Hello to all my #Exvangelical fam and followers! Welcome to my new followers, I feel like I've been jumping a bit these past few weeks. I'm so genuinely delighted you're here. I mostly say a lot about evangelicalism and once a week I do a REALLY long thread about James Dobson.
It is time for that thread! In our emotional weather report, everything remains terrible, and I feel like I am actively going to die waiting for election day but there's not much we can do but press on. This thread will tie into some of those thoughts (legit by accident).
Usual warning! I go on relatively deep dives in here and it can bring up a lot of religious trauma for people. You are not required to do this, now or ever. Things are very hard right now and we need you to take care of yourself. If that means not reading this thread, that's okay
If you DO feel like reading about James Dobson and Focus on the Family, you have come to the right place because that is my whole thing atm. You know. Between practicum, grad school, work, and trying to maintain a semblance of sanity. Priorities though!
2 final pieces of business before we dive in. 1) if you have not read any of these before, it isn't NECESSARY to be 'caught up' as it were, but if you enjoy them I've been compiling them here.

twitter.com/i/moments/1051…
2) These threads take quite a bit of time, background, and emotional labor to put together. If you feel like buying me lunch or contributing to my student loans, I would love that. With all that out of the way, let's go!

CashApp - $BethanySparkle
paypal.me/BethanySparkle
So I was not kidding that the timing on this thread was WEIRDLY PERFECT. Here we are, elections looming around the corner, and our chapter this week was on James Dobson's political involvement. There is... a lot here, y'all. A lot of it is rough. Maybe get a drink?
Settled? Ready to go? Okay.
I do want to start with the disclaimer that there is a LOT in here about the rise of feminism and such in the 60's and 70's, something that I realized I know not that much about. I'm open to all corrections and expansions on my history.
This chapter is mostly about Dobson telling a story. It's about building a narrative, in many ways creating the ideas that most of us grew up with. Sometimes you can actually see the seams as he's doing it. It's messy and it's ugly. But it's a good time to remember that.
The chapter is called "The Great Awakening" because we must never forget how VERY dramatic these people are. Don't worry. We won't have much of a chance to.
Our last chapter was on criticisms of Dobson, so this one picks right back up where that one left off, saying that one of the most common criticisms of Dobson is that he is "too political" or more specifically that he has "politicized FotF's ministry to parents and children."
The next paragraph is a pretty weird experience for me because I agree with almost everything it says. Basically it says that Dobson has ALWAYS been extremely political, that you can see it right from the opening pages of Dare to Discipline in 1969. This is not new.
Which is... completely correct. In fact I spent an entire quarter writing a blog about how Dobson was politicizing the raising of children using that book, because it was so blatant and ott. He went into this with every intention of making politics front and center.
The next point is that Dobson hasn't really changed the amount of investment they've made at FotF on public policy. Yes, they have a magazine that is all about politics and they've worked hard on state coalitions to fight in the "battle to save the family."
But they've grown at the same rate as everything ELSE over time.
I actually have no idea if this is precisely true. I know that Dobson started a political branch of Focus practically as soon as he started the organization. I think it COULD be at least close to true.
But then their explanation is that only 1% of the FotF government was spent on lobbying activity and 6% was on government involvement. And THAT is sketchy because of course if you are talking about FotF PROPER there is a real limit to how much they can spend on that sort of thing
Because of how they are a nonprofit and there are certain rules that apply to that. Which makes me feel like it is just as possible they are dodging specifics here. Like they are only counting FotF proper and not bring the financials of the Family Research Council in at all.
It's just typically sleazy. But don't worry! Because apparently Dobson's involvement in policy is extremely regulated by 4 very, very strict and well-defined policies which he never, ever violates. Are you ready to hear these inviolate policies? Let's go.
1) He never endorses any political candidates or publicly supports or opposes any politician by name.

*deep breath*
Okay. So I will admit that I cannot say with CERTAINTY what Dobson was doing in the 80's (although if anyone has like a stack of FotF magazines from that time, I will pay you to ship them to me and I am not kidding). Maybe he never ever named a politician. I doubt it.
