cockroach and should be shoved back under the greasy fridge where you belong.

        You are truly subhuman.

        • Blacksheep

          Bringing up the (forbidden) topic of the sanctity of unborn human life does not make someone a “F___ing cockroach…” even if it is done in RLaw’s style.

          It’s pretty major philosophical issue to treat it with so much disrespect.  It should be discussed and spoken about.

          • Cecelia Baines

            It is NOT science fact that a cluster of cells known as a blastocyte is a viable human being.

            So you can have your asinine and misguided OPINIONS but you do not get to have your own facts.

            The world does not work like that sunshine. 

            And your bullshit notion of “debate and discussion” is based on bullshit notions of false equivalency.

            Fuck it, let’s make sure to have an alchemist get equal time when discussing the latest science trends in molecular science. It makes as much sense as you sky-fairy followers and your bullshit myths.

            Go back under the fridge you cockroach.

            • Blacksheep

              You have made your position 100% clear.

              • Cecelia Baines

                You think so? Because you seem to be so thick as to want to force your notions down out throats and lay claim to your god killing kids as punishment for adult actions.

                I don’t think you do get it. You, like your cockroach Xian brethren, are the cause of the troubles and ills in this country. You are not the moral ones. You are the PROBLEMS.

                If you would just worship without tax free status, keep your myths out of politics and stop shoving your shit down our collective throats, things would be hunky-dory, but you don’t.

                Fuck off you vile POS.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   To quote my favorite movie this time of year:

                  You are an angry elf.  You must be a South Pole elf.

                • Blacksheep

                  You can rant and rave, but please do not put words in my mouth. I NEVER “laid claim to my god killing kids as punishment for adult actions…”

                  Please do not lie. 

                  On the contarary, I have said that people have free will (as I assume you believe as well) and we are fully responsible for making this world a better place.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  And you Jesus fuckers are also responsible when you or your fellows make this world a worse place.

                • Guesty Guest

                  From a cruel, hateful piece of work like you, that means almost nothing. You’re like the perfect Poe of an atheist, leaping gleefully into every behavioral stereotype religious people have for us.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Yeah, maybe so.  But you’re an asshole, so somehow that makes us even.

                • Blacksheep

                  When we do, I agree with you.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Do you, really?  Your fellow christians are making the lives of homosexuals living hell (and have for centuries) based on the bible.  Have you gone around and told them that they need to ignore God’s word regarding homosexuals because it’s wrong.  Or do you make up some exuse (for them or for the bible verses) and pretend that you’ve fixed the problem?  Do you lie to everyone about “loving the sinner, hating the sin”??  How are you exercising your self-admitted responsibility?

        • Guest

          is this the usual atheist manner? Wow!

          • WoodyTanaka

            This lawyer pig comes onto an atheist site and spewing his evil religious garbage, what does he expect?  Better than being put to the stake or tortured to death, which is the reaction which Christians have historically treated atheists.

            • cipher

              Now they have to console themselves with lurid fantasies about our postmortem state.

          • Baby_Raptor

            Not any different than ya’ll. We’re just in your face about despising your actions and attitudes. 

            Christians sit around and blame everyone Not Them for all the evil in the world, then gloat about how we’ll all roast in hell while you super specials sit with your god for eternity.

            Nothing different, we’re just blunt about it. 

          • Piet Puk

            troll..

      • Piet Puk

        Defining God the way they want Him to be and not wanting him to have any
        control over them are the same ones that say He is unjust when He fails
        to intervene when they think He should.

        Please share with us your definition of your god.

      • walkamungus

        We’re not ranting about god being evil; we rant about god being nonexistent.

      • smrnda

         On fetuses and children, would you consider a stack of bricks and some blueprints a house? Anything that goes through stages of development is going to encounter some fuzzy boundaries.

        • smrnda

          As long as people talk about how ‘things will be better in heaven,’ their lazy asses will do very little to fix things on earth. Oppressors keep people down with the idea that it’s impossible to fix things here since the real problems are ‘spiritual’ and that it’s best for everybody on the bottom to just suck it up and take it.

          Also, if god loves me, I set the terms for what counts as love. If I tell someone I love them, then don’t do anything they want, they have a right to question my love. If I claim that there’s some ‘higher purpose’ to how I’m behaving, they will rightfully dismiss me as a waste of their time. Love isn’t something you just say you do.

          • Blacksheep

            The Bible says that things will be perfect in heaven, but it also seeks to better life on earth:

            “Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.”- Isaiah 1:17 “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.” - Luke 14:13″If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” - 1 John 3:17-18

            • WoodyTanaka

              Who gives a damn what your demented magick book says?

              • 3lemenope

                Blacksheep was responding to the claim that a doctrine of heaven demotivates actions in the here-and-now by showing that the source of that doctrine had other teachings which weigh against sitting on one’s hands being an appropriate way of following the heaven doctrine. 

                Isn’t that obvious from the context of the thread?

                • WoodyTanaka

                  yes, and it’s nonsense.  I’ve known enough people who basically can’t wait until their lives are over so they can “go home and see Jesus.”  They are literally wasting their lives because they think it’s nothing but the appetizer.

              • Blacksheep

                I was responding to a specific question, your comment really does nothing to illuminate things from either perspective.

              • Blacksheep

                To be honest, those verses are wonderful sentiments, even if the Bible is a work of fiction.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Yes, and look at the opposition in this country to programs to do these things, the ones leading the charge against helping the poor, the lame and the widows are going to be the Christians, who seem to read a “unless it’s a government program, in which case it’s of the devil” in there somewhere. 

        • Blacksheep

          A better comparison might be a seed in the ground that has just barely sprouted. Bricks and blueprints have no life-force in them.

          • WoodyTanaka

            No, that’s a fucking stupid comparison, because the life cycle of a plant and of an animal are different.  A fetus is a fetus, not a sproutling or an “unborn baby” or anything else.  It’s just a fetus.

            • Blacksheep

              Woody, now you’re just reacting. A sprouted seed is a better analogy than a pile of bricks. Do you know what goes on inside a single cell? Google it, and read about the functions of all the parts. Inside that one cell, there is respiration, manufacturing of proteins, a nucleus with hereditary material, and scores of other moving, animated, really amazing things happening. Life. And that’s just one cell!

