Woman to Woman

By David

February 18, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

With respect to some religious people, fortunately a minority, there appears to be a conflict between two versions of truth—one absolutist and authoritarian. Revealed truths that are constantly threatened by liberal secularists, heresy and apostasy; the other more democratic and tolerant, thriving on innovation and criticism. A view in which truths about the world and the human condition are always incomplete, and subject to revision in the light of future evidence. This view, which harks back to the British empiricist philosophers, such as David Hume, makes possible the benefits of science-based technology, and medicine, the economic benefits we enjoy in the West and the political benefits as well. On the one hand, the absolutists, we are correct, you are wrong, don’t threaten our values, on the other anti-authoritarianism, openness to criticism, and the belief that reason and evidence are the surest guides to truth. The former are the values of the religious fundamentalist, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. The later are the core values of modern secular democratic societies and our social, political, and technological progress depends upon them.

By norman

February 18, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

The only crack down by government should be on incitement to violence.

Of course Christians are often guilty of inciting violence and they might well fear such government action. Adult off-color language is nothing for government to concern itself with. We do not, thank God, live in a Christian state.

By RS

February 18, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

It’s not like I’m an advocate of constant cussing, I’m NOT, but I’m so-o-o- sick of all the political correctness & “kid-friendly”, “family-safe” pap being shoved down our throats as part of an even more intensive campaign to take away our rights, stamp out our individuality/freedom of expression & make us slaves to the Cult Of Breeding. Don’t like what you see? Chances are you have a remote. Nuff said..For now, anyway

By RS

February 18, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Norman, you’re wrong. Unfortunately, we DO live in a “Christian state”. That’s why our rights are being taken away. Religious zealots just love to throw their weight around; I guess it makes them feel good to dominate the rest of us evil heathen scum.

By J.Morris

February 18, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

We are rapidly becoming a society that lives in terror that little Johnny might see something that might upset him. Instead of reducing the level of our television and other entertainment down to the lowest common denominator (we actually passed that milestone with “The Simple Life” - the first time) we’re now forced to reduce it to the lowest possible age group. In a few years, shows like ER and CSI are going to play like Doogie Howser.

The “wardrobe malfunction” that Shaunti refers to is probably the biggest mountain ever made out of the tiniest molehill. Did anyone actually see anything that they don’t see on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine in the check-out aisle of your neighborhood Kroger? Some Oscar attendees wear outfits that make that particular brief flash look downright modest. It’s a good thing Cher got out of her spiderweb outfit phase before the FCC turned into the rabid dog it is today.

Everyone keeps shouting for everyone else to take personal responsibility for his or her actions, but apparently this doesn’t apply to turning off the television when the kids are in front of it, or unplugging the X-Box at the first sign of blood-spatter.

We are, without a doubt, the most uptight society in the Western world. What’s more, we seem to be amazingly selective in what we are uptight about. The possibility of nudity sends parents into a tizzy. An unbleeped expletive sends every Henny Penny running to tell her friends that the sky has fallen. Show gruesome, blood-filled violence, though, and no one bats an eye.

By J. Morris

February 18, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Just a thought, y’all. It might actually be nice to discuss the topic without digressing quite so quickly into a religious battle.

By MG

February 18, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Of all the inane subjects consuming the country right now, this one has to be at the top of the list. There is enough information before programs on tv for any parent paying attention to make sure their kids don’t watch something they find objectionable. The Super Bowl incident last year was a huge exception because there was no explicit warning…..and the FCC TOOK ACTION. What more do we want???

Here’s a thought or two: 1. Pay attention to what your kids are watching. 2. Take the tvs out of your kids’ bedrooms. 3. Turn the one in the living room OFF. 4. (and most radical of all) READ A BOOK.

By norman

February 21, 2005 07:11 AM | Link to this

J Morris is correct about the repressive Puritanism of American life. And this repressiveness only encourages secret vice and mentally disturbed fantasies. Of course Christianity as a whole also encourages this peculiar emphasis and creates more mental illness than we would otherwise have.

One hour of Fox News distortions is more damaging than a few breasts exposed or a couple of thighs flexed around.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Are you an atheiest Norm or do you just hate Christians?

By norman

February 21, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Jack: I am somewhere between deism and atheism. Religion, revealed religion that is, has done immense harm, violates reason, and keeps people childish and mentally impaired. Christianity is based on distortions, lies, power plays, and sheer fantasy.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Please define deism, that one escapes me.

By Crystal

February 21, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Norman, you say you are somewhere between deism and atheism. That is known as never-never land. You try to put an intellectual aspect to this. Don’t bother. It doesn’t cover your basic lack of values and ethics, an undesirable trait for all times.

