‘Faith-based blogging’

‘Faith-based blogging’

: Hugh Hewitt and Evangelical Outpost take me to task for taking Dr. James Dobson of Focus on Family to task for his intolerance of tolerance in his attack on SpongeBob Squarepants. Got it? Well, read the links above. My stand here is quite simple: I am intolerant of intolerance; I particularly don’t like intolerance allegedly in the name of Jesus. That’s my view. So we disagree. Glad we can.

Hugh also goes after the Harvard conference where I am now and I’m amused because he’s complaining there aren’t enough conservatives while the conference has been attacked for not having enough liberals. Says Hugh:

But the exclusion of faith-based bloggers –by intention or oversight– from a conference on blogging ethics is about as absurd as not inviting the NRA to participate in a conference on the Second Amendment.

“Faith-based bloggers”? Well, Hugh, as you know, I go to church, teach Sunday school, preach occasionally, head up the church board, and sing in the choir (badly, I confess). I blog frequently from my moral perspective. It may not be yours. But aren’t I a faith-based blogger, too?

: By the way, I’m reading Hugh’s book, Blog, and it’s good. Hugh said in his post that he likes me; I said a few days ago that I like him. We just disagree on this. Makes the world go ’round.

94 responses to “‘Faith-based blogging’”

  1. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    Whether your not you’re a faith-based blogger isn’t his point.
    He’s criticizing you for saying in one breath that bloggers, “do not believe in one-sided lectures. We believe conversation leads to better understanding” while in the next breath calling someone who you find intolerant a “religious nutjob,” “filled with hate,” and a “clown” and that you’ve ridiculed the shows who’ve had Dobson on the air “as if he actually has (1) anything to say, (2) a constituency of size and sanity, (3) a brain.”
    Where is there room for a “conversation” & “beter understanding” when you slam the door on someone who you don’t agree with.

  2. kat Avatar

    There is faith based according to the Bible, and then there is faith based according to you or anyone else. The Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, and I’m sure Jesus would not condone abortion. You can rationalize all you want, but in the end it’s the Bible against you. Can’t change the Bible to suit your agenda and pick out the parts you like and call people who accept it all, religious nutjobs. Sorta like pedophile priests calling themselves people of faith.

  3. Gregg Avatar

    “I am intolerant of intolerance”
    Um….where should we start here…..

  4. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    And Jesus says to love they neighbor…. even if your neighbor is gay.

  5. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    And, most importantly, even if your neighbor is intolerant.

  6. Kat Avatar

    I do love my gay neighbor, but I don’t love his lifestyle.
    Did you notice that the EU is wanting to outlaw Ronald McDonald and the Kellog’s tiger–does that make them religious nutjobs?
    (The Ronald, along with other animated characters like Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger, could be banned from television in Britain and the European Union, as cartoon food hawkers are now regarded as a threat to society.
    Any new law would focus on commercials aimed at children, especially those using animated characters)

  7. kat Avatar

    PS–what is this C I A LI S message I got until I reworded? What the hell is a C I A L I S error?

  8. tb Avatar

    Jeff has this part right. Many liberals and conservatives teach sunday school, attend church, pray and do charitable work, or some combinations of those. The difference is they don’t wear it on their sleeve, they don’t pretend loudly to be speakers for the heavenly father, they don’t claim to be the final interpreters of the bible or the last great person on earth. They simply behave as though it means something. ‘Faith Based’ is a bogus term, unwanted and an acronym for prosteltyzing. Who needs that in blogging. I can make up my own mind on issues without biblical paranoia. Thats called intellectual maturity, people can disagree without the illusion of a biblical arbiter to make the case.

  9. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Anybody know what, exactly, Dobson is being accused of?
    Or is that irrelevant?
    Instapundit has backed off a bit upon finding out what was really going on. He actually looked at what Dobson said.
    Nah. Why bother?

  10. Ruth Avatar

    Faith based is rather an extraneous term in bearing on charity, and charitable organizations. If we have faith, they show themselves in good works.
    This one-up-manship is old news.
    Mark 10:26 (following the young man who wanted to get into heaven and was told to give away all that he had and follow Jesus, and who turned sadly away) The disciples … said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; al things are possible with God.” [New International]
    and goes on to say about tolerance: 25: …”if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
    If anyone is still holding that his faith teaches him intolerance, start reading. Jesus had something to say to you.

  11. JohnO Avatar

    Jeff, whenever I hear you talk about going to church, preaching, etc., it reminds me of when someone with obvious prejudices says “Hey, some of my best friends are black.” I just find it inconsistent for someone who claims to be an involved member of a Christian community to throw such enthusiastic support for causes like ready access to obscenity and Stern. Free speech is one thing, but active support for causes that go against Christian tenets is another. Either practice what you preach or find another religion.

  12. Gunther Avatar

    Is Howard Stern mentioned in the bible? I must have missed that part.

  13. carsonfire Avatar

    Richard Aubrey makes an important point: an editorial in Toonzone that Reynolds cites points out that the New York Times essentially made up the “Dobson attack on SpongeBob” part. The video which SpongeBob and other celebrities were lent to is under attack as an inappropriate tool for the classroom.
    That is debatable, but what is under debate should be debated, not what the Times made up. Did they make Jason Blayr boss over there? Sheesh.

  14. Jackie Danicki Avatar

    I just find it inconsistent for someone who claims to be an involved member of a Christian community to throw such enthusiastic support for causes like ready access to obscenity and Stern.
    Because Christians are necessarily anti-free expression? Try again.
    Six Apart CEO Barak Berkowitz related the story over dinner the other night of his grandfather being arrested every Friday night for three years for going to temple. Basically, he was arrested for being a Jew. But when his family was in Illinois and a bunch of neo-Nazi white supremacistss wanted to march from Urbana to Chicago, Barak’s grandfather went and stood along the march route and protected those cretins from abuse.
    Actively working to deny our God-given human freedoms is about as anti-Christian, anti-God as you can get. Many people “of faith” recognise that, and work to preserve those freedoms for all.

  15. Kat Avatar

    That’s OK, Gunther. I missed the part where James Dobson is in the Bible.

  16. carsonfire Avatar

    Ruth: tolerance means you forgive the sinner, not the sin. By your definition of tolerance, promoting murder should be fine and dandy because we “tolerate” the promotion of murder.
    Is it so hard to follow that? You can forgive a murderer, but not the actual murder. The murder is never tolerable.

