Source: CitizenLink.com
Nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck shared with his listeners today an allegation published in USA Today that Dr. James Dobson had said former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson not Christian enough to be president.
CNN and other national media outlets also have carried the report.
Within the hour, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action was a guest on Beck’s show, debunking the spin of the mainstream media.
“You know very well you can’t believe what you read in the media, especially about evangelicals,” he told Beck. “That was spun by the media. I’m getting sick of that. It’s an effort to marginalize you, to make you look foolish, and to distort your views.”
Dr. Dobson made no such comments about Thompson. The opinion piece twisted what he told a reporter several weeks ago — that whether Thompson is a believer could have an effect on how the GOP’s evangelical base may vote.
“I sincerely and humbly apologize for taking the word of the media over you,” Beck said on the air. “I should have called. I’m sorry that I didn’t make the call to your office. I humbly apologize to you.” [emphasis added]
Find any polyps up there, Mr. Beck?
David – Help me understand what you object to here. Beck appropriately retracted a false report and made an apology. I hope journalists or any of us who make a mistake like that could do that.
That’s what Dobson always claims, he was “mis-quoted.”
Isn’t that just “spe-cial.”
For the record, the interviewer (Gilgoff) called FOTF to get a clarification of the comment.
Original Dobson Quote:
The clarification:
It seems the Dobson has a bit of a truth problem.
Beck is an invertebrate.
Source: https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070328/28dobson.htm
uhhh, Dr. Throckmorton:
Dobson made the false report. Read the quote at the link provided.
Dobson said it; Schneeberger confirmed it.
Dobson then lied about it; Beck gets a cracker.
Unless Gilgoff prints a retraction. I think this story is pretty clear.
This is the same M.O. Dobson always uses.
Spongebob gay! media prints. people see the Dobson has no clothes; the Dobson claims the e-vile sekalar media mis-quoted him. Dobson goes back into his hole until he can’t contain his titanic intellect the next time.
rinse; repeat.
Warren Throckmorton said:
Of course I don’t object to a retraction when wrong or even an apology when warranted – I would encourage them. This was just my (somewhat) humorous way of pointing out that Dobson has far too much influence, certainly more than he should in political matters. Beck falls all over himself as if before a potentate, and I found it excessive – even a bit disgusting.
Perhaps also on my mind was the likelihood that we will ever see, short of judgment day, Dobson make a similar gesture over “misinformation” of his own which which is far worse.
FYI, we do not know yet whether the statement was actually false.
So, we have Glenn Beck, a convert to Mormonism, is humbled by an Evangelical who makes public pronouncements as to whom is Christian or not. Some Mormons will do anything Dobson says so they can be included in his club…especially when another Mormon is up for a big election.
Victor Hugo could not have written a better pathos for a novel in this century.
cowboy:
In the same article by Gilgoff, Dobson offers an opinion about Mormons (re: Romney):
More mis-quotes, no doubt.
Dr. Throckmorton, after TIME magazine published an article Dobson wrote on Mary Cheney, the very researchers that Dobson cited on gay parenting, upbraided him on distorting and misrepresenting their work.
He blew off every opportunity to retract or correct what he did and a doctor in particular who tried to directly contact and who Dobson said was a dupe of the ‘homosexual agenda’, or words to that affect.
Dobson is a liar. He will distort and misrepresent or he will no admit to his own behavior, nor apologize for it.
As for Beck, Beck is not responsible for what another agency he’s not part of reported on.
Dobson is weak. And he’s not the only one, know what I mean, Dr. Throckmorton?
Yikes, horrendous grammar. Sorry, written in haste.
What I wanted to say was that Dobson avoided every opportunity to correct or retract what he misrepresented in the TIME article.
One doctor in particular, whose name escapes me at the moment, is on film describing when he made contact with Dobson.
And Dobson treated the man with considerable disdain and called him a dupe of the homosexual agenda.
Vous comprenez?
My impression of Dobson and many of the political evangelicals is that they barely conceal their contempt for non-evangelical Christians (Catholics, Mormons, etc.) and Jews. I don’t know why any of them (Beck included) even bother with Dobson and his ilk.
As an aside, Fred Thompson is a consistent conservative, but he is nobody’s patsy. I suspect Thompson’s underlying personal and political independence is what Dobson is more concerned about than just how Christian the former senator is. Dobson’s influence is far more important to him that how loudly someone says “Amen.”