But what I CAN say with certainty is what he has done over the last decade or so. Very specifically in 2008, Dobson wrote a letter that made a few waves. It was 16 pages long (no really) but it's worth skimming if you've got time.

wnd.com/files/Focuslet…
This letter pretends to be from 2012 "Obama's America" and posits all manner of horrific things that will happen. This letter is actually really important and gives you some interesting insight into the religious right if this circus is new to you.
Almost everything in the letter hinges on Obama being able to stack the courts with liberal judges, at which point all manner of liberal depravity falls on the land, including things like religious adoption agencies being forced out of business, same sex marriage legalized,
various professionals including doctors, social workers, counselors, and pastors being punished for not serving the LGBTQ community, and honestly... so many more things. Pornography, gun ownership, military, education. He covers a lot of ground.
So that was 2008. Clearly naming politicians. I guess maybe he never named a politician in the olden days, it just seems so unlikely (please send me all rebuttals to this). He also actively supported Roy Moore recently so you know. He's a cool guy.
2) He never engages in partisan politics. He has no great admiration for either the Democratic or Republican parties per se, and he is not identified as a supporter of either one.
This is such disingenuous bullshit. My dad used to say this too. He wasn't a Republican, he was a conservative. And to some extent I get it. I don't identify as a Democrat. But let me assure you that I fucking vote Democrat. And it would be nonsense to say I'm not partisan.
Dobson has only ever lobbied for Republicans, as far as I know. He has brutally attacked Democrats. He is as partisan as you can fucking get. Just because he isn't registered Republican doesn't mean he's somehow off the hook for that. There's nothing openminded here.
3) He has absolutely no political ambitions personally. He has not been and never will be a candidate for political office.
I believe that. I think that much as he never wanted to be a secular radio host, being a politician isn't in his wheelhouse. He wants to be in the room where it happens, but he doesn't want to be getting his hands visibly dirty. He wants to be a big fish in a small pond.
4) He never addresses political issues that are unrelated to the family, such as defense policy, foreign relations, or the economy.
Look, this... is just nonsense. You'd probably die if I had you take a shot every time in this chapter he mentions taxes. Because he sees the economy as intimately connected to the family. He has CERTAINLY talked about things like the AIDS crisis in Africa or Vietnam.
And you know what? I don't even disagree, I'm a fucking social worker. I think things ARE connected. I think it matters what we do with our defense spending and our taxes and all those things. But the idea that he's picking and choosing policies is absurd.
(Again, someone's grandma or parents has to have a stack of his old magazine issues in their basement somewhere. Send them to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.)
So why, the book queries, does Dobson meddle in public policy at all, why not just stick to marriage and family?
"The reason Dobson attempts to influence and monitor public policy is because he believes the foundations of the family are being systematically destroyed."
Oh, is THAT all?
I laugh every time they say one of these OTT things but it is also so familiar. I remember hearing this rhetoric all of the time. And keep it in mind, y'all. There's no middle ground here. They aren't looking to compromise. They see this as a war to win.
I suppose I fall under the "people who want to twist and modify [the idea of the family] to fit their humanistic values." That's true. I do want that.
Because of me and others like me, we are assured that marriage is and has been under attack for 20 years.
Bad ideas have included "the sexual revolution, open marriage (hey, there I am!), no-fault divorce laws, devastating taxes, hostility to children, abortion on demand, ridicule of homemakers, war between the sexes, and the plague of obscenity."
So I'm not totally sure what the "plague of obscenity" is. Porn, maybe? But we should pause on this list for a minute because you should remember. This was published in 1989, as I said before. Don't for a second think these people have updated their views - they have not.
The idea of no-fault divorce is looked on with scorn in most evangelical communities. Here is a Salon article that talks about how critical no-fault divorces can be. Particularly in abusive relationships, it can change things hugely.

salon.com/2010/06/17/no_…
We all know how they feel about abortion, that isn't new. Hostility towards children is simply saying people don't want to have them anymore, which wraps up ideas about birth control and expectations of gender roles. Same with the war between the sexes.