  17. Kat Avatar

    Carsonfire makes a great point and I agree completely. I constantly hear that we must tolerate homosexuality in respect of their families. However, there are more children in our schools whose parent is a murderer or criminal, than homosexual families. What about kids of convicted pedophiles? Should SpongeBob be used to teach our kids that murderers must be tolerated as should pedophiles? We can respect kids regardless of their parents, and we can’t normalize behaviours that we don’t agree with, just because it will make us tolerant. Just what are we willing to tolerate? Pedophiles say they are misunderstood and only want to love our kids, not abuse them. Just who is being intolerant—is it the agenda pushers or those who object to the agenda? Why does my not accepting gay marriage make me intolerant? Isn’t it free expression to be honest about my views? Can I use Sponge Bob to promote an agenda against gay marriage and changing the definition of marriage or would that be wrong? Why?

  18. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    It looks as if Dobson’s point is that this is not the state’s business.
    Now, if it were somebody trying to promote pron in Junior Scholastic, I expect JJ would be tolerating the hell out of it.
    It is odd, given the supposed thrust of this site, to be upset that somebody is objecting to the state’s interfering with the parents’ rights to educate their children in their own moral views.
    And doing so with a degree of subtlety which might be considered deception.
    And using kids’ icons.
    Yeah, libertarians ought to be going along with this state effort, all right.

  19. Menlo Bob Avatar
    Menlo Bob

    So, Jeff, are you saying that as long as you and James Dobson disagree then you are comforable with Dobson’s comments being distorted into something he did not say?

  20. oodja Avatar

    Faith-based blogging?
    “This blog contains material on God. The existence of God is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of the unverse. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

  21. Ruth Avatar

    Wow! carsonfire, where ever did you jump to from Mark 10? I am sure you are, as you seem to assert, wiser than Jesus, since I’m being tolerant … nah.
    Forgiving isn’t the act of condoning a sin. It’s the act of letting go of your own assumption of your need to condemn some one else’s sin/sinful state. Try it, you might find out it set you free of a lot of seething and hatefulness. If you (and Kat) have such a deep need to judge maybe you should turn that need inwards. Take a good look at yourselves.
    Mark 10:25: …”if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
    It isn’t all that hard.

  22. Kat Avatar

    The theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of the unverse.

  23. oodja Avatar

    Kat,
    Spongebob Squarepants teaching the acceptance of pedophiles? Whoa, Nelly!
    Only one problem with your lovely moral equation of homosexuality with murder and pederasty – it’s not illegal in this country to be gay, whereas it’s very much against the law to kill or to have sex with a minor.
    If you ever watched an episode of Spongebob (I watch it quite frequently), you’d know that the show not only teaches tolerance for difference but respect for rules and laws as well. Gay icon or not, Spongebob is a conscientious, law-abiding sea creature whose sense of morals and personal responsibility are a recurring theme in the cartoon.
    Mind you, the show’s creators have said time and time again that Spongebob and his friend Patrick are not gay (if you ask me, it’s their neighbor Squidward who bats for the other team!). But if adult gay American males want to adopt Spongebob as one of their own, does that automatically “corrupt” the show and its characters by association?
    If that’s the case, well then no more “Y.M.C.A.” at the ballgame for you!

  24. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Kat.
    The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

  25. kat Avatar

    No, Ruth, you are the one doing the judging–you have judged that my holding religious views with regards to homosexuality, is wrong. You have decided that I can not believe the Bible but I must believe what is politically correct according to the Leftist ideology. I am a religious nutjob, a homophobe, a bigot, intolerant, etc. simply because I choose to accept a Bible over you.
    Why can’t I just respect your views, and disagree with them, while you do likewise?

  26. Eileen Avatar

    Virtually every day MSM ‘finds'(often creates, as noted by Carsonfire) and then trumps up ‘news’ regarding the gay agenda in one form or another. Yesterday a Spongebob oath for kids to sign in school; today the establishment of a gay enclave in Spokane, WA., pushed by transplants from the Bay Area.
    From the ‘news’, one would think the world literally revolves around gay issues. Why does the agenda of this tiny portion of the population receive such disproportionate daily coverage in all forms of media? Because gays have disproportionate representation in MSM outlets.
    As for the effort to indoctrinate (or actually cultivate – note a gay fellow’s comment below) little kids to embrace homosexuality by having them sign an oath to tolerate ‘sexual identity’, that is utterly ludicrous. They don’t even know what the term sexual identity means; nor should they.
    Every time I hear ‘news’ about the gay agenda, which is daily, I think about the Shaker Community outside Lexington, KY. Their religious tenets didn’t condone sex between men and women, and the community eventually died off as a result. So let’s just call a spade a spade, eh? If one takes the logical extension of the gay agenda to its obvious, eventual conclusion, the same sex lifestyle leads to the extinction of the species. Perhaps that is why many – including those who are not even the least bit faith-based – find the agenda tweaked, unnatural, and objectionable.
    Gays are really pushing for total acceptance, spelled ‘tolerance’, of their same sex preference and agenda as being the preferred norm. It is, simply, not, but most are tolerant of it anyway.
    However, the more MSM collectively tries to shove it down our throats, the more society will – understandably – resist. And the more gays try to convert followers with the ferver of the best religious evangelist, the more they will also likely find Themselves being called ‘nutjobs’.

  27. Kat Avatar

    Richard, well, I think it does, indirectly. Some accept Darwin’s theory of natural selection as undisputed fact and in some writings it has been developed to explain not only the origin of all living things but even the existence of the universe–the Big Bang stuff and all that.

  28. Richard Bennett Avatar

    Kat, that’s a load of nonsensical crap. Darwin’s theory explains how we got from a single living cell to Republicanism, it doesn’t explain, or attempt to explain, the Big Bang or how the single cell emerged from the primordial ocean. Get your strawmen straight, as it were.
    Jeff, our friend Hewitt is doing something that fundamentalist, creationist nutjobs do all the time: appropriate all religion and. They claim that any criticism of their particular weird variety of religion (one that the church would have considered heresy in the Middle Ages, BTW) is an attack on ALL religion. As you point out, nothing is farther from the truth. Biblical Literalism is a perversion of Christianity, and it’s perfectly possible to attack it without encroaching on Jesus, God, the Bible, or mainstream Christians in any way.
    You’re exactly right that tolerance has to have limits; tolerating intolerance is self-defeating.

  29. oodja Avatar

    Most people opposed to Darwinism have clearly never read Darwin. At least I took the time to read the Book of Genesis, and not some anti-religion ideologue’s tract on “Why Genesis Is Wrong”.

  30. JohnO Avatar

    Jackie D., I think you missed my point. I don’t have a problem with freedom of speech. If someone wants to watch midget porn, Howard Stern or South Park then more power to them. I’m not arguing censorship. I was just pointing out that active Christians shouldn’t be PROMOTING these sites/programs. Free speech is for everyone, but someone who proclaims “I’m a Christian because I (insert Christian-like activity here)” should realize the contradiction between Christian beliefs/ideals and what is being promoted.
    (Full disclosure: I’m a conservative Catholic who watches South Park and finds it hilarious. Is this consistent with my beliefs? I doubt it. That’s why I don’t go out of my way to discuss the last episode with Fr. Tom. But I don’t advertise myself as an ideal Catholic, let alone attempt to do so on a public forum).

