This is from the Matthew 25 Network (Obama's Christian Outreach):
James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family Action, recently published a letter purporting to offer a vision of 2012 after four years of an Obama administration. This letter, filled with doomsday projections, is fearmongering of the worst kind – a sensationalist fiction with almost no basis in reality.
How does it reflect on our Christian witness in the world to see self-described Christian leaders engage in such blatant fearmongering? When Americans read Dobson's letter, do you think they'll come away thinking better of Christianity – or worse?
James Dobson should hear from those in the faith community that find this tactic appalling. Please tell James Dobson and Focus on the Family how you feel.
As Christians we have been choosing hope over fear for 2000 years. Our public witness should reflect our deepest hopes, not provoke unfounded fears.
We've set up a form below that will send an email message to Focus on the Family's Citizen Link email address.
Please go and send in your comments and reactions now:
http://www.matthew25.org/fotf_response.php
Thank you,
The Matthew 25 Network
As I've said before, I'm not voting for Obama because he's a Christian. I already voted for a Christian President once, and he suuuuuuucked! I'm voting for Obama because I think he's competent. So, in that sense, I don't think the Matthew 25 Network is all that necessary.
That said, I can totally get behind any Christian Group that stands up to James Dobson. It's about time Christians found better leaders that representated their faith.
Ugh. The amazing thing, is that Christians are supposedly afraid of these things (being discriminated against, and being stripped of their religious freedoms) happening to them for being “Christian” — but it is exactly what they are trying to do to people of other religions and walks of life.
Christianity doesn’t foster higher thinking unless that “higher thinking” is thinking on God, the Bible and your own religion. Couple that with the discouragement to question & think about why you believe what you believe and it is easy to see why so many Christians can’t grapple with the ideas and philosophies set forth by genuinely intelligent, capable, logical & thoughtful people. Wait, did I just call Christians dumb? Oops.
This man is such an idiot! Why won’t he just go away.
Here’s an interesting take on this story: Evangelical Leaders Using God Like a Hired Gun
What these people are doing is embarassing. I think that after this election the mainstream evangelical church is done. They’ve gone too far and as people under 30 grow up they will be turning their back on people like Dobson.
Not sure if any of you are interested in discussing the substance of the letter or not. Rather than just say “James Dobson wrote it, so we all know its stupid” why don’t you actually engage the ideas and tell us all specifically why they’re wrong.
Take the first part of the letter on the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage, religious speech in the public square, and abortion. They have listed several ways in which reinterpretation of the constitution and/or changes in public policy will change our current laws.
Which of the changes they refer to are baseless and certain not to occur if the political left has a monopoly on Washington DC.
Or, perhaps you could tell me which of those you hope to see happen.
And please, address the ideas, not the people.
DOC
I’ll start. I disagree with the letter because, unlike Mr. Dobson, I don’t believe that Obama/liberals/homosexuals are the spawn of Satan. That’s the basic premise from which Mr. Dobson begins his letter (rant), and I disagree with it because it is utterly ridiculous.
catalyst, you criticized Bush as a “Christian” president who clearly did not do well as President. I beg to differ with you just a little. The Bible says that “you shall know them by their fruits,” speaking of false prophets. I think the day of judgment will reveal that most of the Republicans, including Bush and Palin, were never Christians. Certainly their deeds deny the faith they profess.
DOC, I have a question. Is there a Presidential candidate who not only opposes homosexuality and abortion, but who also opposes unjust wars waged by the United States in order to jack the natural resources of other countries? Is there a candidate whom you consider to be Christian who opposes the destruction of the earth by manmade environmental damage, who opposes the destruction of the poor by rich Western elites, who opposes the criminalization of ever more non-violent acts in order to feed the private prison “industry,” who opposes the hijacking of America by a corporatocracy? If you name such a candidate, I will seriously consider voting for him. But I can tell you that gasoline has a better chance of surviving Gehenna unburnt than McCain has of getting my vote.
I always appreciate your insight TH
even MORE pathetic frogs
[Comment ID #35621 Will Be Quoted Here]
You didn’t address any actual arguments, you just misrepresented the premise of the letter and said it was stupid. I’m sure you’re smarter then that.
Focus with me here. It listed specific ways in which federal protection of gay rights could (in their minds) erode religious liberties and the rights of conscientious objectors. Which of his concerns are baseless black helicopter theories?
Nothing in the letter suggested that gay people are the spawn of Satan. But it did suggest that there are possible legal consequences if they gay community achieves the kind of success they would like in the courts and Congress. Which of the concerns are unfounded?
I’m listening.
