Taking Assertions in an L.A. Times Editorial as Gospel
Jeff Jarvis has a post criticizing James Dobson for comments Dobson allegedly made about SpongeBob SquarePants. His entire post is based on a characterization of Dobson’s remarks as set forth in an L.A. Times editorial. I thought an exchange between Jeff and myself in his comments was worth discussing here.
I have watched SpongeBob a few times and think it’s mildly amusing; I have never watched James Dobson. But I criticized Jeff for taking statements in an L.A. Times editorial as gospel. I said to Jeff, in an admittedly snarky tone:
Well, if an LA Times editorial says it, it *must* be true!
Jarvis responded:
Patterico: Are you really that obsessed with the LATimes? I could have picked a summary from a score of papers, happened to pick that one. Or perhaps you have stumbled upon the vast mainstream religious conspiracy….
I responded:
Jeff,
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I am not religious and I don’t care a whit for James Dobson. I hardly know anything about him.
But I do know something about the L.A. Times. And knowing The Times as I do, I would be very reluctant to use an editorial of theirs as a source of fact — particularly relating to a hot-button “culture war” issue such as this. The paper simply has too checkered a history of misstating the facts on “culture war” issues like gun control, abortion, and criminal justice.
By the way, I doubt that the L.A. Times is unique in this failing. It just happens to be the paper I read most closely. I am not impressed that you could provide summaries from scores of papers, because I have seen scores of papers get the same basic facts wrong — especially when targeting a popular villain such as Justice Scalia or James Dobson.
On an issue like this, until I saw a full transcript of Dobson’s remarks, I would assume that there is a chance the guy is being smeared — no matter how many papers summarize his remarks. I don’t mean to defend Dobson, or even to affirmatively claim that the papers got it wrong. I’m just saying that I’d be very wary about accepting their characterizations at face value on something like this.
That’s not love of James Dobson speaking, and it’s not religious belief speaking. It’s a fundamental distrust of the media’s ability to fairly portray any bitterly divisive social issue with a convenient conservative villain.
Unrelated aside: I get annoyed when people characterize me as “obsessed” with the L.A. Times. That strikes me as a cheap way to devalue and marginalize my criticisms. If someone asserts bias on such issues, but doesn’t document it, they are told they lack the evidence. If a critic does painstakingly document it, as I do, people who disagree with the critic will portray him as a crazed obsessive.
I think your crusade against the FCC is admirable, and I’d call your attitude “dogged.” But then, I agree with you. I’ll bet those who don’t — those who want the government to control broadcast speech in this country — would call your posts about the FCC “obsessive.” Wouldn’t you rather have such people engage you on the issues, rather than attempt to marginalize you with rhetoric about your “obsessiveness”?
For what it’s worth, there appear to be several other people in Jeff’s comments who agree with me that an L.A. Times editorial is not the best source for the facts on an issue like this.
UPDATE: Instapundit provides a link to this enlightening editorial in Toon Zone News. I almost never follow silly kerfuffles like this, but after doing a little reading, it appears the whole “controversy” was manufactured by this New York Times story, which contains a single quote from Dobson: “Does anybody here know SpongeBob?”
As for the rest of what Dobson supposedly said, we get to trust the NYT reporter.
How the L.A. Times knows that Dobson said this “darkly,” as their editorial claims, I have no idea.
Also via Instapundit is Dobson’s statement on the controversy. His assertion that the organization in question is pursuing an agenda of tolerance of homosexuality is correct, as this link shows.
I am for tolerance of homosexuality, myself. But those who feel differently because of their religious views are not evil, in my view. I just disagree.
Right, the LA Times editorial had some spin, but it wasn’t really THAT FAR from the truth. Some morons made one of these touchy-feely movies to promote tolerance and diversity, using SpongeBob and some other cartoon characters. Instead of addressing the message (that it’s OK to be gay, or black, or a gimp, or whatever), Dobson went after SpongeBob. That was a fuckup on his part.
The rest of it depends on how far you want to go with tolerance. If it means you don’t beat up a sixth-grade classmate because he’s queer, we can probably all sign up. But if it means sending your boy camping with a gay priest, we probably can’t.
Different people have different ideas about the message of the film. That’s as it should be.
Comment by Richard Bennett — 1/22/2005 @ 2:00 pm
Richard,
I can sign on to most of what you say. But I don’t know that Dobson “went after” SpongeBob — because to believe that, I have to trust the L.A. Times and New York Times.