  31. Ruth Avatar

    Kat: couldn’t manage it, I see. try again:
    Mark 10:25: …”if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
    If I were judging you, what is the judgment I espoused? I made a suggestion for actions to produce more productive and more kindly musings, you included parenthetically in a response to carsonfire who directly addressed me and whom you seconded, so as not to ignore you completely which would have been unkind.
    The Bible is full of love and acceptance, wisdom and tolerance. It’s hard for most of us who are familiar with its teachings to see where all the hate comes from.

  32. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Ruth, the accusation of “hate” is wearing out.
    Until recently, somebody with whom you disagreed could profitably be accused of racism. That horse died, or to switch metaphors, that emperor showed himself to be parading in his jockeys.
    So a new Swiss Army knife of “shut-up” had to be found and “hate” was drafted.
    It doesn’t work either.
    We are free to like or dislike what we want.
    The problem with this effort is that it is coming from the state to the kids with an effort to sidestep the parents.
    Ordinarily, people concerned with freedom are suspicious of the state. But, as with this, not always.
    I guess parents are worse.

  33. Sisyphus Avatar

    Jeff,
    BuzzMachine:faith-based blogging::Pressthink:Revealer

  34. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    I’m just curious as to whether including at JoBloCred those bloggers who believed in “liberation theology” and those who believed in the power of the National Enquirer’s Blue Dot would have satisfied Hewitt?

  35. Richard Bennett Avatar

    Hewitt’s pissed off that he wasn’t invited to the conferance but Jeff and Powerline were. It’s just sour grapes.

  36. Ruth Avatar

    Sorry, Jeff, as usual there are a few of your followers who like to make up dialogues with presentation of what Mr. Bennett so aptly points out are ‘straw dogs’, inventions to make arguments against. However, before I go out this evening, I really will reply to the 3rd member here of a created argument: Richard Aubrey.
    Glad ‘hate’ is getting tired. Latest emanation, with invented grounds for argument, and I didn’t make this up, it is as cited:
    “No, the purveyors of this video are pushing forth the idea that homosexuality is right and religion is wrong. To argue that you should be able to live your life as you see fit and enjoy equal rights is not the same thing as saying in order to have equal rights you must stomp on the beliefs of others or else you can call them religious nutjobs.. If people want to try and persuade others of the rightness of their views, fine. Seeking to legislate those views (gay marriage is right and religion is wrong) is un-American. Calling my beliefs primitive superstitions as you use comic icons to shove your views down my throat makes you an intolerant Christianophobe.”
    etc.
    From Kat under Sponge-Bashing, Jan. 22, 2:35 (check it out, it’s as quoted.)

  37. Eileen Avatar

    Actually Richard, Hewitt speaks to your accusation directly:
    “I am amused by some e-mailers who think that my complaint about the exclusion of faith-based bloggers from the big Harvard confab is a grump about me not being invited. Not so.” And etc.

  38. r Avatar

    Eileen. You talkin’ to me?
    My accusation?

  39. Kat Avatar

    oodja–it is not SpongeBob, I have a problem with–it is the use of Spongebob to push an agenda….an agenda I disagree with. Maybe SpongeBob could teach kids that Christians have a right to believe homosexuality is a sin, and we must respect the rights of parents to teach their kids that, and tolerate a difference of beliefs without calling those parents, nutjobs.

  40. Eileen Avatar

    Yep. Your accusation that he is
    pissed off/expressing sour grapes. He didn’t sound the least bit pissed off to me. In fact, au contraire, his objections sound quite valid to me.
    Maybe the next confab should take place in a red enclave somewhere, or at least include a representative sampling of bloggers who were apparently ‘missed’ this go-round. As Hewitt states:
    “Though center-right blogs are very underrepresented, the Godblogs are excluded completely. I think the God blogs are easily identified, and are a huge and influential segment of the blogosphere that is routinely ignored by MSM when MSM turns its attention to the bloggers.”

  41. Franky Avatar

    Why does anyone even listen to a buffoon such as Hewitt? He is the ultimate shill for the White House, agreeing with whatever they do (you can agree with the ultimate goals of the white house, or their underlying principles, but to defend every action they do makes you a hack). And his contribution to improving the debate in this fractured country’s political discourse? “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It”
    There you have it: Your life depends on the Democrats not winning any election ever again.
    Explain to me again, how the Left is the one that has to purge its Michael Moore faction, while the Right can toast Hewitt?
    I feel sorry for the religious bloggers who have such an assclown as their self-appointed spokesman.

  42. Eileen Avatar

    Whoops, sorry about that, Richard Aubrey! I didn’t click on the little r to see the question was coming from you, and then responded by speaking, again, to Richard Bennett, to whom my first Hewitt quote was directed! Well, either way, I felt the second Hewitt quote made a lot of sense, too. :)

  43. EverKarl Avatar

    It seems to me that the underlying issue is whether elementary schools should be having young children pledging to tolerate people regardless of their sexual identity — not because such tolerance is right or wrong, but because sexual identity may not be an appropriate concept to introduce to young children.
    The rest is Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is providing the supporting material to the We Are Family Foundation) and Dobson promoting their agendas and raising funds. It may be entertaining, but by no means enlightening.

  44. jon Avatar

    Why does anyone bother listening to what Hugh Hewitt says? He’s an intelligent man. But an unabashed hack.

  45. carsonfire Avatar

    Ruth, repeating one bit of the Bible over and over is the same demagogic trick that religious homophobes use on the other side.
    It’s ludicrous to suggest that religion in general and the Bible in particular aren’t geared to a great extent to lay down accepted behavior. The Christ died to redeem man; he didn’t die to greenlight man to bust up the Ten Commandments and live like a profligate.
    In other words, you can talk yourself blue in the face, but it doesn’t make Jesus a love-child, Volkswagen-driving pot-smoking hippie. He was a man who took a whip to the money changers, for goodness sakes. How “tolerant” was that, as you define “tolerance” based on that same old song and verse? If that verse means what you’re suggesting, then Jesus is a hypocrite because he didn’t just smile at the money changers and say “aw, you guys! You just keep on sinning over there, OK?”
    Liberals have no right to prescribe the rules of Christianity to all Christians; nor do conservatives, Presbyterians, Catholics, Mormons, Buhddists, etc. But if indeed a school is pushing a pro-homosexual program on kids, then that’s something that’s not going to pass by religious people and parents unnoticed, and it is not “intolerant” to demand that schools not indoctrinate kids on the subject. Pushing that on kids of Christians is like forcing Jewish schoolchildren to watch videos prepared by the National League of Pork Producers. There may not be anything wrong with pork, but you do not have a right to use the school system to do such a thing.
    Or would you then accuse us of being porkophobes?