This forum centers on children’s entertainment. Let them have something enjoyable without injecting the adult’s lack of values. The “Normans” of the world will soon show them the unacceptable and unwanted “trash” of the times.

By Jim

February 21, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

I find it amazing that people of Christian faith want to repress types of speech that they feel objectionable. However, when people want to block prayer in school, because the Atheist find it objectionable, they have a fit. You can’t have it both ways. Free speach for all or a censorship. Your choice.

By norman

February 21, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Crystal: bigots like you never think non-believers can be moral. Actually, more moral outrages have been committed by Christian and Muslim believers than by non-believers. Jack: Deism was the religious view of our founding fathers, that there is a Creator god who speaks to us through nature and reason, not through scriptures. He has given us the ability to use our minds. He approves of free thought, disapproves of ecclesiastical, clerical tyranny.

By norman

February 21, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Jim: Christians have always been of two minds about freedom. They want freedom for those with the “correct” ideas and repression for those with the wrong ideas. That is why they have killed thousands “to save their souls.” Islam and Christianity are known for their bigotry, intolerance, and oppression. At least Buddhist and for the most part Hindus do not behave in this manner, although there are disquieting aspects of Hinduism when confronted with competition with Muslims. I guess Buddhists are about the only non-persecutory religion. And Buddhism is in origin non-theistic.

By Lyrazel

February 21, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Television shows are manufactured TO SELL products. There are entertainment blips between commercials. TV is a selling medium—not a value-substance-free speech medium. You watch thinking its for entertainment BUT in 20 minutes of show time you have seen 12 minutes of program to 8 minutes of commercial.

Ok, lets drift with some numbers: and Nielson numbers show people WANT adult sexual relationship shows with studly studs, want cop shows with grizzly crime scenes want buxom pistol packing mamas showing more clevage than any sane cop ever would. Women and guns is big on tv. Buyers of Viagra and perscription medicines watch these shows. The BIG 3 have compiled statistics for the past 40 years showing values tv flops but titilating laugh-at-inuendos work for American audiences. Especially a BIG SELLER are those Beautiful Teens Hurting Each Others Feelings shows that market to hormones in order to sell acne creams. You want to start disciplining TV content? Start with boycotting advertisers who market their products. The show is filler. Start where the money is…or follow Fearless Leader and shut off the idiot box.

By Bruce

February 21, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Jim, No one has blocked prayer in school. I have children in 7th and 4th grade, both pray everyday AT school and no one has tried to stop them. And Lord help them if they do!!!As a matter of fact one of them lead Christains on Campus last year. This No Prayer in Schools only happens when people just stop praying in schools.

What I don’t get is why I have to turn off, or change the channel, on my TV just because soemone else whats to view the CRAP that is being shown these days. Where are my rights NOT to have to sit through this?

Christains are accused of picking and choosing what we deem sinful in the Bible but isn’t that what most of you are advocating with the laws of this country? We have laws against it displaying this material but you do not want to enforce them, or change them to suit your fansy. Next you will want to stop enforcing bank robbery or drug trafficing. Give me a break!

By Jim

February 21, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel. You are correct. It is all about the money. People who feel otherwise are kidding themselves. If a TV show is not making them money they pull it off the air. Plain and simple.

By Texas

February 21, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Jim, Your absolutly correct. Free Speach for all or censorship.

Prayer in school. Out.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 1962 The Supreme Court held with Engel and ruled that the state could not require the recitation of a formal prayer in public schools.

School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 1963. The court extended its earlier decision in Engel to overturn the state-required daily public school reading of 10 verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania and the daily Bible reading and Lord’s Prayer in Maryland.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 1985. In 1985, the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama statute that required silent prayer in schools. The law required observance of a moment of silence in classrooms for “meditation or voluntary prayer.�

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a prayer at public school graduation violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

So Jim, Which is it? Free speech for all, or only for some. As you said, you can’t have it both ways!

By Jim

February 21, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

I’m a Yankee and up north you cannot pray in schools. It cannot be organized prayer at PTA, at football games, hockey games etc. Coaches are not allowed to be near the groups along with teachers if prayer is being conducted.

By JohnR

February 21, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Do people still watch broadcast TV? Seems to me that the FCC should do something about improving the content of broadcast television, rather than worry about so-called indecent exposure. Frankly reality TV presents more of an assault on the senses than Janet Jackson’s breast. It seems odd to me that a show like The “bachelor” which demeans women, the institution of marriage, and normal human intelligence, is somehow okay television because no one utters the F word or exposes themselves. What about values?