John,
You are on target regarding Dobson, except for one thing: he’s actually clearer than you think about his contempt for non-Evangelical Christians. I have to endure listening to this hateful bigot everytime I’m with my mother, who actually admires Dobson.
No, he’s clear…and thoroughly repulsive.
As to Dobson being “misquoted.” Fuck him. It’s part of that “oh, we poor Evangelicals are so persecuted” complex.
Sorry about the strong language. I’ve just grown extremely tired of this crowd.
I think it is part of the creation of an alternative reality, a kristian ghetto, a bubble, if you will. Dobson can bemoan his [factual] treatment by the mainstream media as “bias” or “misquote” in an attempt to inoculate his listeners from the realities he wishes to hide. He then creates an alternative news service, or authority that he controls, and points to it as containing the truth.
His followers are thereby taught to be automatically distrusting of sources other than him. And, more importantly, they don’t ask important questions, question the Dobson or think for themselves.
CULT
I have been unable to find a source that says Dobson said Thompson was not “Christian enough to be president.” The quotes produced here demonstrate that Dobson had something offhand to say about his faith but I cannot see that he said he was not president material.
Read the rest of Schneeberger’s comments in the US News article provided by Sharon.
https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070328/28dobson.htm
I may think someone to be a fine candidate but if I say he or she doesn’t have much of a chance with a certain constituency, that does not mean I have expressed my view of their fitness.
It strikes me that Dobson was technically correct. He didn’t say Thompson is not presidential material.
But I think any reasonable reading of his reading of the tea leaves can lead one to conclude that Dobson may be expressing his opinion by speculating on others’ opinions. Maybe this is a tea-leaf reading by proxy, but sending messages like this is very common in politics.
It would be a significant stretch to believe that Dobson, of all people, isn’t media-savy enough to know how important his tea leaves are, and how closely others follow his readings of them.
Dobson may have been misquoted, but I really don’t believe he was misread. Beck committed a technical foul, which may be a big deal in basketball but not in politics.
And I do think it’s a bit rich for Dobson to complain about being misquoted strictly speaking when he so often misquotes others much more broadly and liberally. I think that’s the basis for everyone’s reaction. At least it is for me.
ya know, some kincaids would never vote for him because they think he’s an evil heathen
hey, i never said he shouldn’t be president, just that some kincaids out there in the wide wide world wouldn’t vote for him
😉
Dobson’s statement before Schneeberger’s spin seems pretty obvious to me – Dobson was just speaking as he does with those among his group and, I would submit, stating what he truly believes, odious as it may be.
I don’t buy that for a moment.
While I find the idea of US News and World Report as mainstream media a mite disorienting, let’s notice that Dobson’s own media report says that his opinion was ill considered. Major public figure does interview for rightish magazine, does remarks about Republican presidential candidates, and does not do his homework.
While this does remind me of some other Republicans, I think it is still a cover story. What I think Dobson was after was for Thompson to jump through his hoop. The end-of-March Dobson media coverage indicates that Thompson did call to comiserate.
The problem may be that the prize may not have been worth the candle. FotF was properly scorched, and Mr. Thompson got his own personal insight on Mr. Dobson’s ways of getting what he wants. I would suspect the Mr. Dobson was looking for a more public display of evangelical bona fides, and a general willingness to play Dobson Says. Perhaps Mr. Thompson gave some consideration to Jesus’ reported distain for such displays.
“You know very well you can’t believe what you read in the media, especially about evangelicals.”
The mainstream reports about Dobson’s buddy Ted Haggard were spot-on. Dobson, a word of advice: TELL THE TRUTH. It will save you from having to bully someone into thinking you’ve been taken out of context. To Beck: Check your facts and stand your ground.
Remember the God-gap talk after the 2004 elections? Most of this thread proves it’s there. Many of you treat media words as facts, while you question every motive and every possible alternate meaning from the religious figure.
Isn’t it more reasonable to see a 50/50 play? Media cherry-picks quotes, religious guy screams foul on a conservative radio show (Glenn Beck radio is *not* CNN).
Or doesn’t that fit the template? Not enough hate generated toward the other side?
Do you know what an evangelical Christian really means when he says someone isn’t a Christian? If you ever meet one, maybe you could ask and actually try to understand…
If evangelicals are comfortable saying that a non-evangelical isn’t a Christian, then it isn’t up to the rest of us to understand what they mean. Non-evangelical Christians would find this sort of statement insulting, and they would be correct. If evangelicals do not want to be seen as being hateful to other Christians, they should stop saying that these other believers aren’t Christian.