  46. Jim S Avatar

    “Can’t change the Bible to suit your agenda and pick out the parts you like and call people who accept it all, religious nutjobs.” So sayeth Kat. Every single Christian I am aware of picks and chooses the parts of the Bible to pay attention to with no exception. The Bible is in fact and edited, limited, picked and chosen accumulation of documents from the early days of Christianity.
    Kat equates homosexuality with murder and pedophilia and then acts as though she has the right to be insulted if someone says or even implies that she is homophobic. That one certainly doesn’t wash.

  47. Glyn Avatar

    As a non-American (i.e. British) I don’t have any opinions about all of this but do admire the way that you as a nation take ideas sufficiently seriously to discuss them with other people of differing viewpoints in a (mostly) courteous way.
    By the way, evolution is a theory, it’s also a fact. Glad to have cleared that up for you. (If you want to see it in action, watch how bacteria evolve to negate the effects of penicillin, retro-viral drugs etc.)
    But Sponge Bob is gay?!? Please. And if the Earth going around the Sun is also a theory, would it be legitimate to say that the Sun also goes around the Earth (which it does, from another viewpoint).

  48. Richard Bennett Avatar

    Eileen quotes Hewitt: “I am amused by some e-mailers who think that my complaint about the exclusion of faith-based bloggers from the big Harvard confab is a grump about me not being invited. Not so.”
    So if he says it, it must be true? I don’t think so. Face it, Hewitt is the Michael Moore of the right, and supporting the White House (which I I do) doesn’t imply that one has to support his droolings, (which I don’t.)

  49. kat Avatar

    No, I was simply trying to say you can teach tolerance without teaching an acceptance of the behaviour. Kids can be taught to not tease a fat kid but they don’t have to embrace obesity. They can be tolerant to the child of a criminal without condoning the behaviour. They can also be tolerant of homosexuals without embracing homosexuality as normal.
    Schools have no right to impose their morality on us–at least that is what I was told when Christianity was banned .

  50. Eileen Avatar

    Richard Bennett,
    To each their own conclusions and characterizations. “Makes the world go ’round.”

  51. Eileen Avatar

    Also from Hewitt, news about another confab in Nashville, early May: http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/005129.html
    Wonder if JJ will attend (either as an expert on several of the topics mentioned, or as a representative of faith-based bloggers ;)? Although I’m not familiar with the name of even one God blog, I hope at least a few will be invited to speak this time – from Every religion across the spectrum. Wonder if any spiritualists – those who accept all faiths – will be included? Let everyone speak.

  52. Richard Bennett Avatar

    This conference was about the overlap between journalism and blogging, a subject that has nothing in particular to do with Bible-pounding. If somebody wants to throw another conference on talk radio, fundamentalist movements (such as the Taliban, Hewitt, Dobson, etc.) and blogging, I’d expect Hewitt to get an invite. This just wasn’t his deal so he should stop whining.

  53. Carrick Talmadge Avatar
    Carrick Talmadge

    Jeff, I reacted the same way you did initially, and still think a lot of those guys are nuts if they really think this nonsense. However, I do think you made a journalistic error by trusting your source (the NY Times) without any vetting of it, or even more ironic, an LA Times editorial acidly based entirely on the NY Times reporting. The NY Times has shown itself in recent years to be incapable of reporting viewpoints from Christian conservatives without severely distorting their viewpoints, and hence should never be treated in this context as if it were a primary source.
    In regards to Hugh’s criticism of your original blog entry, you have successfully conflated his criticism on your reaction to NY Times article to Dobbs with a comment on GodBlogging. In the process, you missed the point that you have failed this time to critically examine your source.
    This certainly gives the appearance that you are predisposed towards intolerance to a group of individuals with a different ideological perspective from your own (the very thing you accuse them of). Personally, I trust the NY Times to consistently absorb excess liquid on the bottom of my kitty litter box, and the rest I always look for other viewpoints before accepting anything they publish.
    Dobson and I don’t agree very often politically (I hear him on radio about one every two to three years when on long road trips passing through souther Illinois), but his programs are usually pretty constructive and filled with good ideas. When you say They’d be funny if they weren’t so filled with hate, I have to ask who is the one full of vile? I have actually heard some pretty cool stuff on his program, unrelated to gay bashing or intolerance of any kind.
    In your original post, you go on to say here’s a list of news shows stupid enough to have this Dobson clown on the air as if he actually has (1) anything to say, (2) a constituency of size and sanity, (3) a brain. In point of fact, he does have things to say, a constituency of non-negligible size, and actually a brain. Maybe you should research your subject a bit more before flying off the deep end. Hugh also makes this point in his post, with more factually rebuttal of your absurd assertions.
    If he really thinks the Sponge Bob TV show pushes a gay agenda, then he needs his meds adjusted. However, he was clearly reacting a video being distributed to schools, and not the TV show. I haven’t seen the video, and clearly, neither have you. Nor have I seen Dobson’s remarks, unedited and in context, so I have no way of judging what he truly thinks.
    Jumping down his throat based on a NY Times article frankly just makes you a puppet of the NY Times, and not the independent minded, critical thinker you usually are.

  54. Ruth Avatar

    carsonfire, calling something a ‘trick’ which is an insistence on reaction to the subject rather than running around an actual issue with accusations of ‘tricks’ is hardly worthwhile in content of attention. It’s sad to see you compare Jesus to an image of the 60’s when there is so much real worth to be valued in his message, which he specifically pointed out was the replacement God sent to the dominance at the time of the church heirarchy with its blindness to actual values.
    As to the failure to appreciate Rev. Dobson that Jeff seems to be being accused of, isn’t it the Rev. Dobson’s responsibility to present himself as worthy of appreciation? Perhaps the issuance of criticism of a cartoon character isn’t patently absurd to Rev. Dobson, but if he doesn’t realize that the image that presents to the world at large is, however attention-getting, ridiculous, then a little viewer reaction may be exactly what the Rev. Dobson should be getting.
    The number of times in these comments that tolerance has been equated with criminal conduct is truly incredible. How can tolerance be so threatening to those who supposedly are people of faith? It’s Sunday, I hope they all go to church and listen to words of comfort.

  55. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Ruth, and others.
    You make me understand Dan Rather. This was a story too good to check.
    Dobson, who was anti-porn (bad, bad anti-porn people!)accused of accusing Sponge Bob of being gay!
    Problem. Not true.
    Second problem. That it isn’t true isn’t important to you and Jeff and others.
    Third problem. When problem number one is explained to you, you pretended it didn’t exist.
    Fourth problem. When the real issue is explained to you, you pretended that it didn’t exist, and accused the explainers of hate or homophobia or bluenosing.
    Fifth problem. Getting anybody to listen to you again. After this performance, what would be the point of spending the time and attention?