These things sound antiquated and bizarre but I guarantee you that as you read this, somewhere an evangelical girl is being told that she has to submit to her husband, that her job is to have children, that divorce is a sin against the lord. The worship of marriage covers abuse.
However we are assured that the reason James Dobson bravely stepped into this fray was because he saw that the family needed protection in Washington DC from people who hated it. ONCE there were people there who "shared our Judeo-Christian understanding." But not now.
So fun thing. Pause for a moment here. Don't ever forget to pay attention to the words they use. They always fucking matter. @NateSparks130 shared a post about this earlier.

This is true. Like really, really true. When I grew up Judeo-Christian was the accepted framing we used always. But it referred to a set of ideals, an understood set of VALUES. And that set of values was WHITE and middle-class and had no room for anything else.
So because they are trying to protect the whiteness of values, the importance of the institutions, they have to fight. We are assured that whoever wins this battle will win the hearts and minds of children, so you can't walk away from a table with such high stakes.
We are told also that the family needs to be not just defended but *represented* in government. Because there are so many special interest groups, they need one too. There's a list of groups given, including the Possum Growers and Breeders.
I have learned from googling this, that apparently there are people who grow and breed possums for food. Which... was not a thing I knew. Here's an article if you are curious about that. What does possum taste like? Also they are constantly roadkill here.
nytimes.com/1975/03/16/arc…
Also mentioned on his list are the "American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists" and the "Confederate Memorial Association." I know the first is supposed to terrify people. I have no idea what his audience is intended to make of the second.
Because the family has NO REPRESENTATION in Washington, we are treated to a diatribe on... taxes. And how once upon a time a middle class family paid virtually no taxes and now they pay so much and no one was there to speak up for them and now mothers can't stay home with kids.
"Someone should have been there to reflect their (the family's) interests when lobbyists were successfully shifting the tax burden from corporations to individual families."

HE WROTE THIS SHIT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.
I mean, I assume. Maybe he was laughing the whole time, idk.
But the idea that anyone would claim that James fucking Dobson was standing in the gap for families so that corporations would have to pay more and families pay less... I mean, we've seen the cards on this. None of these people give a shit about families.
So our author asked Dobson himself to tell us what "lit the fire that still burns in his soul today?" Dobson then writes about 3/4 of the remaining chapter, so brace for that.
It's time for a Dobson history lesson. He explains that when he was "coming of age professionally" it was a troubled time, and the most troubling thing was the Women's Liberation Movement.
I need to pause and note that Dobson was coming of age during the Civil Rights Movement.
Like he published Dare to Discipline 2 years after MLK was murdered. He was alive during some pretty fucking troubling things. But what he is MOST WORRIED ABOUT is women gaining independence. That's not an accident or a design flaw, that's a feature.
He explains that the feminist movement started out okay, wanting equal pay for equal work and for women to get respected and taken seriously at work. That's okay, apparently. He was down with that. He says Congress "rapidly translated many feminist ideas into law."
I am not entirely sure how many feminist ideas were put into law. There was the Equal Pay Act, so I guess he was cool with that one.
Regardless he assures us that after some wins the "REAL agenda of the feminists then came into focus. They wanted the whole pie!"
It would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing. He talks about women burning bras in the streets and declaring war on men. Quotes Steinham. He then says that the media "were cheering widely by this time as feminists demanded civil rights for homosexuals, unrestricted access to...
abortions at government expense, and federally sponsored child-care centers to liberate women from the burden of mothering."
"Every vestige of the Judeo-Christian ethic was assaulted during that era, despite its long history as the culture's central repository of values."
THE CULTURE'S CENTRAL REPOSITORY OF VALUES.
Again. Let's not forget. Judeo-Christian means white. It just does.
It is sometimes hard for me to explain to people that, while there were things about evangelicals voting for Trump that did shock me, there's a lot that doesn't.
And some of what shocked me initially was because I didn't understand what I grew up in. The more I understand, the more sense it makes.
Listen to the language there. The ethic was under assault, even though WE HAVE BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT THIS WHOLE TIME. How dare you?