Comment by Patterico — 1/22/2005 @ 2:07 pm
It’s pretty clear both from Dobson’s statement and from his interview on H&C that he didn’t “go after” SpongeBob - at all. He went after the content of the video, which is fair game. He also mentioned that SpongeBob appears in that video, which is true.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/22/2005 @ 3:04 pm
The Intolerance of Tolerance
Print Commentary
Email to a Friend
Gregory Koukl
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America’s noblest virtues has been so distorted it’s become a vice.
There is a modern myth that holds that true tolerance consists of neutrality. It is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism.
The tolerant person occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No “forcing” personal views. Each takes a neutral posture towards another’s convictions.
This approach is very popular with post-modernists, that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, “There is no truth,” is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.
For all their confident bluster, the relativists’ appeal actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral. The first is the “truth” that there is no truth. The second is the moral truth that one ought to tolerate other people’s viewpoints. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.
Three Elements of Tolerance
Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.
Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can’t tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.
This essential element of tolerance–disagreement–has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.
Three Faces of Tolerance
Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to different things–persons, behaviors, or ideas–and the rules are different for each.
Tolerance of persons, what might be called “civility,” can be equated with the word “respect.” This is the classical definition of tolerance: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal.
We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of the differences.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. This is the second sense of tolerance, the liberty to act, called tolerance of behavior. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes–and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs–but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is immoral or a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln’s words: There is no right to do wrong.
Tolerance of persons must also be distinguished from tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of persons requires that each person’s views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than another’s is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.
These three categories are frequently conflated by muddled thinkers. If one rejects another’s ideas or behavior, he’s automatically accused of rejecting the person and being disrespectful. To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.
Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior. This is a critical distinction because, in the current rhetoric of relativism, the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for behavior: premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, use of pornography, etc. People ought to be able to behave the way they want within broad moral limits, the argument goes.
Ironically, though, there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality and religion. If one advocates a differing view, he is soundly censured. The tolerance issue has thus gone topsy-turvy: tolerate most behavior, but don’t tolerate opposing beliefs about those behaviors. Contrary moral opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others.”
Instead of hearing, “I respect your view,” those who differ in politically incorrect ways are told they are bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant.
A case in point was an attack made in my community paper on Christians who were uncomfortable with the social pressure to approve of homosexuality. I wrote the following letter to the editor to show how the modern notion of tolerance had been twisted into a vice instead of a virtue:
Dear Editor:
I am consistently amazed to see how intolerant South Bay residents are to moral views other than their own. Last week’s letters about homosexuality were cases in point. One writer even suggested that your publication censor alternate opinions!
This narrow-mindedness and self-righteous attitude about sexual ethics is hypocritical. They challenge what they view as hate (it used to be called morality) with caustic and vitriolic attacks. They condemn censure by asking for censorship (there’s a difference). They accuse others of intolerance and bigotry, then berate those same people for taking a view contrary to their own.
Why is someone attacked so forcibly simply for affirming moral guidelines about sex that have held us in good stead for thousands of years?
Not only that, the objections are self-defeating. The writers imply that everyone should be allowed to do and believe what they want and that no one should be permitted to force their viewpoint on others. But that is their viewpoint, which they immediately attempt to force on your readers in an abusive way. Those with opposing beliefs were referred to in print as bigots, lacking courage, disrespectful, ignorant, abominable, fearful, indecent, on par with the KKK, and–can you believe it–intolerant.
Why don’t we abandon all of this nonsense about tolerance and open-mindedness? It’s misleading because each side has a point of view it thinks is correct. The real issue is about what kind of morality our society should encourage and whether that morality is based on facts and sound reasoning or empty rhetoric.
Intellectual Cowardice
Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don’t engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult–”you intolerant bigot”–than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. “Tolerance” has become intolerance.
The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound. This is still a good guideline.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show “Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl
Comment by Willie Dudley — 1/22/2005 @ 4:24 pm
1. Criticisms of Los Angeles Times are the most interesting to me because I live in SoCal, and that’s the paper I read. And it is absurdly left-wing.
2. Accusations are hyporcrisy are the lasiest form of rhetoric, and are just not that interesting. Oh the horror - some guy said one thing on one topic then has a different opinion on a slightly different topic at a different time. Big deal.
3. I’m ashamed to admit that I enjoy how each side of the political spectrum nitpicks the most extreme positions of the other side. One guy at NYT comes out against one Conservative who is annoyed at a cartoon that is kind of gay. Fox News comes out and blasts that bozo at the DemocraticUnderground blog who says the tsunami is the Earth twitching at the pain caused by the bombs in Iraq. So the tsunami is Bush’s fault.