  56. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Carrick:
    Thanks for the thoughtful post.
    Note that my real problem with Dobson is not the silliness of picking SpongeBob as a target. Nor do I really think that he thinks SpongeBob will make kids gay — though if he does think that then, yes, he defines “nutjob.”
    But instead it his essential message I do not like: He is saying it is wrong for this group to teach a message of tolerance — yes, even of the homosexual — to children. Well, the opposite of that is obvious: They then believe that children should not be tolerant of gay people. In my view, that is not the message of a Christian. That is the message of a bigot.
    And I would blockquote from Dobson’s followup statement here but they — like CBS — have disabled to ability to cut-and-paste from the page. (Vast right/left-wing media/mediahating conspiracy? Nawwww. Just bad code.)

  57. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    What is shocking to me is the way in which “God” is being appropriated by the hate-based theologians.
    Hewitt equates “Godblogging” ONLY with the far-right Xtian movements.
    (oh, and to the idiots who think that the Jesus and the moneychangers story shows that Jesus was also willing to embrace intolerance, they might stop and realize that Christ was offended by the sacrilege that was occurring within his “Father’s house.” So feel free to practice as much intolerance as you want to inside your church in the name of Jesus Christ, but follow Jesus’s example of acceptance and tolerance of everyone outside the church as well.)

  58. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Jeff, your initial presentation of this issue has, shall we say, morphed.
    Your view of toleration is to accept wholeheartedly the rightness of the thing being tolerated. Or that others should. You have rather more privilege in such matters.
    Most normal people think it means leaving the folks who do whatever it is alone.
    The goalpost-moving is hardly invisible.
    In addition, the objection is to sneaking this through the schools and around the parents.
    You have moved the goalpost on toleration–you extend none to those with whom you disagree, not even leaving them alone (you call them names)–and pretend the issue of sidestepping parental rights and authority does not exist.
    In this case, the State is your (not mine) friend.
    You may think you’ve got anybody fooled.
    You don’t.

  59. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    No, Richard, only the tone has changed. I’ve gone from making fun of this silly fool to making it clear his real evil, intolerance. People didn’t like me calling him a nutjob so, fine, I’ll call him what he is: a bigot.
    ‘s a followup story from the Philly Inquirer.

  60. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    You’re left with several problems, Jeff.
    One is your dishonest definition of tolerance, which, by the way, is not required of you by you.
    Another is that you misreported the issue and haven’t ‘fessed up.
    And, of course, you totally miss–if you do not agree with–the state going around the parents to teach the dishonest version of tolerance you do not even require of yourself.
    One would think that being taught to leave the different alone would suffice.
    Not when it’s one of Jeff’s pets.

  61. Joe Avatar

    Jeff,
    Great link this morning. I think that clears up what Dobson’s actual reason is for attacking Spongebob. Dobson’s website is clearly stating that he objects to the video’s creators mentioning the words “sexual identity” in their tolerance statement on their website. (Note: These words appear nowhere on the actual video that children are seeing.) From Dobson’s point of view these two words are proof that the people who made this video are “an organization that’s determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation’s youth” and that these two words somehow “crosses a moral line”.
    Is he freakin’ kidding? This is the most ridiculous defense I’ve ever heard.
    a) How can 2 words on a website that children won’t even see cross a moral line??? b) what is so freakin’ immoral about the words “sexual identity”?? and c) if this somehow is promoting tolerance of gay people, what is so wrong about that??
    Well, for everyone here who is defending Dobson ON THIS ISSUE – not in general, on this issue, is it your opinion that children are not to be taught tolerance of gays? Because that’s what Dobson is saying, and if you are agreeing, than that’s what you are saying as well. I am sure you already know that, but no, Jeff doesn’t have to be tolerant of your intolerance, and yes, you people are “nutjobs” – or otherwise you’re bigots, take your pick.

  62. Joe Avatar

    Jeff – you stole my “nutjobs” or bigots line while I was writing. Bully for you.

  63. kat Avatar

    No one is against being tolerant of others. This pledge is aimed at little kids and little kids do not have a hot clue what sexual identity is, nor should they. How can they be asked to sign a pledge without understanding its contents? If they ask, will they get a little lesson in what sexual identity is? Kids can be taught tolerance without being taught homosexuality at age 5 or 6. The “tolerance pledge” seeks “respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.” Leave out the sexual identity part and it’s great. As is, it only serves to confuse kids.
    Please give them a chance to at least get to puberty before you try and get your PC grips on them.

  64. Nori Avatar

    Your writing style is starting to sound like Dave Winer: choppy sentences missing parts of speech and expressing take-it-or-leave-it arrogance.
    And you hang with Joe Trippi.
    Hey, is Dave guestblogging?

  65. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Joe, Jeff, and others.
    On account of you seem to think you have the rest of us fooled, I’m going to explain to you what you are doing and think the rest of us don’t follow:
    This way, you won’t continue to bother trying this losing practice.
    Tolerate means to leave alone.
    You are defining it without telling anyone–which is dishonest–to mean wholeheartedly accepting a certain behavior as right and by necessity accepting that our belief on the subject is wrong.
    Those who object to the second are accused of lacking “tolerance”, which you hope will be taken by others as meaning objection to leaving the different alone, the real and accepted definition. Most folks who try this technique seem to think looking dishonest in front of a hundred people is worth it if they can convince some poor soul who got loose from a group home. I don’t follow the math, but it’s not my idea.
    You, on the other hand, are so ill-informed that you think you’re fooling EVERYBODY. Not even close.
    Objecting to having the state run this end-around the parents’ role is practically gay-bashing, it is, by golly.
    Now, I should also say this is hardly a unique tactic, and thinking you are very bright and ingenious for thinking it up is silly. It’s old and worn out.

  66. Robert Cox Avatar

    Someone above mentioned the blogging event in Nashville.
    For this who may be interested…
    The BlogNashville event (May 5-7) is being organized by the Media Bloggers Assocation along with the New Century Journalism Program at Belmont University. It appears that we will have one session on “faith-based blogging”. I don’t know what exactly that means so don’t ask me; the session will spend some time on exploring taxonomy so maybe we will find out. I also don’t know what will happen during the discussion but all are welcome to participate or listen/lurk – either come to Nashville for the event or listen in to the webcast and chime in via IRC.