It doesn't sound that out of place, does it? That was almost 30 years ago, but it sounds pretty fucking present to me. Time hasn't moved much for the EC, they've just switched a few words around. They still feel under attack. They are still sure they know who the enemy is.
Dobson also gets mad because of how the English language got fucked with and we started moving away from using masculine terms for everything. This is the first place he quotes Phyllis Schlafly... more on her later. I can only imagine what he has to say about language NOW.
The horrible things Phyllis is upset about includes that males should be shown wearing aprons and doing chores, mothers should be shown working at a desk while father clears the table, GIRLS REACHING TOWARDS SNAKES INSTEAD OF RECOILING, BOYS CRYING. It's a regular apocalypse.
And of course as the feminists kept marching through the barren landscape lit only with burning bras (okay, that's not IN the book, but it doesn't sound that far afield, does it?), they realize that their major obstacle is marriage. Not sure who had that lightbulb moment.
It's a weird image, right? Like I don't know enough about this period of history, as I said. But I DO know that the thing I learn over and over again as I grow up is that I was never taught history very well. I DO know that feminists were critiquing marriage before the 60's.
It's not just one person who had an idea, good or bad, and then this happens. People build on other ideas. Academic concepts shift over time, build on each other. The same is true of movements. They don't happen all at once, they happen in waves, building on the thing before.
The thing is that DOBSON SHOULD ALSO KNOW THIS. As we have talked about before, he was a researcher, probably a good one. He should understand how things work, how concepts change and grow over time, how one thing relies on the thing before it and that's how we get knowledge.
I think he DOES is the thing. I think he knows he is building a story that doesn't make sense but is dramatic, a story that creates and feeds a war. The idea of evil springing from the ground to attack the family is dramatic. It sells well. It doesn't require looking back.
They quote Shirley MacLaine (Christians really love to talk about how nuts MacLaine was with her new age stuff), about how monogamy is probably overrated and doesn't make sense and maybe if we just listened to ourselves and not the Bible things would be better.
I happen to agree with her this time, but it's a well placed quote to make the Evangelicals roll their eyes. Honestly, the reason she's so often quoted is because she always sounds a bit loopy. So even though they would shrug off her thoughts anyway, this makes it easier.
He cites a whole bunch of quotes from various things about how marriage needs to be taken down. I don't trust most of the quotes, there's a LOT of ellipses in there. But regardless if there was more context, the general message is the same - marriage is outdated.
And then he goes into a tangent I've actually never seen him hit before.
"Let me ask you, the reader, a delicate question about this period in Western history. Where were you when the Christian concept of marital fidelity, lifelong love, commitment to the welfare of children...
protection for the unborn child and two thousand years of family tradition first came under fire? Perhaps you were asleep with the rest of the Christian community."
I've actually never seen him take THIS direct of a guilting approach before, I think it's interesting.
I mean, you know. In answer to your question, Dobson. I wasn't born yet. And now I'm doing my damndest to realize most of your worst fears, thank you for asking.
Dobson then talks about how there was NO ONE STANDING UP TO THESE PEOPLE when it was happening. Which again, I... don't know? Seems unlikely but I just don't know the religious layout of the 70's. I will say that for his proof he cites an article that is... dubious.
Unfortunately I can't link to the article. I could only find it through my school. If someone can find access, please do. It's called "The New Commandment: Thou Shalt Not" from Time Magazine, December 13th, 1971. It's not that long.
Essentially the article is talking about this "new morality" that a couple of the major denominations are taking up. The Lutheran Church was contemplating the idea that maybe not all sex outside of marriage was sinful. Dobson is outraged.
The thing is, it's... stupid and more complicated than that. They are trying to assert that okay yes, it is probably usually wrong but NOT because the act is inherently wrong but because "they are often engaged in for selfish reasons by men and women who are sinful by nature."
But they only agreed to think about this after passing a statement that sex outside of marriage was wrong.
Meanwhile the United Presbytarian Church was considering some kind of 'sliding scale' morality on sex, which made me laugh. I would very much like to see the scale.
