Posted on 04/10/2009 11:32:24 PM PDT by Schnucki
Edited on 04/12/2009 11:03:20 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
America's religious Right has conceded that the election of US President Barack Obama has sealed its defeat in the cultural war with permissiveness and secularism.
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family - one of the largest Christian groups in the country - and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years - a decision that helped create the Moral Majority - has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”.
Recent surveys
**************
Has Dobson Thrown In The Towel? Not Quite (FULL AUDIO)
Let me repeat once again the statement we are discussing. The author said, “...and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft...”
Nowhere in the article you posted does Dobson denounce the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, nor is he accused of doing so.
He is paraphrased as saying, “...and given the trend toward witchcraft and New Age ideology *in*the*larger*culture*...”
I think we can all see the difference between that and “(denouncing) the Harry Potter books as witchcraft...”
Rule 1 is always applicable.
“I think we can all see the difference between that and “(denouncing) the Harry Potter books as witchcraft...”
I don’t think whether he denounced it as witchcraft or or simply denounced it as having witchcraft in it is really the issue. Children love them, and it has kids reading books. He says children should not read them and I think he has his head up his ass. He needs to get into the modern world. I read or had read to me all of the OZ books when I was a kid and it was a wonderful and imaginary experience despite all the witches, flying monkeys, and imaginary creatures. The Potter books are the modern day version of the OZ books.
“I don’t think whether he denounced it as witchcraft or or simply denounced it as having witchcraft in it is really the issue.”
Let’s see, now: Having proven yourself wrong, you are adopting the position that your first attack isn’t “really the issue.” Pretty slick.
“Children love them, and it has kids reading books.”
Better no friends than bad friends; better no books than books that teach error. Many are seduced by the glamor of evil, and love that which is harming them. The fact that children love them is something that actually isn’t the issue.
“He says children should not read them and I think he has his head up his ass.”
I, on the other hand, think you are mistaken.
“I read or had read to me all of the OZ books when I was a kid and it was a wonderful and imaginary experience despite all the witches, flying monkeys, and imaginary creatures.”
You don’t get it. The Oz books correctly teach that there is a bright red line between good and evil, and teach children which side of that line they belong on.
The Potter books teach moral relativism, teach young people to substitute their own judgment for that of their teachers, parents, and other elders, and teach them that there is something you could call “good magic” with which it is okay for them to meddle. (The existence of the Good Witch in the Oz books is not a parallel, as ordinary people can’t become witches in Oz.)
The Potter books are most definitely not the modern day version of the OZ books.
“He needs to get into the modern world.”
That’s usually code for, “He needs to join the culture of death.”
Dobson won’t throw in the towel. He is truly a man of faith. Not my denomination, but a man of faith all the same.
“That’s usually code for, “He needs to join the culture of death.”
I don’t use code. Millions of kids have read and enjoyed the Potter books without becoming embroiled in witchcraft and wizards. He needs to stick to religion and stop telling me what my children should read. If the Christian community is going to have any influence on our culture people like Dobson need to stop marginalizing us with absurd notions about what books our children should read.
“teach them that there is something you could call “good magic” with which it is okay for them to meddle.”
Kids who are old enough to read the Potter books are smart enough to know that magic doesn’t exist. When you prohibit a child from reading a book that has magic in it you are sending the message that there must be something real and powerful in magic. Magic is fantasy and my children clearly understand it.
“Kids who are old enough to read the Potter books are smart enough to know that magic doesn’t exist.”
Poppycock. Even putative adults use ouija boards and tarot cards. The newspaper carries horoscope readings. Do you really imagine that every nutball high-school chick who calls herself a “wiccan” is really just pretending, and is totally rational underneath all that black lipstick?
“When you prohibit a child from reading a book that has magic in it you are sending the message that there must be something real and powerful in magic.”
There *is* something real and powerful, and meddling with things like seances and ouija boards can make a person vulnerable to him.
“Magic is fantasy and my children clearly understand it.”
Satan and other malign spirits roam the world seeking the ruin of men’s souls, and that is not fantasy.
“I don’t use code. Millions of kids have read and enjoyed the Potter books without becoming embroiled in witchcraft and wizards.”
So, how many read the books and *did* become embroiled in wicca, seances, tarot, channeling, or any of that other crap? How many casualties are acceptable?