  67. carsonfire Avatar

    Ruth: “It’s sad to see you compare Jesus to an image of the 60’s”
    No, no, Ruth, you’re reversing it: I’m saying that you are with that one verse trying to conjure up that 60s flower child Jesus, specifically. The one who says “let it ride”. The one you think would, if he were around today, get grabbed and beaten up by skinheads.
    Unless you outrank the Pope and Christ himself and are the King of All Christians, you may not define Jesus for everyone else. There was a time when the flock was illiterate and depended on the interpretation of hard-nosed leaders; do not set yourself up as the very kind of Pharisee that Jesus warned us about.
    Also, don’t pretend that anyone here is drawing a straight line between homosexuality and murder. Sins range from mild to extreme, and the extreme has been used to better illustrate the point. Murder is a sin, but so is swearing, dammit (handy example). To say that murder and swearing are both sins are not to say that they are the same thing. Please do not be that stupid, and please do not assume that the people you are talking to are that stupid.
    If you’re uncomfortable with murder comparisons, let’s try other sins. Kat mentions being fat, which is now a sin that liberals are happy to be intolerant and hateful about, just as they were happy to be intolerant and hateful about cigarette smoking. Any modern sin is OK to be hateful and intolerant about as long as there’s some large corporation to blame.
    Let’s say that a large corporation produced classroom videos promoting McDonalds or Marlboro cigarettes. Why would this not be appropriate? If we do not allow the promotion of being fat or dying of lung cancer, are we not being intolerant of fat people and chain smokers?
    At this point, you may be bristling at being accused of being intolerant and hateful of fat people. Well, now you know how Christians who disapprove of homosexual behavior feel. They do not hate gay men and women, but they don’t want their kids to think it’s acceptable behavior, either.
    When you so cavalierly confuse these Christians with homophobes who beat and murder homosexuals, you are being a hateful, narrow minded bigot.

  68. Joe Avatar

    Hey Richard –
    If people like Dobson were actually tolerant by your definition “to leave gays alone” then “sexual identity” wouldn’t even have to be part of a tolerance pledge. If homosexuality weren’t part of every hate-filled speech by extreme right wing bigots, no child would ever learn intolerance toward gays. Unfortunately we live in a society where that kind of intolerance is being preached under the guise of religion, and it is our duty to try to teach kids the OPPOSITE approach. Which approach would be better for these kids to have learned in a few years when a classmate or friend or beloved relative comes out to them? The tolerance pledge or the hate-filled bigotry of a small minority of religious extremists?
    The bigotry exists. Isn’t it possible that you have something better to do than to rail against an alternative to that – especially one so freakin’ innocent and harmless as cartoon characters teaching – oh my God, what a shocking idea – tolerance!

  69. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Joe, dammit. YOU’RE BUSTED!
    Haven’t you been listening?
    You and JJ and others have been pretending that “tolerance” means wholeheartedly accepting that which we think is bad (it’s really good and wonderful and terrific and all kinds of stuff) and accepting that our own, differing views on the subject are therefore bad.
    When caught (YOU’RE BUSTED!), you pretend the objection is to learning to leave the different alone.
    Get a clue. It isn’t working.

  70. Joe Avatar

    Carsonfire –
    Obviously I do not agree with those who “don’t want their kids to think [homosexuality] is an acceptable behavior.” We could argue to we were blue in our faces over that issue, so I won’t even go there. But I do agree with you that I don’t want kids to think obesity is an acceptable behavior, due to the health risks. Yet if a cartoon character made a pledge that included being tolerant of all people no matter their race, religion, WEIGHT, etc. I wouldn’t be against it, I wouldn’t even think of being against it, and no Christian that I could think of would ever imagine being against it. I don’t understand why you’re against the words “sexual identity” instead of “weight”. What is the difference? It’s only a pledge for tolerance. You can teach your kids to hate if you want. Can’t a school teach them tolerance?

  71. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    JOOOOOEEEEEEEEE.
    Why do you keep it up?
    Didn’t you figure out that you’re busted?
    Didn’t I tell you?
    You’re lying.
    Trying to fool people.
    You’re transparent as polished plate glass.
    You’re wasting cyberwhatsit.
    Nobody’s talking about teaching hate, o self-righteous and self-congratulatory one.
    As you know.
    You just don’t know the rest of us know it, too, and you’re not making any points here.

  72. carsonfire Avatar

    Well, no, Joe. A school should be tolerant, but it shouldn’t be *teaching* tolerance. It should be teaching math. If it teaches tolerance, it should only do so by example, not by proscribing a tolerance pledge.

  73. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    As an atheist, I tolerate christians and christianity.
    I don’t like the fact that children are constantly exposed to positive images of christians, but as an american I know that my rights can only be preserved by assuring that the rights of others are respected as well.

  74. kat Avatar

    Yeah, Paul, and I don’t like kids being told that islam is peace and only positive images are presented, and that teachers can’t tell kids the 911 scum were muslims..

  75. Ruth Avatar

    Carsonfire, richard aubrey, kat:
    The alternative of tolerance is ………
    You put yourselves in the position of defending intolerance, deal with arguments you make up out of thin air (i.e., that those who are not your are contending Dobson said SpongeBob is gay), and then expect us (whoever is not you) to give you respect.
    Dobson knew the association he was inviting, with Falwell’s anti-Twigee (I think that purple figure is) nonsense, and now you want to absolve him of blame. Whether the LA Times is on the level or not, Dobson was not operating in a vacuum. Nor are you all. Jesus was most remarkable for including the Gentiles as God’s chosen people. This was the ultimate tolerance. If you really want to go back to the Phariseeac standards, then you are rejecting everything Jesus stood for.
    I am confident you will invent some more arguments that I didn’t make, and other commenters on Jeff’s website didn’t make, to knock down. If you can’t deal with the arguments at hand, of course that makes you feel better. I have no objections to your feeling better. But may I refer you back to some really valuable ways to feel better. Study and think about Mark 10. It’s all about tolerance.
    Gays are not less human than you or me. They have families and often have and care for children. If we really value the Family, what about theirs? My family is not threatened by the fact that gays may have families of their own. They are stronger if they can live side-by-side with different families, and not so long ago wasn’t it frowned on for straights to live together outside of marriage? Now living together in marriage is wrong, if you happen to be of a gay tendency? I honestly believe God would rather see stable family units, and children raised in love than in, I won’t be frightened off from the word, hate.