              How many cells makes a person? I have no idea, but I know it’s alive.

              • Drakk

                 Do you use detergents? Hundreds of millions of those amazing living cells die every time you do.

                “Alive” doesn’t imply “deserves equal rights as an adult human”.

                • Blacksheep

                  Drakk, that’s not the point. We were looking for an analogy, and I disagreed that a pile of bricks was a good analogy for human life.

              • WoodyTanaka

                Neither is a good analogy; besides, the use of analogy here can only lead to error.  Because even if a pile of bricks isn’t a building and a sproutling is a live plant, it doesn’t mean a zygote or a fetus or a fertilized egg is anything other than a zygote or a fetus or a fertilized egg.

                And, yes, I know what goes on in a cell: chemistry and physics.  There’s not “life-force”, no “breath of God.”  Just basic stuff like chemistry and physics.

          • Baby_Raptor

            Neither does a zygote. It takes everything, EVERYTHING, from the woman it’s using as an incubator. It does nothing, and has nothing, on it’s own. 

      • Witchgawd

        Derp. That’s all your comments deserve.

      • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

        We mourn their loss and we want them protected from
        evil.

        Torturing people for eternity is far more evil than merely killing them, and yet you have no problem with that. You don’t mind that many of those children are going to grow up to be non-Christians, and you will not only excuse and defend their eventual torture, you love the deity responsible. You don’t care about children being protected at all. What your god wants is the only thing that matters. If your god wants children killed or tortured, then you will not oppose it. You’ll say it’s good and moral and just.

      • http://twitter.com/JasonOfTerra PhiloKGB

        Who doesn’t think God *ought* to intervene when 20 children are in mortal peril? Dobson and Huckabee obviously do, else they wouldn’t bother concocting appalling excuses for why he didn’t.

      • Baby_Raptor

        No sane person honestly believes that a zygote and a 6 year old are morally equivalent. The most blatant proof of this is the extremes your side goes to to ensure that every woman who gets pregnant is forced to give birth, and then turns around and bemoans the social safety net as from the devil. The same social safety net that millions of children depend on. And they’re dead set against things that are proven to reduce the number of abortions, such as birth control and comprehensive sex education, because those “violate deeply held beliefs.”

        Only your deeply held beliefs, mind, but to most Christians nobody elses’ beliefs count.

        If you honestly felt that life started at conception, and were honestly worried about reducing the number of abortions, your side would be advocating things that actually reduce abortions. Instead, you simply stick your fingers in your ears, ignore the massive amounts of pain and suffering you’re causing, and do everything you can to subvert womens’ rights to autonomy. 

        Stop lying. Nobody that doesn’t already agree with you is starting to believe you. And you’re the minority…That’s why your side has to force through bills in lame duck sessions and shut down people who try and protest what you’re doing.

        There is no “right of the unborn to live.” There simply isn’t. You might think your religious book grants one, and that’s perfectly fine for you to believe. You have every right to live your life by your beliefs. But this country isn’t run on a religious book. It’s run on the Constitution. And the Constitution defines citizens (and their lives) already born here or naturalized here. Not conceived here. Nor does science agree with you. The people who would actually know, the doctors and scientists who actually have the necessary intellect and facts to make such a call, didn’t then and don’t now say that life starts at conception. The only people who do are people with an agenda. 

        Nice failure at insulting Liberals and saying we don’t love children. Coming from someone who supports forced birth, no matter whether the child can actually be cared for, or is wanted, or will even have any quality of life…And then supports completely stripping any help said child may get…That’s just rich. And then you start talking about how, oh, you love kids, but if your god decides to kill them for whatever reason, well that’s just dandy. 

        Liberals are the ones that want to make sure every child is wanted. They want to ensure that every child has the support it needs, and the things required to grow up into a functioning, capable adult. We’re the ones who actually care about people, not just a nice ideal. 

        And lastly, you’re showing a huge amount of hypocrisy here. *Everyone* defines god how they want him to be. God doesn’t show up to everyone on a daily basis to make sure we know if he even exists and how, if he does, he really is. 

        If your god is truly omnipotent, as he claims to be, what any given person wants shouldn’t matter. he should be able to do as he wants, no matter what the tiny mortals involved think of it. 

        And when Atheists start screaming “Why did your god allow this,” most of the time we aren’t seriously demanding to know why your deity allowed it. We don’t believe in your deity. We don’t actually believe he allowed it. We’re pointing out how utterly contradictory and assholic your god appears to be. And we have every right to make these points, because your side insists on not only shoving your god in our faces, but constantly blaming us for his actions. We have every right to defend ourselves from your bullshit.

        And to your first post below: Please quit deluding yourself. You aren’t some huge protector of life. You’re not a hero, or a huge moral win. You cling to an ideal, and you completely ignore all the consequences of enforcing your ideal. You completely ignore the lives of the real, actually human women that your ideal will irreparably damage just so you can pat yourself on the back and think you’re better than the Satanic Kitten Burning Crusade. It’s offensive to those of us who actually try and do the right thing, and frankly, as a woman, I’m Fucking sick of you using my body and it’s capabilities to stroke your own ego. You don’t deserve it.

        And yes, I realize saying all this is an utter waste of time, because you’re not going to listen, and you’re not going to stop thinking that it’s perfectly okay to completely ignore the damage you’re advocating in the name of your ideals. But I have to say something. It’s my Fucking body you’re taking over, and my life you’re dictating. You won’t be harmed at all.

        • Rwlawoffice

           I love the liberal pro abortion line- “Every child a wanted child” except its incomplete.  The real statement is “every child a wanted child, the unwanted ones we will kill” This is not some statement of morality, it is a statement of justification and rationalization of a heinous act.

          We have argued before about the different names we have for human life during the stage of its development. However, at no time is it not human life.

          I am so tired of hearing the myth that pro life people don’t care about children once they are born.  Its false. It is only said in an attempt to try and claim some moral high ground from the same people who would kill a child in the womb.

          Your impression of conservatives is mistaken. Conservatives care about people. Liberals care about government. Nobody on the conservative side wants to take away the safety net from those that really need it, but if you don’t think there is a problem in our programs that need fixed, you are deluded. 

