Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Dear Jimmy: Would Jesus be a member of Focus on the Family?

By Todd A. Heywood | 07.04.08 | 6:24 am

[COMMENTARY]

James Dobson, Ph.D.
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995

June 25, 2008

Dear Jimmy,

How ya doin’ over there in Colorado? I hear spring is lovely in the mountains, and I remember, although vaguely, a time when I was 14 visiting the Air Force Academy. Lovely place. I even bought a ring there.

It’s just too bad my whole perception of Colorado Springs has been poisoned by the bile and filth that you and your organization, Focus on the Family, regurgitate on a regular basis. Generally, I ignore your homophobic, sexist, race-baiting language and comments. Frankly, for a man with a Ph.D., you seem quite stupid to me. Sorry for so many big words. I know a man with a Ph.D. might have trouble understanding them.

But your recent attack on the presumptive Democratic nominee went overboard.

First, you are quoted in The Bulletin, Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper, as stating, and I quote:

“I am not a Reverend. I am not a minister. I am not a theologian. I am not an Evangelist. I am a psychologist.”

Um … OK. I note you don’t mention you are also not a constitutional law professor, but that certainly doesn’t stop you from calling Barack Obama — who is, by the way, a constitutional law professor — and his interpretation of the Constitution a “fruitcake interpretation.”

Continued -
But these “I am nots” evidently don’t really matter to you when you decide to pontificate on matters. While not being a “theologian,” a “minister,” a “reverend” or an “Evangelist,” you don’t hesitate to attack Obama on his own beliefs. You called his understanding of Scripture “distorting the Bible.”

The senator from Illinois made a damn good point in his speech. The Bible in places does endorse slavery, and it does call eating shellfish an abomination. It also condemns people for wearing mixed-fiber clothing (which your suits are, by the way) and says that women should be placed in a menses shack for the seven days of their menstruation. During that time, no person should have contact with the women, as they are unclean.

So, Mr.-I-am-not-a-theologian-not-a-minister-not-a-reverend-not-an-evangelist-psychologist, just which part of the Sermon on the Mount is it you think we are living up to? Is it the “love thy neighbor” passage?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Here, Jesus is asking us to love everyone, the same, without condition. I think we all fall a wee short of that provision. And you are certainly no exception.

Just exactly how are you loving, unconditionally, a gay couple, a rape victim, or the family of a brain-dead woman kept alive by machines for no other reason than others couldn’t let go? That’s what you expect from leaders, according to your May 12 speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, when you said:

“It causes me to wonder who will be left to carry the banner when this generation of leaders is gone. The question is, will the younger generation heed the call? Who will defend the unborn child in the years to come? Who will plead for the Terri Schiavos of the world? Who’s going to fight for the institution of marriage, which is on the ropes today?

Hey, maybe your idea of unconditional love is a bit more conditional than mine.

Maybe, perhaps, your issue is with honesty.

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’

“But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.

“But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ Anything beyond these is of evil.”

You have accused the senator of distorting the Bible, yet you have no issue with distortions.

“I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine

Comments

  • Grej

    Would Jesus be a member of Focus on the Family? Would Jesus be a member of Focus on the Family? I don’t know. Would he be a member of Trinity United Church of Christ? I would think almost certainly not. AS far as I know, there is only one Church that goes back two thousand years  to the time of Jesus.

    Believe me, as a Christian, I will love Mr. Obama even as I am pulling the ‘yes’ lever for Mr. McCain

    We should always have hope for our country but things are definitely not like they should be.

      One should always have hope. Right now it is hope against hope.

    When the Founding Fathers declared their freedom from the British monarchy in 1776, they based their argument on the unalienable rights of equality and “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

    We need to think about what that means.

      From the scripture:

    “What you do to the least of these you do unto me”

    “Before I knit you in your mother’s womb I knew

    you”.

    Both the present Pope, the previous one, John Paul II and Mother Theresa said that abortion was the pre-eminent moral issue.

    Without the right to life all other
    rights have no meaning. That precious
    infant in the mother’s womb deserves a chance just like all of us.

    Mr. McCain had an 89% pro-life voting record in the Senate .

    Mr. Obama? 0%.

    In addition to being our most pro-life
    president ever, Mr. Bush spent more on social
    welfare programs and combatting AIDs than any
    previous chief executive. He appointed more
    African-Americans to top positions in the
    Federal government tnan anyone previously had.
    He tried but failed to come up with some
    kind of immigration reform.
    More money was put into New Orlean for disaster
    recovery than anywhere else in the history of the country.
    We’ve lost 4000 soldiers in Irag but progress
    is being made. We lost 50,000 in Vietnam and left there with nothing really accomplished.
    The present Pope, when he was a cardinal, said

    that one could disagree over issues such as war and the death penalty and still be a good Christian.

