« Election Investigation Comes to the U.S. Senate Next Week | Main | Exposing Tom DeLay's Friends »
Why does CBS hate the Constitution?
The United Church of Christ (UCC) is launching a major ad campaign across the United States beginning today, featuring a television commercial which has as its main theme a message of inclusion. Unfortunately, CBS has no such policy of inclusion when it comes to including a Constitutional idea in your advertising.
It seems that CBS has decided that freedom of religion is now a political advocacy position.
The ad for UCC, which can be viewed here, shows a lovely church setting and two burly "security" men guarding the Sunday morning services, deciding who can be admitted to the church and who cannot. The scene is then interrupted with written text appearing on the screen and the message, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A voice-over follows with the United Church of Christ's message of welcome, "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here."
In the UCC's press release, CBS offers the following explanation on this subject, quoted in part here,
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."
During my conversation this morning with Mr. Ray Faiola, Director of Audience Services for CBS, who had not yet seen the ad, stated to me that this ad was rejected because, "CBS has a long-standing policy of not airing advertising which advocates a political position."
So let's get this straight, because the President declared political jihad on gay marriage, anything which even hints at or suggests the mere image of gay marriage is now considered a position of advocacy.
References to freedom of religion at CBS, now off-limits. Truly outrageous.
Please feel free to call Mr. Ray Faiola, Director of Audience Services at CBS and tell him what you think. Mr. Faiola can be reached at (212) 975-4321. Ask for him by name.
(thanks to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo)
It's time for me and everyone else who's gay to apply for an immigration visa at the nearest Canadian consulate.
Being gay in today's America equals being Jewish in Nazi Germany. If we don't leave now, we will be mass executed.
Oh, and Canada, please don't spare any mercy for the Log Cabin Faggots. They brought this on themselves (AND the rest of us) and do deserve to be left behind in the USA and mass-executed.
I called this morning and spoke with Mr. Faiola, who was already having a bad day, it seemed. He said he would pass the message along. I think CBS does need to hear from many, many Americans about how their choices do not reflect a democratic and civil society.
The sooner they get the message, the better.
Subject: CBS, NBC refuse to air church's television advertisement
http://www.ucc.org/news/u113004a.htm
boycott them & read a book & let them know why
Viacom owns CBS along with all these here:
http://www.responsibleshopper.org/basic.cfm?cusip=925524
&
http://www.viacom.com/online.tin
LES MOONVES
Co-President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, Viacom
Chairman, CBS
SUMNER M. REDSTONE
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Viacom
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, National Amusements,
Inc.
TOM FRESTON
Co-President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, Viacom
General Electric Company owns NBC along with all these:
here:http://www.responsibleshopper.org/basic.cfm?cusip=369604
RANDY.FALCO@nbcuni.com
President, NBC Universal Television Networks Group
JEFF.ZUCKER@nbcuni.com
President, NBC Universal Television Group
JAY.IRELAND@nbcuni.com
President, NBC Universal Television Stations
H.DAVID.OVERBEEKE@nbcuni.com
Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, NBC Universal
ANNA.PEREZ@nbcuni.com
Executive Vice President, Communications, NBC Universal
BOB.WRIGHT@nbcuni.com
Vice Chairman and Executive Officer, GE
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NBC Universal
ROY.BRANDON.BURGESS@nbcuni.com
Executive Vice President, Digital Media, International Channels &
Business Development, NBC Universal
LYNN.CALPETER@nbcuni.com
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, NBC Universal
I did call Mr. Faiola, he was away from his desk. I let his assistant know that inclusion is NEVER a political message.
Sorry - repost from end of last thread:
We need to get some big hollywood types, and reporters like Dan Rather to start a new major network dedicated to truth in broadcasting, honest truthful reporting, non-censorship and the like.
And we need to get big stars to start standing up for what is right - Martin Sheen should be standing up to NBC for censoring that ad - a vast big star strike would make a pretty loud statement that this is not acceptable. I know they'd breach their contracts, but they can afford it :-).