Comment by Ladainian — 1/22/2005 @ 4:59 pm
1. Criticisms of Los Angeles Times are the most interesting to me because I live in SoCal, and that’s the paper I read. And it is absurdly left-wing.
2. Accusations of hyporcrisy are the lasiest form of rhetoric, and are just not that interesting. Oh the horror - some guy said one thing on one topic then has a different opinion on a slightly different topic at a different time. Big deal.
3. I’m ashamed to admit that I enjoy how each side of the political spectrum nitpicks the most extreme positions of the other side. One guy at NYT comes out against one Conservative who is annoyed at a cartoon that is kind of gay. Fox News comes out and blasts that bozo at the DemocraticUnderground blog who says the tsunami is the Earth twitching at the pain caused by the bombs in Iraq. So the tsunami is Bush’s fault.
Comment by Ladainian — 1/22/2005 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks for your comments, and refering me to this, your website. I would like to be more specific in the role I see in Dr. Dobson’s responsibility in the way his comments were taken. He is not operating in a vaccuum, we all romped through Dr. Falwell’s Tiggie-bashing. He was well aware of the connections to be drawn.
If the Rev. wants to align himself with attention-getting right wing elements, then he should not be absolved, IMHO, from the association.
Tolerance isn’t a dirty word. It’s a lot better than the alternative. Talk about standards that have stood us in good stead for a thousand years must include the subjugation of women, racial biases, voting regulations which give votes only to property owning men, refusal of education to races that are not northern European. Does anyone really want to hold onto these?
As to Dr Dobson’s exact words, our only sources are the media that reported on them, he hasn’t clarified, himself.
Okay, my experiences with religious right wing elements has been less than positive, I have an elderly mother who is preyed on by these elements. But I doubt that if there was a pretty picture to be painted here, it wouldn’t have already been fully fleshed out.
The LATimes may be all sorts of inaccurate. But if they are given a certain sort of image by the reported-upon, the reported-upon is responsible for wrapping itself in that particular flag, wouldn’t you agree?
Comment by Ruth — 1/23/2005 @ 11:51 am
Although Dobson hasn’t necessarily clarified his exact words, he has issued a statement (see my UPDATE) which appears to contradict the insinuations of the newspapers.
Comment by Patterico — 1/23/2005 @ 1:54 pm
I did follow that and found that the objection was that the character was being used to ‘promote the acceptance of homosexuality’. Maybe you don’t have grandchildren. I do. They are perfectly aware of, and accept homosexuality. They are influenced by the attitudes around them, and in grade school and junior high school the kids around them think religious intolerance is pretty weird and that the kids who have these problems deserve the sympathy they get. The grownups should just grow up.
Comment by Ruth — 1/23/2005 @ 2:32 pm
As I have said many times, I am laissez-faire on the issue of homosexuality. My only point is that, from what I can tell, Dobson is attacking the message of the video and the group behind it — not necessarily the SpongeBob character per se. Certain newspapers may claim otherwise, but I don’t trust them to report accurately.
Comment by Patterico — 1/23/2005 @ 3:07 pm
Spot on P.
By the way - I get the “you’re obsessed with copyright issues” line all the time, so I know what you are going through.
Comment by Justin Levine — 1/23/2005 @ 7:41 pm
Ruth: “preyed on by these elements”? If these “elements” are really evangelical Christians, then in my experience this “preying on” consists of helping her with mobility problems, keeping her company, and generally trying to make her life on this earth a bit more comfortable. Is that “preying”?
Or are you offended at the religious messages they give her? Frightened that she is going to come to a decision that you wouldn’t like? Disturbed at the thought of ending up with one of “these elements” in the family? Oh, but that would be a bit bigoted, wouldn’t it?
Why can’t you just learn to tolerate “these elements”?
Comment by Doc Rampage — 1/23/2005 @ 8:58 pm
On H&C, Dobson went on to clarify that he was only semi-attacking even the message of the video. His main point, which I find eminently reasonable, is that parents should be made aware of this sort of thing first. If they agree with it and want their kids to learn it, that’s fine.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/23/2005 @ 9:05 pm
It’s quite similar to the stink about Tripp’s book “The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln,” who claims to have found proof Lincoln was a homo. Even though no one besides Tripp can see proof of the claim, for homo activists that doesn´t matter. Historian Philip Nobile, who was at one time a co-author of Tripp’s, revealed recently, amid the controversy the book generated:
“The book is a hoax and a fraud: a historical hoax, because the inaccurate parts are all shaded toward a predetermined conclusion, and a literary fraud, because significant portions of the accurate parts are plagiarized–from me, as it happens.”
