A letter to nowhere
A couple of weeks back, I responded to a request by the Matthew 25 PAC to send an email to James Dobson's Focus on the Family after his repulsive "Letter from 2012," which was his piece of fiction about how an Obama presidency would lead to the end of civilization as we know it. (But I thought Dobson wanted to hurry on the End Times? No, that's Hagee. I get my mega-conservative cultists confused.) I got a very condescending auto response back.
I responded, but after a week have heard nothing. That's probably because it went nowhere. Dr. Dobbie's website contains NO EMAIL addresses. If you want to tell them something, you can only do it through their limited feedback system, or snail mail. A telling way to tell you they don't want to hear from you. SO ... here's my initial letter, their response and my comeback.
Initial letter
Pastor Dobson,
While I respect your use of your call to be a prophetic messenger, but your absolute rejection of even the most remote possibility that Senator Obama or any Democrat could do anything good. Your denial of even considering that anyone who disagrees with your far right wing political and religious beliefs is doing what they believe to be in the best interests in the country belies your own agenda.
It is truly disappointing to see a purported man of God be so close minded.
The Response
Thanks for your e-mail. It was good of you to offer your candid reaction to Focus on the Family Action’s "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America."
We’ve heard from many people who found this resource helpful; some, like you, have disagreed with our approach. While critics of this document accuse us of engaging in "sensationalist fiction," it’s vital to underscore that we are not claiming to make definitive predictions on what a Barack Obama presidency would produce.
However, as the "Letter from 2012" makes evident, every scenario outlined in this piece is plausible based on recent documented events, court rulings, the Democratic Party’s stated agenda, and Senator Obama’s voting record and campaign promises. We invite you to re-read the introduction of the letter [http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf] which clearly states that we are neither employing unfounded "fear tactics" nor speaking out with mean-spirited intent. On the contrary, we’ve posted a reasonable projection of what *could* occur with a Senator Obama presidency and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Of course, we hope and pray that none of the possible outcomes described in "Letter from 2012" come to pass.
It might be beneficial to provide some additional background on our mission to help you better understand our reasons for engaging in the public policy realm. We have no interest in partisan politics; rather, we care deeply about the sanctity of human life, the value of marriage, and the preservation of religious freedom. Dr. Dobson has espoused these crucial issues since he launched Focus on the Family in 1977 and has always encouraged people to consider them at the ballot box. Despite what the Matthew 25 Network and other pro-Obama action groups may say, we contend that Senator Obama’s record *significantly* differs from the pro-life and pro-family policies that many Christians hold dear. Some may label this "fearmongering" -- we call it a sobering, rational assessment based on actual events documented in the letter.
It might be helpful for you to read a concise summary of four key points that motivate us in our actions:
1) Senator Barack Obama’s record is well outside the mainstream. For example, he was rated the most liberal United States senator by the _National Journal_ in 2007 [http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/].
2) A Democratic president, House and Senate has significant implications for pro-family policies. _The Wall Street Journal_ has stated that this election will usher in "one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history" if the Democrats control the White House and possess congressional majorities, including a filibuster-proof Senate [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html]. This type of unchecked power, not seen since 1965, demands that voters critically examine the policies advocated by the Democratic Party.
3) Senator Obama’s commitment to causes championed by extreme liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), both of which have endorsed him, are a source of great concern. Earlier this year, Senator Obama pledged that if elected president, he would advocate for and sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would repeal virtually every federal and state law regulating or limiting abortion -- including parental involvement laws for teenagers, late-term abortion bans, and limits on public funding of abortion. He has also indicated that he will make it a priority to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. In addition, he backs other HRC-supported initiatives including the passage of "hate crimes" legislation and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" [http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=20935]. Similar legislation has penalized Christians who hold a biblical view of sexuality.
4) Senator Obama’s stated appreciation of United States Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter -- along with his votes against the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- indicate he would appoint judges with a judicial philosophy detrimental to pro-family causes.
On a final note, organizational endorsements of political candidates wed groups to their candidate in a way that may not lend itself to an honest critique of that individual’s weaknesses. As you’re likely aware, the group behind the Matthew 25 Web site endorsed Senator Obama for president.
Again, thanks for writing. We hope this response has helped clarify our perspective and explained why we feel the Matthew 25 Network’s version of "choosing hope" without a sober look at the troubling elements of Senator Obama’s candidacy is misguided. Grace and peace to you.