Question of the day:
Should John Kerry challenge Bill O'Reilly to a duel for calling his a sissy?
Story on the Unofficial Kerry for President Blog:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com
This is the consequence of a corprate media driven by profits, not public service. After CBS got hammered by the Reagan documentary and Janet Jackson fiasco, they are scared of their own shadow. NBC similarly is a huge corporation that feels it can't "afford" airing a public service message from a church which is trolling for new members. Our fight is going to be harder than we anticipated-especially if controversial issues are left to the corportate media to convey. I wonder if this is why we are not hearing more about questions regarding our dysfunctional election process?
As regards to my post above, the DCP is essential to help communicate to the general public these outrages. In general we are a society which values free speech, but the ultra-right wing has scared too many into silence. DCP you are going to be the medium by which a message of freedom and tolerance is spread to the rest of a country hungry for the truth.
Posted by: DiAnne | December 1, 2004 03:12 PM
Unfortunately, Viacom owns Comedy Central and I can't bring myself to stop watching The Daily Show. I'll boycott everything else - but not Jon Stewart.
As soon as we can organize under the DCP's guidence our mission will be hard to ignore
you know, just when you think the MOST outrageous news has already been reported, you get new news like CBS deciding to be bushically correct.
and about the last thread....get over calling them "journalists" they are "entertainalists"
unlike oncall, i hope they do ignore us for a while. let us get so big, and let them find out that a tidal wave is about to hit them.
excuse me, now i have to go say a few bad words and get it out of my system.
I wholeheartedly support CBS's position not to run the ad.
One of the reasons I do not watch much weekend TV, certainly not in the morning hours, is because I find broadcasting church services of any religion offensive. (The second reason I don't watch weekend TV is because of football or other sports.) Proselytizing (by ANY religion) is something I see as distasteful and repugnant, and doesn't belong on any major media network, whether it's programming or commercials that are paid for by a religious organization. The airwaves are free and belong to all of us.
Isn't there a cable TV network devoted to religious broadcasting? Let the ones who want to view religious shows or services pay for viewing them....
Remember, the First Amendment not only gives us Freedom OF religion, but gives us Freedom FROM religion, in addition to Freedom of the Press (which most media doesn't take seriously):
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I have many ancestors who came to this country seeking freedom FROM religion, as well as secondarily wanting the freedom to worship as they wanted to. They had had enough of government imposing a religion on them.
The fact that the right-wing fundamentalist kool-aid christians have crossed all the boundaries of separation of church and state violates every ethical and moral and legal principle I know of. There is no reason whatsoever to air the political views of "religious leaders" and religious organizations who dare to presume they know what's best for the citizens of this nation when they advocate excluding minority groups, and oppressing women. There are no organizations more oppressive, more prone to censor freedom of speech than those with religious "leaders" who are trying to impose their myopic views on us via influencing politicians who make laws. There are no organizations more prone to shunning people by excluding them than the fundamentalist kool-aid christians!!! Down that road lies fascism with its imposed conformity.... Down that road lies blind faith and suppression of reason, science, and an end to free thinking. Doesn't anyone study history any more??? Doesn't anyone learn from the mistakes of the past???
Hooray for CBS!!!
Speaking of First Amendment rights - Sundance Channel presents...
The First Amendment Project
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
In December, Sundance Channel and Court TV present an original four-part series exploring contemporary issues that redefine our Constitutional rights in "The First Amendment Project." In recent years, various international events - from 9/11 and the War on Terrorism to the politicization of religious groups - have pulled and pushed on our concept of the First Amendment. In response to these new times, Sundance Channel and Court TV invited a group of filmmakers to explore the First Amendment on their own terms and in their own way. The resulting four films, much like the filmmakers who created them, demonstrate a fascinating range of ideas and approaches, each returning to that central conflict of freedom and responsibility that is embedded in the First Amendment.
http://www.sundancechannel.com/firstamendment/
nonnyo----
CBS is not going to restrict ALL religion, just religion that preaches inclusion. this is not news to cheer about.
must be out the door for a bit. will check back here and on the chat later tonite.
