AssemblyBoard

I posted this with the following question:  What do folks think of James Dobson?  Do you feel he should be our major Christain spokesman?  Should he stick to family issues and keep quiet in other places?  

Thoughts?  Does Kathleen Parker have a good perspective?  Or is she off?

---

The virtuous vs. SpongeBob

by Kathleen Parker

January 27, 2005


Among the many blessings I have failed to fully appreciate is my exemption - thanks to my children's advanced years - from having to know much about SpongeBob SquarePants.

Until recently, I've been only blandly aware of the cartoon character and his underwater cohorts, but now learn that SpongeBob - an otherwise blithering sea sponge - is really a covert operative for The Homosexual Agenda.

For those otherwise distracted, SpongeBob is the protagonist in both a movie and a television series. Hugely popular among the kindergartner-second grade set, he sometimes holds hands with his starfish friend Patrick, which supposedly accounts for SpongeBob's reputed popularity among gays.

And hence the notion that his appearance in a new video, "We Are Family" - aimed at teaching schoolchildren about diversity and tolerance - is really a subterfuge for the pro-homosexual agenda.

The SpongeBob saga has gained plenty of attention - what with gay activists on one side and Heaven's gatekeepers on the other. Focus on the Family's James Dobson has said the video promotes a pro-homosexual agenda. The American Family Association's Ed Vitagliano wrote in the organization's journal that the project's subtext is celebrating homosexuality.

The video, which is scheduled to be aired next month on networks and distributed to some 61,000 schools, was conceived shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way of teaching tolerance in a hate-filled world, say its creators. The idea was that teaching children in their tender years to respect differences would pay off in the long run, leading to a cheerier world in which, presumably, Middle Eastern religious nuts wouldn't fly planes into buildings.

Somehow, I think they've missed their target audience, but never mind. Making the video doubtless made many grownups feel better about their own sorrows and helped move them toward that utopian finale so favored by the bracelet-and ribbon-wearing population - Healing 'n' Closure.

There's now a We Are Family Foundation, a Web site (wearefamilyfoundation.org), a letter-writing campaign urging that March 11 be declared national "We Are Family Day," and, of course, ways to contribute money.

In fact, SpongeBob plays a minor role in the video and seems to have been unfairly impugned. While I vigorously favor protecting children from phase-inappropriate discussions of sexuality, I don't see it here. That said, there's still plenty to cringe about if you're more sympathetically inclined toward Randle Patrick McMurphy than Nurse Mildred Ratched.

What Dobson, Vitagliano and others really are objecting to is that kids viewing the video might be inspired to visit the "We Are Family" Web site and happen upon the Tolerance Pledge, by which one promises to respect all people, even those whose "abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Respecting all people is hardly a radical idea for Christians, but Dobson says on his Web site that inclusion of sexual identity in the pledge "crosses a moral line." Personally, I'm still puzzling over "other characteristics." In any case, the pledge seems unlikely to traumatize children, who probably won't find it interesting, if they find it at all. It isn't mentioned in the video and is available only on the Foundation's Web site.

If teachers decide to incorporate the Tolerance Pledge into their class curriculum, then that's a matter for closer scrutiny and Dobson is right. In the meantime, there's no coercion here. We're unlikely to witness droves of brainwashed tykes reciting diversity pledges to the annoyance of their beer-swilling parents.

And it would be annoying, let's be clear.

What the SpongeBob controversy has revealed is that pledging allegiance to diversity and tolerance is religion by any other name - just as irksome to the devout as Dobson and Vitagliano are to the secular. The purveyors of Feel Good Vibes can be just as dogmatic and unyielding as those who condemn from the pulpit. Whether defending literal scripture or advancing bumper-sticker virtue, the self-anointed protectorate are essentially cut from the same cloth.

And they're likely bound for similar rewards. For what we know about human beings is that people tend to resist that which is imposed from on high. By some natural law that we might call "SpongeBob's Ironic Rule of Reverse Effects," channelers of piety usually exact the opposite of what they intend.