I mean really, if you think that little Johnny isn’t exposed to coarse language, or nudity, or whatever then you’re living in some sort of paxil-induced never, never-land, or you must be incredibly repressed and not remember your own childhood. Chances are you were exposed to this sort of thing at an early age and you made out alright, but if it really worries you turn the damn tv off. Americans should have the right to look at anything regardless of how insipid or moronic it might be. Parents should be parents.

By norman

February 21, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Why teach children to pray to a being who either does not exist or exists too far away to care? Would it not be better to teach them to love one another and to strive for peace and justice? We all have finally to give up Santa Claus and the good fairy.

By Jim

February 21, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Texas, I’m all for free speech. I do not want the Government telling me what I can or cannot say. Without free speech there is no debate. Without free speach this forum would not be allowed.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: Your coments were right on the money.(no pun intended)

By Angie

February 21, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

It should never be the government’s job to parent our children. If, as a parent, you find a particular program unsettling or offensive or simply inappropriate for your child/children….then do not let them watch it. I realize the tv has become our country’s largest nanny service, but let’s get real for moment people. We cannot accuse the government of malignant involvment in our lives and then ask that they intercede on our behalf where tv is concerned. Its insane. Be parents. Take some kind of stand with your children. Parents are not supposed to be their child’s bestfriend. You are supposed to be their protector and caretaker. If you want the government to get involved in anything….perhaps it should be the video game industry. That causes more damage than anything on tv. Here’s a novel idea to all you parents of young children…….A set bedtime!

By Bruce

February 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Jim, The prayers my children offer up are not school led. No teacher, coach or other school offical has anything to do with it. I have taught my children they can pray anytime they choose too and they do.

Norman would like us all to believe that there is no need for prayer but one day he will come around and realize its importance and what he missed out on.

I guess my problem with this topic is why aren’t we enforcing the laws currently on the books? I now money has been mentioned but woudl we say the same about robbery, drug trafficing or even murder?

By Crystal

February 21, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Norman,

You have your opinion and I have mine. You show a paucity of open-mindedness and “higher objective” observations. I can only theorize that you have lost those qualities. Intellectual claptrap such as free thought, disapproval of clerical tyranny, nature and reason may be nice little appendages to a vacuum but seldom to moral standards. Sorry that your only religion seems to be the deprecation of those who have any faith of love, justice and peace, qualities that you suggest should be taught.

By Bruce

February 21, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Angie, My children have a set bedtime but this CRAP is on all day long on every channel. For them TV is not the babysitter but a release of the stress they deal with everyday. I censor what they view but what can you do when even the nightly news reports the stuff and the commericals are full of it too.

By Ryan

February 21, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s analysis (adopted from LaRue) is beyond ridiculous…

“like allowing someone to pollute your water and air and then saying, ‘Well if you don’t like it, just stop drinking and breathing.’â€?

If your water and air is polluted, you have no choice but to inhale and drink anyway. Believe it or not, you can survive without television.

I find conservative values very perplexing. Let me get this straight… If you are not willing to work, others should not sacrifice their tax dollars to feed your kids. However, if you’re too lazy (or busy) to monitor their t.v. viewing, every adult in society’s options should be restricted so the government can play nanny and shield your rugrats from dirty words and boobies.

Umm… okay… Let ‘em starve but make sure they don’t see any sexual stuff on t.v.

I’m sure Jesus is so proud of your ability to prioritize.

By Ryan

February 21, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Make that… “air OR water is polluted.”

By Mara

February 21, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Adult content is just that, ADULT content. The television broadcasters have voluntarily captioned their programming with ratings advising on content. The V-chip has been available for years. If you choose not to use the resources available to protect your little angels from bad words, and perhaps even a flash o’ the butt, then that’s your fault. You wingers are soooo het up about personal responsibility, perhaps it’s time to practice what you preach. How about this…I won’t force your kid to watch the Simpsons if you won’t force mine to pray at school.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

The media should be able to show whatever they want. it should be the parent’s responsibility to keep children from watching whatever they deem inappropriate.

By J. Morris

February 21, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

We still dance around the basic fallacy inherent in Shaunti’s argument - that all television should be sanitized for the viewing of children. Crystal says in an earlier post that we’re talking about children’s entertainment, but we absolutely aren’t. The FCC isn’t fining Yu-Gi-Oh or the Power Rangers - it’s targeting adult programing made by and for adults.

I’m an adult. I pay my cable bill and I purchase the products which, through the advertising spending of the companies that produce them, make the programing possible. When I turn on the set in the evening to watch a television program that clearly has its rating displayed, I expect to see a program that is aimed at me, as an adult.

If parents want to take an active roll in the content of children’s programming, that’s their right and even their responsibility as a parent. It isn’t their right to try to whitewash everything that appears on the airways no matter whom its intended audience just because they live in fear that little Johnny might be scarred for life. As others have stated already - that’s where turning off the TV comes in, or changing the channel, or activating your V-Chip. Don’t complain because the government doesn’t step in and do your parenting for you.

