Focus on the Family

James Dobson officially left Focus on the Family in February and started his new radio program, "Family Talk With Dr. James Dobson" in March ... and it took him just about a month to use his new program to do what he does best: 

On today’s program, Dr. Dobson sits down with Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes for a revealing interview about how forces in American society are sometimes surreptitiously removing all references to Christianity. Congressman Forbes describes the formation of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and the successes this group has had on the cultural battlefront.

The Christian Post reports that Dobson reiterated his standard concern that Christians are under constant attack while Forbes used the program as opportunity to call for the creation of state-level prayer caucuses that will monitoring legislation, court rulings, and elected officials:

Before Forbes was featured on Friday's broadcast, Dobson noted to listeners that the newly launched Family Talk is not being turned into a ministry that has "a political or public policy bent." But he stressed the significance of still addressing such issues and was unapologetic about doing so with passion.

"That's who we are and might as well state that up front," said Dobson, who started Family Talk with his son after leaving the prominent Focus on the Family ministry in February.

"This is the one reason that I didn't want to retire when I left Focus on the Family," the 74-year-old conservative evangelical leader stated. "The country is in a great deal of trouble and I just felt like we needed to do something about it."

Like many like-minded Christians, Dobson feels there is a growing attack against Christianity and efforts to eliminate all references to the Christian faith.

Expressing the same level of concern, Forbes said "anti-faith" groups around the country are amassing huge sums of money and focusing their resources on one particular situation or lawsuit so that they can get a precedent ... A number of states have begun to form prayer caucuses, including Mississippi and Virginia. Part of the purpose of prayer caucuses is to monitor legislation, agency rulings and court opinions that deny religious freedoms and access to the marketplace of ideas for people of faith, he said.

Forbes hopes to see prayer caucuses in every state "because it would be the first time that we have been able to integrate all of these policymakers across the country so that they can know what's going on and we can have policies that effectively deal with some of these attacks before it's too late."

Dobson also used the opportunity to post a commentary on the Family Talk website, blasting various legislative efforts - including efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell - and vowing to place Family Talk on the "front lines" in fighting them: 

Time and space limitations permit me only to mention another regrettable piece of legislation that passed in the House of Representatives on May 27, 2010. It would eliminate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for all branches of the military. The four senior officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, have said “Don’t do this.” It threatens to affect morale, recruitment, retention, and the effectiveness of those who are risking their lives to protect this great nation. Yet, the attitude by liberals in Congress appears to be, “This is our window of opportunity,” and they are plunging ahead at breakneck speed. President Obama has promised to sign the legislation. Why does that surprise us?

On these issues and many others, Family Talk will be on the front lines of the battle to preserve the family. It is difficult now for us to engage fully because of the limitations of a 501(c)(3) organization. Nevertheless, we will do everything permitted by the IRS. We hope soon to have more freedom to defend families and help preserve the Judeo-Christian system of values. Your assistance in making Family Talk a strong and effective ministry will pay dividends in days to come. That is our passionate commitment.

• Apparently Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell got "'many good ideas" from his official state visit to Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado.
• Someone should ask Gov. Bob McDonnell if Pat Robertson will be attending his "thank you retreat".
• The Senate Judiciary Committee voted out Robert Chatigny’s nomination today - Concerned Women for America responded by saying "Senators Should Reject Obama's 'Empathy for Sadists' Judge".
• Speaking of CWA, they are very upset about President Obama's salty language.
• For all their screaming and yelling, Religious Right groups don't appear to have generated much opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
• Bryan Fischer bravely attacks the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting immigration reform while conveniently failing to attack right-wing leaders like Mat Staver, Richard Land, and Ken Blackwell, who also support it.
• Finally, the quote of the day from Michael Pakaluk explaining why he doesn't want the children of gay couples attending Catholic school with his children: "The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household."

Whenever Republicans win elections, the media is fond of attributing the victories to the influence of "values voters" - the Religious Right activists who make up a significant portion of the party's political base.  On the flip side, whenever the GOP loses elections, we start seeing all sorts of articles about the decline in the Religious Right's influence and predictions of their forthcoming extinction.

And inevitably, those sorts of articles are followed some time later by new articles discovering that the Religious Right has not, in fact, disappeared and are extremely motivated heading into the next election. 

Articles just like this:

Angry over health care reform and the abortion fight it reinvigorated, worried about the expansion of gay rights and frustrated by President Obama's criticisms of Israel, religious conservatives are eager to play a key role in the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

But many are also not sold on the Republican Party, and analysts are wondering whether some of them will sit out November's elections - something religious conservatives have done in the past when neither party appealed to their interests.

