Focus on the Family

[Titan]

Did you guys see this? It's been going around the news a bit. Focus on the Family (a fundamentalist Christian organization) wrote a retrospective "letter from the year 2012" which is basically a Armageddon in terms of fundamentalist principles, actually some of the things they fear are things you probably are opposed to too, its just that the whole reason that this happens is because Obama get's elected. Personally, I'm not going to vote for Obama for economic reasons (my major, for some more personal information about me) but to use tactics that prey on fear is just...low. Here's the link

http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf

You may actually find it humorous. If you don't have time, here is what is going to happen. All centering around the proposition that three moderate supreme court justices will resign and Obama will find the most liberal people he can and the Democratic congress will elect them. Honestly, I don't know why, with their tone, Focus on the Family didn't just come out and say they believe Obama to be the anti-Christ. I'm putting this up because I want to assure you that most evangelical Christians do not follow such doctrinal views.

1. The Boy Scouts no longer exist because they chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys (apparently homosexuals are also naturally pedophiles...THE MORE YOU KNOW).

2. Elementary schools now includecompulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice. In addition, many private Christian schools decided to shut down after the Supreme Courtruled that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation extended to private institutions such as schools, and that private schools also had to obey the law and teach that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both morally good choices.

3. U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that Christian adoption agencies had to agree to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses. Christian parents seeking to adopt have tried going through secular adoption agencies, but they are increasingly excluding parents with “narrow” or dangerous views on religion or homosexuality.

4.All businesses that have government contracts at the national, state, or local level now have to provide documentation of equal benefits for same sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic
discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in place in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle (apparently giving homosexuals adequate medical protection is anti-Christian)

5. The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as homosexual conduct or the claim that people will go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination (I don't know...Focus on the Family is coming pretty close to hate speech).

6. Physicians who refuse to provide artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to practice medicine (out of curiosity, as it is can doctors refuse to do certain procedures?)

......................there is quite a bit more stuff about homosexual marriage that you guys can probably guess about on your own...................

11. High schools are no longer free to allow “see you at the pole” meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before or after school (honestly....what?).

18. It’s almost impossible now to keep any children from seeing pornography (is it just me or is already pretty much impossible to keep boys from seeing pornography).

23. President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a specific court warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military tribunals, are now given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a number of government secrets to prepare their defense.
Since 2009 terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is now fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have yet been made. However, he has also challenged the nation to increase foreign aid to the poorer nations that were the breeding grounds for terrorism, so that people could have an opportunity to escape from the cycles of poverty and violence in which generations had been trapped.



And that goes on until number 34. At the end Israel has been basically destroyed and the world is coming to an end.

[Whitney]

And that goes on until number 34. At the end Israel has been basically destroyed and the world is coming to an end.

So Focus on the Family wants everyone to vote Obama.  Anyone that has some of their views is bound to be an end timer waiting for armagedon too.  


But, seriously, I think "focus on the family" needs to start doing just what their name involves.  They don't care about families, at least not families that don't fit into their narrow worldview.

[Asmodean]

You see, that is exactly the sort of thing tha tmakes me not take the religious types seriously until they prove worthy of it.

[jrosebud]

Gee, those homosexuals sound dangerous!  Hide the children!  

[Titan]

So Focus on the Family wants everyone to vote Obama. Anyone that has some of their views is bound to be an end timer waiting for armagedon too.

Seriously though, while you are saying this in jest, many fundamentalists would be stumped with this question (trust me, I've asked them).

They don't care about families, at least not families that don't fit into their narrow worldview.

To be fair if God creates everything and everything receives value from him then even the family is defined as he chooses to define it. The problem is that the US constitution was NEVER meant to support a religious doctrine. While the founding fathers DID use God in the Declaration of Independence they left him out of the Constitution for a very very good reason. One that is just as applicable today as it was in the past...In my personal opinion.

You see, that is exactly the sort of thing that makes me not take the religious types seriously until they prove worthy of it.

How can they prove themselves if you aren't taking them seriously  

Gee, those homosexuals sound dangerous! Hide the children!

The hypocritical aspect of it is that a certain passage in the Bible has Jesus (in modern terms) essentially entering a gay bar in the most fundamentalist town in America and asking someone to buy him a drink. By his nature Jesus disagrees with Focus on the Families' position.

I'm sorry for spouting Biblical rhetoric, I just find it so grossly ironic that they preach on this passage but never realize how much it would change how they live their lives.

[Asmodean]

How can they prove themselves if you aren't taking them seriously  

By being rational, logical and preferably intelligent. By not being hateful and intolerant. By not judging the book by its cover.

[Titan]

I know what you mean...as someone who enjoys studying apologetics I run into my fellow Christians who make me feel the same way. My problem is that for some reason I absolutely hate it when everyone is agreeing with everyone else...I think I just feel like everyone will get progressively more ignorant if they don't hear some sort of dissent.

[jrosebud]

Gee, those homosexuals sound dangerous! Hide the children!

The hypocritical aspect of it is that a certain passage in the Bible has Jesus (in modern terms) essentially entering a gay bar in the most fundamentalist town in America and asking someone to buy him a drink. By his nature Jesus disagrees with Focus on the Families' position.