          As for your contention that pro life folks advocate positions that actually increase abortions this has a grain of truth and alot of lie. Pro life folks promote abstinence, no sex before marriage, no promiscuity.  If these would be followed of course the number of abortions would dramatically decrease. Realistically alot of folks don’t follow that so sex education and contraceptives are needed. What most conservatives complain about is government mandated sex education that goes against their beliefs. They want to teach that to their children and should if they are responsible parents.  

          “If your god is truly omnipotent, as he claims to be, what any given
          person wants shouldn’t matter. he should be able to do as he wants, no
          matter what the tiny mortals involved think of it. ”

          He does do what He wants.  What is your point?

          • matt

             Why do you think your god is a “he”?

            • Rwlawoffice

               Bible refers to Him as a he, so I do.

      • se habla espol

        You make categories of life with different labels in order to rationalize choices.

        “Different labels” like christian vs moslem vs jewish life?
        “Different labels like “agreeing with me” (rwlawoffice) vs “No True Christian” life?
        “Different labels” like “agreeing with my bigotry” (rwlawoffice) vs “liberal” life?
        Distinctions, I guess, are good when they distinguish rwlawoffice from his “others”; they are just bad when they separate ideas that rwlawoffice wants to conflate.

  • LesterBallard

    I wish these assholes could know, when they die, just how wrong they were. 

  • jose

    The appropriate response to according to conservatives.

    Ironic a country that was founded a couple centuries ago now holds opinions which rather belong to medieval Europe.

  • http://www.mymusingcorner.wordpress.com/ Lana

    Dobson is a jerk.

  • Enfantdupeche

    Maybe the shooting happened because we allow James Dobson.

  • C Peterson

    The shooting happened because of people like John Dobson. Without the war on reason waged by people like him, it is likely we would have found effective ways to prevent tragedies like these.

    Not only should we mock him and his ilk for making the absurd claims they do, but we should be placing a great deal of the responsibility for our major societal ills squarely in their laps.

    • Rwlawoffice

       Exactly how did James Dobson cause this shooting? By promoting the sanctity of marriage? By spending years talking about supporting families and raising children in loving environments? By promoting sexual purity and advocating against promiscuity?  And this has led to major societal ills like divorce, unwed single mothers, poverty, etc…

      Really, I cannot believe that Liberals refuse to look at this problem as a culture problem.  It is not guns, it is culture that has led to the ills we face today. It is a tragedy when twenty children die in one shooting, but on any given night more people than that die from violence. Most of which are young adults or teens. These don’t get the attention that one horrific event does but they are equally tragic.

      The breakdown of the American family is a horrible cultural problem that Dobson has fought against his entire life, yet you view him as the enemy because he is pro life and against same sex marriage.

      Now before you claim that same sex marriage would support families and solve these ills, let’s stay on topic. Not one of these killers has been a homosexual child  raised in a family whose parents could not mary and thus let that anger out through these shootings.

      • C Peterson

        John Dobson has never promoted the “sanctity of marriage”. He has promoted his narrow definition of marriage, which is exclusionary and has bred hatred and discord.

        John Dobson has never supported families, but has promoted his narrow definition of family, which is exclusionary and has bred hatred and discord.

        “Sexual purity” is contrary to human nature, and efforts to enforce it have always led to unhealthy societies and mental illness.

        To suggest that divorce or unwed mothers are societal ills is to continue to advocate for an unhealthy and damaging society.

        Dobson is partly responsible for the shooting. Because you advocate the same unhealthy ideas, and advocate against reason, you, too, share blame for the shooting.

        • Rwlawoffice

           “To suggest that divorce or unwed mothers are societal ills is to continue to advocate for an unhealthy and damaging society.”

          So you are saying that divorce and unwed mothers are not a societal ill? That it does not lead to poverty, crime, mental illness, discord, anger?

          I would suspect you know better than that.

          And just how does promoting the traditional family cause this shooting? Was it done by a crazed homosexual whose parents could not marry and was so angry about it he lashed out?  Was it done by someone that should have been aborted by his mother but was prevented from doing so? Or is it possible that it was done by a crazy person that suffered from a mental illness, part of which could have been made more difficult due to the breakdown of his family?

          As for Dobson, if you ever listened to him beyond his views on marriage being between one man and one woman you would see that he advocates for children being raised in a stable loving home. He also is not against receiving treatment for mental illnesses. Oh my gosh how awful of him!

          As for sexual purity being against human nature and leading to unhealthy societies, that is a myth of those that want to promote a society with little to no boundaries. This has been the trend for the last forty years and where are we?  Higher rates of STDs, unwed mothers, more divorces, hundreds of thousands of abortions among other problems.

          By the way, I won’t take the bait when you try to give me some of the blame for this shooting but nice try.

          • C Peterson

            So you are saying that divorce and unwed mothers are not a societal ill?
            That it does not lead to poverty, crime, mental illness, discord,
            anger

            Divorce is not only not a societal ill, it is healthy. It recognizes that humans are not naturally monogamous, don’t automatically form life-long relationships, and that marriage should not be assumed- unnaturally- to be a lifetime commitment. It is the lack of easy divorce that leads to societal problems. And to the extent that unwed mothers represent a societal ill, it has nothing to do with their unwed status, and everything to do with the economic structure of the society they live in.

            And just how does promoting the traditional family cause this shooting?

            The definition of family used by Dobson is exclusionary. There is nothing traditional about it, and by promoting it he encourages discord. That is harmful. More to the point, by promoting dogma over reason, he creates a societal environment that both leads directly to incidents like the shooting, and actively hinders approaches that could reduce such events.

            As for sexual purity being against human nature and leading to unhealthy
            societies, that is a myth of those that want to promote a society with
            little to no boundaries.

            Rubbish. Humans, like many primates, are sexually promiscuous. We are non-monogamous, and the vast majority of our sexual activity is social, not procreational. When we artificially define social structures that are contrary to this natural behavior, we create many problems. Healthy societies don’t significantly restrict sexual activity.

            • Godlesspanther

              This guy is too far gone. He has a 3″ thick solid steel skull and there is nothing that will get through it. 