There's nothing like a preacher railing against sin to whet one's appetite for iniquity. And there's nothing like force-feeding children a diet of dogma to turn the little darlings into intolerant totalitarian tyrants. Or angry renegades who will seek an outlet for their rage.

My only comment is she bought the line about the issue being about the video. It was not.
Dobson simply pointed out the agenda of the people pushing the video's distribution.
Their response?
The vicious media onslaught you are seeing.
As soon as the issue broke all the pro-homosexual material magically disappeared from their website (wearefamilyfoundation.org).
They will find nothing to impugn about James Dobson.
Their strategy will be to try and ridicule him.
This is the kind of people you are dealing with folks.
Get used to it. Hopefully some of us have learned a thing or two about dealing with deception.
Verne

Telletubies, Barney the purple dinosaur, and now Sponge Bob.  What's next??  Is Barbie really a lesbian?  Is Ken really gay?  I think Dobson is making a mockery of christianity with his claims.  

I guess the propaganda in your case has been effective Eulaha.
No Christian informed about the life and work of Dr James Dobson would make the kind of comment you just did. Although I do not agree with everything the man says and does, no way I would be joining the rabble of the ones now inveighing against this man who loves Christ and serves his people faithfully.
Verne

I heard somewhere that G.I.Joe had called Ken a "girlie-man," but I don't think Brother Dobson has weighed in on that one yet.

al ;)

P.S.-- Marcia, Your slapping penguin must be in danger of damaging its rotation cuff by now.  The "slapee" has probably suffered permanent brain damage (else why would he keep returning for more?). ;D

Apparently she does not, and that's allright she is entitled.
I will lay you 100 to 1 odds (although I am not normally a gambling man   :)), that she did not hear the original speech at which Dr. Dobson made the remarks for which he is now being so roundly criticized in the media.
I doubt she has seen the before and after configuration of the website. wearefamilyfoundation.org
Christians should be smart. Not lemmings. No offense.
Verne
p.s. people who do not know that "tolerance" and "diversity" are nothing but buzzwords for advancement of the radical homosexual agenda are fast asleep. Some Black folk(and I am not one of 'em) have allowed it to be associated with the quest for racial equality in this country.
Don't get me started... :)

Verne,

I felt that your response to Euhala did not help the discussion, as you did not lay out why you disagreed with her on her opinion of Dobson.  IMO she made a valid observation.

Marcia

I thought I had in the previous post. She was the one who made a an accusatory statement about the man with no basis whatsoever. Did I miss something?
Here again is her statement. Please explain exactly what about it you consider valid. forget about my style for the moment. I am interested in your viewpoint. Unless she prefers to speak for herself of course... :)


Verne

Tell me this: why does no one ever talk about the fact that 50% of Christinas are divorved, and almost 80% of the divorced are re-married?  If we are going to condemn the homosexuals for their "lifestyle choice sins" then we need to condemn the Christians for theirs!  The point is: condemning a particular segment of the population isn't going to bring them to Christ!

Don't get Me started...

Sobering statistics. Tragically true. In some so-called churches the divorce and remarriage rate exceeds that of the general population.
Dobson has spent twenty-five years in dedicated service to strengthening the family by espousing Christian values and principles. The present condition is certainly not his fault.
If he believes that the agenda of radical homosexual activists is hostile to the well-being of the family he has devoted his life to, should he not speak out?
I have taken unbelievable heat by taking a very strong stance among my brethren against men and women who do not have exemplary family lives being placed in positions of responsibilty in the church. I could tell you stories.
I completely agree with you that those of us that have failed to adorn the doctrine in this regard need to sit down and shut the you-know-what up. Dobson is not one of them.
As for the normalizing of homo-sexuality, justifying it will not bring them to Christ either.
We have an obligation to speak Biblical truth, albeit with love on this question. While in this many of us fail, compromise with what God clearly condemns is not the answer either.
You do have a point though. That I readily admit.
Verne

Luke 6:43-45
For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  For every tree is known by his own fruit.  For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Verne,

Would you please refrain from using foul language.  The fruit of the Spirit is ... self control.

