Dobson Survivor (original) (raw)

Book review: [14 Jun 2006|09:10pm]
[ **mood** | chipper ] I think we've milked Dare to Discipline; the remainder of the book is just a variation on that same tired theme. Next, I'm going to start going through What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. This is a rather short book, however, and I'd love to try something new afterwords. So, poll time! Which Dobson book should we look at next? Other (write in comments) Thanks, y'all.
post comment
[16 Nov 2005|06:09pm]
I thought this may apply to some people here, and may help someone. If this isn't allowed, please delete it and I apoligize. :-)Image hosted by Photobucket.com
1 comment|post comment
Dare to Discipline Part Two [16 Oct 2005|07:04pm]
[ **mood** | nauseated ] Part OneChapters two and three of Dare to Discipline contain what Dobson refers to as the "five underpinnings to commonsense child rearing." Chapter two entirely focuses on number one: Developing respect for parents is the critical factor in child management. Rather than discuss his views extensively, I'm going to quote several of the passages I find most alarming. I think the material speaks for itself. ( Discipline = Spanking.Collapse )
1 comment|post comment
Talk about out of touch with reality. [13 Oct 2005|08:17pm]
[ **mood** | amused ] Go here for a little unintentional humor. From the article: Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time getting confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court — in today's atmosphere.. Justice Scalia would have a hard time getting confirmed? You think? The man who is on record as saying: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached" would have hard time getting confirmed? The man who wanted to keep consensual adult homosexual sex illegal? The man who considers the Christian bible the basis for all law? You don't say. *eyeroll*
post comment
A Look at “Dare to Discipline” -- Part One [13 Oct 2005|06:49pm]
[ mood** | accomplished ] Dare to Discipline is one of the more popular parental advice books, especially among conservative Christian families. It’s a book my parents referred to during my youth, without much success, I might add. The book put Dr. Dobson on the map and established him as a premier source for family information. Therefore, I thought it might be beneficial to look at the text and give a quick overview. It won’t be as in-depth as my look at the Joe Dallas article, as the book 276 pages long. :) Luckily, I didn’t have to buy a copy, I just borrowed one from my mother.( Introduction: Chapters 1-2Collapse )**
2 comments|post comment
Dobson in the news [11 Oct 2005|05:59pm]
[ mood** | complacent ] You see, the problem with spouting off b.s. all the time is that you lose perspective on what's okay to say in a public forum and what's not. And now Dobson's inability to filter his speech has come back to bite him in the ass. New York Times article on the subject.Quote from the article: On his radio program last Wednesday, Mr. Dobson said, "When you know some of the things that I know - that I probably shouldn't know - you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice." He added, in a reference to aborted fetuses, "if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget the blood of those babies that will die will be on my hands to some degree."Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Sunday that Mr. Rove did not provide Mr. Dobson "any insight into how Ms. Miers may rule on any particular case." But the attention to the private reasons for Mr. Dobson's endorsement underscores the delicate problem the White House faces in trying to quell conservative dissatisfaction with Ms. Miers without arousing the ire of liberals or, for that matter, the handful of Senate Republicans like Mr. Specter who support abortion rights. Dobson's reactionWe have to wait until tomorrow to find out how Dobson will spin this. I'm sure MediaMatters.org will cover it, but I'll listen if I can. For a completely unrelated story, though it illustrates the amount of ignorant hate the man spews on a daily basis, go here.( EDIT: Dobson's remakrs under the cut.Collapse )**x-posted to my LJ
post comment
The Gender of God [09 Oct 2005|06:26pm]
[ mood** | irate ] A conservative Christian friend sent me a link to an online article, False God(dess) by Karla Dial. The fact that article was located on one of Focus on the Family's websites, Boundless, should have tipped me off to what was to come. She said the article was "funny and interesting" and I should check it out. So I read the article.I can't remember the last time I've been so offended. Here's a quick sample: What if God the Creator really were a woman? What would that mean for us, the creations?The short answer to that question is: We'd be toast. If you think the male God of the Bible is impossible to figure out now_...well, with a female God, you'd have to multiply that confusion by infinity.My Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. If he were really a woman, that fact would be reduced to a hormonal impossibility. Think about that for a moment. If God were a woman, She would be subject to mood swings. If God were a woman, She would find herself alternating between crying jags, laughter and sometimes, a sort of consuming rage, all for no apparent reason. If God were a woman, She would be subject to That Bloated Feeling.On the bright side, if God were a woman, She wouldn’t have supplied manna to the Israelite children wandering in the wilderness; it would have been Ben & Jerry’s ice cream that came raining out of the sky, in all the glory of its assorted flavors. If God were a woman, no one would have zits. Ever. And everyone would be good at multi-tasking — even men.But this is simply not the case. If we had no Bible to tell us otherwise, these facts, if nothing else, should be enough to let us know that God is most definitely not a woman._( Let's carry this to it's logical conclusion.Collapse )**x-posted to faith_feminists