      • MM

        “Not one of these killers has been
        a homosexual child  raised in a family whose parents could not mary and
        thus let that anger out through these shootings.”

        Exactly!  They’ve all been children raised in “traditional” homes that would mostly be described as “normal” and generally christian.  Doesn’t exactly support your position that “traditional” families are the solution to this violence.

        • Rwlawoffice

          It is the breakdown of the family that I think is a major cause of our cultural woes, not the traditional family iteslf.

          • smrnda

             You might want to study some history. Those ‘traditional families’ were full of domestic violence, and life was cheap throughout most of history. Racism was worse in the past.

            And had to point out, violence is actually on the decline.

          • C Peterson

            You may believe that, but there’s no evidence to support it. For that matter, there’s nothing that suggests that families are breaking down at all. Violence has steadily declined in our society over the last 50 years, especially violence towards women and children. I think that is in no  small part due to our acceptance of divorce- a very healthy thing. When societal strictures forced families to remain together (what you call “traditional”) the result was awful.

            I doubt that families have ever been healthier than today.

          • Godlesspanther

            Are you at all aware of the fact that this stuff you’re saying about ‘traditional family, blah, blah” does not make any sense at all? 

          • Baby_Raptor

            The “traditional family” is a fairly new phenomenon. It’s not how humans were inclined to be for most of the time we’ve existed. It’s not even biblical. You might want to actually study and get your facts straight before you open your mouth. 

      • Birdie1986

        Neither have any of the killers been a heterosexual or homosexual child raised by gay parents, whether they could marry or not.  Your argument makes no sense – the breakdown of the American family has not been caused by allowing gay marriage or legal abortion – heterosexual people get divorced and cheat on each other and have children out of wedlock.  This has occurred for centuries without gay marriage being legalized.  This has occurred for centuries without abortion being legal.   Families have been disfunctional, and people have been mentally ill throughout periods where Christianity was forced upon people for centuries.  The breakdown of the American family did not prompt Adam Lanza to easily grab the assault rifle and handguns from his mother’s house, shoot her, and then go to a school and gun down 20 children and 6 school employees.  Adam Lanza’s mental illness prompted him to do those things.  His mental illness that he may or may not have received treatment for, and which his parents, whether they lived in the same house or not, probably tried their best to deal with, caused it.  Banning gay marriage and abortion is not going to deal with the Adam Lanzas of the world.

      • smrnda

         I don’t hold him responsible, but by basically arguing that the solution to personal or social problems is some form of magic, he’s discouraging people from looking into real-world solutions that would actually work. Secular nations where religion is on the decline seem to be having less problems like this, probably because they focus on problems and solutions that exist in reality.

      • Godlesspanther

        Nobody is saying that James Dobson walked into a school with loaded weapons and pulled the trigger killing 26 people. He didn’t. The act was done by one seriously disturbed young man who is now dead. 

        What Dobson and others have done is try to pin the act on things that they don’t like in society. Same-sex marriage, lack of religious indoctrination in school, reproductive freedom, Charles Darwin, etc. 

        The way I take this is that we can point out that it could just as well be blamed on people who are promoting irrational, superstitious, hate-filled, lunacy, such as, James Dobson that can be blamed. 

        It’s a “right back at ya’” take on the situation. 

        You spew: “It is not guns, it is culture that has led to the ills we face today.”

        Guns were the tool that was used in this senseless massacre. Not culture. Guns in the hands of a sociopath is the cause of it. Not culture. 

        • Rwlawoffice

            A culture that glorifies violence is problem, a culture that leads to children being raised in single parent households with little supervision is a problem, a culture that promotes fame at any cost is a problem, a culture that promotes immediate gratification is a problem, a culture that promotes an anything I want to do when i want to do it is a problem, etc…

          All of these things play a part in where we find ourselves.  Not just when a sociopath pick up a gun and shoots children in a school, but when there is violence daily on our streets.  

          • C Peterson

            Yes, all of those things are problems. And none are mitigated by Christianity, although some are supported by it.

            • Rwlawoffice

               Either you don’t know anything about what Christianity teaches or you are intentionally ignoring its teachings in an attempt to make your point.  Either way, anyone who thinks divorce and sexual promiscuity is good for society has little credibility for determining what harm or benefit can come from Christianity and following its teachings.

              • C Peterson

                To Hell with what Christianity preaches. That’s bad enough, of course, but nothing in comparison with what it practices!

                Divorce is clearly healthy. Sexual promiscuity is healthy, as well, except where it collides with irrationally held dogmatic beliefs, in which case the dissonance may well be harmful.

                • Blacksheep

                  C, just because religion is anti divorce and anti promiscuity does not by default make them “clearly healthy” – just because you disagree with Christianity. 

                  The Merck manual has this to say about divorce:”Other than the death of an immediate family member, divorce is the most stressful event that can affect a family. Because the world as they know it has ended, children may feel a great loss as well as anxiety, anger, and sadness. Children may fear being abandoned or losing their parents’ love. Also, for many reasons, parenting skills often worsen around the time of the divorce. Parents are usually preoccupied and may be angry and hostile toward each other. Children may feel guilty about causing the divorce. If parents ignore children or visit sporadically and unpredictably, children feel rejected.”It’s much better to stay together and build a strong home for your kids. Sometimes divorce can’t be avoided, but to call it “clearly healthy” is a bit callous, no?

                • C Peterson

                  Divorce is far less stressful these days than it was in the past… because we are increasingly prepared to treat it as what it is- a way to move forward, not a failure. Sure divorce is stressful. But it isn’t as stressful as the alternative, a marriage forced to remain in place.

                  Restrictions on easy, no-fault divorce are one the reasons that spousal abuse and child abuse was much worse 50 years ago than it is today.

                  I do not argue that divorce and sex are healthy because religion opposes them, I argue that they are healthy because solid evidence supports that viewpoint.

                • http://twitter.com/JasonOfTerra PhiloKGB

                  Is divorce inherently stressful, or has marriage been unreasonably exalted? Perhaps if, instead of the message, “You ought to be together for ever and ever and if you’re not you’ve failed yourselves and society,” officiants said something like, “You two give it your best shot, and if it doesn’t work out just make sure to put any hypothetical children first” divorce might not be quite the ordeal it is for many.