No offense Stephen. I did not. The foul language is in your own mind.
Nevertheless. I will try to avoid too colorful expression since it appears to offend you.
Verne
p.s I was going to send this to you as a PM but since it is already in the open, next time I do something that offends you personally send me a PM will ya?
I don't bite... :)

Eulaha

If you are saying why is the Church showing a double standard in some locations I agree that is wrong.

However not all Churches see Divorce and Remarriage the same way because of the text in different passages and the context and the historical references. I struggle with this one too and currently don't agree with Divorce and Remarriage but I am open to be enlightened.

The passages on homosexuality are clear though and cannot be made to mean other things I believe.

Now God loves the sinner and goes out to us all because we all are sinners. What is the problem is when I or you do not acknowledge what God calls a sin in my or your life as sin. Then God cannot help us. The same goes for any sin. What the bible calls a sin is what is important not what I think or want to be included.

We are not to reject any homosexual who comes to us and asks about Jesus. We however must say that Jesus died for sin and will forgive anyone who repents and the bible says what you are doing is sin. Yes others have sinned in other ways you mentioned and that must not be swept under the carpet or given preferencial treatment.

God is inclusive not exclusive and loves us all and wants us to minister to all He sends our way in love.

Lord bless
Hugh

Honest inquiry is not the posture of the homosexual community in general, particularly the activist elements. Christians represent an obstacle to their agenda which must  be overcome by any means necessary, including infiltration. Remember what happened to the moral majority?
This does not mean we have to take a similarly hostile posture, but to entertain any notion that what many of these folk seek is enlightenment and dialogue is illusory. The ultimate objective is to use the law to proscribe any criticism of that life-style.
There is coming a time, when you are simply going to have to stand up and be counted, or go with the flow...make no mistake about it.
Verne

Verne,

In clear, precise and detailed terms, how would you define "colorful expression"?

What benefit do you derive from using a colorful expression?

How does it work?  How does such an expression accomplish its purpose?

Stephen clearly since you took offence at my use of you-know-what and I said I would no longer use the term, that would qualify. Why don't we let sleeping dogs lie?
Look for this verse in your Bible and check the original Greek.
I think it also qualifies as "colorful"

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

I could give you a few more but I certainly don't want you accusing me of being vulgar for quoting Scripture...
Verne
p.s If I use an expression and you find it offensive just let me know and I'll be happy to change it of defend my use of it Stephen, fair enough?

Verne,

Since you are being evasive and dishonest:

The expression that you used you call colorful.  So by this example, I interpret that a colorful expression is intended to bypass rational thought in the hearer and incite anger.  I don't see this as being in any way equivalent to your example of Paul's language.

Galatians 5:22-26
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.  Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

I am truly sorry you feel that way Stephen. I guess I could just PM you all my future posts for your  prior approval...would that satisfy you? I kinda doubt it...
Verne

That is a good question as it is often brought up.  Or, put a slightly different way, why does homosexuality (and abortion) seem to be the top sins that we take strong stances against while others seem to be mildly tolerated?

I thought much about this and here is the best I can come up with.  I am answering in terms of what is happening, not necessarily what should be happening.

First, there is much more ambiguity concerning divorce.  The Bible seems to allow it in some cases.  So there is different opinions among Christians as to how it should be looked at.  There is no possible way you can get around the strong language prohibiting homosexuality without denying that these Scripture have literal validity for today (which, by the way, is what homosexual theologians do).

Second, I think the church has tripped over itself in attempting to help the family - so much so that "Christianity" and "family values" have almost become synonymous terms in some thinking.  I haven't been in a post-Assembly church where there haven’t been seminars on marriage, counseling by the pastor, marriage retreats and troubled marriages referred to Christian counselors.

Third - and I think this is the crux of the matter - there is a certain amount of brazenness about homosexuality that I think has caused such a strong reaction in the church.  Those who get a divorce often come to the church saying, "Yeah, we really blew it and I know it was wrong, but could you help me out here?"   The church doesn't have a big problem with those who sin and admit what they did was sin.

Homosexuals come to the church much differently.  They usually come with a mindset, "Homosexual is what I am.  It is not sin.  Therefore you need to accept me on these terms."  Now the Christian and the homosexual is going toe-to-toe.  If the homosexual admits that his actions are sinful, he is denying, in his mind, his very personhood.  He would have to abandon the very justification for his lifestyle as well as the lifestyle itself.