Posted by: NonnyO | December 1, 2004 04:34 PM
Nonny:
Unfortunately, they are not boycotting all religion on the airwaves on Sunday. This is one clear message, "No gays--and no ripples--allowed."
Additionally, they have been brought to their knees since they relented to "power" for speaking the truth, and now they are simply trying to cover their own backsides.
nonnyo----
CBS is not going to restrict ALL religion, just religion that preaches inclusion. this is not news to cheer about.
Posted by: tutterfly | December 1, 2004 04:36 PM
tutt is right, Nonny... There are also "innocent" ads from United Methodists (Bush's church, btw) and other "mainline" denominations, and they will not be cut. Neither are ads from, say, the Salvation Army, a known homophobic entity.
tutterfly, skinny lawyer, sparrow... et al....
I realize CBS (and the other networks) are not going to eliminate all religious broadcasting....
However, between the 2000-2004 election campaigns, I've gone from respecting religious views and services broadcast on TV on Sunday mornings (I have the "power of off" and control the remote!), to zero tolerance regarding the subject of religion on TV.
This is best exemplified by Stephanopolous interviewing James Dobson a week or two after the "election." To paraphrase Dobson, he is of the opinion that the right-wing fundamentalists got Bush elected, and now he believes Bush "owes" them. Dobson as much as said Bush needs to obey them and pass laws that the right-wing fundamentalists want on the books, and appoint supreme court justices who are ultra-conservative.
When I want to see "news" I don't want a right-wing fundamentalist kool-aid christian cramming his political views down my throat; adding insult to injury, he thinks he knows what's best for all of the citizens of this nation, regardless of what their personal views about religion happen to be.
I'm totally Jeffersonian in my views on this "issue" - absolutely total and complete separation of church and state. Jefferson and the founding fathers were more than aware of what was their recent history when they wrote the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and enacted laws mandating separation of church and state. They knew the history of Tudor and Stuart England and all about the bloodshed that can happen with a government-mandated religion. I happen to know about it because I've studied Tudor England (in particular) for more than 30 years, in addition to the fact that my ancestors were Separatists and Quakers who left England seeking freedom FROM religion as much as they were seeking freedom OF religion.
IMHO, there is no reason to put religious commercials of ANY kind on TV, nor is there a reason to air religious services on TV - most especially because now the "religious leaders" are sticking their noses into government and trying to get politicians we have elected to put laws on the books that will benefit only them, and not ALL of the citizens of this nation as a whole. It's the religious leaders who are advocating a policy of exclusion. Shunning is an old tactic practiced by churches to get their parishoners to conform....
The slippery slope is icy.......
NonnyO:
Yes, I understand your view. However, in this instance, the fundamentalist have taken a legitimate article of free speech and have censored it.
Secondly, religious programing are different from news shows.
Last, the "favors" the right wing fundamentalists are insisting on, bear too close of a resemblence to corruption. If this was the tobacco industry telling Bush to lower taxes on cigarettes, the corruptions would be clear. However, because the idea of "religion and ideas" are less tactile--people don't seem to understand the corruption they are asking for.
An elected official is NEVER suppose to enact laws in repayment of "support".
That's called a bribe.
The slippery slope is icy.......
Posted by: NonnyO | December 1, 2004 05:25 PM
Sorry NonnyO but I think you're missing the point. I thought the point was CBS won't show the ad because it features the inclusion of homosexuals and is too controversial. Isn't this more about the First Amendment - not necessarily about separation of church & state?
Posted by: resolute | December 1, 2004 05:40 PM
The First Amendment's first words are ALL about church and state. The First Amendment covers a whole lot of things, but that is the first part of the whole sentence that is the entirety of the First Amendment......
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Additionally, read what Jefferson said in the Statute of Religious Freedom (Indy's posted this many times, but the words are invaluable and need repeating and studying):
http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih195802.htm
Statute of Religious Freedom
I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of the tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
II. Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
I agree that the airwaves should generally be free of advertisements for churches and religious faiths.
