Legend:   Letter to Dr. Laura highlights fallacy in a particular anti-homosexual argument.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Origins:   We first ran into this letter in the online world in May 2000, just after the state of Vermont permitted homosexual couples to contract "civil unions," an official recognition that imparted to same-sex partners the legal benefits of marriage, such as the right to be regarded by hospitals as their partners' next of kin, to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners, and to file joint tax returns. This "everything that is marriage but the name" decision pleased some and angered others, resulting in many heated opinions about same-sex unions in specific, and homosexuality in general, to be bruited in countless public forums.

Thanks to her oft-aired opinion that homosexuals are a "mistake of nature," radio's Dr. Laura Schlessinger became one of the targets of those of pro-gay sympathies looking for someone to shake a finger at.

Dr. Schlessinger has attracted both adherents and detractors during her years of public life. Through her radio show, she dispenses advice to callers, usually from a conservative point of view. She was an Orthodox Jew at the time the letter quoted above was written (but she announced her renunciation of that faith on her show in July 2003) and often draws upon the Bible or religious teachings for guidance. She is blunt and forthright in her replies, viewing most situations as inherently black or white, right or wrong.

Laura Schlessinger is neither a medical doctor nor accredited in a discipline one would traditionally look to for the generation of expertise in moral, societal, or spiritual matters (such as divinity, psychology, or sociology). She earned her doctorate in physiology from Columbia University and practiced as a licensed marriage, family, and child counselor for more than a decade (although her California Marriage Family and Child Counseling license has been inactive for several years).

In 1998 nude photos of Laura Schlessinger were displayed on the Internet. During the commotion over those pictures, their source was revealed to be veteran Los Angeles radio broadcaster Bill Ballance, a man who was pivotal in getting Schlessinger her start in radio. Ballance claimed he photographed her in 1978, while the pair of them were having an affair during Schlessinger's first marriage.

Some see Schlessinger's use of "Doctor" as misleading and view her current stance on the sanctity of marriage and the wrongness of adultery as hypocrisy in light of her decades-earlier affair. Others believe the title of "Doctor" should not be restricted only to those in the medical field and hold that people can change over time, even to the point of full repudiation of previous behaviors and beliefs. (Our article about the origin of the hymn Amazing Grace showcases one such spiritual about-face.)

Dr. Laura is as controversial as she is popular, so she attracts both bouquets and brickbats whenever topics she is known to harbor strong opinions about become part of the day's news. Thus, those looking for someone to crow at over Vermont's recognition of same-sex unions would have quickly thought of Dr. Laura.

The "letter" to Dr. Laura may or may not have actually been sent to her, but in any case it is best read as an essay offering a counter to the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument. Though it purports to be addressed to just one person (Dr. Laura), it is clearly meant for a general audience. The authorship of the letter is still a bit of a mystery, although the name "Kent Ashcraft" (or "J. Kent Ashcraft") keeps coming up.

Confusing the issue further, because the letter has been circulated as widely as it has in e-mail, in some versions the signature blocks of forwarders have come to be part of the mailing, leading those who receive those versions farther down the line to assume those people were the writers of the piece. Then there's the case of Jim Kauffman — his signature was deliberately appended by someone without his knowledge, causing him to receive many a phone call and e-mail from those who have taken him for essay's author.

In August 2003 a journalist for the Halifax Daily News presented the "Dr. Laura letter" as her own writing. For presenting the piece in her column as her own by signing it "Yours truly, Jane," reporter Jane Kansas was fired from that publication. (Her version also changed "Dear Dr. Laura" to "Dear Holy Father" plus added some local references.)

The question of authorship aside, this May 2000 piece struck a note with many people, and by June and July of that year it had made its way into a number of newspapers, including the Knoxville News-Sentinel (7 June), Seattle Weekly (8 June), OC Weekly (9 June), The [Syracuse] Post-Standard (11 June), [Madison] Capital Times (13 July), and the Modesto Bee (22 July). Most often the letter was acknowledged as an interesting item gleaned from the Internet, but in a few cases the readers who sent it to newspapers presented it as their own words, which serves to make the question of who actually wrote it even harder to answer.

The key to this essay is its premise, not the pedantic details of it of how it is defended. Simply put, the letter points out a logical flaw in the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument: if homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God's law as outlined in the Bible, why aren't any number of activities now viewed as innocuous but once regarded as unacceptable also offenses against God's law? How can one part of Leviticus be deemed as etched in stone when other parts have been discarded as archaic?

The essay completes with the sarcastic rejoinder, "Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging." While this is presented as a rebuke meant for just one, it is a general reminder that many belief systems pick and choose their way through Biblical teachings in determining what is right and what is wrong, with those assessments changing over time even within sects that pride themselves on strict adherence to the Good Book.

In early October 2000, Dr. Schlessinger, ran a full-page ad in Variety offering an apology for what she called "poorly chosen" words about homosexuality. She had previously referred to gays as "biological errors" and "deviants," as exemplified by her remarks of 8 December 1998:

I'm sorry — hear it one more time, perfectly clearly: If you're gay or a lesbian, it's a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex. The fact that you are intelligent, creative and valuable is all true. The error is in your inability to relate sexually intimately, in a loving way to a member of the opposite sex — it is a biological error.

October 2000 was not Dr. Laura's month. A few weeks after she issued her apology, a version of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" was incorporated into the 18 October episode of the political television drama The West Wing. In "The Midterms," President Bartlet used his own detailed knowledge of the Bible to make a Schlessinger-esque character named Jenna Jacobs look ridiculous.

Just as the Internet piece gave the West Wing writers fodder for a memorable scene, so did the exposure on a popular television show boost the online circulation of the "Letter to Dr. Laura." Similarly, the 2004 brouhaha over gay marriage sparked a renewal of this e-missive, causing it to once again be flung from inbox to inbox.

In the wake of President George W. Bush's election to a second term, in the fall of 2004 the piece was circulated yet again, this time addressed "Dear President Bush" rather than "Dear Dr. Laura." Following the "Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging" close of the Dr. Laura letter, the updated version addressed to the President continued "It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, even better than you and your own Dad, eh?"

Barbara "re-mail" Mikkelson

Last updated:   5 September 2007

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2010 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.  

---

  Sources:

    Harrison, Dave.   "Dear Doctor Laura: I've Been Charged With Plagiarism."

    King's Journalism Review.   14 October 2003.

    Hughs, Ina.   "Biblical 'Law' Can Produce a Variety of Interpretations."

    Knoxville News-Sentinel.   7 June 2000   (p. A2).

    Jones, Rebecca.   "Dr. Laura-Like Character Mocked."

    Denver Rocky Mountain News.   17 December 2000   (p. D17).

    Mayers, William.   "Ask Dr. Laura to Interpret the Bible."

    The [Syracuse] Post-Standard.   11 June 2000.

    Millegan, Lisa.   "Atheists Enjoy Online Forum — Site Called a Place to Seek the Truth, Fight Misconceptions."

    Modesto Bee.   22 July 2000   (p. G1).

    Mink, Eric.   "'Wing' Uses Net Asset."

    [New York] Daily News.   25 October 2000   (p. 92).

    Nichols, John.   "Reading the Bible According to Dr. Laura."

    [Madison] Capital Times.   13 July 2000   (p. A12).

    OC Weekly.   "Other Questions for Dr. Laura."

    9 June 2000   (p. 13).

    Seattle Weekly.   "Dear Dr. Laura."

    8 June 2000   (p. 4).