    Abortion and homosexuality are always

    and forever more wrong and serious evils. They

    were wrong two thousand years ago and will be

    two thousand years from now.

    I should qualify what I wrote about(above) Mr Obama’s

    pro-life voting record in the Senate.  He did

    cast one pro-life vote (to save the life of Terri Schiavo). He now said he regrets doing that, however. So, de facto he does have a 0%.

    By the way, when he was in the Illinois legislature he voted against requiring a physician to save the life of an infant who

    had survived a botched abortion. This is a more extreme position than even most pro-abortion groups like NARAL have. He is as far as I know the most pro-abortion, pro homosexual candidate ever to run for president. If this man represents the new Christianity and the new America, God help us all.

    This country did great things by getting rid of slavery and segregation. But with abortion and homosexual marriage we have only traded one set of evils for another.

    Nothing sanctioned by man can have any validity or lasting if it is not also likewise sanctioned by God.

    Mr Obama is a very good orator.
    No man, however can come before God or the word of God.

    Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey has a very grim prognosis of what a President Obama would mean fro the Pro-Life movement.

    He said it would mean a complete reversal of all the gains and legislative accomplishments the movement has gained over these many years and even referred to it as the “Waterloo” of the pro-life movement.

    GJ Miller

  • beaware

    tolerance Excellent article Todd-
    I think Jesus would be tipping over tables again, should He come back, and all the TV cameras in the temples would be catching it. I remember a dear Sweet Elderly Lady who taught me Scriptures as a child,(eons ago), and one of the Lessons taught to all us shining faced little cherubs, was the love that the Savior gave those people shunned by the so called Righteous. Thanks T.

  • Grej

    Would Jesus be a member of Focus on the Family? Would Jesus be a member of Focus on the Family? I don't know. Would he be a member of Trinity United Church of Christ? I would think almost certainly not. AS far as I know, there is only one Church that goes back two thousand years  to the time of Jesus.

    Believe me, as a Christian, I will love Mr. Obama even as I am pulling the 'yes' lever for Mr. McCain

    We should always have hope for our country but things are definitely not like they should be.

      One should always have hope. Right now it is hope against hope.

    When the Founding Fathers declared their freedom from the British monarchy in 1776, they based their argument on the unalienable rights of equality and “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

    We need to think about what that means.

      From the scripture:

    “What you do to the least of these you do unto me”

    “Before I knit you in your mother's womb I knew

    you”.

    Both the present Pope, the previous one, John Paul II and Mother Theresa said that abortion was the pre-eminent moral issue.

    Without the right to life all other

    rights have no meaning. That precious

    infant in the mother's womb deserves a chance just like all of us.

    Mr. McCain had an 89% pro-life voting record in the Senate .

    Mr. Obama? 0%.

    In addition to being our most pro-life

    president ever, Mr. Bush spent more on social

    welfare programs and combatting AIDs than any

    previous chief executive. He appointed more

    African-Americans to top positions in the

    Federal government tnan anyone previously had.

    He tried but failed to come up with some

    kind of immigration reform.

    More money was put into New Orlean for disaster

    recovery than anywhere else in the history of the country.

    We've lost 4000 soldiers in Irag but progress

    is being made. We lost 50,000 in Vietnam and left there with nothing really accomplished.

    The present Pope, when he was a cardinal, said

    that one could disagree over issues such as war and the death penalty and still be a good Christian.

    Abortion and homosexuality are always

    and forever more wrong and serious evils. They

    were wrong two thousand years ago and will be

    two thousand years from now.

    I should qualify what I wrote about(above) Mr Obama's

    pro-life voting record in the Senate.  He did

    cast one pro-life vote (to save the life of Terri Schiavo). He now said he regrets doing that, however. So, de facto he does have a 0%.

    By the way, when he was in the Illinois legislature he voted against requiring a physician to save the life of an infant who

    had survived a botched abortion. This is a more extreme position than even most pro-abortion groups like NARAL have. He is as far as I know the most pro-abortion, pro homosexual candidate ever to run for president. If this man represents the new Christianity and the new America, God help us all.

    This country did great things by getting rid of slavery and segregation. But with abortion and homosexual marriage we have only traded one set of evils for another.

    Nothing sanctioned by man can have any validity or lasting if it is not also likewise sanctioned by God.

    Mr Obama is a very good orator.

    No man, however can come before God or the word of God.

    Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey has a very grim prognosis of what a President Obama would mean fro the Pro-Life movement.

    He said it would mean a complete reversal of all the gains and legislative accomplishments the movement has gained over these many years and even referred to it as the “Waterloo” of the pro-life movement.

    GJ Miller

  • beaware

    tolerance Excellent article Todd-

    I think Jesus would be tipping over tables again, should He come back, and all the TV cameras in the temples would be catching it. I remember a dear Sweet Elderly Lady who taught me Scriptures as a child,(eons ago), and one of the Lessons taught to all us shining faced little cherubs, was the love that the Savior gave those people shunned by the so called Righteous. Thanks T.