                • Kristin

                  Or, the children can be perfectly happy and healthy because their parents aren’t fighting all the time. I am tired of this “divorce is bad, single parenting is bad” rhetoric. My mom left my dad because he was abusive. It was one of the happiest days of my life. I grew up in a single-parent household. My sister and I were both honor students who never got in trouble, didn’t drink or do drugs or have sex, and who have grown up to be productive, stable adults. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we had a home, food, and health insurance, and we never relied on public assistance. Just as you don’t like when people on here generalize about Christians, I can’t stand the generalizations about kids who grew up in divorced and/or single-parent homes. I can guarantee, no parent who decides to divorce or leave their partner makes the decision lightly (not even my mother, who should have left years before she worked up the courage to do so). I don’t know where I would be if my mom hadn’t left. It didn’t destroy our family; it strengthened it.

                • Baby_Raptor

                  I feel you.

                  If divorce were illegal, as some of these people seem to want, I’d likely be dead. My first husband was the type to beat “his woman” senseless for the smallest mistakes. 

                • Piet Puk

                  Your post keep giving me chills.
                  I am glad you got out.
                  Be safe.

                • Baby_Raptor

                  I don’t know the bias of the “manual” you’re quoting, but study after study has proven that “staying together for the kids” is bad. 

                  It teaches the children bad lessons. It puts them in the situation of having to navigate a home life where everything is stressful and wrong because nobody is happy. It harms the ability of the parents to do their jobs because they’re not happy themselves, and they’re constantly fighting to “make it work” when it’s not possible to make it work. 

                  The list goes on. 

                  Divorce isn’t always the answer. There are some issues that CAN be worked out if the couple puts up a little more effort. But that’s not always possible. And demonizing divorce when it really is a legit answer to some issues is wrong. 

                  Again, it all comes down to people keeping their personal beliefs to themselves instead of expecting everyone to live up to them. 

              • Godlesspanther

                Christianity is the delusion that everything in a magic story book is true. The book means anything you want it to. A book that means whatever you would like it to man is indistinguishable from a book that means nothing at all. 

              • Piet Puk

                Nicely disguised ”No True Scotsman” Fallacy there.

          • Godlesspanther

            Historically you have absolutely no point. There never was a time in which violence against people was not condoned or glorified. Which “good old day” would you like to go back to? Before Edwards v Agullard? The days of Ted Bundy, Jim Jones, Satanic Panic? Before Roe v. Wade? The days of the SLA, Charles Manson, assassinations of MKL, RFK, JFK?  Before Engle v Vitale? The civil rights riots, KKK lynchings, church bombings? How about Loving v Virginia? was that a bad one too? Want to bak to the good old days before women’s suffrage? How about the glory days of slavery? Or back when we had good xtians burning witches at the stake? Great huh? 

            Sociopaths have popped up in every culture at every time in history. There are legends of them in ancient tribal cultures. 

            Are there mor of them now? Of course there are because there are MORE PEOPLE — you doorknob. Are the more destructive — of course they are because they have MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY to be destructive with. 

            Hating gay people for no reason, hating single mothers, whining and bitching about abortions that do not affect you at all, worshiping a dead hippie on a stick, blaming Charles Darwin for things that did not happen during his life time — does not help anything in any way. 

            James dobon’s superstitions are worthless. 

      • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

        By spending years talking about supporting families and raising children in loving environments?

        Loving environments? James Dobson advocates beating children into submission. He also wrote a disgusting account of how he once beat their family pet, a tiny dachshund, with a belt.

        http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2004/12/monstrous-james-dobson-further.html

        I’m not even going to touch on his homophobia and misogyny, which are also loathsome, but his advocacy of violence against children and animals is utterly despicable. He’s one of the absolute worst examples of fundamentalist Christianity I can possibly think of. The fact that people look to this man as a leader and follow his advice is tragic.

      • Witchgawd

        Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick you’re annoying. Shouldn’t you be busy keeping billy goats from crossing your bridge instead of lurking?

    • 3lemenope

      “Without all these inconvenient people who disagree with us, we surely would have solved the problems of the world by now!”

      You’re in a special mood. Seriously, what is with you today? On the other thread you were willing to call a guy who had a different (albeit stupid) view than SOCAS on how best to interpret the Establishment clause as a “liar and a traitor” and the person who appointed him as a “criminal who should be impeached”? Now you’re blaming Dobson and co. for horrific massacres and who know what else.

      Take a step back, lest you mimic perfectly that which you seem to despise.

      • C Peterson

        “Without all these inconvenient people who disagree with us, we surely would have solved the problems of the world by now!”

        Please don’t misquote me, or crudely misinterpret my words. I said no such thing, and I meant no such thing.

        What I said was that without people in leadership positions going actively out of their way to discourage critical thinking, and to encourage exclusionary dogma, many of the worst problems our society faces would be far smaller ones today, if not eliminated completely.

        I believe that Dobson and people like him share significant responsibility for the sort of societal ills that led to this shooting.

        • 3lemenope

          Please don’t misquote me or crudely misinterpret my words.

          “The shooting happened because of people like John Dobson. Without the war on reason waged by people like him, it is likely we would have found effective ways to prevent tragedies like these.”

          is a specific case of the general form

          “Without all these inconvenient people who disagree with us, we surely would have solved the problems of the world by now!”

          And is exactly as valid. It’s really not my fault your argument is a really dumb one. It’s not hard–really, it isn’t!–to feel superior to turds like Dobson. It doesn’t require making stupid arguments of the above form–notably most often trotted out by people like Dobson–to do so. 

          What I said was that without people in leadership positions going actively out of their way to discourage critical thinking, and to encourage exclusionary dogma, many of the worst problems our society faces would be far smaller ones today, if not eliminated completely.

          Did you say that? I thought you said:

          The shooting happened because of people like John Dobson. Without the war on reason waged by people like him, it is likely we would have found effective ways to prevent tragedies like these.”

