I have seen this book and consider it reprehensible, but I also have great sympathy for its author. If he was raised according to the childcare practices of Dr. Dobson (which include not only hitting your kids for not obeying, but hitting them when they obey you with a spirit that isn't sufficiently submissive), then I imagine he has had very little grace, compassion, or love modelled for him. I hope that he can move beyond that.
As to the specific content of the book, I'm very curious as to what exactly it means to "be intolerant." What exactly does intolerance look like, in practice?
For example, I assume that Dobson Jr. believes that Christians should be intolerant toward homosexuality. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean spending millions of dollars on campaigns to make sure discrimination against gay and lesbian people is illegal? Does it mean trying to get sodomy laws back on the books and then turning in any neighbors you think are gay? Does it mean ostracizing gays in your neighborhood? Throwing rocks through their windows? Burning down their homes? Killing them? What exactly does intolerance look like, in practice, and is a society that values intolerance really a society we want to live in?
I think that the implications of those kinds of stances are potentially very dangerous. There are plenty of things that I, personally, find morally wrong. I think adultery is morally wrong, in most cases I think divorce is morally wrong, and I think that spanking children is morally wrong, all from a Christian perspective. Heck, I think the the Dobsons' brand of Christianity is morally wrong, but what would it mean for me to be intolerant of it?
However, what would it mean for me to be intolerant of these things? Should I try to get adultery made illegal? Should I try to pass laws making discrimination against adulterers legal? Should I shun and verbally or physically attack known adulterers?
Should I try to pass laws making divorce illegal, or shun divorced people?
Should I report parents I know spank their kids to the authorities as abusive? Should I refuse to associate with any person who spanks their kids? Should I devote lots of time and money to trying to make spanking illegal, so that nobody can do it since I think it's wrong? Should I burn any books that promote spanking and ask libraries to remove them from the shelves?
And, what should I do about the Dobsons? Should I try to have their views declared illegal? Should I lobby to make discrimination against people who hold the views they hold legal?
I do not believe I should do any of those things, and I don't. I have friends who spank their kids, and they are aware that I don't spank and that I don't think it's a very good discipline method, but that's it. I don't lecture to them, and I don't chastize them. If they see that my child is kind and compassionate and well-behaved without being spanked and rethink their discipline method, then that's wonderful, but I realize that, while I don't agree with what they do, there is no real evidence that spanking causes long-term or serious harm to a child, and so I have no desire to NOT tolerate their right to discipline their child as they see fit. I am vehemently opposed to the ideas promoted by the Dobsons, but I would NEVER try to get their books censored or wish to see them discriminated against or not allowed to air their views, and I would oppose any attempt to do so. In short, despite the fact that I believe their views are potentially damaging, I am tolerant of the Dobsons.
Now, obviously tolerance, like most other virtues, has limits. Just because something is good doesn't mean it's an unlimited good. Patience is good, but if Rosa Parks had just been endlessly patient, the Montgomery bus boycott would never have started. But, that doesn't mean that I promote impatience or would tell people "be impatient." Clearly, there are situations where tolerance is the wrong response. If Dobson were to begin calling for the mass killing of gay and lesbian people, and actually inciting people to do so, then obviously as a civilized society we would have to take action, and no longer tolerate his statements. What does that mean? I'm not sure, honestly.
But, for the most part, the "intolerance" that these kinds of extreme right-wing Christians call for is very undefined. What exactly does intolerance mean? If you ask many people who think intolerance toward homosexuality is a good thing how they would treat a gay or lesbian neighbor, they'd say that they'd treat that neighbor with the same common courtesy that they treated anyone else. That is simply NOT intolerance, so I'm not exactly sure how they'd define tolerance or intolerance.