The only thing they specifically mentioned was that sometimes adultery might be okay in "exceptional circumstances" and the only example is if a spouse suffers a serious mental incapacity. But again they only agreed to consider this after affirming their existing beliefs.
And finally the United Church of Christ was considering a statement that brought up the idea that maybe extramarital sex could be moral if the partners are committed to the "fulfilling of the others' personhood" which is VERY vague but sort of fascinates me.
But again, no sign they were actually going to change anything at the time and it wasn't even something from conference, it had been handed to them by six Christian educators. So what Dobson is wailing and rending his clothes about are that 3 churches were reading some things.
So Dobson explains that "while he has never been one to throw his theological understandings and beliefs at others..." (we can all pause here while you choke with laughter like I did) he was super angry at the churches for "flirting with evil" because he KNEW IT WAS WRONG.
And of course he tells us we all know it is wrong now because of how there is AIDS and STD's and such and NOW maybe we can all agree that God's plan isn't so out of date AFTER ALL, is it now? Smug son of a bitch, who is also working off absurd premises.
He keeps going for a while about how angry he was at everything. Churches weren't preaching well enough, pastors started "sharing" instead of teaching, no one wanted to say the word sin. The world was going to hell! What were they doing!
He tells us that 1977 was his darkest year, it seemed like the brutal feminists would never be stopped because the politicians were so supportive. Or rather, the presidents' wives were supportive and talked their husbands into it. That is definitely how it is presented.
So then there was a conference! The International Women's Conference in Houston. This, again, was something I did not know much about but I've been doing just some basic Wikipedia learning and... I don't want to shock y'all. But Dobson is about to tell some very specific lies.
So here is the story as Dobson tells it. These crazy and entitled women all took a bunch of money from the government, threw a huge conference and it was a "feminist's dream." Only women with Gloria Steinham's (and others' like her) views could speak.
In spite of the fact that EVERY TAXPAYER HAD PAID FOR THIS no less.
So they come and for a week they throw this orgasmic experience for themselves where they all decide on the same thing and the press is obsessed with them and lapping it up and everything seems completely lost.
But while all this was happening, the thing that they had NO IDEA about was that millions of other women were sitting at home watching. Just average, salt of the earth, good (white) women. Sitting there watching their television, with their bras intact, wondering where they were.
And these wonderful women were able to be mobilized by none other than the miraculous Phyllis Schlafly to stop this in it's tracks. The LANGUAGE he uses to talk about Mrs. Schlafly is frankly ott insane. It is worth noting I have never heard him speak about Shirley so glowingly.
"You talk about a modern day story of David and Goliath. Mrs. Schlafly took on the power structure of the entire country and stopped it cold."
It truly never ceases to amaze me how evangelicals can see themselves as David in that story
YOU RUN THE GODDAMN COUNTRY, YOU LOONS. Every single structure we have was CREATED by you. You aren't toppling some structure in an amazing way. You are fighting to maintain the status quo. That is a DIFFERENT FIGHT, and it isn't a noble one.
He also claims that she was "a single woman in a leaky rowboat against an armada" and that she had the "enthusiastic support of practically no one." Again, I have never heard him describe any woman this enthusiastically.
Now let's roll back for a second. Let's talk about what ACTUALLY happened. I'm sure someone can do better, I'm working on quick research. But I think it matters that I am working on quick research because THAT IS HOW OBVIOUS IT IS THAT HE IS LYING.
So it is true that there was a conference, and the goal of the conference was to come up with a plan of action to hopefully be adopted by Congress. A lot of women were there, including Maya Angelou and Coretta Scott King. I just want to note that because he didn't mention it.
It sounds like there was debate on a number of topics, and that there was a lot going on that didn't come up. Specifically there was discussion and decisions about things like nuclear disarmament and the rights of the disabled, minority and aging women.
That matters because he DEFINITELY left that out for a reason. He wouldn't want to talk about liberals or feminists caring about disabled people or the aging. That would get in the way of his talking points.
Between 17,000 and 22,000 people attended the conference (because apparently it was... hard to get numbers back then?).