          Wildly and childishly accusing people you don’t like of being indiscriminately responsible for the world’s ills is a game played by those who want to consolidate power by manipulating their ideological allies. Don’t play that game. You will get called on it. And as a courtesy, don’t try to pretend you didn’t write what you wrote: You accused Dobson of being responsible for the shooting, directly. If you don’t mean that, write something else.

          • C Peterson

            And as a courtesy, don’t try to pretend you didn’t write what you wrote:
            You accused Dobson of being responsible for the shooting, directly. If
            you don’t mean that, write something else.

            The only thing I don’t pretend I didn’t write are the words you try to place in my mouth, that I did not write!

            I accused Dobson of being responsible for creating the social environment that allowed the shooting to happen. I stand by that view. He is not solely responsible, but he is responsible, none the less. I consider that an objective opinion, and it is not based on any personal dislike I have of the man, nor any inherent disagreement I have with his world view.

            • 3lemenope

              The only thing I don’t pretend I didn’t write are the words you try to place in my mouth, that I did not write!

              I quoted what you wrote. Twice. I even italicized the portion where you implied causation (and then have spent the whole conversation back-pedaling from, only not; a great example of wanting to have it both ways). You seem to be objecting to me pointing out that the structure of the argument you made was silly in the extreme. I don’t think either you or the audience are actually stupid and would be confused by the presence of quotation marks in the first response where I was pointing out the equivalence. Please don’t tell me that’s your objection. 

               I consider that an objective opinion, and it is not based on any personal dislike I have of the man, nor any inherent disagreement I have with his world view.
              Objective opinion? No such creature. By its definition, an opinion is subjective; a view or a judgment. It can be supported by facts, which are intersubjective (as close to objective as we apes are capable of achieving), or not. Notably you haven’t presented any facts, so you can’t even argue objectivity on that degraded basis. 

              The word you were looking for, rather, is “unbiased”.

              And if you’re arguing that your opinion is unbiased in this matter, I’d say you are a practitioner of religious levels of self-delusion. If you believe that a person is responsible for an ill as terrible as the slaughter of children, then it is reasonable to look askance at the claim, made in the same breath no less, that your opinion is uncolored by your feelings on the matter.

              • C Peterson

                No, you took what I said, interpreted it in your own light, paraphrased it, surrounded it in quotes, and reposted it as something I said. Not cool.

                • 3lemenope

                  Oh, so you are that stupid (or butthurt by a common rhetorical trope). Never mind, you aren’t worth the time.

    • Guesty Guest

      How, on a site like this, a comment like yours could get so many “likes” is beyond comprehension. You all complain that people like Dobson peddle hate and make sweeping statements about the complicity of whole groups, without identifying anything resembling a fact or employing a logical argument. Since someone else more gently tried to point this out, let’s go less gentle.

      Let’s play the find-and-replace game!

      The shooting happened because of people like John Dobson the gays. Without the war
      on reason family values waged by people like him, it is likely we would have found
      effective ways to prevent tragedies like these. Not only should we mock him and his ilk for making the absurd claims
      they do, but we should be placing a great deal of the responsibility for
      our major societal ills squarely in their laps.

      C Peterson writes pretty well, and the sells this crowd basically what you want to hear. In return, you adore him and lap up your illogical fact-free slop and call it delicious because it conforms to your prejudices. Those religious sheeple you despise so much? Look into a mirror. C Peterson is exhibit A of the same species of demagogue who plays people with what they badly desire to believe, with stripes of just a slightly different color.

      • C Peterson

        When you change the words, you change the meaning. The shooting can in no way be blamed on gays. But certainly an arguable case can be made that it was facilitated by the mindset of Dobson and his ilk. And yes, Dobson and his organization are engaged in a war on family values, but that isn’t really relevant to this discussion. It was a failure of reason and critical thinking, both of which are opposed by Dobson, that played an important role in allowing the shooting to happen.

        • Guesty Guest

          It was a failure of reason and critical thinking, both of which are
          opposed by Dobson, that played an important role in allowing the
          shooting to happen.

          How, precisely, does “failure of reason and critical thinking” of the sort peddled by Dobson allow the shooting to happen? Connect the dots. Which things that Dobson said or did were causal in one guy getting up one day and shooting a school-full of children and teachers to death?

          This is precisely what I mean, folks. Peterson here adopts the rhetoric of “reasonable guy” effectively, which masks that he isn’t actually saying anything. He’s hoping your (completely understandable) hate of that fool Dobson will blind you to the fact that he has presented no dots to connect. We’re just supposed to take the nebulous assertion that Dobson is an Enemy of Reason and Right-Thinking as evidence itself that he bears some responsibility for this horrible crime.

          His argument is exactly as empty as the one where you play the find-and-replace game with ‘atheist’ or ‘homosexual’ or anyone else you like. The form is precisely the same, to the point where we have all seen arguments forwarded by people like Dobson that look identical in every way to the find-and-replace of Peterson’s above. It makes just as much sense; namely, none. Dobson is a scumbag, and so Peterson has decided he’s a good scapegoat for this particular tragedy. That’s how it usually works with scapegoating; take a person people are already disposed against, make a wild accusation, and hope nobody notices there is not actual content to the charge, much less even a single fact to back it up.

          • C Peterson

            Religion asks its followers to pass on reason and instead accept dogma. Look at the leaders in this country who most reject rational approaches to solving problems, and they are the most religious and the most nonsecular. Look at the rhetoric coming from Fuck on the Family and other politico-religious organizations, and it is consistently critical of reasoned responses.

            Without that mindset, who knows how much more advanced our society would be, how much better at understanding and preventing things like mass murders? In my opinion, much more advanced, and therefore I hold people like Dobson up as major contributors to this and many other societal ills.

  • Blacksheep

    The most outspoken Christians are often idiots.
    It’s a filter: Christ teaches humilty and non-judgment, and the people that ignore those ideas are the same ones who shout about it.

    • Cecelia Baines

      And you are pretty outspoken. Pot meet kettle.

      • Blacksheep

        Cecelia, have I said anything rude or anything that hurts someone else? 