He'd have a drink with the queer, all the while telling them that their expressions of love will give them a ticket to some place warmer than Ibiza (that is, if your Jesus is in the homosexual-sex-is-a-sin camp).  Just because he's willing to slum it doesn't make his message any less irritating/hateful.

[Titan]

He'd have a drink with the queer, all the while telling them that their expressions of love will give them a ticket to some place warmer than Ibiza (that is, if your Jesus is in the homosexual-sex-is-a-sin camp). Just because he's willing to slum it doesn't make his message any less irritating/hateful.

I'm sorry for being so blunt...have you ever even read one of the gospels?

Edit: I'm not condemning you if you haven't. It's just that I don't appreciate people attacking an ideologies' central figure when they don't even know what he stood for.

[rlrose328]

Yup, I blogged about that and other such nonsense last week.  There was an article that outlined that letter that FoF sent out, as well as a few other letters from fundie and gellie orgs.  They're grasping at straws in an attempt to gain more votes right now.  

It's all in the name of fear... make people afraid of Obama for no reason or an imagined reason.  This is what organized religion thrives on... fear.  (Sorry, Titan... I calls 'em like I sees em.)

[Titan]

You're right, many people prey on beliefs and fear. But I am afraid of Obama's plan from an economic standpoint...can we debate that somewhere?

[jrosebud]

He'd have a drink with the queer, all the while telling them that their expressions of love will give them a ticket to some place warmer than Ibiza (that is, if your Jesus is in the homosexual-sex-is-a-sin camp). Just because he's willing to slum it doesn't make his message any less irritating/hateful.

I'm sorry for being so blunt...have you ever even read one of the gospels?

Edit: I'm not condemning you if you haven't. It's just that I don't appreciate people attacking an ideologies' central figure when they don't even know what he stood for.

I suppose I don't appreciate people assuming that I'm ill-informed about an ideologies' central figure just because I don't view what he stood for as commendable.  How exactly would you have arrived at the conclusion that I haven't read the gospels?  For the record, I'm a former Catholic who has read the Bible and heard portions of the gospels every Sunday since I was born (up until close to my 20th birthday).

I don't take kindly to Jesus's doublespeak about love.  If love is patient, if love is kind, if love is all that and a bag of chips, then bible god has it not.  An omnipotent, omniscient being does not create a being, give it rules that he knows it cannot/will not keep, and then engineer a situation where punishment *when the goal is not a change of behavior* is administered for an indecent period of time. If the Christian god is infinitely merciful, infinitely loving, then all of Jesus's pontificating about Hell is false witness against his father(/himself) because such a place wouldn't exist.  You don't create evil and then shake your finger at your puppets for following the path you set.  That's unkind.

[Titan]

I suppose I don't appreciate people assuming that I'm ill-informed about an ideologies' central figure just because I don't view what he stood for as commendable. How exactly would you have arrived at the conclusion that I haven't read the gospels? For the record, I'm a former Catholic who has read the Bible and heard portions of the gospels every Sunday since I was born (up until close to my 20th birthday).

Since this is a doctrinal argument why don't we argue via the Bible and what it says about Jesus. Not God, but Jesus (trinitarian doctrine is to complex to explain in a single sitting). I don't believe what you said could be backed up (in it's isolated sense) through New Testament scripture.

I don't take kindly to Jesus's doublespeak about love. If love is patient, if love is kind, if love is all that and a bag of chips, then bible god has it not. An omnipotent, omniscient being does not create a being, give it rules that he knows it cannot/will not keep, and then engineer a situation where punishment *when the goal is not a change of behavior* is administered for an indecent period of time. If the Christian god is infinitely merciful, infinitely loving, then all of Jesus's pontificating about Hell is false witness against his father(/himself) because such a place wouldn't exist. You don't create evil and then shake your finger at your puppets for following the path you set. That's unkind.

Actually, another discussion on this forum is leaning in this direction. Do you mind if we open up a new thread on this topic specifically?

[rlrose328]

You're right, many people prey on beliefs and fear. But I am afraid of Obama's plan from an economic standpoint...can we debate that somewhere?

I, too, am concerned about his economics plan.  But he is the lesser of the evils at this point.  

I will not stand another 4 years with a Republican in charge, much less one with Palin as his running mate.  That woman is dangerous.  Did you see the movie "The Mist"?  There is a woman in that movie who goes drunk with religious power... and it is Palin personified.  Her capacity to spin lies and captivate people is frightening.  The people with their firsts pumping the air yelling "KILL HIM!"?  Wow.

So I'll take a questionable economic plan at this point... at least that doesn't remove any of my civil rights.

[Titan]

I, too, am concerned about his economics plan. But he is the lesser of the evils at this point.

Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils still voting for...evil? I mean, why can't we get the populist party and libertarian party popular again? While they don't have a snowballs chance in hell I do like the libertarian party and you might to.

I will not stand another 4 years with a Republican in charge, much less one with Palin as his running mate. That woman is dangerous.

How is this different from the tone in Focus on the Family? They just came at it from a different angle.

So I'll take a questionable economic plan at this point... at least that doesn't remove any of my civil rights.

Which civil right is in jeopardy?