But I think the reason CBS declined to show the ad is because they are worried about Christians who do not want to let "just anyone" into the Church will complain and boycott CBS.
Remember, Jefferson said keep church and state separate. I don't think he had anything to say about the "Big Three" news networks. The first Ammendment doesn't say you have to air an ad in the press because someone pays you to.
Interesting issue though, because it really brings together the corporate media and the faith-based establishments, through the wonderful world of marketing and advertising. Not that that is necessarily an alliance I support.
I think the rightwing is interested BOTH in pushing their religious agenda in the media & destroying church and state. Part of their religious agenda is discrimination against gays, women & minorities. They will have a few token people in government whose business it is to work directly against others from the group they represent. Bigots plain & simple.
Big trouble. The US Military is using OUR news channels as staging grounds for PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20041201/ts_latimes/prmeetspsyopsinwaronterror&printer=1
The Pentagon in 2002 was forced to shutter its controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), which was opened shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, after reports that the office intended to plant false news stories in the international media. But officials say that much of OSI's mission — using information as a tool of war — has been assumed by other offices throughout the U.S. government.
...
To learn MORE about the Department of Defense's strategy to use DISINFORMATION in AMERICAN media please check out the CS Monitor story and 110 page DoD .pdf file at:
http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/1129/dailyUpdate.html
Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department confirmed the contents of a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report had been originally placed on the DSB's website in early November.
READ THE DOCUMENT YOURSELF: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
It will make your hair stand on end!
One more thing about this document: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
It says that they know we (48% of Americans who do not support Administration's goals) use the INTERNET to share information with each other, and they are aware of this and will be seeking a strategy to limit or distort that which we learn through the internet. We have seen the way radio and television is being capitalized in this PSY OPS against AMERICAN and international minds, the next battle in the war on thought will be online. Watch this space!
Posted by: NonnyO | December 1, 2004 04:34 PM
Should it be the answer, I would agree. But CBS made it clear in his answer that it was because the subject was controversial.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_28.php#004136
December 01, 2004 -- 02:06 PM EDT // link // print)
I just spoke to a spokesman for CBS who walked me through their policy.
So here it is.
The network -- as opposed to affiliate stations -- runs no issue advocacy ads in cases where the issue is a matter of public debate. However, they will run political
Advertisement candidate ads.
Their policy of running candidate ads is pretty much moot since it seldom pays for a national candidate to spend money blanketing the whole country with ad. But the spokesman said they will run them.
Then I asked about anti-smoking ads or the anti-drug ads paid for by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The spokesman told me that the network does sometimes run these ads and does so in cases where the issue is not one of public controversy.
So, for instance, they might run an anti-smoking ad because no one disagrees that smoking is bad for your health, etc.
CBS's rationale for this policy, said the spokesman, is their desire not to let groups with "deep pockets" control the public debate through paid advertising.
I can think of a lot of reasons why this is neither a good nor a coherent policy. But that's their explanation of it.
The meaning of the separation of church and state will never be settled in an absolute sense. The Founding Fathers were all too familiar with the oppression and wars that grew out of the merger of church and state. Every generation has to renew this understanding of the danger to freedom. It would appear to be common for the followers of evangalizing monotheistic religions to want to subsume the power of the state to that of their brand of religion, so that they can then use the power of the state to enforce their religious beliefs.
At this point in U.S. history, we are dealing with a well-organized fundamentalist majority who are integrated into the Republican Party. As an interest group, there's nothing surprising about the fundi's demands for various pieces of legislation from Bush, any more than we would have been surprised if environmental groups had asked Kerry to add more wilderness areas. What is different, and a clear threat to democracy, is that the fundi's legislative demands involve using the state to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
One of the reasons why "freedom is not free" is that it is possible for a well-organized religious minority to vote its way into power over the majority--which is exactly the path that we are on now. The courts may protect the Constitution for a while, but we all know that one of the fundi's demands is for the appointment of judges who are commited to betraying the constitutional separation of church and state.