Not asking you to vote for McCain (although I will on the issue of judicial nominations alone). I have a long list of reasons I don’t want him to be President. My post was not an endorsement of McCain, but a response to the irrational hatred of the religious conservative community by the guys who run this blog. Yes, James Dobson and his friends have done some things I think are silly and inappropriate. But to dismiss everything they said because of who said it is the stuff of very small minds.
So before everyone goes all 4th grade on me and gangs up on the kid that everyone else makes fun of cause its cool, I want someone to actually articulate which one of the concerns in the letter are irrational.
It all seems so 1984ish. Wow, we could just start calling Obama “Big Brother”.
I personally couldn’t see any president getting away with making that many changes in such a short time. Improbable is kind of an understatement. However, I do see the younger generation turning away from traditionalism, fundamentalism, evengelicalism, let’s see, am I forgetting any ism? But, I think the changes made would go right along with the people were wanting, not because Obama gained some kind of creepy dictatorship over the United States. Almost certainly, in 20 years the US will cease to be the dreamy “land of the free” that Dobson gets teary over. Ooooh! Maybe I should right my very own little doomsday fiction about evangelical capitolists taking over the world under McCain! Wouldn’t that be somethin!
Just Thinking said:
Exactly. This is why we are more leery of Palin types than Obama types. It’s certainly a double standard that they won’t own up to. Apparently somewhere along the line they appointed themselves as God’s measure for right living. Do they not get it that it comes across as self-righteousness?
The sad thing is these types have given Jesus and Christianity a bad rap. This is why I keep asking if we could come up with another name to define ourselves so we don’t have to be associated with them. But so far I get the feeling it’s considered sacreligious or something. I mean, it’s not OUR fault the whole world is turning against Christianity you guys! Btw, the bible doesn’t mention that we can’t come up with a different name. And it’s not emergent church either….
Maybe we could harken back to something retro like Jesus Freaks or Jesus People. We are Jesus People reclaiming the tenets of our own faith. Christianity has been hijacked by the prosperity-gospel dominionist latter-rain extremists who truly believe there is only one way to vote for president. We can vote for anyone we want, or even exercise our right not to vote for that matter, if this is truly still a free country. But it goes beyond the Nov 4th election. This is just the topic at hand. They want to rule and reign here on earth. They say things like Money Cometh.
Th in SoC said
You may be onto something here Th. We were thinking the same thing and not just about Bush. The light dawned one day that we aren’t brothers with those who are not brothers. Not that they are hopeless cases and couldn’t be redeemed. But it’s sort of like dealing with sociopaths — boundary-less types that play on other people’s compassion or guilt — so you have to stay clear of them. Be wise as serpents is in the Bible for a reason! But I’m veering off subject again. . .
I’m about to say something that will shock everyone.
I agree with DOC.
To assume that whatever Dobson said is fear mongering without even giving a single example as to why is a bit narrow minded. We all know he’s said some pretty stupid crap in the past, but if you’ve actually taken the time to read the letter, you’d see it was a carefully thought out “what if?” on all the topics that matter to conservative Evangelicals.
While I will agree that it is extremely unlikely that all of these could occur in 4 or even 8 years, it is not fear mongering to imagine the consequences of electing someone who has a clear record and outspoken opinions on what he wishes to accomplish in the White House. Is it not wise to consider how voting for each candidate will affect our country?
As a specific example, Obama has made it clear in the past and in recent interviews that he wishes to increase taxes and redistribute wealth. (I’m not putting words into his mouth here, he is on record saying these very things.) It is not fear mongering to then predict the outcome when he enters office. He will attempt to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. That’s just logical, is it not?
Catalyst, we know you’re in love with Obama, so that’s fine. It’s your blog and you can promote him however you like. But to demonize his opponents because they make predictions on the outcomes of his proposed policies is unfair and defamatory.
On the flip side, if Obama offers Christians hope for the nation, in what ways does he do so? How will he change American government in ways that inspire evangelicals to support him? Which of his policies are in line with their values? If you can’t offer any, then can you blame them for being “afraid” that he will be elected?
TH said:
For example?
Beltashazzar said:
Warms my heart.
Ha, ha…you guys crack me up. I read the letter and it is filled with the stupidest doomsday predictions ever. I didn’t respond to it because it is soooooo out there it’s not worth my time. I hope you all who by into this BS will have enough guts to come back on this blog in 2012 (if it’s still around by then) and admit that Dobson and yourselves were wrong. Cause if I remember correctly Dobson was the one who said Clinton would destroy American and Bush would be the savior of it. But now after 8 years of each, look who was the better President? Hmmmmm, kinda makes you wonder about his intelligence.