"There certainly seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that the Christian right is more energized this year," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council in Washington. "But I don't think that's necessarily a windfall for the Republicans."

Mr. Perkins said conservative Christians - as well as Orthodox Jews and abortion opponents - are unhappy with Mr. Obama and looking for change; yet sizing up candidates who can deliver is another matter.

"The Republicans could be that change," Mr. Perkins said. "But in a lot of ways, they are not there yet."

...

Gary L. Bauer, president of the pro-life group American Values, predicts a simmering intensity among values voters. He said "hyphenated conservatives" who accepted Mr. Obama in the last election cycle are dumbfounded by the president's hard tack left and repulsed by runaway spending.

"It's almost like we're witnessing a complete mirror image of 2008, when all the passion was among young voters, minorities and first-time voters," said Mr. Bauer. "Now that energy is with conservatives and older voters. ... There's tremendous intensity out there."

Mr. Bauer, a former presidential candidate who served in the Reagan administration, said values voters consider Mr. Obama an apologist and not a defender of the United States, and dislike "his questioning whether we're even a Judeo-Christian nation" ... "That same week he issued the order to close Guantanamo [Bay prison]. We learned then that he cared more about the rights of jihadists than he did about the rights of unborn babies," Mr. Bauer said.

Abortion is also at the forefront of concerns for the Colorado-based Focus on the Family.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president for Focus' Citizen Link, said his group hasn't endorsed candidates for the fall but plans to be involved.

"We're very, very concerned about the largest expansion in abortion since Roe v. Wade," Mr. Minnery said. "And we are going to let our members know who voted for what."

Wow.  You mean major right-wing groups like FRC, Gary Bauer, and Focus on the Family don't like President Obama or the Democrats and are dedicated to doing all they can to vote them out of office?  Who ever would have guessed that? 

But you really have to wonder about this assessment that the Religious Right is going to throw in with "outsider" candidates like Rand Paul: 

With both parties stumbling, many values voters are supporting "outsider" candidates, such as "tea party" favorite Rand Paul, who won the May 18 GOP primary in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate this fall.

Mr. Paul won the primary over a candidate who had been backed by the Republican Party establishment in Kentucky and Washington - and he did it with the help of outsiders such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and conservative religious broadcaster James Dobson.

First of all, how many Rand Paul-like candidates are there?  And secondly, Sarah Palin and James Dobson are considered "outsiders"?  Really? Dobson has been among the most influential Religious Right leaders for decades and Sarah Palin was, the last time I checked, the GOP's vice-presidential candidate in the most recent election.

As we noted yesterday, Focus on the Family announced that it was changing the name of its c4 lobbying arm from Focus on the Family Action to CitizenLink, apparently as part of an attempt to continue with its right-wing political agenda while separating the negative ramifications of said agenda from the parent organization.

This move doesn't really make a lot of sense, as everyone knows that CitizenLink is the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family .. but apparently the powers that be over a Focus think this is a wise move: 

Focus on the Family announced Wednesday that Focus Action, the lobbying arm of the family group, is now CitizenLink, the name of Focus’ online newsletter.

“We wanted to create clarity between the two organizations,” CitizenLink spokeswoman Sonja Swiatkiewicz said.

...

Swiatkiewicz said the re-branding of Focus Action is meant to end the confusion of people attributing Focus Action’s public-policy efforts to Focus on the Family. She said Focus spends its time not in the political arena but in “helping families thrive.”

...

Swiatkiewicz said the stances of Focus Action are identical to CitizenLink’s.

So the agendas of Focus on the Family Action and CitizenLink are exactly the same, but now all the negative attention they generate when they suddenly backtrack and announce that they would oppose a gay Supreme Court nominee simply because said nominee is gay will reflect badly upon CitizenLink instead of Focus on the Family? 

How is that supposed to work, considering that people like Tom Minnery, who has been the main spokesperson for Focus Action and will presumably retain that position with "CitizenLink," are also "senior vice presidents" for Focus on the Family.

The idea that by simply changing the name of its lobbying arm, Focus on the Family is going to be able to separate itself from the political agenda of "CitizenLink" is laughable, especially since every time anyone writes about the activities of CitizenLink from now on, they are simply going to write "Focus on the Family's CitizenLink" or "CitizenLink, the political arm of Focus on the Family."

I know that I will.

