Michelle Goldberg, famous for her work at salon.com work and her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism said the following in the interview article The Growing Threat of Right-Wing Christians:
One of the first pieces I did on the Christian right was on the ex-gay movement. What struck me going to the Exodus Conference was that it takes place in this whole entire parallel universe. They have their own psychologists, psychological institutions and their own version of professional medical literature. The amount of books, magazines and media, and the way it almost duplicated everything that we have in our so-called reality, is remarkable.
Dr. James Dobson penned the piece Two Mommies Is One Too Many. Researchers who were quoted by Dobson have indicated their research was misconstrued or misused. Focus On The Family (FOTF) has now officially responded to the claims Dobson misconstrued or misused research in his recent Time Magazine piece.
My first reaction to the FOTF retort Left Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson’s Time Platform was “Huh? Oh. What?” I’m rarely surprised to the point of being dumbfounded, but I found I was literally stunned.
The reason is fairly simple: It really is no surprise that Dr. James Dobson and FOTF put out a piece indicating they believe their views on same sex marriage and same-sex parenting are “right,” but my real astonishment was in the incredulous tone that they’ve taken towards two researchers (now up to three, by the way) to stating their research was misconstrued/misused:
“The attack against Dr. Dobson has been as unceasing as it has been baseless,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family. “The only thing that can explain the vehemence with which gay activists have responded to his commentary is that it galls them for a major publication like Time — with a circulation of more than 4 million — to give a platform to someone like Dr. Dobson, who stands for everything they oppose.”
The first attack came in claims from two researchers whose work Dr. Dobson cited in his piece that he had “twisted” their science. They only spoke up, it is worth noting, after being contacted by a gay activist with a long history of personally vilifying pro-family leaders; in fact, he once called Dr. Dobson “a Scripture-spitting, simple-minded, superstitious savage.” No matter why the researchers weighed in, though, their objections are off-base, according to Dr. Bill Maier, Focus on the Family’s psychologist in residence.
“These are well-respected scientists who probably feel they have no choice but to cry ‘foul’ because they work in a field that is so dominated by liberal groupthink,” Maier explained. “But the fact they aren’t happy their data was used to reach a conclusion they disagree with doesn’t mean the data was not properly applied. Dr. Dobson never claimed these researchers share his view on this issue — they clearly do not. But there is no denying that the data they compiled can be appropriately cited to show the unique contributions mothers and fathers make in the lives of their children.
“Many ‘progressive’ academics would prefer to ignore these unique contributions and claim that mothers or fathers are ‘optional,’ ” he added. “But anyone who takes the time to read the research in question will find that Dr. Dobson quoted the researchers accurately. While these individuals may personally hold positions on same-sex parenting that are different from his, their findings on gender differences clearly support his thesis. The sad fact is that gay parenting intentionally — and permanently — deprives a child of either a mommy or a daddy.”
The subtitle to Focus On The Family’s piece is Academics and gay activists have hurled a lot of epithets at Focus’ founder for his commentary on gay parenting — but none of their charges are sticking. I find it difficult to believe that FOTF actually believes that none of [the] charges are sticking, but by their tone it seems apparent to me that they actually believe none of the charges that they are engaging in pseudo-science, misquoting of research studies, or unethically misusing research studies is sticking.
Wayne Besen has been spearheading the contact of the researchers quoted in Dobson’s Two Mommies Is One Too Many. Writing for Truth Wins Out, the organization he heads, he states:
Feeling the heat of international condemnation, Dobson turned to character assassination on his webpage this week, suggesting his accusers were hostage to “liberal groupthink.” I suppose, as a group, these acclaimed scientists do think that misrepresenting science is wrong. And, of course, it is worth noting that Dobson respected these very researchers enough to quote them last week. He only changed his tune after they upbraided him for unethical and unprofessional conduct.
Focus on the Family’s big “ah ha” moment was more like a “ha ha” moment, as it was quite laughable. They pointed out that I was the one who first contacted all of the professors. But, Focus neglected to say that if Dobson had been honest, I wouldn’t have had to make these calls. Finally, Focus on the Family derided Dobson’s detractors as name-callers. However, some of Dobson’s fiercest critics have come from the far right.
In October, former ultraconservative Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) said that Dobson is a “real nasty bully” who commands a “gang of thugs.”
I would agree that his organization more often acts like Crips than Christians. It is time to take the Dramamine, as Dobson is about to spin legitimate criticism in the same dishonest way he spun the actual studies he is being criticized for distorting.
Confronted with researchers specifically stating to Dobson that he misconstrued or misused their research, Dobson stands firm in his interpretation of their research; his FOTF Psychologist in Residence stating:
“But there is no denying that the data they compiled can be appropriately cited to show the unique contributions mothers and fathers make in the lives of their children.”
Even public rebuke can’t shake the “parallel universe” Goldberg described. No wonder the FOTF folk don’t think any of the rebuke “sticks” — in their “parallel universe,” they’re apparently coated in Teflon.
Dobson’s piece wasn’t about science, it was about politics. Scientist might be searching for truth and better understanding of various phenomena, but politicians just want to make their point.
While much of the public expect politicians to lie, they generally have a dim view of religious figures lying. This is one of the fundamental problems for the Religious Right. By engaging in politics in the no holds barred manner they have been using, they are undermining their religious credentials. They need to decide whether they are`religious leaders`or politicians, but in the end they cannot be both.
ermmm… but didn’t a dutch study show that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on children? That it is the actual quality of the parenting that matters? I’ll have to look up that study…
as it turns out there isn’t even a significantly larger chance of ending up in a same-sex relationship if your parents are gay. You’d think that with the acceptance of homosexual love being sort of built-in, more people would end up that way because they do not have to deal with possible non-acceptantce of their family.
