Posted on 02/24/2002 3:48:41 AM PST by TomSmedley
James Dobson's crusade against TV ads for booze is misdirected
For years, Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family has been a ministry dedicated to the preservation of the Christian family. In the course of its mission, it has often advocated, in the name of the family, boycotting various television shows, networks and companies, especially Disney. Its latest boycott is of television network NBC and parent company General Electric.1 The reason? NBC is now airing hard liquor ads. Oh, the sinister evil.
After a 50-year voluntary ban on liquor advertisements, NBC has decided to lift the ban and enjoy the show. The ads would begin airing at 8 p.m., central time. Dr. Dobson is "extremely concerned" about this new action, and is convinced that the initial ban "protected kids to some degree at least, from manipulative liquor ads that would entice their young minds and, for that matter, entice older people."
To help think through the "tough" issues of the day, recently Dobson had alongside him his protégé, John Fuller, as well as big government Republican Rep. Frank Wolf from Virginia. Fuller, says Dobson, has "consistently fought for moral values and the family in the Congress," valiantly battling the evils of gambling and porn.
According to the cast of characters, these "manipulative ads" are "another snake in the grass" and the result of "raw, unbridled corporate greed." These greedy corporations, say Dobson and Co., are going to cause a great moral upheaval in our country. Catching a bad case of the slippery slope, Wolf predicted that if NBC continues airing these ads, it will not be long before they are seen "on all the shows" and all the networks, which will lead kids into premarital sex and drunk driving (Whoa! Did I miss something?). Within two years, says Wolf, you'll be seeing these ads at sporting events such as the Olympics with "former ball players" (not current ones?) advertising hard liquor. "I think it will bring about a lot more death, Jim."
Curse that deathly evil bottle. Curse every milliliter of it.
"Even though the ban is voluntary," says Fuller, "I've got a teen and a pre-teen son at home, and this makes me angry because this is obviously motivated by corporate greed, a desire to put the money in, without any regard to the consequences to the viewers and the people who are affected by those who drink that hard liquor."
There's a little problem in the logic here. Focus on the Family apparently believes that ads which say "Drink Responsibly"—at least those are the only ones that I've seen on NBC so far—are going to cause your children to have sex and die. Whoa, Dobson, whoa. What about parental responsibility and education of children? What about parents teaching their kids right and wrong?
Whatever happened to focusing on your family liquor cabinet? After all, mine is quite all right.
Dobson thinks that the real solution to all our liquor ad problems is to boycott General Electric and NBC. God-fearing families should "bombard NBC and GE with telephone calls … absolutely bury them in complaints." Yeah, and tell 'em Jesus sent ya when you call.
To most outsiders, Christians are the folks who don't drink, don't cuss, and don't have much fun. Oh yeah, and did I mention Christians don't drink? It's hard enough being a Christian in America with the stands that the Bible demands we make. But by the grace of God, I can handle that. If God said it, well bummer if I take heat for it.
The problem I have is when we start making our little clubhouse rules of all our taboos and things that we don't do, even if Scripture nowhere denounces the things that we do. We're known as the goody guys who don't do this and don't do that, yet how many outsiders can tell us what Christians really stand for? And even if they could say that, how many outsiders can say they've ever seen us live what we stand for?
Instead of rallying the troops for battle, Dobson's listeners should be encouraged to instruct their children in thinking biblically about all of life, including alcohol and its proper use. Children should be taught both the Bible's warnings about alcohol abuse and the its praise of alcohol. Employing a Christian worldview in all of life is much more important than focusing on why bumming bottled booze is bad.
But we'd rather spend our time on the phone with a minimum wage employee of General Electric—who couldn't care less about the so-called evils of the bottle—than spend our time with our kids instructing them to think biblically.
In his critique of the Religious Right, Cal Thomas rightly notes, "Only God has all the truth. To the extent that we quote him accurately, we are loaned this truth. But when we begin adding things to his agenda, we diminish his truth and are onto something else entirely."2 Once again, Dobson thinks he has God's agenda figured out, and a million fingers will be dialing GE and NBC demanding a removal of these inherently evil ads.
But how can the ads be inherently evil if the actual product is not?
As Ken Gentry notes, "the biblical record frequently and clearly speaks of alcoholic beverages as good gifts from God for man's enjoyment."3 In Deuteronomy 14:22-26, the people of Israel were instructed to set aside a tithe for celebration and rejoicing. There, God tells them to "spend the money for whatever [their] heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink." This, says Moses, is to be done rejoicing with the whole household, and "in the presence of the LORD your God." Teaching children the value of doing all things in the presence of God is going to go much farther in the long run than any boycotts ever will.
"Here comes another, uhh, you know, problem for parents to deal with," says Dobson.
"Train up a child, uhh, you know, and he will not depart from it," says God.
Notes
1. Focus on the Family Radio Broadcast, Jan. 31, 2002.
2. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 124.
3. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., God Gave Wine (Lincoln: Oakdown, 2001), 147. See Gentry's helpful discussion on the biblical term for "strong drink," 59-62. Also, check out the website.
You've accused Dr. Dobson of being a money grubber, caring only about money, a copier of Mormons, deceitful, and somewhat like a professional sex person. And you say all of this with a sense of knowing authority.
Care to source your so-called facts?
If all of this were true, better men than you would have exposed Mr. Dobson long ago. I've followed his career for 25 years, and I support Focus on the Family. I don't see anything to support your accusations.