• Marco Rubio is reportedly set to pick up the endorsements of Frank Pavone and David Barton.
• Pat Buchanan is now a fan of diversity ... by which he means the Supreme Court has too many Jews.
• Elena Kagan might be getting support for lots of conservative legal experts, but the Judicial Crisis Network remains unimpressed.
• Randy Thomasson says Harvey Milk Day is a "moral crime" and that "teachers, principals, and schools that push Harvey Milk's values are responsible for the degradation of children as human beings."
• Neither Focus on the Family nor the Family Research Council are willing to comment on the evangelical push for immigration reform.
• Quote of the day from Maggie Gallagher: "My own complaint about the religious right is not that it is too much in politics, but that it is not enough. In too many cases, religious conservatives talk like they are in politics, make demands like they are in politics, issue threats like they are in politics -- but they do not create the institutions that are at the heart of politics: organizations that raise money and spend it electing politicians who will vote for their cause."
• Finally, Sir Reginald Bling (aka Randall Terry) has something to say:

Last month, Focus on the Family made news when it suddenly backtracked from its earlier stance that that a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation was "not even pertinent" to the question of the nominee's qualifications to sit on the court.

Under pressure from militantly anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, Focus did an about-face and declared that "someone who is a practicing homosexual is a non starter for the group," saying that "homosexual behavior is a sin" and a nominee's "character and moral rectitude should be key considerations" in opposing a nominee.

Today, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and LaBarbera and others are already opposing her on the grounds that she might be a lesbian ... and now Focus on the Family has announced its opposition as well (Focus does not explicitly cite this issue, instead focusing on Kagan's "commitment to the LGBT agenda" as its justification): 

Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President Tom Minnery released the following statement today in response to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“We are extremely disappointed by the President’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

“Kagan’s nomination is a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism. She has never been a judge, nor written a judicial opinion. In fact, she has very limited experience in the actual practice of law. Her resume reveals her to be an academic who has served liberal judges, liberal presidents, and liberal universities. Her entire career has been lived in a narrow slice of the judicial spectrum.

“Even with her sparse legal record, one thing stands out – her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda. Calling the federal prohibition against gays serving in the military ‘a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order,’ she argued to the Supreme Court that law schools should be allowed to exclude military recruiters from campus while still accepting hundreds of millions in federal dollars, a position which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected, including the very liberal justice she would be replacing, Justice Stevens.

“Sadly, we look for a Justice Kagan to work for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage upon all 50 states. We expect a continuation on her part of the Leftist allegiance to abortion-on-demand as well as the standard hostility to religion in the public square that has come to epitomize the liberal wing of the court.

“Americans have time and time again voiced their desire for judges who will judge according to the text and original understanding of our laws and Constitution. It is that fidelity to our Founders’ intent for the proper role and responsibility of the judiciary that makes a good Supreme Court justice. Yet for the second time in two years, the president has nominated someone who is committed to molding the law and the Constitution into something more to their liking rather than demonstrating what should be the non-negotiable quality of judicial restraint.

“We oppose this nomination and call upon the Senate to reject it as well. America deserves better.”

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago when new Focus president Jim Daly was saying this? 

Yet it's clear Daly, who has met with gay activists, sees diminishing returns in continuing the culture wars.

"I'm not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. ... I don't know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles," he said, noting that for "98 percent" of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.

"It's going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now," he went on. "You look at the under-35 age group. I think it's splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There's a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I'm not going to demean human beings for the process."

While Daly keeps claiming that he not out to demean people and is seeking a more civil dialogue with his opponents, Minnery is running around saying that gays or anyone who supports them are morally unfit for the bench.

Maybe Focus ought to try to get its story straight.   

We all know that the Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But if Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth had his way, there certainly would be a sexual orientation test:

The president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) addresses whether a candidate for public office, including the Supreme Court, should declare their sexual preference or leanings.

LaBarbera has raised the question because of hints in the press that some of the possible picks for a Supreme Court vacancy are either homosexual or heavily favor special rights for homosexuals.

"I think it's time that the public be informed if a politician or a high court nominee has a special interest in homosexuality -- that is, they are practicing homosexuality or maybe they once practiced homosexuality," the AFTAH president contends. "I think the public has a right to know."

He explains that this information is important because the judges' decisions will impact all of society, not just one segment of it.

"They will affect Christians and people of faith who oppose homosexuality," he notes, pointing out that "we came within one vote on the Supreme Court of the Boy Scouts losing their freedom not to hire openly homosexual and atheist Scout masters."

LaBarbera is not only demanding that gay nominees openly "declare their sexual preference" so that he can oppose them because of it, but he also says any "heterosexual liberal" who holds "pro-homosexual" views must confess to that as well.