Anyway, I will commit on just a few things about the letter. Not because I want to, but because I kinda feel like I have too. But after this, I’m leaving it alone. Because as I’ve discovered from all the narrow-minded religious right, there’s really nothing anyone can say to change their minds. To them no matter what, Obama is the devil. However, I do find it very sad that people who profess a faith in God, the Creator of the universe and the most supreme being who controls all that happens, fear a little ol politician with minimal power over just one of hundreds of countries in our world. If Christ truly is his true Savior then why does Dobson fear one man so much? How sad that a man who is suppose to represent the love of Christ, practices such hate mongering for an alternative agenda that’s all his own. Anyway, here we go:
1) Same Sex Marriage: He’s saying that allowing same-sex marriage in all 50 states means that schools, doctors, social-workers, churches, and even the boy scouts will be shut down for not teaching all the little 1st graders that they can marry each other. This is such a stupid argument. To this I ask, does he understand how laws work? How can anyone of a rationally mind honestly believe this? I grew up with a openly gay family friend I called uncle because he was so close to our family. He was one of the nicest men I ever knew. Guess what…it didn’t make me want girls any less when puberty kicked in. Being taught something is wrong or right by a school teacher, church leader, community volunteer, boy scouts, etc. has little to know effect on how a kid acts as they grow up. Hell most people can’t even remember what their high school teachers taught them, yet alone what they learned in 1st grade! Raising kids is a parents responsibility, not societies. The way Dobson talks in this section he’s basically claiming that under Obama the government will begin control everything that ever sector of society – public and private – teaches about sexuality. Wow, really? Maybe he respects Obama a hell of a lot more then me then, cause I don’t see how one man has the power to overturn 200 years of freedom. This is a classic example of fear-mongering, but once you actually think about it rationally, you go, oh yeah that IS silly.
2) Free Speech: I’m not going to go into this too much cause it is very complex. In law school I wrote a 50 page argument brief on the difference between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. But fearing the loss of kids rights to talk about God in public schools is again soooo out there. Yes, some things could be pulled back with a very far left agenda, but to say it’s all going to disappear is completely untrue. I don’t think Mr. Dobson understands the Courts purpose — they cannot overturn the Constitution. The Court can only uphold what’s already in it. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, it cannot be taken away unless the Constitution is amended, which happens through Congress, not the Court.
3) Abortions: I think Dobson needs to read The Freedom of Choice Act (as I have) before stating things that are not in it. It will codify what already exists under Roe v. Wade. It was not introduced by Obama, in fact he wasn’t even a politician when it was written (1989). And again, Dobson claim that individuals who refuse to perform abortions will be fired from their jobs, sued, etc. is another scare tactic. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. A person in private practice cannot be forced by the government to perform something they don’t want to perform. That’s absurd!
4) Pornography: To this I just laugh out loud. Sorry Dobson pornography is free speech. You can’t argue that Obama is going to take away free religious speech rights, then claim he’s not going to stop free dirty speech rights. It’s hypocrisy. (And BTW, porn is the most downloaded thing on the internet in America and it would shock me to discover that Dobson himself is a frequent viewer – as do many Christian leaders).
5) Everything else: The rest of this letter is ranting and raving about education, the military, health care, talk radio, etc. Under Dobson’s view of things every good, upstanding, moral Christian will be behind bars, and every evil, vile, liberal democrat will be having gay sex and performing abortion in the streets. To not find this stuff comical is beyond me. And to defend this letter or his views is a sad state of our times. Christians have sunk to new lows and I for one am devastated that Bible believing, followers of Christ would buy into pure, politically motivated hate speech. No wonder people under 30 are abandoning the church in groves.
PS – I must point out that Dobson himself provides a huge disclaimer at the beginning that says “this letter is not predicting that all of the imaginative future events named will happen, but it is saying that each one of these changes could happen.” That tells me that he knows he’s blowing smoke but trying his hardest to guilt people into not voting for Obama. Even more telling is when you read the end, you see he puts the blame for Obama getting elected and the downfall of America on Christians. Again, what a joke!
How is this any different? Why is one considered “fear mongering” and the other considered “clever criticism”?
Each candidate has his own opinion of the other’s proposed policies, and depending on who you’re rooting for, the other side is the fear monger.
This campaign has dragged on for so long, the only thing left to do is sling more mud. I can’t wait for the election to be over.
Uh, first, it’s not defamatory. It has to be much more vicious and untrue to qualify as defamation.
Second, I’m sick of James Dobson. And it goes way beyond his opposition to Obama. I’m sick of the fact that he acts as though he represents all Christians. When his entire schtick is around preventing gays from getting marrie and supporting Republicans. Being a Christian is really much different than what Dobson promotes.
