An attack on the Religious Right is not an attack on Chriatianity (reject, homosexuality)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

But Dobson would like Christians to think it is.
Complete article here

The general principle here is to confuse the audience by convincing them that a particular subset of Concept or Goal “X” is equal to the entire set and that no other subsets exist. Some examples will help illustrate what I mean by that. In the lead-up to Iraq, everyone shared the same broad goal of fighting terrorism and keeping the country safe. However, there were many possible ways to go about securing the nation from terrorist attacks. Invading Iraq was merely one of many possible tactics.

We’re seeing something very similar in the equation of attacks on the Dobsons and Santorums of the world with attacks on Christianity itself. The logical error is that the form of rigid rule-based, Pharisee Christianity practiced by Ayatollah Dobson is merely a particular manifestation (or subset) of Christianity proper. One can be at peace with a whole range of Christian interpretations and soundly reject the anti-Enlightenment, anti-woman, anti-privacy, anti-freedom, anti-science, anti-homosexuality, anti-everything-that-doesn’t-look-and-think-just-like-me version of Christianity.

An attack on Dobson Christianity is not an attack on Christianity. Just like an attack on the Ayatollah’s interpretation and exploitation of Islam for political purposes is not an attack on Islam itself.

Dobson seems rather despictable, and arrogant - wouldn't you say?

[Sunstone]

I agree it's both despictable and arrogant that extremists like Dobson should wrap themselves in the flag of mainstream Christianity. But to some extent, the mainstream Christian churches have allowed this to happen by being silent about the extremists. Of course, their "silence" might actually be more apparent than real. Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson have huge media outlets for their views. Their media noise might well drown out the protests of mainstream churches that lack access to the same media outlets as Dobson, Falwell and Robertson have. So, it's possible that the mainstream churches have not so much been silent on this issue, as they simply have not been heard.

At any rate, I think that whenever we allow extremists to equate attacks on them with attacks on all of Christianity, then all of us (except the extremists themselves) suffer for it.

[Littlefoot]

The republicans keep getting away with this because the democrats claim to be open minded. case in point, the senate pushed through 90% of bush's apointees, many of whom were religious. When the Republicans start arguing for a comprimise, they leave out the fact that 90% of what you want is already one heck of a comprimise. The so called leftist media doesn't have the spine to call them on this Bull.

[jimbob]

ah, the goverment, what an ideal place for religion to be discussed. They should stick to dealing iwth wars, foreign affairs and commerce, and leave the religious aspects alone.

[angellous_evangellous]

I attack (well, attack may be a strong word - vehemently oppose may be more appropo) the religious right all the time. Dobson and other religious fanatics can live in their own fantasy land, but where they seek to retrain liberty in the name of religion, they should be strongly opposed.

[lilithu]

It may not be an attack on all of Christianity, but an attack is still perceived as an attack, especially when it comes from the "outside." There is a simple (yet challenging) solution to this: we stop attacking and start "reframing." As long as the content of our discourse consists of merely pointing out what is wrong with the other side, we look like the bad guys, the negative naysayers. And worse yet, we allow them to control the subject of the debate. As long as we attack their position, we argue on their terms. And that's not what we want, is it? As long as we continue to attack people like Dobson, we make him more important than he is. We need to step back, stop being so reactionary (yes I know, easier said than done) and think about what message we really want to get across, not just the negation of their message. What positive things do we have to offer on our side, not just what is wrong with their side. Focus the attention on our issues.

The Left in general needs to reclaim our issues. But more particularly, liberal religion needs to give voice to our own message. We need to provide a positive alternative message to the one that is being put forth. We need to provide an alternative God - one that does not favor one country over another or one religion over another, but intstead loves all. A God who, if God plays favorites at all, is in favor of those most in need. A God who cares about the needs of this world instead of/in addition to the world to come.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by lilithu

The Left in general needs to reclaim our issues. But more particularly, liberal religion needs to give voice to our own message.

And get out and vote.

Seriously, the christian right is not the majority in this country and yet they're being handed the political clout by those who are too lazy to vote.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

lilithu,

There is much in what you say but no mater how well we may frame an argument, I beieve it is trumped by Dobson's framing. We can spout all day about freedom in society or any other worthy theme and still Dobson will call it an attack on Christianity. The Defense of Marriage Act is a a good example of malevelant, emotional framing that losses to equality. It is much easier to evoke emotion on his part than for anyone to educate the public on freedom. The lie is repeated incessantly by all Dobson cohorts.

Just my pessimistic feelings

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

...Of course, their "silence" might actually be more apparent than real. Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson have huge media outlets for their views. Their media noise might well drown out the protests of mainstream churches that lack access to the same media outlets as Dobson, Falwell and Robertson...

Originally Posted by lilithu

... As long as the content of our discourse consists of merely pointing out what is wrong with the other side, we look like the bad guys, the negative naysayers. And worse yet, we allow them to control the subject of the debate. As long as we attack their position, we argue on their terms...

Excellent points and I'd just like to ad one more. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk realized they can't make a go of it with a third party so they gained influence in the party that was more receptive to them. The real danger is that the Democrats will not be able to shake the label as the anti-Christian party and lose more ground.