  76. Noel Avatar

    Dobson did not pick Sponge Bob as a target–“Anyone here know Maureen Dowd?” he asked darkly.
    Dr. Dobson’s response is actually quite nuanced and reasonable, unlike your Sullivan-esque position, i.e.; any moral objection to homosexuality is bigotry, period.
    If so, you live in a majority-bigot country. Most of us “bigots” practice ‘live-and-let-live’–we would just like that same courtesy extended to us.
    Dobson does not claim that children will be forced to pledge to respect the “sexual identity” of grown-ups or support We Are Family’s re-definition of family–only that some children will be confused that the group’s agenda is an “official” fact, like ‘2+2=4’. In fact, Dobson says the group also advocates some ‘noble ideas’–don’t make Dobson into a cartoon character.
    You posit only two alternatives; schools teach hate or schools teach acceptance of homosexuality. How ’bout a third alternative: schools butt out and mind their own business? Such as reading, writing and arithmetic–not socially-engineering captive six-year olds by the sneaky use of cartoon characters.
    Even the term ‘sexual identity’ is meant to convey that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, like, say, brown skin. Therefore, any objection is bigotry. But some of us believe that the only immutable characteristic of humans is our fallen nature and our need of a Savior.
    The first recorded act of Jesus’ public ministry was to demonstrate his Divinity and celebrate the life-affirming nature of marriage–the union of a man & a woman–by turning the water into wine.
    When He spoke to the woman taken in prostitution, He didn’t pledge to respect her ‘sexual identity’; He said “Go and sin no more”.
    If your Sunday school wants to teach children about respecting sexual identities, that’s your business; but keep it out of the public schools.
    God does not ‘hate fags’, and those who say so should stop it. But neither is He a respecter of persons–or identity groups.

  77. Kat Avatar

    Ruth, Jesus also forgave murderers and traitors, but that did not mean he approved of murder. Remember–forgive them for they know not what they do. I don’t hate homosexuals–I just think homosexuality is a sin. But I’d never teach my kids to be intolerant of a homosexual. However, I refuse to teach them that homosexuality is normal–I teach them a man and a woman is normal, but there are different families–Grandmas bringing up kids, a single parent, two men or women, that some kids parent is in jail, divorce, etc. etc.

  78. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    You posit only two alternatives; schools teach hate or schools teach acceptance of homosexuality. How ’bout a third alternative: schools butt out and mind their own business?
    sure….but only as long as we can demand that schools act as if religion doesn’t exist as well.
    And shouldn’t Christians be demanding that schools stop promoting capitalism? After all, unlike homosexuality which Jesus never mentioned, Christ did condemn greed and the accumulation of wealth….

  79. Eva Young Avatar

    Dobson clearly went after Sponge Bob during his speech at an inaugural event. People are just blaming the reporter – David Kirkpatrick – now that his remarks got coverage.
    That article also clearly talked about how Focus was concerned about the “tolerance pledge” on the We are Family Foundations website.

  80. Ruth Avatar

    Ask your children what they think about homosexuality, you may get what my grandkids told me. Junior high and grade school. They think religious intolerance is weird. They understand kids aren’t the same, and think homosexuals don’t deserve any more problems than they’ve got. And they think grownups ought to grow up.

  81. kat Avatar

    Ruth, you bigot–I would never allow my kids to say homosexuals are weird like you allow yours to say my kids are weird because they are Christian. You are an intolerant Christian bashing bigot. Just because religious people won’t see things your way they’re intolerant and weird. Hmmph. Who is the intolerant one?

  82. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Ruth, Joe, JJ, et al.
    When you accuse people who don’t agree with you of hate or bigotry (as you used to do racism), you and others like you nod solemnly. But that’s only pretending to agree. It’s part of the schtick.
    Everybody knows it’s a manipulative scam. You do. That’s why you do it.
    But, you may be wondering, how come it isn’t working.
    That’s because everybody else knows it’s a manipulative scam.
    That’s the part which seems to have escaped you.
    When everybody knows, it’s over.
    Nobody is suggesting teaching hate–I have to repeat myself–as you claim. But you know you lie.
    It’s a scam and we all know it.

  83. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Long as I’m checking in, here’s the way it goes in a free society:
    Any individual or group has the right to demand to be let alone.
    Nobody has the right to demand somebody else get an attitude adjustment.
    During most of history, being let alone would have seemed like paradise to most groups we have heard of being victimized.

  84. Eric Avatar

    I find it rather telling that it’s taken almost as gospel (heh) in these comments that there is exactly one “Christian” viewpoint on homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with the idea that being gay is loathsome to God is attacked as being bigoted and un-Christian.

    No real point to make, just an observation.

  85. Doc Rampage Avatar

    Eric: oddly enough, I observed just the opposite. It’s taken as gospel in these comments there is only one “Christian” viewpoint on homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees that God is cool with gays is attacked as being bigoted and un-Christian.
    Isn’t it funny how once you pick a side of the argument, behavior that seems just fine on your side seems barbaric on the other side?

  86. Carrick Talmadge Avatar
    Carrick Talmadge

    Jeff:
    Let me just preface this by saying that I wasn’t trying to defend Dobson’s viewpoint (though I did actually read his commentary before my first posting). My issue really is that we should 1) avoid using newspapers as if they are primary sources for cases when they have shown a consistent bias, and 2) we should at least try to understand why the other group has taken a position that we disapprove of, without resorting to name calling or intolerance on our part. Just ’cause somebody is slinging s**t doesn’t mean I have to put my hands on the stuff too…
    Anyway, here is the “money quote” (on a Mac you can preview in PDF then snag the text with the previewer). I will send you via email the entire post with which you can as you like. People who put material on the web and then try and protect it get seriously on my nerves.

    We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that’s beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads.

    And I agree with your reaction:

    But instead it his essential message I do not like: He is saying it is wrong for this group to teach a message of tolerance — yes, even of the homosexual — to children. Well, the opposite of that is obvious: They then believe that children should not be tolerant of gay people. In my view, that is not the message of a Christian.

    I wouldn’t go this far though:

    That is the message of a bigot.

    Again in my opinion, “unenlightened and ill informed” is better. I make the distinction because they do “try to love the sinner, while hating the sin.” That suggests disagreement with a chosen lifestyle, without the overt intolerance of the individual required for outright “bigotry.”
    I know I’m picking nits, but I think it is important to understand that these people have intellectual reasons, based upon their religious doctrine, for their disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. It really is not a position that is driven by hatred towards the individual. I believe it a serious strategic error in any case to consider Dobson stupid or ignorant. I personally think this is one of many documentable cases where he is being reactionary and is ill informed, but that is my opinion.
    The correct approach I think is to call them on their crap and to make them justify their positions when they go off the deep end. I think that approach works even for bigots (a point not missed by Gandhi), so I would think it would be highly effective here. Being reactionary and inflammatory just feeds their sense of righteousness. (Being persecuted is a sign that you are on the correct side, right?) Getting into a reasoned debate is the only way to eventually bring them around to reason.