Nobile reports a phone call from AIDS activist and writer Larry Kramer:
“IF YOU DON’T STOP MAKING A STINK about Tripp’s book, I’m going to expose you as an enormous homophobe,” Larry Kramer telephoned me to say last October. “For the sake of humanity, please, gays need a role model.” I replied that the book was so bad, it would backfire on the homosexual movement when reviewers and readers caught on to the fabrications, contradictions, and general nuttiness of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.
Why can´t pro-homosexuals stop lying? They have no arguments besides Dobson smears and historical lies?
Comment by Alessandra — 1/24/2005 @ 2:43 am
If awareness is all Dobson was promoting, then anyone can agree with him, but his way of promoting awareness seems a little extreme. If the issue of homosexuality weren’t singled out, exclusive of other estranging characteristics such as race, religion, etc., it would have been less offensive IMHO.
As to Doc Rampage’s comment, I would not have called ‘preying’ the comforting of my mother, it is the calling on her for contributions to the point she sometimes doesn’t heat her home that I call ‘preying’. She has a few friends who, with me, call on her and make sure she has what she needs and run errands for her. They are not ‘these elements’, those are the religious right wing.
Comment by Ruth — 1/24/2005 @ 5:37 am
Patterico,
Some background on Dr. Dobson.
James Dobson first gained a widespread parental audience years ago with his well-known publications, Dare to Discipline and Love Must Be Tough, based on his professional experiences treating dysfunctional family relationships. The first publication provided a counter-argument to the once unchallenged Dr. Spock’s “gospel” on child rearing by documenting Dobson’s experiences and insights gained while treating dysfunctional parental-child relationships. The other book provided insights gained from treating severely damaged marital relationships; directing most of its guidance towards victims of spouse abuse.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Comment by Ariana — 1/24/2005 @ 6:32 am
Patterico,
Some background on Dr. Dobson.
James Dobson first gained a widespread parental audience years ago with his well-known publications, Dare to Discipline and Love Must Be Tough, based on his professional experiences treating dysfunctional family relationships. The first publication provided a counter-argument to the once unchallenged Dr. Spock’s “gospel” on child rearing by documenting Dobson’s experiences and insights gained while treating dysfunctional parental-child relationships. The other book provided insights gained from treating severely damaged marital relationships; directing most of its guidance towards victims of spouse abuse.
Comment by Ariana — 1/24/2005 @ 6:35 am
Two points:
1. Re: obsession — Ramesh Ponnuru came to national attention for his book on political correctness run amok on college campuses. I recall that Wm Buckley hosted a televised debate on the question of political correctness on campus and Ramesh was part of it. He had exhaustively documented countless examples of liberal bias and political correctness on campus. One of the debaters on the other side was a woman who was president of Bard College. The debate was far too nice and too agreeable until, right at the end, the Bard pres just went off on Ramesh and how ridiculous it was that he had assembled all these stories.
Ramesh made the same point you did.
2. re: partisan media bias — I have a post at Two Minute Offense recalling an admission by the ombudsman of the Wash Post of partisanship.
Comment by stan — 1/24/2005 @ 7:38 am
Wasn’t so long ago we heard crap along these lines:
“I am for tolerance of Jews, myself. But those who feel differently because of their religious views are not evil, in my view. I just disagree.”
“I am for tolerance of blacks, myself. But those who feel differently because of their religious views are not evil, in my view. I just disagree.”
I’m reasonably confident that sentiments such as Patterico’s will, in time, appear just as revolting as the examples above.”
Comment by m.croche — 1/24/2005 @ 4:03 pm
Clod: since when is “black” a religion?
Comment by Xrlq — 1/24/2005 @ 4:11 pm
Wait, Ruth. Some con artists are calling your mother to try to get donations, and because they use a religious come-on, you are assuming they are the “religious right wing”? If the callers were scamming your mom to “protect the children of Israel”, would you say that your mom is being preyed on by “the Jews”?
Face it Ruth, you have a serious problem of bigotry against the religious right. You are willing to believe the worst of them in any situation and to blame the entire group for the actions of any individual that you think might be remotely related to the group.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 1/25/2005 @ 11:54 pm
Sorry Patterico, as usual right wingers hone in on anyone whose beliefs are different from their own, and ignore the theme of the post. Note that the gentle image of comforting legions this Doc R tried to evoke didn’t work out, so now I am accused of being hopelessly prejudiced, all of which has no bearing on the issue of Dobson’s campaign and its silliness.