Fun fact that did not come up in this book! ACROSS TOWN THERE WAS ANOTHER CONFERENCE! Phyllis Schlafly, that sly bitch, was running a "counter conference."
Wanna know how many people showed? Probably not that many, right? I mean, he told us himself that they had NO WAY OF KNOWING that anyone was paying attention to this, that they were all totally shocked by the fact that it turned out these nice women were watching and objecting.
Seems like it was a regular miracle and probably our pal Phyllis was having a conference in a coffee shop or something, right? Right?
Oh, sorry, no. That's obviously untrue. Her conference netted about 15,000 people. Biggest fucking David I've ever seen.
Look, Schlafly was a hell of an accomplished human - she was just accomplished in evil. She absolutely led a movement and used all of the tactics she had to help make sure that the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, when it seemed a sure thing. All of that is true.
But it's that thing where they want to make it seem like good and evil spring out of the ground full formed, instead of planned and strategized fights. I don't know the details of how Schlafly got her conference together, but I'm sure it was just as intricately planned as theirs.
She didn't win by accident or a blessing from a higher power. She won because she worked at it, and probably some luck, and because she wasn't afraid to appeal to the worst parts of people's natures. She won for a lot of reasons. But providence had nothing to do with it.
So Carter decides they're going to hold another conference and Dobson wants to go. This is another bizarre thing where he paints it as this tiny thing, he writes, he requests to go as a delegate and his letter is ignored. The idea that he even felt he could ASK is telling.
And by that time FotF is on about 150 radio stations so he just... you know. He just MENTIONS on the radio that he is concerned about Houston and that maybe it would be good if he could be there. Then he just HAPPENS to send out a letter expressing the same thing.
What I wouldn't give to see that casual letter.
IMAGINE THEIR SHOCK when the audience flooded the White House with letters. 80,000 letters in a few days, which alarmed the staff. And no shit! It should alarm you. This cult leader has thousands of followers and they're mad.
So he is invited to the event that precedes the conference and he watches a man named Dr. Urie Bronfenbreuner speak. He says he had heard him speak 8 years before and he was opposed to child care centers then but now he was apparently in favor because he was afraid of women.
It couldn't just be that he had changed his mind, right? Dobson doesn't know what that would mean. He simply says that "NO man wanted to take on that angry bunch of women who screamed insults at every male who opposed them." Poor men. What a hard lot in life they are getting.
So surely when Dobson spoke it was awful, right? Those harpies berating him from the seats? I assume? "I spoke that evening on the things in which I believed, and received a polite but unenthusiastic response from the audience."
I... huh. Well. CLOSE to throwing things?
But afterwards he is approached by President Carter's director of White House Conferences, a man named James Guy Tucker. He asks if they can get a coke (do you think it was really a coke? Do we think Dobson drinks? Vote below)
So Tucker sits down and says he was pretty freaked out by all that mail and he didn't agree with Dobson but he sees what he is saying. Basically they meet for 2 hours and Tucker tells him that there is a niche he could fill. Dobson drags it out a bit longer but that's the gist.
To be Christian and have pro-family views but have the credentials is unusual (that is still pretty fucking unusual, let's be clear). I find this fascinating because Dobson is tip-toeing around it a little or whatever but this absolutely IS why he was able to become who he is.
He is unusual. He was just willing to exploit people with his knowledge in ways other people either weren't or didn't know how.
So he claims that that night he made up his mind that he would be active in Washington, that he would figure it out because no one was there.
Because there was all this money in grants and things and no one was speaking up for Christians and the family! He was going to be the one to balance the scales or help or whatever the fuck.
He started Family Research Council in 83, so some version of this could be true.
It was definitely in this time period he started thinking about things anyway.
He claims then he came back to his hotel and he and 8 other Christian men got on their knees (insert raised eyebrows here) and spent the whole night discussing what would BECOME the FRC.
And a few weeks later he is appointed to be a delegate after all, so happily ever after, I guess.
He assures us that they are different from everyone else because they don't care about power in DC, they ONLY care about making people's lives better. lol Sure.