        Your comment makes no sense to me- the entire purpose of this forum is to express oneself and have dialogues. I believe you know what I mean when I say “outspoken” – I’m referring to the media, and people who want to be in the limelight with their views. This is a private community conversation, which is a very different thing.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You loudly advocate the view that women should not be allowed to make their own reproductive choices, and yet you claim innocence from “saying things that hurt someone else”? 

          • Blacksheep

            When and where did I say that? I have always kept the conversation about whether or not a fetus is a human life, not anything about what a woman might choose to do with it.

    • WoodyTanaka

      LMAO.  It’s the rare Christian who’s not an idiot.

      “Christ teaches humilty and non-judgment”

      LMAO.  Bullshit.  your doctrines are little more than judgments.

      • Blacksheep

        Woody, you want to know the reason that I try not to judge others? Honest answer: 1. I never feel good when I do 2. I don’t want to be judged by God.

        “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”- Matthew 7:1

    • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

      Non-judgment? Judgment is all you ever see coming from conservative Christians, in both the public and the private sphere. Ordinary people are judged as “sinners” and told they must repent.  Not satisfied with telling people they are bad, the Christian community also organizes to put their own moral dictates into law, proclaiming everyone else’s views to be inferior and wrong. Is there a single example of a prominent conservative evangelical or fundamentalist who does not support this? 

      • Blacksheep

        That’s an interesting question, because, for example, I don’t like outspoken preachers who are judgemental – but that also means that I’m proclaiming their views to be inferior and wrong.

        As far as the “sinners repent” part, that’s woven into Christian doctrine, one can’t get away from that. But there is not some “other” group of sinners out there, it applies to everyone.Tim Keller is the best I’ve seen of a conservative Christian who is pretty non judgemental.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Keller

        • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

          Well, the crux of the problem is that it’s woven into Christian doctrine. You can’t say Christianity isn’t judgmental when the core tenet judges humanity as “sinful.” It’s no wonder that Christian leaders pass judgment on everyone and everything outside their belief system. They’re part of a judgmental religion.

          I’ve heard of Tim Keller, but based on what’s written about him on the Wikipedia page, I’m hard pressed to figure out how he’s less judgmental than someone like James Dobson. They believe the exact same things.

          On social issues, he has been described by Mark DeVine as a “doctrine-friendly” pastor noted for his “unashamed embrace of both orthodox theology and Christology…, clear identification of homosexuality as sin, and opposition to abortion on demand.” He was quoted by Gay City News as saying “Homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality: sex is designed for marriage between a man and a woman.

          How on earth is any of that non-judgmental? He’s certainly not keeping those views to himself. He’s preaching them from the pulpit. He’s trying to get other people to adopt them. He seems to be a little more evasive in the political arena, so maybe he’s not as in-your-face with them. But his views are highly judgmental, and don’t seem to differ at all from the ones held by Dobson, Robertson, Driscoll, Huckabee, etc.

          • Blacksheep

            It’s still Christian doctrine, Anna. There’s a big difference between being judgemental toward others and showing people what the Bible says about sin.

            You need to look at the whole of a person’s ministry and not cut and paste sound bites that fit an argument.

            • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

              Hey, I wasn’t the one claiming that Christianity teaches non-judgment! It would make more sense to acknowledge the fact that the religion does teach judgment, and that when Christian leaders promote the doctrine, then they are also promoting said judgment.

              And for what it’s worth, I didn’t cut and paste sound bites. I quoted directly from the link that you provided. I fail to see how Timothy Keller is non-judgmental, based on what he believes and tries to get other people to believe. Now he seems less likely to put his foot in his mouth (publicly) than Dobson is, but when it gets down to brass tacks, they believe the exact same judgmental things.

  • http://twitter.com/rlrose328 Kerri Russ

    It’s this kind of nonsense (Dobson’s spiel) that builds anxiety and sparks in someone the need to go shooting up a mall or a meeting place of the supposed vile people behind the godlessness.  Why can’t he just keep his mind to his own issues?

    • Blacksheep

      I do not like Dobson one bit – but isn’t that giving him a bit too much power? 

      • Debbie

          If  somebody would change the first amendment, Dobson could not voice his opinion.  Like say religious leaders are banned from first amendment rights to freedom of speech.  The only ones with freedom of speech would be  atheists.  Yea that would work.   It certainly worked in Germany, let’s see if you were declared a Jew in Germany they found a way to permanently  silence your speech!  Would that make you happy if all people who declared themselves as religious were just taken off the face of the earth!  If not then that 1st amendment that I see atheist so vehemently defending applies to Dobson and he gets to say whatever he wants and while you don’t like what he says you have to acknowledge he has the right to say it.

        • Blacksheep

          Huh? I’m sorry Debbie, you did a 180 on my post. The thread starts with kerri’s assertation that “this kind of nonsense (Dobson’s spiel)…” could lead to someone shooting up a mall.

          I think that’s giving him too much power – I do not believe he has that effect.

          I did not mention the first amendment or banning him from speaking.

          • Debbie

             Sorry my reply should have been to Kerri not you.  I understand that you do not care for him but you certainly would recognize his right to freedom of speech.  It sometimes seems some of these folks believe the best thing to do would be to silence all the religions not just Christians.   They rail against his message but never recognize that the 1st amendment that they are watch dogs over give him the right to speak whatever he wants.   So why do they think he should have to shut up?  Sorry did not mean any disrespect I get your point.

            • Blacksheep

              Yes, I believe that (some) folks here at FA are un abashed in their wish that Christians or any religious group should shut up, (Just read the vitriole on this topic) especially when they “step outside the church.”

              I’m afraid that’s just the way life is – but as you know, many Christians are the same way towards atheists. 

  • WoodyTanaka

    Christians really are the scum of the earth.

    • Guesty Guest

      Yep. All of them. Check out all that scummy self-questioning, internal criticism, and honest struggle.

      • WoodyTanaka

        Yes.  If anything, that post should be title “4 things that every person should be asking,” and it should be based on reason.  Instead it’s a steaming pile of horseshit that assumes that “evangelical christians” — who are at the core of pretty much all that is bad about America — should somehow have any answers.

        • Guesty Guest

          I see. Everyone needs to be like you and do things your way. When they try for self-examination, they will be mocked just as roundly as when they do not. Perhaps they just shouldn’t try? Is that what you’re aiming for?

