Your recommendation was that good journalism was being done by a blogger. On three counts, I called into question that conclusion. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on you or Mr. Mullen.

For sake of brevity, my argument may be summarized as follows:

1. Get details correct. Dr. Dobson is a Ph.D. psychologist, not an ordained minister. This is a common mistake made by journalists when writing about Dobson. A newspaper publishes a correction, and Mr. Mullen did acknowledge in the thread on his blog that he had made this error. Still, the correction gets tucked away in the thread, and the article still reads erroneously. I’m not sure what protocol is for a blog, but perhaps the use of the common “update” line at the end of the post, including the correction, would be well-advised?

2. Avoid incendiary language. In several places, this appears in Mr. Mullen’s post, including the use of the the unflattering term “hydra” to describe Focus on the Family. What’s wrong with the neutral “multi-faceted”? It carries the same meaning, without the pejorative connotation. And the use of the term “hate” has a tendency to cut off all rational discussion. Including it in the headline is unfortunate. As for my post, I retract the term “recycled bile,” which is also incendiary.

3. Provide experts on both sides of an issue. Mr. Mullen’s post fails this basic tenet of journalism. Maybe I’ve missed something in my reading of his post? Please correct me if I’m wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time!

More than any other issue, this one seems to bring out strong feelings. What Dobson and others are promoting is not hate, but recovery. It would seem that such a message is not longer welcome in the marketplace of ideas. For that, we are all poorer.

1. It uses unnecessarily incendiary language. The post title uses the term “gay hating James Dobson.” Yes, Dobson is opposed to the practice of homosexuality. However, he represents the historic consensus (as opposed to the revisionist view) of Christianity, namely, that God loves everyone too much to abandon them to practices that ultimately are destructive both individually and societally. This includes many practices — drunkenness, theft, abuse of all types, and sins both heterosexual and homosexual. If it seems like Christian leaders “harp” on the gay issue too much, it should be viewed at least in-part as a response to the activism that has been shown by those who are pushing the envelope judicially and legislatively in various states, attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage. If this traditionalist view shared by millions of Americans is “hate,” then the word itself has become meaningless. To throw it out there, particularly in the title of the post, is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the issue. Shaun knows how to do better than that, as other posts on TMV have proven.

2. Mullen’s article inaccurately uses the term “reverend” and “minister.” — There was a time in our nation’s history when these were terms of respect, and in some parts of the world – African and Asia, notably – great deference is still given to church officials. Apparently Mullen thinks that “Reverend” is a negative title, because he employs it (and “minister”) repeatedly. This is curious, since Dr. Dobson has never been ordained by any church group, and has never claimed to be. This is no small point, as any ordained minister can tell you. Ordination is a rigourous process in many denominations, requiring several years of full-time service, and often – such as in the United Methodist Church, for instance – a Master’s Degree from an accredited seminary. Mentoring programs are frequent, and many ministers go through clinical pastoral education at hospitals. The ministry is one of the helping professions. Mullen’s response to this concern, posted by me anonymously on his blog, was (in so many words) that it doesn’t really matter whether he’s an ordained minister, he’s a minister. But is it fair to set up this straw man? Dobson doesn’t claim the title, so why should it be pinned on him? The title he does use – and legitimately has for three decades – is Dr. Dobson, a reference to his Ph.D. But where does the title “Doctor” appear anywhere in Shaun’s post? In the context of the blog post, it would seem that by inventing the title “Reverened” for Dr. Dobson, he just wants to make it guilt by association, since he mentions the Revs. Robertson and Falwell. If this is “reporting” as Joe Gandleman wants to dignify it as being, then at very least it’s sloppy reporting. What’s more, it’s a discredit to those who are ordained ministers. Also, it causes me to question the accuracy of other points in the post. Get the title right. On many issues, I don’t care for Senator Clinton, but I use her title correctly. Shaun can do the same for those with whom he disagrees, right?

3. Mullen understates Dobson’s credentials. The very reason he became a trusted voice on family issues is because of his credentials, namely, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and fourteen years of practice on the faculty of the USC medical school. His dissertation was in the area of child development. Maybe – just maybe – this might mean he could have something to say on an issue, i.e. homosexuality, that some have categorized as a developmental disorder? Now, if you want to criticize him, do so on his own turf. Quote some Ph.D.’s who give specific details of how (perhaps) Dobson has not kept up with the literature, etc., if (indeed) that is a valid criticism. I’ve read a good number of his books on child development, such as Dare to Discipline and The Strong-Willed Child. Though popularly written, they do cite studies that were popular at the time. If Dobson’s professional colleagues want to attack so-called “reparative therapy” (that teaches that sexual orientation can be changed), then do so on the basis of longitudinal and clinical studies. If those studies are out there – and I haven’t researched to see if they are – then at least Mullen can allude to them, and provide a link. No such links are contained in his post, just a few quotes from psychologists who don’t like Dobson’s ideas. How about a quote or two on the other side of the issue? Just throwing in a “he didn’t return our calls” comment hardly seems thorough. Was there anyone else on his side of the issue that he tried to speak to?

The strongest part of Shaun’s article is his acknowledgment that Dobson has become a force to be reckoned with inside the GOP. In my opinion – as I told Shaun on a thread over on his blog – Dobson has become overreaching in his politicking and too rigid. There are candidates out there – Mike Huckabee, notably – who line up almost exactly with what Dobson teaches, yet Dobson is silent. he refuses to endore him. Why not? Huckabee even denies evolution (which I don’t, BTW), just like Dobson does, yet again, Dobson has offered no endorsement. Perhaps Huckabee is his “own man” and won’t let Dobson pull his strings like a puppet? Who knows? This is just conjecture. No there’s a story waiting to be told. Go after that one, Shaun. It would make for a better post than a lot of the recycled bile that comes through in your latest one.

How exactly was Jules’ non-response a must read perspective?

Was it his total avoidance of the issue at hand while screaming “Sock Puppet!” at the top of his lungs?

It’s almost as if people had no trust in their own judgment and are driven to follow an abstract idea or a leader with unquestioning devotion. The Ron Paul craze, like the myth of the infallibilty of Reagan or the myth of Bill Clinton’s limitless intelligence is either rejected or swallowd whole hog.

We are all waiting for the second coming in one form or another, because we all think that some one person or some one idea can bring about the perfection of heaven on earth.

Dobson uses that longing for a fairy tale ending. He points out the enemies, like homosexuals, that stand in the way of paradise. He’s not alone in using the technique, and Dobson’s follower’s are not alone in failing to notice that their hero has warts.