Mark Davis has an interesting editorial on the
Dallas Morning News site, “Values are Threatened …”, concluding “…this might constitute an incursion into a family’s establishment of the values of its choice./ But at what cost…?” Again, it seems that Bro. Dobson cannot operate in a vaccuum when it comes to zeroing in on cartoon characters.
And may I note that choosing to inculcate a family with prejudice against non-conforming members of society is not doing that family a favor. There is a campaign against name-calling that has been launched in the schools. Good and healthy, and of course it has its detractors on the grounds that anti-gay feelings are not the concern of others, for their families.
(I am a reformed evangelical Christian.)
Comment by Ruth — 1/26/2005 @ 6:51 am
Ruth, you’re the one who’s ignoring the theme of the post. Doc didn’t bring up “religious right wing elements,” you did, using those exact words, only to later object to his use of the words “these elements.” Whatever they’re called, they’re completely irrelevant to the theme of this discussion. James Dobson is a spongophobic bigot because some other religious guys badgered your mother for donations? Please!
Comment by Xrlq — 1/26/2005 @ 9:40 am
If you will look back over what I said, Xrlq, you will find that I re-used ‘these elements’ to make clear what I meant by the elements who are preying on my mother. You will note that I mentioned my mother’s predicament with the note that I admittedly have a bad experience as the context for my views of religious right wingers, pointing out my own negative experience. It is my experience that personal attacks are the last defense of those who aren’t being persuasive on the strength of their arguments. Oh, did I step on anyone’s feelings? Pity.
Comment by Ruth — 1/26/2005 @ 3:35 pm
Who’s resorting to personal attacks? All I did was point out how silly your logic was.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/26/2005 @ 4:01 pm
I realize this is difficult but try reading what was written, then reacting to what was written. Then try logic for your reaction - it’s not that hard.
Personal reaction is not the reaction to argument that disagrees. Oh, well.
Start with the base argument and you may proceed to a counterargument. But you have to comprehend the base argument first.
Comment by Ruth — 1/26/2005 @ 6:50 pm
Right. And the base argument was a statement by James Dobson. It has zero, zip, nada to do with the other “right wing elements” who allegedly prey on your mother.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/26/2005 @ 8:24 pm
Actually, Xrlq, I think Patterico’s post about Dobson and Ruth’s attitude toward evangelicals are closely related. Patterico was pointing out that Dobson may have been unfairly treated based on poor information. He was primarly concerned with the source of information, but it’s related to the question of why anyone would write a hit piece on Dobson.
Ruth nicely illustrates for us the attitude of religious bigotry. Some scammers are (reportedly) victimizing her mother, using the language of the religious right, and she links these people to Dobson on the basis of nothing more (as far as I can tell) than the language they use.
Ruth is practicing the same kind of stereotyping and religious intolerance that the L.A. Times was using.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 1/27/2005 @ 12:34 am
Ruth: I didn’t home in on everyone who’s beliefs are different. I had no quarrel with Patterico, even though he has a radically different opinion on this than I do. I homed in on the person who was displaying religious intolerance in the name of tolerance.
No one is concerned about a “campaign against name-calling”. If that is all that people meant by “tolerance”, then there would be no opposition. But as you and others in this discussion (here and elsewhere) have so amply demonstrated, what you mean by “tolerance” is not simply “live and let live”, but rather total, unconditional acceptance of their behavior. Anything less, you label as “intolerance”.
Dobson, and every evangelical I know would all agree that it’s wrong to mock and abuse someone just because they are a sinner (or for any other reason). They teach their children that, and at great length, as I can attest, having grown up in evangelical Sunday Schools.
In fact, they go much further. Christians are not merely to tolerate the sinner, but to love him. And part of love means telling the truth to him.
You think evangelicals are not aware of how much political capital it costs them to oppose the homosexual agenda? Too many think the only motivation they could have for this politically unwise position is hatred (and I don’t think that speaks so well for the people who can’t imagine any other motivation). But their real motivation is love. They genuinely believe that sexual immorality is deadly to the sinner, and they will not stop warning the sinner just to help themselves politically.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 1/27/2005 @ 12:54 am
[...] rday’s L.A. Times editorial, which directly attributes such statements to Dobson. I blogged about this two weeks ago, criticizing Jeff J [...]
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » More Made-Up Stuff in an L.A. Times Editorial — 2/6/2005 @ 7:02 pm