It was just a few weeks ago that Focus on the Family backed away from its previous stance that a nominee's sexual orientation would not matter under pressure from LaBarbera.  So perhaps next, Focus will adopt LaBarbera's "every SCOTUS nominee must declare their homosexuality" test.

Last year I noted how is seemed that those who work at Focus on the Family just seem to be fundamentally incapable of realizing that there are millions of people in this nation who do not share their Christian views.

Here is some more evidence of Focus' myopia, as President Jim Daly wonders just how anyone could possibly oppose the National Day of Prayer:

But even an enthusiastic atheist would have a difficult time explaining how merely recognizing the first Thursday in May as a "Day of Prayer" (without any denominational attribution or financial support) is akin to establishing a national religion. By Judge Crabb's standards, if the federal recognition of the National Day of Prayer is illegal, so is Christmas Day and Easter Sunday.

As a Christian, I view the matter of prayer with an admitted bias, but one studied with both my head and heart. Clearly, prayer means different things to different people. Personally, I receive my understanding of prayer and its collective purpose and power from the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I do not view prayer as merely a recitation of personal requests, though I do regularly pray for the health and well-being of my wife and two boys. Prayer is very personal; it helps me remember again and again that life is not about me and how utterly and wholly dependent I am on God.

I am not alone in my understanding and practice of this both mysterious and reflective practice; but we Christians support a National Day of Prayer for reasons well beyond selfish interest. A colleague of mine at Focus on the Family tells the story of a mentor back in Texas who used to say he always got down on his knees to pray because "it makes it real clear who's in charge."

Christians understand prayer to be powerful because it is the way in which we humbly and gratefully praise God. We don't believe prayer changes God's mind, but rather that prayer changes our hearts. And changed hearts lead to a more humble, grateful and healthy nation of Americans.

Who, may I ask, could possibly be opposed to that?

First of all, Easter is not a federal holiday.

And secondly, does Daly really not understand who could oppose a National Day of Prayer after he explicitly explains that prayer is important because it allows us to "humbly and gratefully praise God" and therefore reminds us God is always in charge?

I'll tell you who could opposes that: the millions of nonbelievers in this country and organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I wonder if Daly would have a different reaction if we declared, say, a National Day of Blasphemy. 

Last month, the Southern Poverty Law Center placed Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth About Homosexuality on its list of anti-gay hate sites.

Yesterday, Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery personally assured AFT's LaBarbera that Focus would absolutely oppose any gay Supreme Court nominee, an abrupt about-face after Focus said last year that a nominee's orientation was "not even pertinent."

And for that, Focus on the Family is now being praised by LaBarbera for siding with all those good Christians who know that gays are "driven to justify their errant lifestyle" and therefore "have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus":

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement in response to Focus on the Family’s clarification that it would not support a homosexual nominee to the Supreme Court:

Focus on the Family has wisely corrected statements by two of its staffers who stated last year that the “sexual orientation” of judicial nominees – i.e., their homosexuality – would not disqualify them to sit on the nation’s highest court.

...

Americans For Truth, like other pro-family groups that honor the authority of Scripture, believes that homosexuality is best understood not as an “identity” but as a behavior – one that is wrong, destructive, and unnatural. Thankfully, homosexual conduct also is changeable (2 Corinthians 5:17), as evinced by the lives of countless former homosexual men and ex-lesbians living happy lives.

Supposed “gay” identity is a modern construct that undermines moral truth and people’s responsibility for their own conduct. Men and women (proudly) practicing homosexuality often are driven to justify their errant lifestyle. Even those practicing homosexuality in secret often work to promote its acceptance.

This is why people practicing homosexuality often make bad judges: even if they don’t admit it, due to their sexual self-interest, they will have a hard time fairly adjudicating cases involving homosexuality. If a judge personally views opponents of homosexuality as bigots, haters, or “homophobes” – the former terms falsely equate the outworking of faith with prejudice and malice; the latter cynically equates morality with irrational fear – will he or she be able to deal with them justly? Will homosexual judges be diligent in protecting Americans’ constitutional religious liberties – i.e., to disagree with homosexuality? Or will they – like lesbian law professor and newly-appointed EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum – decide that, in most cases, “gay rights” considerations should supersede the freedom of people to act based on their moral opposition to homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not special and it should be treated like any other sexual sin. Homosexuality (like gender confusion) does not deserve “civil rights” status. Judicial nominees who practice it – or worse, practice it proudly – have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus, in their future rulings.

So congratulations to Focus on receiving the accolades from a SPLC-designated hate site. 

Remember not too long ago how we were being told that Focus under new president Jim Daly was going to have a different, more conciliatory tone? When is that supposed to start?