Finally we are back to our author, who immediately begins fawning over how obvious it is that Dobson doesn't care about politics because of how many opportunities he's turned down. He was asked to be considered as commissioner of the Office of Children, Youth and Families
He was approached 3 times about maybe becoming secretary of Health and Human Services (dear GOD how horrifying). He refused all of this. Which, as I earlier stated, doesn't surprise me. I don't think that's really his thing. But I think having it OFFERED makes him happy.
We get a long list of the things he HAS done in Washington and all the committees he's served on. There's a lot. There's a short speech that Reagan gave before presenting him with an award, it's not very interesting, mostly it just talks about how the family is divinely inspired.
Apparently at the point the book was being written, he was still coping with a 30 million dollar lawsuit that was brough against the Pornography Commission by Playboy and Penthouse. There is a lot about how Dobson and others SUFFERED to do this thankless work and now this.
Again, I'm sure this will shock all of you, this does not actually seem to be the full story, or even a very good half of it. Here's one article about the lawsuit.

chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-19…
It would appear that they were suing because the commission sent a letter to a ton of bookstores and convenience stores basically warning them they were distributing illicit material. As it was an official government commission, that was obviously intimidating.
Whatever one thinks about Playboy and Penthouse, there are clearly some issues here that should be looked at. It also ends talking about a dissent claiming the commission was clearly skewed towards violent pornography and they still don't know that much. So you know.
And this is all interesting to me because it doesn't seem like something that Dobson would feel the need to hide. Why would he? My parents would certainly not have been upset the commission sent that letter. Get out the scourge of pornography! Why obscure the story?
Regardless. He's still very concerned about everything, we are told. He took a trip to London and came back VERY distressed about the state of things. So he wrote some words, as he so often does. It's longish but we'll just read it together, shall we?
"Traditional Judeo-Christian values (there we go again, folks) literally hang in the balance [in America]. They can be 'forgotten' in a single generation if they are not taught to children and teenagers. That loss of spiritual consciousness has already occurred in Great Britain,
where 80% of the people attended church 40 years ago. I'm told the figure now is 4%! A generation of young people in Western Europe is also growing up today with NO memory of the Christian faith, no awareness of its spiritual heritage. It could happen here if we don't defend...
what we believe.
Yet Congress continues to pour millions of dollars into organizations that despise our heritage, such as Planned Parenthood and the homosexual movement (apparently we are an organization, y'all, we should suit up). It grants nothing to FotF...
(we wouldn't take it if it were offered) and very little to other conservative organizations like ours. Thus, with all the resources stacking on one side of the ledger, including the power of the press, our point of view is in serious jeopardy. Unless Christians care enough
to defend their concept of morality, fidelity, and parental leadership, it will continue to erode. For my part, I've concluded that enough is enough. We will fight to protect today's children and teenagers from the ravages of hell,
and we need the involvement of those who share our concern."
There's some brief closing words from a friend of Dobson's about how he's disturbed by the "disintegration of our value system" and then the chapter ends.
Here's the thing, y'all. Again. These people have not changed. If you think this sounded like a fucking insane call to arms, YOU ARE RIGHT. I was told hundreds or thousands of times in my life that the liberal agenda, the homosexual agenda, all of them, were leading us to hell.
I was taught about how important it was to take back SCOTUS before I even understood what SCOTUS was. I was taken to anti-abortion rallies before I could talk. Dobson has been a key figure in mobilizing a resistance and they see this as a holy war.
Our country was compared to Rome, LGBTQ rights were seen as a certain sign that we were going to fall LIKE Rome. I'm not shocked when people sometimes take this stuff seriously and shoot people - I'm shocked it doesn't happen more often.
And right now THESE PEOPLE are in power. Everything that Dobson has worked for, everything all of these people have been groomed for and grooming their children for my entire life is happening. And it would be really great if we could do something to get in their way.
We can't reason with them, not with this. But we can fucking vote. Please go vote this week. Because I PROMISE you that they will.
#BlueWave
#votesaveamerica
I love all y'all. Comment, DM me, whatever you like. I appreciate you. We got this.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Majestic Maven of Malevolence
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!