In the present instance, CBS deserves to be buried under a flood of emails and phone calls for their cowardly behavior. As Casey Morris urges in her post: Please feel free to call Mr. Ray Faiola, Director of Audience Services at CBS and tell him what you think. Mr. Faiola can be reached at (212) 975-4321. Ask for him by name.
On the church-state separation issue, check out Americans United for the Separation for Church and State. http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
For a list of the top ten theocratic groups, see Political Research Associates (PRA) http://www.publiceye.org/research/directories/theo_top.html PRA is a deep resource on all aspects of the right wing.
Utlimately, we have to build a political movement capable of defeating these domestic would-be ayotollahs and electing people who will strengthen the separation of church and state. We'll be talking over the coming months about the 2006 election.
I think the rightwing is interested BOTH in pushing their religious agenda in the media & destroying church and state. Part of their religious agenda is discrimination against gays, women & minorities. They will have a few token people in government whose business it is to work directly against others from the group they represent. Bigots plain & simple.
Posted by: DiAnne | December 1, 2004 06:00 PM
That's why the Log Cabin Republicans are especially dangerous. We must get them before they get us.
I think what I'm trying to say from a combination of an emotional response and a reasoning mental response is this:
I feel like I have bent so far backwards in respecting and honoring the religious views of the fundamentalist kool-aid christians that the trunk of the tree broke. It can't be propped up any more.
Like a victim of domestic abuse, I've kept my silence, hoping the fundamentalists would ALSO respect my right OF and FROM religion, per the First Amendment. They have the right to their opinions, but so do I. But by their sticking their opinions into the political process, they are dictating otherwise. And, dictate they do, which I find really offensive from a moral and ethical and legal perspective, especially since what they believe they want enacted into law BY LAW in our Congress and in our courts. Everything the right-wing fundamentalist kool-aid christians are saying and trying to cram down my throat (and that of everyone else) has shredded my last nerve. It's like reading about the events in Germany that led up to WWII all over again, only it's happening right here in America, now. What the right-wing fundamentalist kool-aid christians are advocating is nothing short of fascism, and they're using the same tools as were used then. Americans have learned nothing from history, and we're repeating all the same mistakes....
My rights end where theirs begins. Their rights end where my rights begin.
Laws they want enacted or repealed because they think they have been responsible for electing Bush (yes, that's bribery and fraud and corruption, per sparrow above) are things that go against the grain of every ethical and moral "rightness" I've ever learned.
I just won't take it any more. If they want my respect and tolerance, they have to also give me respect and tolerance.... starting, first of all, with NOT cramming their viewpoints down my throat for any reason whatsoever by any means whatsoever (and that includes via TV and the public airwaves owned by everyone, not just them and mainstream media!). Most importantly, the religios nuts in this country need to butt out of the political and electoral process entirely. Total separation of church and state. Period.
I refuse to be a victim of the right wing fundamentalist kool-aid christians any more.....
The slippery slope is icy.......
Posted by: NonnyO | December 1, 2004 05:25 PM
I think you misunderstand at least part of my post. In so far as we have freedom of religion, we have freedom from religion, I agree. But by not showing this ad, and in fact ANY ad about religion, are we not forced to proscribe to your view of this matter. Perhaps I would like to know more about this UCC religion, this is restricting my access to that information, and consequently, my freedom to even find out about worshipping, let alone, worship.
Whereas, you, upon seeing an ad coming on, have the freedom to simply turn your television off.
An ad is not the same as religious programming per se, no matter how you may try to make it so.
But my point was actually a much larger one and a much more disturbing one than the point you raise. It's this: by the logic and reasoning that CBS employed here to exclude this ad from airing, namely, the fact that "the executive branch" (not just the President mind you) has engaged in political rhetoric about this matter, it has rendered it political advocacy to speak of it AT ALL.
That is the point. So in the future, whenever the White House want to turn off the faucet on any issue, they just have to start making public statements about it, and poof, dissent in the legitimate form of advertising an idea, is completely gone.