“He needs to stick to religion and stop telling me what my children should read.”
Now, see, that’s unreasonable. You assert the right to tell people that the Potter books are harmless, but condemn him for expressing the opposite opinion.
What’s up with that? People aren’t allowed to disagree with you, and must shut up if they do?
“If the Christian community is going to have any influence on our culture people like Dobson need to stop marginalizing us with absurd notions about what books our children should read.”
If Christianity is to be once again a force for good, it must first of all be a force. That means sticking to our guns. That means rejecting the authority of the culture of death to marginalize us for calling evil by its name.
It is the presumption that people read books without being influenced by them that is absurd.
“Poppycock. Even putative adults use ouija boards and tarot cards.”
So what, they are silly pursuits by silly people. I personally don’t see any connection between those things and satan or sin, whatever it is you fear in them. We obviously have very divergent views on what is evil and Satan. You are obviously entitled to your views, but telling me about how Satan is going to use ouija boards and tarot cards to influence people is not worth your time, because I simply don’t believe it.
“So what, they are silly pursuits by silly people.”
They are potentially dangerous pursuits by silly people.
“I personally don’t see any connection between those things and satan or sin, whatever it is you fear in them.”
Then you don’t have enough information.
“We obviously have very divergent views on what is evil and Satan.”
At least have the courage to say you think I’m wrong. You think your opinions are correct, or they wouldn’t be your opinions. If your opinions are correct, mine are in error. Own it.
“You are obviously entitled to your views”
Entitled? An interesting word. We tolerate error, because we don’t want the government deciding who is right. However, some people are wrong. What is the source of an entitlement to an incorrect opinion?
“but telling me about how Satan is going to use ouija boards and tarot cards to influence people is not worth your time, because I simply don’t believe it.”
That usually means “I am determined not to believe it, no matter what arguments or evidence are advanced.”
Dobson's direct actions of falsely sliming Fred Thompson as "not a Christian" to steer the GOP toward Rev. Huckaphoney is what caused the party to get stuck with McCain.
Instead of letting the nomination race play out last year, Dobson thought he could play kingmaker and instead got played by the Country Club RINO's.
IMHO, conservatives should have ignored Dobson's political naievete last year and should ignore him now. Thanks be to Dobson for his part in helping to elect Obama and harming the GOP on all downticket races.
Romney sucks.
“At least have the courage to say you think I’m wrong.”
In matters of religion I try and avoid telling people I think they are wrong. Believing in Satan is a matter of faith since you can’t prove his existence. I don’t believe he exists in the form you believe but I can’t prove my side either, so it is one belief against another.
“Then you don’t have enough information.”
You seem to point out everything I say that you interpret as being condescending. Fine, some of my posts to you were, unfortunately, condescending. But, you have done the same. Own it. That is a classical liberal argument, that if I don’t believe what you believe it is only because I don’t have the amount of information you have. How many times have you heard liberals talk about using propaganda to “make people aware” as if somehow the only reason we don’t accept their views is because we don’t have the right information.
Bottom line is, your opinions on ouija boards, magic, etc is based on your religious views. I have never seen anyone perform magic that was not slight of hand, nor have I ever seen anything that even comes close to proving that ouija boards are anything more than a game.
“Bottom line is, your opinions on ouija boards, magic, etc is based on your religious views.”
See my tag line.
That said, it’s true that you don’t seem amenable to discussion.
It boggles my mind...it really does. I say things that should elicit a certain type of response — something like, “Why do you say that?” or even “How can you say that with such assurance?” But I never, never, never get those questions.
If somebody said those kinds of things to me, I’d be on them like a duck on a june bug. I’d want to know if there was anything there.
But when I say those things, people are on them like red on rice. It’s like I never even said anything. Bizarre. It’s bizarre, I tell you.
Maybe they're just not that into you
“Why do you say that?” or even “How can you say that with such assurance?”
Perhaps I don’t care what you think or why you think it.
“Perhaps I don’t care what you think or why you think it.”
Not good enough. It’s not the messenger, it’s the message.
“Maybe they’re just not that into you”
Hey, a twofer: A putdown and an evasion rolled into one.
It’s not a question of being “into” me; it’s a question of caring about the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.