Third, I have been promoting Obama since August 2007, when most experts said he didn’t have a chance in hell of becoming President. Allow me a little leeway here in the final stretch to try to push him over the top.
Fourth, I agree. I’m totally ready for this election to be over.
[Comment ID #35626 Will Be Quoted Here]
I know what you were asking, I just didn’t feel like going through and talking about every single point that Dobson raised that I disagreed with, so I addressed an exaggerated straw-man of the basic premise of his argument.
Basically, what he’s trying to convince conservative America is that Barack Obama, liberals, and homosexuals are diabollically opposed to the rights of Christians and bent on decimating the religious freedoms of American Christians.
I think that the chance of Obama getting 3 liberal justices to the bench in two years is very slim. I know that everyone’s greatest fear is Obama’s liberalism, but I think that Mr. Obama is an intelligent man who knows that if he hopes to get re-elected, he’ll need to preserve the current split in the Supreme Court. Don’t forget Obama has a law degree.
And most of the rest of his arguments stem from Obama getting a 6-3 liberal majority in the Supreme Court, so if that doesn’t happen then it’s all moot.
The way Dobson talks about it, you’d think we were talking about a Communist takeover. While Obama is more socialist than others have been, I think that our two party system will continue the oscillating path it currently is on. Post Bush I, we went to Clinton. When we were dissatisfied with Clinton, we went to Bush II. Now that we’re dissatisfied with Bush II, we’ll go for Obama. When we’re dissatisfied with Obama, we’ll go to the Republican choice (provided it’s not Sarah Palin).
So true. Also, his whole letter is premised on Scalia stepping down for health reasons. What?!?! What makes him think that’s going to happen. Dobson is a clown.
Andrey said:
I don’t think destroying religious liberty is the intent, but it would be a necessary result of changing the law in the way they would like. If the gay community gets its way, the federal government (through the Court or the Congress) will force states to treat gay relationships the same as heterosexual marriages. Also, they will extend civil rights protections to homosexuality, which means people who believe the behavior is wrong will be legally forbidden from acting on the basis of those convictions. That would be a rollback of their freedom of conscience and religion.
Am I wrong, or are you ok with that result?
True, but 2 is probable. Ginsburg and Stevens aren’t long for the bench. Can you say Justice Hillary. That’ll get her off his back.
If he got nine appointments, he would make no effort to achieve some kind of “split”. He would appoint nine people who agree with him on Constitutional philosophy. Dear God, what a disaster that would be.
Thats not true. Some of the concerns have to do with judicial reinterpretation of the constitution, but much of it has to do with Congress enacting the Freedom of Choice Act, extending equal rights protections to homosexuals, passing the Fairness Doctrine etc…
So you’re admitting that Obama has bad ideas, but you’re gonna vote for him because he’s from a different party than the current president, whom you dislike, and you’re hopeful that future elections will place people into office that will stop him from getting what he wants and/or repair the damage?
alright…so let’s go along with Dobson for just a second and let’s say that the worst scenario happens….the gays can get married….homosexuality is taught in schools….a woman can chose what to do with her unborn fetus, etc….
How does this affect the gospel? Does this in anyway change the fact that we are called to love God, to be like Jesus…to clothe the need, take care of the sick, the orphan, the widow…to love our enemies…to love one another…the gay man..the woman who’s had an abortion…the democrat…and yes…wait for it…even Obama.
Whoever is voted into office as president does not negate our personal responsibility to go out into the world and share the good news and be like Christ.
I’m tired of people like Dobson using their role in leadership to manipulate people into supporting their own personal agenda. It’s getting old.
This hypothetical letter might as well be placed next to O.J. Simpson’s book “If I Did It” ….nothing but a bunch of trashy sensationalism and arrogance.
Rock said:
Ok, lets.
Trying to change the subject when you can’t/won’t support your argument is a common tactic, but I’m gonna call you on it. I agree that our responsibilities as Christians do not depend on who is in the White House. But thats not the point of this discussion.
Agreed
As if there is anyone in leadership that doesn’t use their position to influence/manipulate people into supporting their or their organization’s agenda.
What you’re really tired of is people who disagree with you and/or people who remind you of fundamentalist Christians that hurt you. (maybe?)
This hypothetical letter might as well be placed next to O.J. Simpson’s book “If I Did It†….nothing but a bunch of trashy sensationalism and arrogance.
Right, because they’ll also have to revoke the First Amendment. Roe v. Wade has been law for more than 30 years now, and people are still able to protest it without being prosecuted. The idea that people would be legally forbidden to act on their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong is both baseless and asinine.