As an interesting side note that is playing out violently throughout the Middle East, Sunni religious leaders often describe Shiites as something other than Muslim. Minority Shiites understandably find this view insulting.
Dr. Throckmorton and Flyover:
Dobson clearly said he does not believe Thompson is a Christian.
Do you debate that?
Do you seriously think that Dobson would think a non-Christian was presidential material, ie., that the evangelical base would not vote for a non-Christian? Dobson clearly states in the same article that evangelicals would not support Romney because he is a Mormon. But being a non-Christian would be OK?
Are you, like Dobson hiding behind semantics?
Fly: Schneeberger clarified what evangelicals meant by “Christian.” Please don’t come here and troll.
Here is the “play:” religious guy calls up center-right media person and makes unsolicited judgement calls about potential candidates faith and how that would play with his followers. Religious guy’s spokesperson confirms that what he said. Article goes to print. Religious guy looks like arrogant pharisee, goes to “safe” right wing commenter to claim he was not understood properly, even though his spokesperson confirmed the quotes.
Or can’t you detect a lie when it stares you in the face? This is Dobson’s modus operandi when his quotes fall flat and expose his bias.
Do you know what an evangelical Christian really means when he says someone isn’t a Christian? If you ever meet one, maybe you could ask and actually try to understand…
Flyover,
Perhaps you are not familiar with those who comment on this site. A good many either were or still are evangelical Christians. Maybe you should ask and actually try to understand 🙂
What an evangelical Christian means when they say that someone else isn’t a Christian has a number of components:
1. That they have not accepted Jesus as their personal savior. Were they to die before doing so, they will spend eternity in Hell.
2. That they do not follow Christ. They make decisions based on worldly matters rather than follow the instructions in the Bible. Thus they may vote in a matter that treats gay people or pagans or athiests as full citizens, contrary to how Scripture says such people should be treated.
3. That they are not part of the family or community. They will not take instruction from a brother or a leader in the faith.
The last two points are probably only within the last 20 years. Before that, one could be a Christian based solely on point 1. However, Jimmy Carter disappointed the conservative evangelicals – he was a born again Christian according to his proclamations, but he didn’t follow the instruction of his church and did things they thought were contrary to Scriptural Law. Thus, they questioned his Christianity.
Ughhh… time flies. Carter was in the 70’s so I guess the last two points are 30 years old now.
A British historian, David Bebbington, defines an “Evangelical Christian” as a person exhibiting four beliefs and behaviors:
(1) Conversionism: the belief that lives of all humans need to be changed by way of a “born again” decision to repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. (2) Activism: the expression of the gospel in various ways, including missionary outreach and social reform. (3) Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible as the Word of God and the ultimate authority for religious belief and morality. (4) Crucicentrism: a stress on the substitutionary atonement by Christ on the cross.
Webster’s Dictionary cites multiple definitions, including: (1) Of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel, especially as it is presented in the four [canonical] Gospels. (2) Protestant, (3) Emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, through personal conversion, (4) the authority of scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.
By these definitions, all of my gay Christian friends are evangelical.
I hit this site via a search engine, so Timothy Kincaid rightly points out that I am not aware of who normally posts here. My apologies for assuming so little knowledge. I was trying to opine, not insult.
As to the points made, knowing the dictionary definition of evangelical Christian and understanding their sub-culture (like what they mean by certain words and phrases) are not the same. I thought U.S. News author Gilgoff’s first paragraph was not supported by the quotes when I first read it.
John– you say that non-evangelicals could be insulted–yes, they could be. But to say they would be correct about that assumes you know the motives of the speaker. Has James Dobson shared something with you personally, or is my second-hand read as valid as yours?
SharonB– Dr. Throckmorton quoted the Dobson spokesperson’s ‘confirmation’ as:
“Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to’read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”
This seems to controvert your take on how this took place. Dobson didn’t “go to ‘safe’ right wing commenter [Glenn Beck]. ” Beck was airing his opinion of the article, criticizing Dobson, who called his program to bring in a first-person opinion. Of course Dobson has a bias. So do you, so do I. It sounds like you are making my original point.
Flyover,
May I suggest acquiring more knowledge before deciding to opine? You insinuated that the readership base is unaware of the meaning of words.
When corrected, you disputed again whether Michael Bussee – a person who has been involved in evangelical Christianity for at least 30 years that I know of – knew the meaning of words when spoken by evangelicals.