Jonathan Bartha
Focus on the Family Action
My comeback
Thank you for your response.
I have read your arguments.
1) The National Journal rankings have been disputed, but despite that, what is wrong with liberal? Have 8 years of the conservative George W. Bush been better for America and for families than 8 years of liberal Bill Clinton?
2) I've read the Democratic platform. While I don't agree with everything, they appear to be concerned about the average American family. They want to help those who cannot help themselves. That is something we are commanded to do as part of our Christian faith. Do you have a problem with that?
3) You misstate Senator Obama's position on abortion. You use "extreme liberal" to discredit organizations that call for people to be treated equally. Again, this is a command from Christ. What is your problem with that? Christ ministered to those who were outcast and looked down upon. Why do you want to further marginalize them?
4) Please tell me how Justices Roberts and Alito's rulings, especially on gun rights are pro-family?
I realize Senator Obama will not have to follow the policies advocated by Matthew 25 just because he received the organization's endorsement. However, I believe his policies will come much, much closer than would Senator McCain.
I wonder where the letter from 2004 was about the George W. Bush administration and the radical conservative, hands off agenda he proposed and enacted with his political and ideological allies. Six years of a Republican White House, Senate and House of Representatives has run up massive national debt, restricted rights and deregulation that has endangered our economy. Do you consider those years to be pro-family?
I wonder what your definition of "pro-family" is. Actually, I don't. Your definition is on two narrow issues, rather than what would be in the best interest of families.
I guess higher taxes on the middle and low income families is pro-family.
I guess not having medical insurance is pro-family.
I guess having our brave soldiers dying in a war that has been declared as "Mission Accomplished" for over 2000 days as being pro-family.
I guess having the reputation of our country dropping faster than the stock market is pro-family.
I guess supporting torture is pro-family.
I guess surrendering our rights of free speech and privacy are pro-family.
I guess trying to spin a position to the far extremes, even though a candidate has rejected that extreme is pro-family.
I guess making up a politician's stands is pro-family.
I guess the politics of fear are pro-family
I guess only those who have political opinions that are to the extreme right are pro-family.
I guess only using certain parts of the Bible to divide rather than proclaiming the Gospel to unite is pro-family.
I pray your organization can get things in focus.
God Bless and Keep You,
I responded, but after a week have heard nothing. That's probably because it went nowhere. Dr. Dobbie's website contains NO EMAIL addresses. If you want to tell them something, you can only do it through their limited feedback system, or snail mail. A telling way to tell you they don't want to hear from you. SO ... here's my initial letter, their response and my comeback.
Initial letter
Pastor Dobson,
While I respect your use of your call to be a prophetic messenger, but your absolute rejection of even the most remote possibility that Senator Obama or any Democrat could do anything good. Your denial of even considering that anyone who disagrees with your far right wing political and religious beliefs is doing what they believe to be in the best interests in the country belies your own agenda.
It is truly disappointing to see a purported man of God be so close minded.
The Response
Thanks for your e-mail. It was good of you to offer your candid reaction to Focus on the Family Action’s "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America."
We’ve heard from many people who found this resource helpful; some, like you, have disagreed with our approach. While critics of this document accuse us of engaging in "sensationalist fiction," it’s vital to underscore that we are not claiming to make definitive predictions on what a Barack Obama presidency would produce.
However, as the "Letter from 2012" makes evident, every scenario outlined in this piece is plausible based on recent documented events, court rulings, the Democratic Party’s stated agenda, and Senator Obama’s voting record and campaign promises. We invite you to re-read the introduction of the letter [http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf] which clearly states that we are neither employing unfounded "fear tactics" nor speaking out with mean-spirited intent. On the contrary, we’ve posted a reasonable projection of what *could* occur with a Senator Obama presidency and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Of course, we hope and pray that none of the possible outcomes described in "Letter from 2012" come to pass.
It might be beneficial to provide some additional background on our mission to help you better understand our reasons for engaging in the public policy realm. We have no interest in partisan politics; rather, we care deeply about the sanctity of human life, the value of marriage, and the preservation of religious freedom. Dr. Dobson has espoused these crucial issues since he launched Focus on the Family in 1977 and has always encouraged people to consider them at the ballot box. Despite what the Matthew 25 Network and other pro-Obama action groups may say, we contend that Senator Obama’s record *significantly* differs from the pro-life and pro-family policies that many Christians hold dear. Some may label this "fearmongering" -- we call it a sobering, rational assessment based on actual events documented in the letter.