As for why Glen Eyrie is "run by religious fundamentalists", all I know is that it is run and owned by "The Navigators" a Christian organization that specializes in discipleship programs that have been used by churches for decades and that is used as a retreat center.
As for my view of Dr. Dobson's facilities, your reply that my view was weak was unsupported by any facts.
Religion doesn't need money. Period. Religion doesn't need truth for its foundations, it just needs beliefs and faith. If there were full truth in religion, there would only be one religion.
Today's businesses that run as religious clubs are systems that pretend truth and build beyond what is necessary for the stated mission. They build for the unstated mission: to seduce followers and give them a physical foundation of fellowship, which I prefer to call followship.
Take Compa$$ion International. Funds are donated to it to feed children, and every dollar counts. But, instead of making sure that every dollar possible goes to feeding children, let's build a beautiful building on expensive property with some of those funds. We'll ignore a few thousand hungry kids so we may surround ourselves in these lavish confines and beautiful location. All the while we ignore the possibilities that our feeding kids in poor countries is causing more and more problems. The term is "Blowback."
So, for the point: Are Focus on the Family's buildings more than are necessary? For the followers "No." For the objective outsider "Those were made with tax free donations for an organization that's politically active?" in other words: Yes.
I like Dobson's views and am very religious. I just saw through the acting jobs that most religious persons employ to seduce the masses. I worked, let's say, a little too close to the profession and saw it for what it is.
I really wished you hadn't said I said that all Dobson cared about was money. In dealing within discussions please be accurate.
I do strive to be accurate. In the post I replied to previously, you used the word "Jesus" with dollars signs for the "S"'s. Your take was communicated to me that the pursuit of the almighty dollar was in control here, thus the term money grubber. It doesn't appear to be an inaccurate interpretation on my part at all.
Every denomination and movement has its share of charlatans, of that we both agree. I just don't place Mr. Dobson in that category. You assume I am naive in that regard, and that is your opinion.
Now, you make reference to Compassion International. The missus and I are sponsoring our second child through them. I'll check their building out and see if it is too good for them.
The moneychangers went from the temple and have built their own.
You are kind to support a child. I lived in Central America for years and saw how the poor live and die. I can't put a valid argument together on the matter, but have these terrible thoughts that we may be causing unseen problems in the future with that help.
Oh please. Who has brought more people to Jesus Christ -- people who will carry the gospel to the next generation and the next? Eternity is pretty enduring.
Oh please. Who has brought more people to Jesus Christ -- people who will carry the gospel to the next generation and the next? Eternity is pretty enduring.
According to the Graham organization's own statistics, something like 4% of their "converts" actually are for-real, enduring, new Christians. Charles Finney pioneered most of the "methods" used in "crusade evangelism," and confessed towards the end of his life that most of the conversions engendered by humanistic emotional manipulation were false, rather than true, conversions. Dobson focuses on personal resposibility, exerted over the entire arc of one's life. "Crusade evangelism" defines all of life in terms of one instantaneous experience. For these two reasons I stand by my original assertion:
Of coure, I'm of Paul, he's of Cephas, and you must be of Christ! ;-)
That's interesting, not true but interesting. The highest statistic that I've seen is 90% believe in a god, any god.
Wow, drink responsibly! I guess that those liquor companies are going to spend millions on advertising that won't increase their sales. They must care. Every other company buys advertising to increase sales of their product. But not liquor companies. They do it to encourage their customers to "drink responsibly."
Of course parental responsibility is important. But it has it's limits. It cannot stop the drunk driver. It won't be there when the peer pressure to drink increases. It won't help their child's friend whose parent becomes abusive when they drink. But then again that's not why people use that cute little line about parental responsibility. It's said because it sounds a lot better than saying we just don't want to be bothered by other people's problems.
The problem I have is when we start making our little clubhouse rules of all our taboos and things that we don't do, even if Scripture nowhere denounces the things that we do. We're known as the goody guys who don't do this and don't do that, yet how many outsiders can tell us what Christians really stand for? And even if they could say that, how many outsiders can say they've ever seen us live what we stand for?
Well we know what James Dobson stands for. He's spent his entire life trying to help parents raise their children, and to help couples stay together. He's led efforts to help seniors, teenagers, and children. He founded the Family Research Council, a leading thinktank for the conservative movement. And he's helped people overcome their addictions. Isn't that funny, an organization concerned about addictions, is also concerned about increasing liquor sales. Who would have suspected it?
Say jamey what are you for?
So increased sales (or brand share of market) automatically means "irresponsible" use. Wow, that logic can't be opposed even by God himself.
Let me clear up another cluelessness: The people who Paul admonished for boasting that they "were of Christ" were those who claimed that because they had personally met, or hung around, Jesus during his incarnation, they had some special advantage over other Christians.
I must apologize for the rude crack. It is not worthy of Christ. But neither is the equation of a life that is "responsible" in earthly, "moral" terms (Japanese Shinto/Buddhist and -- shock! -- many Muslim societies are good at this) to any kind of "Christianity."
What really concerns me about Dobson is his authoritarian half-truths. I don't believe I have picked up a single one of his little so called "Solid Answers" tracts without seeing at least one such assertion -- my church (which preaches a truly "solid" gospel message) sometimes slips them in the programs but I don't give them more than a glance any more; it's not worth locking horns with him so to speak.
The 10 years of alcohol prohibition corrupted the legal system in this country beyond tolerance, the 70 years of drug prohibition has turned our government into the largest organized crime syndicate in the history of the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.