  87. carsonfire Avatar

    Eric: “I find it rather telling that it’s taken almost as gospel (heh) in these comments that there is exactly one “Christian” viewpoint on homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with the idea that being gay is loathsome to God is attacked as being bigoted and un-Christian.”
    You are reading just what you want to read, Eric. I suspect that Ruth and a few other people here are close-minded on this issue, as well.
    First, do a search for the word “bigot” in this thread. Kat uses it first, but as a defense against being a bigot. Jeff Jarvis is the first to use it as an outright accusation, and then bigot is used several more times by other posters as an invective against the *religious*. Only after the word bigot had been clearly established as synonymous with Christianity did many of us begin to reverse the word.
    When you read these comments, though, the word seems to be magically invisible as you read through the posts attacking Christians, but suddenly bursts into flame the second someone on the other side uses it.
    I finally said: “When you so cavalierly confuse these Christians with homophobes who beat and murder homosexuals, you are being a hateful, narrow minded bigot.”
    This is a far cry from your accusation that someone was labelling as bigot “anyone who disagrees with the idea that being gay is loathsome to God.” No one suggested that being gay is loathsome to God. You made that up in order to support your negative preconceptions about the religious.
    Also, no one has suggested that there is one Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. Quite the contrary. As I said, Jesus means different things to different sects. Presbyterians, Catholics, etc… some Christian denominations are quite open about homosexuality, to others it is still something quite wrong. It indeed (once again) was Ruth who was pushing a one-note Jesus based on her favorite Biblical passage. Her turning around and accusing me of doing exactly what she was doing was an interesting maneuver, if that’s what you fell for.
    And it is in fact the existence of these differences that goes to the heart of the matter: public schools should not be pushing an agenda on the very young that narrowly defines a multi-faceted issue with *religious implications*.
    What in heaven or hell happened to separation of church and state, all of a sudden? This is, of course, selective enforcement of an ideal, not to uphold the ideal, but to use any means to get what yer want anyway yer can get it. If a “Tolerance Pledge” included a requirement for small children to be tolerant and understanding of conservatives and right wingers, you all would be howling like anything.

  88. Eric Avatar

    First, do a search for the word “bigot” in this thread. Kat uses it first, but as a defense against being a bigot. Jeff Jarvis is the first to use it as an outright accusation, and then bigot is used several more times by other posters as an invective against the *religious*.

    Actually, “bigot” is used in nine comments here. Two are Jeff explaining what he meant in his blog entry. I don’t think they count.

    Joe uses it twice in the same sense that Jeff mentioned it.

    carsonfire and Noel then use it in sort of a reverse straw-man sort of way.

    However, kat and Richard Aubrey use it in three different comments, specifically about Ruth.

    Also, no one has suggested that there is one Christian viewpoint on homosexuality.

    Actually, kat did in the second comment, “There is faith based according to the Bible, and then there is faith based according to you or anyone else.” I gather she (?) means the latter is the “wrong” way.

    I’d just like to point out that this whole issue came up when Dobson objected to a video that basically said, “Can’t we all just get along?” There was no mention of gays or sexual identity in the video.

  89. kat Avatar

    That is why it was wrong to accuse Dobson of being anti Sponge Bob–Dobson is against little kids, some who likely can’t read, and most if not all, who have no clue what sexual identity is, signing a pledge to accept homosexuality. Will the teachers give the kiddies a lesson in sexual identity????
    It is THE PLEDGE, not the video. You have no right to make kids sign any kind of contract, without their parents’ being present. And these are likely the same people who whine and scream about the pledge of allegiance, yet force a homosexual pledge at others.

  90. Ruth Avatar

    To fill in…
    these elements and I go back to the campaign, when I stood up for sen. kerry time and again. Needless to say the same elements that are resurrecting the arguments against tolerance now are those that were against Kerry then. And as I have an elderly mother who can’t pay for the heat she needs in her house because of the right wring fundraisers claiming they represent ‘christian’ needs and who is not able to discern now between the actual claims of christian concerns and those of the money-grabbing I don’t have a lot of patience with the right wing and their fundraising I again say to your right wingers BOSH.

  91. Eric Avatar

    It is THE PLEDGE, not the video. You have no right to make kids sign any kind of contract, without their parents’ being present. And these are likely the same people who whine and scream about the pledge of allegiance, yet force a homosexual pledge at others.

    I know of very few people that object to the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, a few object to the “under God” verbiage in it, and think it should be taken out and the Pledge restored to something closer to its original wording. But that’s another matter.

    It’s not like kindergardeners are being sat down by uniformed, jack-booted, feminist, liberal thugs screaming, “Sign Das Pledge!!” until they do so. It exists solely on their website. And a small corner of their website too.

    ‘Cause, ya know, God doesn’t want people treated with dignity and respect or anything.

  92. Kat Avatar

    I can treat people with dignity and respect without embracing their lifestyle. I treat homeless drunks and drug addicts with dignity and respect but I abhor their lifestyles. So don’t give me that crap. How about you treat me with dignity and respect my beliefs which happen to differ from yours? I respect your right to believe whatever the hell you want–just don’t tell me I have to swallow it line, hook , and sinker and don’t shove your beliefs on innocent kids. You can teach tolerance to little kids without ever mentioning the word sexual identity–unless you have a hidden agenda.

  93. carsonfire Avatar

    Eric: ‘Actually, “bigot” is used in nine comments here. Two are Jeff explaining what he meant in his blog entry. I don’t think they count.’
    Right. That’s what I said. It doesn’t count when you don’t want it to count. Saying “bigot” magically becomes a Disturbing Thing only when the other side says it. The host of the blog, the Main Voice, the guy on your side, is the first to accuse others of being bigots, and yet to you it “doesn’t count”. If anything, it counts *more*.
    It’s also not a strawman to point out bigotry and intolerance of Christians. Christians have been jailed and persecuted for their beliefs, just as members of other religions have. Currently, extreme hate crime laws are putting people like Kat into prison in Sweden for daring to suggest that there is another viewpoint on homosexuality. In this way, the left becomes not a virtual, not a sort of, but an actual oppressive Big Brother society that is actually — not sort of, but actually — censoring thought and regulating belief. On the other side, we have leftist charges of Big Brotherism and intolerance against right wingers for having an opinion — Kat arguing for her beliefs is sort of like “censoring” and “oppressing” CorrectThink on the left, because (bwah!) it disturbs people to hear someone who isn’t Thinking Correctly.
    Let’s get it straight who’s employing strawmen,here. Just look at Ruth’s sudden veer into personal complaints relating to her mother which have absolutely nothing to do with anything, here. “Well, you right wingers are just wrong on this because you’re all a bunch of meanies who are making my mother freeze.” That’s right: Ruth’s mother is suffering because Kat Exists. Kat is more responsible for Ruth’s mother than Ruth herself.
    I could dredge up a litany of complaints about how left-wingers have damaged my family, but if I did, I would essentially be knocking over the board and trying to declare victory, anyway, just as Ruth has done.