  • Todd A. Heywood

    So… So you will support McCain, who has promised 100 years more war in Iraq, over Obama, because Obama has supported the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion? And just what exactly have you been doing for all the children that are being born as a result of the draconian rules, regulations and laws passed by right wings zealots to control other's bodies?

    Abortion is something that should be legal, safe and rare. But when our federal government refuses to allow health education to teach about condoms and other pregnancy prevention  methods, in conjunction with abstinence education; we are preparing our young people for out of wedlock pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and other issues. You are not being compassionate when you are not arming people with the knowledge to prevent pregnancy, then punishing them for not having that knowledge in the first place.

    Your love of “life” like most prolifers ends with the birth of the child. Jesus would shun you as surely as he shunned the Pharisees. 

  • Michael Heath

    “Pro-life” a rhetorical fallacy Mr. Miller,

    Your continued use of the term “pro-life” is a rhetorical fallacy easily discredited by the facts.  A more accurate depiction of your position is that you oppose legal abortions, not that you are pro-life or even that you are an advocate of reducing or eliminating abortions.

    Given that other developed countries which have legal abortions and have also have instituted policies opposed by American anti-abortion groups that have been much more effective in reducing the number of abortions in their countries compared to both America and countries where abortion is illegal, your “pro-life” mantra appears unearned.

    One can claim the moral high-ground when they leave their ideologies at the door and work for optimal results, even if those results challenge their preconceived but discredited religious beliefs.  You sir come nowhere close to meeting this standard given your opposition to choice does not reduce the rate of abortion (as shown in countries where it is illegal) while also attacking right to life and other human rights issues affecting life that affect the 6 billion of us already born.

    I would not claim your objection to legal abortion is a morally indefensible objection, I do respect and appreciate many aspects of the anti-abortion argument.  However, I find the people that usually support anti-abortion causes have less respect for life and spend more of their energies defending easily discredited religious ideas or are using it as a wedge issue like you do here to justify voting for people who without this issue would look perfectly weak compared to the candidates they are running against. 

    The anti-abortion group has become the last refuge of scoundrels, which I find disheartening. I do believe we need effective advocates for reducing the rate of abortions, and we are a long ways from having such a group with any moral authority to make a reasoned case based on facts except the pro-choice groups, which I would like to see challenged more effectively – you sir do not qualify.

  • Todd A. Heywood

    So… So you will support McCain, who has promised 100 years more war in Iraq, over Obama, because Obama has supported the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion? And just what exactly have you been doing for all the children that are being born as a result of the draconian rules, regulations and laws passed by right wings zealots to control other’s bodies?

    Abortion is something that should be legal, safe and rare. But when our federal government refuses to allow health education to teach about condoms and other pregnancy prevention  methods, in conjunction with abstinence education; we are preparing our young people for out of wedlock pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and other issues. You are not being compassionate when you are not arming people with the knowledge to prevent pregnancy, then punishing them for not having that knowledge in the first place.

    Your love of “life” like most prolifers ends with the birth of the child. Jesus would shun you as surely as he shunned the Pharisees. 

  • Michael Heath

    “Pro-life” a rhetorical fallacy Mr. Miller,

    Your continued use of the term “pro-life” is a rhetorical fallacy easily discredited by the facts.  A more accurate depiction of your position is that you oppose legal abortions, not that you are pro-life or even that you are an advocate of reducing or eliminating abortions.

    Given that other developed countries which have legal abortions and have also have instituted policies opposed by American anti-abortion groups that have been much more effective in reducing the number of abortions in their countries compared to both America and countries where abortion is illegal, your “pro-life” mantra appears unearned.

    One can claim the moral high-ground when they leave their ideologies at the door and work for optimal results, even if those results challenge their preconceived but discredited religious beliefs.  You sir come nowhere close to meeting this standard given your opposition to choice does not reduce the rate of abortion (as shown in countries where it is illegal) while also attacking right to life and other human rights issues affecting life that affect the 6 billion of us already born.

    I would not claim your objection to legal abortion is a morally indefensible objection, I do respect and appreciate many aspects of the anti-abortion argument.  However, I find the people that usually support anti-abortion causes have less respect for life and spend more of their energies defending easily discredited religious ideas or are using it as a wedge issue like you do here to justify voting for people who without this issue would look perfectly weak compared to the candidates they are running against. 

    The anti-abortion group has become the last refuge of scoundrels, which I find disheartening. I do believe we need effective advocates for reducing the rate of abortions, and we are a long ways from having such a group with any moral authority to make a reasoned case based on facts except the pro-choice groups, which I would like to see challenged more effectively – you sir do not qualify.