3 comments|post comment
Oh, FYI [07 Oct 2005|01:25am]
[ **mood** | refreshed ] Just to let everyone know, I had a little troll problem over at my journal. One thing I wanted to discuss:Bottomline, they all need personal relationships with Jesus that aren't based on a wacked-up interpretation of Biblical scripture. I quote and discuss a lot of scripture, especially in this last series. I want to make something clear: I am no expert. I do my best to interpret the passage accurately and keep it in context. If at any point I say something you feel is inaccurate, please bring it to my attention. Disagreements (as long as they're kept respectful) are totally allowed and even encouraged. I don't promise to change my views or even my post, but I will promise to consider everything that's said.Likewise, if I say something that doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to clarify! I've been studying the Bible (which includes studying the secular history surrounding it and the types of literature used) for a long time now, and sometimes I jump ahead and assume that my audience knows exactly what I'm saying.Also, this is not a solely Christian community. I write from a Christian perspective, about a man who claims to be a Christian, but people of all (or no) faiths are welcome here. And finally, this is not the lizzypaul show. We have several members, now. Feel free to post. We don't have many rules, here, and what rules we do have are in the community info. Thanks everyone!
post comment
Joe Dallas is a creep. [29 Sep 2005|10:52pm]
[ mood** | busy ] Joe Dallas has several articles about homosexuality on the Focus on the Family website. I've been wanting to destroy review one for quite some time, but I quickly realized that it would take more than one post and a lot of time. In the interest of making my life easier and cutting down on the tl;dr, I'll break up the article into several sections (luckily, the article is already broken down) and discuss one a day. The article in question is: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology: General Religious Arguments. So I suppose I'll be responding to the response. :) Before I get started, however, I'd like to give a little background information.( Who Is Joe Dallas?Collapse )** **( Ex-gay?Collapse )**Well! I'll get to the actual article tomorrow. :)EDIT: Fixed the HTML tags of doom.
2 comments|post comment
1% or 50%...we're still here and queer. :) [25 Sep 2005|06:20pm]
[ **mood** | annoyed ] Good As You has a cute take on this article from Focus on the Family.The article states: ...new numbers from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found just 2.3 percent of men claim to be homosexual. Ignoring for a moment the fact that this makes no mention of the LBT population, let's just break that down into numbers. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are 295,734,134 people in the US. Using my handy-dandy calculator, if 2% of the population is exclusively homosexual, that gives us approx. 5,914,683 really queer guys. So nearly 6 million people don't deserve basic rights? Keep in mind, this doesn't include bisexuals, lesbians, or transgendered individuals. The problem with playing the numbers game is that it implies that there is a number that either protects a group from discrimination, or makes discrimination okay. Even if the gay population consisted of a guy named Phil in Colorado, Phil should still have the right to keep his job, live where he wants, and have consensual sex.
post comment
Teaching Tolerance [21 Sep 2005|01:30pm]
[ **mood** | cranky ] An article, from Focus on the Family discusses tolerance in schools. This does not bode well, as Dobson is historically anti-tolerance (see the SpongeBob Squarpants incident).First things first. Mr. Gateways for Better Education (what a horrible name, can you imagine trying to learn how to spell that in Kindergarten?) tries to say that hate crime is relatively rare, citing a FBI statistic that says only ".001 percent" of students were victims of hate crimes. Okay. That's b.s. According to National Mental Health Association's study:--78% of teens report that youth who are gay or thought to be gay are teased or bullied in their schools and communities. --93% of the teens hear youth use words like "fag," "homo," "dyke," "queer," or "gay" at least once in a while, while 51% of them hear it every day. --According to a l996 study by the Safe Schools Coalition, three of four youth targeted by anti-gay bullies are heterosexual. --One of three gay students is physically harassed due to his or her sexual orientation --One in six is beaten badly enough to require medical attention --They are four times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school --They are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide --28% drop out of school because of harassment Maybe that isn't a big deal to Mr. Gateways, but reasonable people should be shocked and horrified by these statitics.
post comment
I knew this was comming... [20 Sep 2005|05:19pm]
[ **mood** | irritated ] So about all I can say to this is: "Fuck you, I'm not a penguin." Um. They're penguins. If the future of gay rights hinges on a couple of Antarctic birds, I'll go straight right now.Come on, people.
5 comments|post comment
navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ] [ go earlier ]