          Or are you just thoughtlessly hateful and don’t care where your opinion leads?

    • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

      To be fair, there are millions of moderate and liberal Christians who have no connection to Dobson or organizations like Focus on the Family. It’s the conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who seem to be the root of the problem, and unfortunately they’re the most outspoken of all.

      • WoodyTanaka

        Anna,  I will be fair when there are tidal waves of criticisms, denouncements and public disparagements, pickets, maybe even calls for boycotts from all of these “moderate and liberal Christians” every time one of their “brothers in Christ” makes such disgusting comments about gays or atheists or Muslims or whoever else they are attacking.  Where are the thousands or hundreds of  thousand Christian protesters shouting down Terry Jones or the Kansas Baptists every time they show up in public???  Or at Abortion Clinics?? or in front of Pat Robertson’s studios or that demon Billy Grahams’ house??  or protesting the Saddleback Church??

        When the KKK have rallies, the counter protest is usually significantly louder.  If there were so many “moderate and liberal Christians” as you suggest, the same would be true every time one of the right wing Christians opened their mouths.

        • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

          I’m just saying, “Christians are the scum of the earth” is a very broad statement. I’m not claiming that the moderates and liberals are all roses and sunshine, but they do exist. Not every Christian is a right-wing fundamentalist. Millions of them have absolutely no connection to that subculture.

          I absolutely agree that the moderates and liberals could do more to denounce the extreme elements, but I think proclaiming them to be “the scum of the earth” is too harsh. My extended family is all liberal Catholic. I don’t think most of them have ever even heard of Dobson.

          • WoodyTanaka

            It was an overly broad statement and I did not write it with the greatest precision as to my thoughts on the subject.  Probably “Christians like this are the scum of the earth” or “when you look at the scum of the earth, so many of them are Christians” would probably be a better way of putting it.

            But more to the point, I still think that the moderates and liberals have a very heavy burden to carry that I simply don’t see them carrying.  Just my opinion.

  • http://twitter.com/lothie M Ursula Herrmann

    Okay. I’m a Christian and I will HAPPILY disavow this anal fissure of a man.

    • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

      Excellent news! I just wish the evangelical community as a whole could somehow be convinced to stop following men like Dobson, Huckabee, Driscoll, etc.

      • 3lemenope

        Well, they are hemorrhaging young members at a truly astounding rate over stuff like this. Usually in surveys it is situated in a more general malaise about the church’s entanglement with politics, but this is textbook what-drives-them-away kind of stuff.

        Give it a bit of time; the Evangelical population is aging and not successfully replacing their older members with youth. The ones who retain the belief while ditching the church gravitate more toward Rob Bell type figures, who are a heckuva step up from Dobson/Huckabee/Driscoll et. al.. 

        • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

          I hope you’re right! Men like Dobson are on their way out, but I know Driscoll appeals to a lot of younger Christians. As long as it’s presented in a cool, hipster package, many of them are willing to embrace harsh fundamentalism. Then again, you do have people like Rob Bell and Jay Bakker and the emergent church movement. Here’s hoping the latter group wins out.

        • Blacksheep

          3lemonope,

          My understanding is that while other denominations are losing members, the evangelical church in America and worldwide is growing. Lots of articles online about this.

      • Blacksheep

        I do not know anyone personally that follows or likes those guys. The point of FA (and I understand) is to paint Christianity in it’s worst light. Part of that is posting articles that highlight asinine behavior.

        • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

          You’re a conservative evangelical Christian and not a single person you know supports Focus on the Family?

          Men like Dobson, Huckabee, Piper, etc. have millions of fans. They are prominent people in the evangelical and fundamentalist community. They run large organizations and/or churches. They write books. They make speeches. They’re not marginal, fringe figures, and they didn’t get to their current positions because people have ignored them.

          So you don’t like them. That’s good. Maybe there’s some hope for you yet, LOL. But it doesn’t make any sense to pretend that millions of your fellow evangelicals don’t agree with and admire them. As far as painting Christianity in its worst light, FA didn’t force those men to make insensitive public statements. Dobson and company did that all on their own. They put their views out there. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be all these posts about them.

          You can’t complain that FA is the one painting Christianity in its worst light when these men seem to have taken up the banner and made a mess of thingsall by themselves. All we’ve done is respond to what they’ve said. We didn’t instigate anything. They’re the ones blaming this tragedy on atheists, gays, etc.

  • Brian Scott

    I am somewhat perturbed with some of the level of vitriol in this thread. I do think that harsh criticism of Christianity is warranted, even at the risk of being “offensive”, but personal attacks on people here are far out of line. I won’t say all of it is undeserved, but some of it is.

  • Aspieguy

    I am so fucking sick of wackos like Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bryan Fischer, Buster Wilson, and the columnists for WorldnutDaily. May the breath of a thousand camels be theirs.

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

    Dobson’s faith is little other than a control mechanism. ‘Jesus’ will never mean anything but ‘power’ coming out of Dobson’s mouth.

  • cipher

    Re: Rwlawoffice - 

    • Piet Puk

      To bad extreme delusion and willful ignorance is no basis for a ban.

  • pagansister

    Haven’t read all 180 comments—so i’m sure I’m repeating a few. Dobson only proves that he believes in a very hateful god—one who has little children and their caregivers killed because of the laws allowing civil rights—ie gay marriage and a woman’s right terminate or not a pregnancy. He and his co-horts are so full of Bull S**t. How in hell can anyone actually BELIEVE anything even close to that? It is just—-totally—unbelievable.

  • Believenot

    I read what you wrote about James Dobson and that’s not friendly at all. You should have a blog named “aggresive atheist” with those who don’t believe what I believe and friendly with those who agree with me. That’s is what your equation (math teacher) says to me. The way you communicated your hatreness is evident and that opinion does not make me a religious fanatic. I think you have more faith in believing “there is no God” than religious practicing their faiths in God or gods. Your religious blindness of worshiping yourself makes you one more of those you criticize agressively. Your “friendly mask”, deceive and make yourself just the opposite of what you want to represent. I recognize that my expression is not friendly either, however you need to pay the right price of what you are selling is being a fanatic and agressive religious person.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X