You disputed whether John’s assertion that Dr. Dobson’s words were offensive to non-evangelicals by claiming that only Dr. Dobson can decide if they are correctly viewed as offensive. Respectfully, that is the intellectual equivalent of letting Michael Richards decide if his words are offensive to African-Americans.
In short, you seem to be unfamiliar with the commenting style here. This is not one of the “lob a bomb and duck” sites. The purpose of these conversations is not to show how proficient one may be at debate or insult. This site primarily is used to share knowledge.
While debate is common and disagreement almost a given, playing semantics games or picking a word to attack out of a paragraph is not well received by others or by the moderators. Nor is making wild assumptions about the knowledge, opinions, or character of other commenters. Please consider this when posting in the future.
Flyover,
I have heard the comment, “Oh, I thought you were a Christian,” too many times to count. At first I found it deeply offensive, since I am a Christian. I still find the comment offensive, but I now think that it betrays a profound ignorance and lack of sophistication on the part of any person making the comment.
If evangelicals cannot tell just by hearing the comment how offensive it is, perhaps they should picture themselves on the recieving end. I am sure their first thought would be, “How dare this person think that they can decide if I am a Christian or not!”
It all comes back to the Golden Rule. If one looks hard enough, one can find it written in the Bible as a quote from Jesus.
FlyOver said:
Wow, that’s rich – and incredibly arrogant since you say you have no idea who posts or comments here in the first place. I’ve been an Evangelical Christian for 24 years, I know what he means and I don’t agree with Schneeberger’s spin on it.
I thoroughly concede on points of style and not being a familiar character at this site. I thought I was adding to a discussion (dissent can add, can’t it?), obviously I’m not. I have no wish to distract, lob bombs or offend.
So in the words of Emily Litella: “Nevermind.”
Have a good extended weekend.
Flyover, please add dissent. It’s much welcomed. Just a pinch of familiarity first, Okay?
Timothy-
Thanks for the welcome. I have been doing a lot of reading here and this bit of familiarity has shown me that like most communities of interest, there are certain limits to the welcomed dissent. I discovered XGW has a Focus on the Family sorting keyword, and the content of it is unanimously negative.
Rather than changing my assumptions about the readership, familiarity would have warned me dissent on this particular topic was going to go nowhere. That’s what communities of interest are for…the gathering of like-minded people.
I wish I had fallen into some other discussion instead of one with a pre-installed hot button. Perhaps another day.
Flyover: Dissent is one thing — and my experience is that XWG welcomes it. What is not typically well-received are sarcastic and arrogant implications that those who post here (1) are not “evangelical”, (2) do not know what the word means and/or (3) have never “met one.” Any way you slice it, that’s offensive.
Think about it. How would you feel if someone made such assumptions about you? Don’t duck out. Stick around. Maybe you really need to interact with some evangelical gay Christians. You might very well learn something that challenges your preconceptions. What do you have to lose?
Flyover:
Maybe if Focus’s approach to GLBT people were a little more positive, the content would be less negative.
Many of us have been burned by this organization and its tendrils.
“We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added.
FINALLY…we find an evangelical who will admit in public that only evangelicals are a part of the Christian club. Me wonders what Jesus would think of his exclusion from the faith that bears his name.
The banality and cruelty of this sect of Christianity can only be called a ‘cancer’ in the body of Christ. If, as Jesus said ‘by their fruits you will know them’ then evangelicalism is a paradigm that fails.
And, quite frankly, I am tired of humans telling me whether or not God approves of me. That, as my Episcopalian sensitivities tell me, is between God and each individual person.
What galls me the most is that Daddy Dobson thinks we all need HIM to tell us who is and who is not a Christian. Sounds like a cult to me.
Michael– I think I already conceded to your three points (May 24, 4:53p and May 25, 10:17a). Allow me to be more direct. No sarcasm, I mean this: Micheal Busse, I made a grave error when I assumed I understood this site before reading more than one article. I am truly sorry. Would you [and anyone else reading] forgive me for offending you?
As far as I can tell, I have been interacting (although not very well) with some evangelical gay Christians. 🙂
SharonB– if you are only open-minded with the people that agree with you, then you aren’t open minded on that point. You don’t want their actions to dictate your character going forward, do you?
FlyOver said:
Some, also some not so evangelical, some Jews, Atheists, Catholics, Quakers (those last two also come under the broader Christian obviously), etc. The main reason evangelical Christian issues are dealt with here is the fact that ex-gay organizations almost exclusively exist as a function of those ministries.
Flyover: Apology accepted. Here’s to continuing dialog and thoughtful dissent.