But that’s the key to their effectiveness, too. If you make a political statement under the guise of a religious one, people won’t question you or your “facts”.
Their defense:
“…They only spoke up, it is worth noting, after being contacted by a gay activist…”
It is “Worth noting”? Why? Does illuminating the facts by a gay change the facts in any way? Does illuminating the facts by a gay ACTIVIST change the facts in any way?
No.
Wasn’t there something written about bearing false witness?
Have a Happy Winter Solstice everyone!
James Dobson’s comments are only ‘undeniable’ if you depend on James Dobson for your paycheck.
By publishing his editorial in a public venue such as Time Magazine, he has invited public scrutiny. When all three researchers he quoted as a basis for his arguments refute his statement, he should try to respond their refutation with logic and science instead of having a mouthpiece call his arguments ‘undeniable’ based solely on the fact that they came from Dobson’s pen.
This is yet another example of his organization’s practice of lying and twisting truth until it fits their purposes. The bible tells us that we should not judge them. Still, even if Dobson and his employees are right that all gay people will burn in hell, I can’t help but wonder if he’ll be next to me in the burning pit due to his inability to keep the commandment forbidding lying.
Dobson will crawl back under his rock until the wounded ego heals and he can figure out a way to address the public in a forum where he cannot be humiliated (aka., challenged).
“…They only spoke up, it is worth noting, after being contacted by a gay activist…”
Because they didn’t know about it until confronted by a gay activist. Guess they left that part out, huh.
From the recent article from FotF:
Ok… what facts did Dobson present.
1) “A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter, is pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her lesbian partner.”
2) “…the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.”
3) “The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.””
4) “Psychology Today explained in 1996 that “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.””
5) “According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences.”
6) “Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of “maleness.” They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.”
_________________________________________
The following are “factual opinions” or “opinionated facts, which a Time editor had no way of checking:”
1) “…love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development.” [Fact or opinion?]
2) “The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy—any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.” [Fact or opinion?]
_________________________________________
Dobson didn’t come up with too many facts in his article for Time to check. And could a Time editor really check and understand those facts attributed to Pruett and Gilligan?
Surely a Time editor cannot determine if “…the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” Nor can they fact-check references to vague notions that unnamed “other researchers” have determined that a boy must learn “maleness” from a father.
I imagine that the “the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence” is an allusion to the all of his own and similar minded writings and that those “other researchers” are specifically those from NARTH with their “every boy without a father becomes homosexual” hypotheses.
As such Dobson seeems to be cherry-picking his own references. Dobson easily will quote for a mainstream article what is considered to be science from a mainstream scientists. But when it comes to his additional statments of fact which are only bolstered up by references and personages which that mainstream science does not consider to be useful, right or well researched/documented, Dobson balks at providing references and instead gives vagueries.
_________________________________________
Lastly, like so many here have said I must express my disdain and distaste for the sneering way the Family Nazis pointed out that Wayne Besen initiated any of this as if to say, “look, the gay activist [aka: undesireable person who shouldn’t believe because of his sexuality] did it!” Stinks.
…
I thought it was interesting that in this piece, FOTF placed so much emphasis on the infallibility of the TIME fact-checkers as a defense of Dobson’s work. At the same time, they rip the published rebuttal to Dobson’s editorial as full of factual errors. Hmmm… Can you trust those fact-checkers or not?
marcus,
good point. toooo funny.
See…I am so embarrassed by straight people like Dobson.
The dribble just enough vague statements out there that sound factual, but have nothing but small part to play in context. Dobson doesn’t require any depth to whatever he says.
And a TWO parent home is considered the better model, period.
What KINDS of parents, is the slippery slope. You’d have to consider the genetic connections the child would have to make out predicting temprement and physical features. These are the markers that most help parents be most effective.
There is nothing ideal about the man/woman model alone.
There never was.
And Dobson clearly knows nothing about actual gay parents. And refuses to believe the results that gay parents are similar in success and competence as hetero parents.
But couples and parents need several factors for success in their relationships that orientation has little to do with.
Someone worth his friggin credentials would know that.
What are the most profound mitigating circumstances within ANY parent situation that would idealize success.
What’s his doctorate in? Liberal arts? Veterinary medicine?
He’s no expert on HUMAN behavior, and he barely says anything about how heterosexuals screw up children all the time.
So the man/woman thing ISN’T ideal.
The ability to nurture children isn’t automatically bestowed on a GROUP.
Why does anyone look to him anyway?
He’s elbowed his way into the sphere….and doesn’t do right by the position.
I’m so sick of him and his sycophants, I could really just kick them.
I forgot to say, that the way Dobson and his ilk frame the discussion, the confuse ‘ideal’ with what is COMMON.
Man/woman couples participate within a perimeter in public, but what’s really happened within that so called ideal, and the negative results there, have only been revealed for about as long as what’s happened between gay couples and parents has.
Our society has learned in fact, that heterosexuals ARE NOT so ideal, and gay couples and parents are not so BAD.
Deniability is his biggest talent so far, and obviously, that helps nothing and no one, but serves ignorance, fear….and anti gay politics.
And science isn’t in the business of doing that.