Do you understand the Supreme Court system at all? A person has to be a JUDGE, with a proven track record to even dream of reaching the bench. So no, I can’t say Justice Hillary, and neither can you for that matter. What do you think it is, some kind of political club?
Once again, it seems you don’t understand the system at all. Conservatives make such a huge fuss about Supreme Court appointments, but it isn’t just up to Obama who gets appointed. I know what you’re thinking; you’re thinking “well, he’ll have a Democratic Congress so there’ll be no opposition..” which is entirely false. People (even Democrats, surprisingly) aren’t robots.
Seriously? “Judicial reinterpretation of the Constitution” has everything to do with a 6-3 majority. Come on now. Passing the Freedom of Choice Act will just give people with nothing better to do something else to protest. If someone wants an abortion, there going to get it.
And seriously, the Fairness Doctrine? I just don’t see what’s so evil about forcing newscasters who control so much public opinion to at least present two opposing views of controversial issues. Look at Rush Limbaugh: he basically ignored all the well thought out reasoning Colin Powell gave for supporting Obama and said that Powell endorsed Obama because he’s black. Which is, by far, one of the most racist and offensive things I’ve heard in a long time. He’s basically saying that he doesn’t believe Colin Powell can have valid opinions about it because of the color of his skin. And yet he holds such huge sway in the minds of many conservatives I know.
No. I said Obama is a more socialist. Where in there did I say that being “more socialist” was a bad idea? This bailout that’s going to save out economy is one of the most socialist things our government has ever done. And it was proposed by a “conservative” President and your precious “conservative” Presidential candidate went so far as to suspend his campaign to support it.
I’m voting Obama because, the same way the the burden was on Gore to convince America he wasn’t Clinton 8 years ago, the burden was on McCain to convince me that voting for him isn’t voting for 4 more years of the Bush Doctrine. And just as Gore failed to do that, McCain has failed to move himself out from under the cloud of Mr. Bush and the Bush Doctrine.
Andrey said:
First, the First Amendment would not have to be revoked. Liberal judges don’t amend the words of the constitution, they change the meaning of the words. That’s why school prayer used to be expected and common and now its illegal. The words weren’t changed at all. Just their meaning. It used to mean “up”, now it means “down”. That’s the beauty of a “living document”. The words mean whatever the judges want it to.
Secondly, since there are currently limits to free speech, a further limitation on this specific kind of “hate speech” isn’t a stretch at all. And if you read the letter, it cites specific cases in which judges have supported such restrictions (as is currently done in Canada and Sweden). They also cited specific ways that extending civil rights protections to homosexuals (which is definitely a goal of many on the left) would restrict the ability of some to act and speak according to their conscience.
Despite their specific references to caselaw and countries in which these ideas are current practice, you call their conclusion baseless and asinine. Again, you hurl insults and reach conclusions without providing any support for your conclusion.
If baseless means, “without support” then I say “pot, meet kettle. ”
The comment about Hillary was mostly tongue in cheek, although I don’t think its impossible. And I understand the system some, I’m an attorney. And you’re wrong about what is required to be on the bench. Neither John Marshall, Earl Warren, or William Rhenquist had ever been judges before they were appointed to serve as Chief Justice. In fact, it isn’t even required that you be a lawyer (although I think they all have been.) And yes, I do think Washington DC is a political club and I think everything happens for political reasons. Actual public policy is barely an afterthought in DC.
This is refreshing. You admit that you want the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated. Why then accuse those who fear that result of making baseless claims when you acknowedge that there is not only a good reason for believing it might happen, but you hope it does?
I have no problem with this. You can vote for Obama because of his astrological sign for all I care. What annoys me is the constant mocking of people who are concerned with what an Obama Presidency could produce without any comptetent response to their concerns.
Do one of the following:
(1) Tell us why Dobson’s concerns about Obama are baseless, (2) concede you’re going to vote for him because you like the changes he could bring, or (3) admit that Obama has lots of dangerous ideas you can’t defend, but you think McCain would be worse. But if Obama has ideas you’re unable to defend, stop belittling people who are concerned about them. Just say you think the other option is worse, and move on.
I sent a message to Focus on the Family via the Matthew 25 Network and this was the emailed reply I got from them:
“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
I too responded and they sent me the same exact letter. It’s just a standard form to defend their actions…pretty typical language coming out of far right camps.
I’m curious, did either Dobson or FOTF make a presidential endorsement?
Google it…you will find tons of info like this: Pro-Life Advocate James Dobson Supports John McCain for President