It might be helpful for you to read a concise summary of four key points that motivate us in our actions:
1) Senator Barack Obama’s record is well outside the mainstream. For example, he was rated the most liberal United States senator by the _National Journal_ in 2007 [http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/].
2) A Democratic president, House and Senate has significant implications for pro-family policies. _The Wall Street Journal_ has stated that this election will usher in "one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history" if the Democrats control the White House and possess congressional majorities, including a filibuster-proof Senate [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html]. This type of unchecked power, not seen since 1965, demands that voters critically examine the policies advocated by the Democratic Party.
3) Senator Obama’s commitment to causes championed by extreme liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), both of which have endorsed him, are a source of great concern. Earlier this year, Senator Obama pledged that if elected president, he would advocate for and sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would repeal virtually every federal and state law regulating or limiting abortion -- including parental involvement laws for teenagers, late-term abortion bans, and limits on public funding of abortion. He has also indicated that he will make it a priority to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. In addition, he backs other HRC-supported initiatives including the passage of "hate crimes" legislation and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" [http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=20935]. Similar legislation has penalized Christians who hold a biblical view of sexuality.
4) Senator Obama’s stated appreciation of United States Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter -- along with his votes against the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- indicate he would appoint judges with a judicial philosophy detrimental to pro-family causes.
On a final note, organizational endorsements of political candidates wed groups to their candidate in a way that may not lend itself to an honest critique of that individual’s weaknesses. As you’re likely aware, the group behind the Matthew 25 Web site endorsed Senator Obama for president.
Again, thanks for writing. We hope this response has helped clarify our perspective and explained why we feel the Matthew 25 Network’s version of "choosing hope" without a sober look at the troubling elements of Senator Obama’s candidacy is misguided. Grace and peace to you.
Jonathan Bartha
Focus on the Family Action
My comeback
Thank you for your response.
I have read your arguments.
1) The National Journal rankings have been disputed, but despite that, what is wrong with liberal? Have 8 years of the conservative George W. Bush been better for America and for families than 8 years of liberal Bill Clinton?
2) I've read the Democratic platform. While I don't agree with everything, they appear to be concerned about the average American family. They want to help those who cannot help themselves. That is something we are commanded to do as part of our Christian faith. Do you have a problem with that?
3) You misstate Senator Obama's position on abortion. You use "extreme liberal" to discredit organizations that call for people to be treated equally. Again, this is a command from Christ. What is your problem with that? Christ ministered to those who were outcast and looked down upon. Why do you want to further marginalize them?
4) Please tell me how Justices Roberts and Alito's rulings, especially on gun rights are pro-family?
I realize Senator Obama will not have to follow the policies advocated by Matthew 25 just because he received the organization's endorsement. However, I believe his policies will come much, much closer than would Senator McCain.
I wonder where the letter from 2004 was about the George W. Bush administration and the radical conservative, hands off agenda he proposed and enacted with his political and ideological allies. Six years of a Republican White House, Senate and House of Representatives has run up massive national debt, restricted rights and deregulation that has endangered our economy. Do you consider those years to be pro-family?
I wonder what your definition of "pro-family" is. Actually, I don't. Your definition is on two narrow issues, rather than what would be in the best interest of families.
I guess higher taxes on the middle and low income families is pro-family.
I guess not having medical insurance is pro-family.
I guess having our brave soldiers dying in a war that has been declared as "Mission Accomplished" for over 2000 days as being pro-family.
I guess having the reputation of our country dropping faster than the stock market is pro-family.
I guess supporting torture is pro-family.
I guess surrendering our rights of free speech and privacy are pro-family.
I guess trying to spin a position to the far extremes, even though a candidate has rejected that extreme is pro-family.
I guess making up a politician's stands is pro-family.
I guess the politics of fear are pro-family
I guess only those who have political opinions that are to the extreme right are pro-family.
I guess only using certain parts of the Bible to divide rather than proclaiming the Gospel to unite is pro-family.
I pray your organization can get things in focus.
God Bless and Keep You,
Comments