Jerry Falwell? You can shut him off. The "Executive Branch" turning off the avenues of free speech? That is a slipperyslope that begins at the avalanche level already.
I think Bill O'Reilly is a complete waste of space- and more importantly,time. O'Reilly is the last person who should be calling John Kerry a sissy. O'REilly is no better than the school yard bully. You know the one~ angry, quick to yell, thinks he knows everything, generally obnoxious. He panders to the lowest common denominator & I think the 3 million people that watch his show are probably just as bitter as he is. They certainly aren't "free thinkers".
Question of the day:
Should John Kerry challenge Bill O'Reilly to a duel for calling his a sissy?
Story on the Unofficial Kerry for President Blog:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com
America Loves Kinky Sex
Let the religious Right whine about "Kinsey." The next sexual revolution is imminent
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Here's my suggestion: let them have it.
Just do it. Let the sexually bitter and morally frantic conservative groups now dictating governmental policy and FCC agendas and paranoid media attitudes have their time, their brief cultural burp, their little speed bump on the great and beckoning highway that will still lead us all, inexorably, irreversibly, though often agonizingly, toward grinning open-thighed progress.
Because here's the fabulous thing: no matter what these faux-Christian groups do, no matter how hard they oppress and protest and clamp down, this is a road that leads, despite all dour headlines and sour prognostications otherwise, toward spiritual illumination, toward awareness, toward sexual openness and same-sex marriage and revelatory sodomy and free vibrators for teenage girls and lesbians kissing open mouthed in the streets. In Kentucky. In the daytime. On Sunday.
It's true. All this and more, is gonna happen. This is my belief. Superlative homemade pornography and fetish dungeons and happy dildo supermarkets and the utter brilliance of the Suicide Girls and regular people having juicy consensual reasonably kinky respectful sex like it's no big deal, and it's all a matter of time, isn't it, before it will all erupt back to the surface of the culture and spread like hot karmic butter across the land. Maybe? You think? ....
(Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/12/01/notes120104.DTL&nl=fix)
The "Executive Branch" turning off the avenues of free speech? That is a slipperyslope that begins at the avalanche level already.
Posted by: casey morris | December 1, 2004 06:22 PM
I didn't miss your point or the point stated by CBS. You restated my point in the last sentence. I see where the slippery slope started, and I see how icy the hill is on that slippery slope and how the voices of dissent have already been silenced by the administration and the media in cahoots with the administration. If allowed to continue, the right wing fundamentalist kool-aid christians will control the lives of everyone in this nation. Everyone!!! (You wouldn't be allowed to investigate any other religious belief other than what the religious leaders behind the governmnet leaders dictate. There wouldn't be any such thing as a religion other than what is dictated by the religious leaders who control the governmnet. By the same token, if you interpreted anything you read in the bible differently from what those religious leaders wanted you to believe would you be allowed your own interpretation - that's thought control at its most subversive.)
As a life-long student of history (more than 50 years of reading), I also understand just exactly how dangerous it is when religion controls government - the government which makes the laws which control the people who are governed, with or without the consent of the people. I also understand just exactly how dangerous it is when religion controls education and how ignorant people can become against their will because of those religious controls that inhibit and prohibit scientific investigation and study because the megalomaniacal religious leaders need to control the people. One of the early popes wrote a directive to keep the common people illiterate because ignorant (uneducated) people are "easier to control." Yes, that was the historic time of The Dark Ages. (Why do you suppose it was called The Dark Ages?) America is headed toward its own Dark Ages because blind faith is overcoming reason.
I still maintain a Jeffersonian approach: Total separation of church and state. Please.... read Jefferson's words above very carefully.... By extension, I realize there is no longer a free press (media) nowadays in this country because the administration controls it and what they put on the public airwaves, which is why I advocate taking any religious commercials and services off the public airwaves. Let the religious shows and commercials have their own paid for cable channels, but take them off the public airwaves.
DiAnne, thanks for posting Mark Morford above. Made my day. :-)