On the other hand, if the Christian were to say, "all right, don't worry about it.  Come on in and join our church just as you are," he would feel he is rendering the very book upon which he bases his whole world-view as irrelevant.  As Fiddler on the Roof's Tevia said after he accommodated his first two daughter's unorthodox weddings and was faced with his third daughter marrying a Gentile, "If I bend any more, I'll break!"  I think this is how the church feels with the homosexual issue.

Fourth (and this is probably an extension to my third point) there is a very real sense that outspoken homosexuals and homosexual leaders are antagonistic towards the church.  It feels as if they pose a real threat.  Homosexuals would probably argue that the church is the instigator of the conflict in that we are rejecting them.  However, the church would argue that their desire to be part of the church is disingenuous in that they are merely seeking to take control and change the church to accommodate them or (failing that) to destroy it - a tactic they seem to be employing with the Boy Scouts.  

I really dislike the "cultural war" motif.  But, if there is anywhere that it applies, I would think that this is probably it.  It explains why the church reacts stronger to the homosexual issue.  While disentegrating families are indeed hurting the church, it doesn't feel like a "frontal assalt" in the same way that the gay movement presents. (Or looking at it another way, divorsed people don't organize and attempt to push their values on established institutions, but gay people do.)

Now the question:  Is the conflict so broad and the gap so large that the only way the church and homosexuals can get along is to fight to the death?  Or is there a way that we Christians can reach this "un-reached people group"?  In the meantime, do we let them into our small groups and churches?  What if they want to be involved in ministry?  In the Lord's Supper?  In leadership?

I think I have been able to understand the question, but I have yet to have an answer that I feel good about.

E-mail I received today from fotf.

Dr. James Dobson sets the record straight


Dear David,

By now you've undoubtedly heard about the controversy surrounding statements I made recently in which I reportedly accused a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants of being "gay." Although I never made any such comment, the media has repeated the story incessantly, to the point that the truth of the matter has been completely obscured.

Here's what actually happened. In an address to congressional leaders last month, I briefly took the time to express my concern over a video that is being distributed to elementary schools featuring not only SpongeBob, but more than 100 additional children's characters including the Muppets, Barney the Dinosaur, Bob the Builder, and Winnie the Pooh. The video itself is relatively harmless and is devoid of any sexual content. However, it is being incorporated into a larger campaign, created by an organization called the We Are Family Foundation, to teach "tolerance" to young children. Unfortunately, rather than simply encouraging tolerance of those who come from different cultural, religious, or socio-economic backgrounds – which we believe is a worthy objective – the curriculum also contains material designed to encourage young children to celebrate homosexual behavior.

To complicate the issue further, soon after this story broke, the pro-homosexual resources to which we took offense were suddenly removed from the We Are Family Foundation's Web site. However, despite the suspicious disappearance of this material and the public denials on the part of the foundation that it was promoting homosexuality, we have extensive and detailed documentation showing that my original statements are still valid. It should be obvious that my concern lies not with SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of the other characters in the video, but with the way the We Are Family Foundation is hijacking those childhood symbols to blatantly promote the teaching of homosexuality to children in elementary school.

The February edition of my monthly letter, which is being released a few days early, explains this situation in greater detail. It can be accessed on Focus on the Family's Web site by clicking here. I hope you will take the time to read it and get a better understanding of what has transpired. This is especially important if you are a parent with children in public school. Now, more than ever, we must be vigilant in staying abreast of what our little ones are being taught in the classroom.

This is the FOTF website link, through which the other pertinent links can be reached:

                               http://www.family.org/ (http://www.family.org/)

al

A direct link to the article will stay valid longer:

http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm (http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm)

Now that's what I'm talking 'bout folks. This man is an intelligent Christian.
He went to the source and got the real skinny, instead of jumping on some runaway bandwagon. Way to go Dave! Way to go!
Verne

In fairness and for full disclosure - This was an e-mail sent to me so I really didn't have to make much of an effort. ;)