As for someone’s “right” not to have to watch this stuff - what are you talking about? Are you saying that you are entitled to programing that doesn’t have violence in it? TV plays to the masses. As Lyrazel pointed out, the content of television is informed by one thing - ratings, and consequently advertising revenues. Trust me, if shows with violence and sex continue to get made, it’s because people want them to get made. If someone thinks that he should not have to watch this programming because of some sense of being persecuted by the networks, then…I’m at a loss for words. Just remember, grown-ups can use the off-button, too.

And people, can we PLEASE discuss this topic without the constant haranguing and off-topic ramblings of both sides of the religious fence? We all know your views on religion…it’s really not germane to this argument.

By Puritan

February 21, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Anyone that disagrees with me about anything or does anything I disaprove of,should be locked up in prison for the rest of their lives.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Why not put them in stocks?

By Gregory Sr

February 21, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

I agree with the Puritans. This country was founded by people that were tired of having military take over their bedrooms, tax everything to excesses, try to force them to believe what the monarch wanted preached. When(if) you find original documents of our Founding Fathers, you will read of their faith in GOD. You will also see sincere faith in GOD. These men and women hated the things like we suddenly see appear on TV, when it’s supposed to be a “general” show. I’m a grandparent, and I was , at one time a viewer of anything and everything that I felt may be entertainment. A lot of it was very crass…dirty…stupid sounding. I wasn’t really laughing, just putting up with it. Listen to the laugh tracks. It laughs when the program tells you to laugh. How funny is this garbage? They need to tell you when to laugh. You don’t know which piece of garbage to laugh at. You find filth funny? I find the present attitudes of the general public terrible. Babies using foul language. Why? They saw/heard it on TV! Watch what your kids see? You are too busy taking care of the finances… Earning an existence. Or you’re in the kitchen or another part of the home taking care of business… Washing Clothes… etc. etc. When you start DE-FUNDING these programs by not buying the products or writing the sponsors or learning how to pull the plug and cut the wire, you will have a chance to teach your children how to talk and behave. When you “draw the line in the sand and don’t let the kids drag you over it. things may change. Write/ e-mail, call the sponsors. The Stations. etc. etc. Get involved in your childrens’ futures. They may grow up to be what they idolize on TV. Get the stations to give two channels and “V-CHIPS”? see which channels pay. The pornographic? or the “clean”? I could go on for hours, It’s our own fault for not choosing and bringing them up right. (By choosing, I’m not speaking of killing the kids, just spanking and loving)

By Lyrazel

February 21, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

FCC regulates ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. All other stations are subject to cable laws that allow providers of cable broadcasting to monitor their own programs…also FCC regulates BROADCAST radio…Reason it regulates only the BIG 4 is so that people like me can have can access programs free of charge. (Why pay for 38 channels of crap?)

Crystal, I disagree. This focus of this forum is on ADULT CONTENT ON TV…not kid shows. If kids are watching adult tv is their parents business….TV sets HAVE A V-CHIP. That adults dont use it is state of life in USA… FYI Disney owns ABC…so why not boycot Disney products for slutty broadcast tv? An informed consumer is one willing to stand up and demand change by striking where advertizers they are most vunerable…the wallet!

The Superbowl…2004….well now, if it wasnt for TIVO and video recorders the rest of the world was on the crapper when that EVENT occured. Thankfully all those fans with second-to-second video were able to get blurry images…which were enhanced in photoshop for news broadcasts. Tell me, with SO MUCH EFFORT made to get Janets breast shots—isnt regulating programing ludicrous?

By Bruce

February 21, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

I would be willing to bet that if the networks started showing programming that was tasteful and respectful all those yelling for freedom of speech would be singing a different tune.

By Crystal

February 21, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

I prefer independence and freedom of choice on TV and most things in life. But I can’t go 95 mph on the expressway. Or gorge myself on illegal drugs; or buy outdated tainted food and medicine, or buy cars that burst into flames on contact, or open a gas station in the subdivision, or go to an unlicensed health provider. We expect the government to protect us in many ways. We hope to protect our children from salacious entertainment so we turn to government. But the question is: Do we want more protection or do we want more liberty and self-determination? Perhaps it is as Jim wrote: “Free speech for all or a censorship.”

Maybe we will have a post from Patrick Henry to settle this question.

By Zack

February 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

RS—Your comments infuriate me with their content. So, you don’t want the government to intervene and protect the majority at the expense of costing “entertainment” for the minority? That’s not how a democracy works, my friend. With this kind of logic you’re showing, we could never have a sane society if enough people embraced it; instead, we’d have anarchy.

There are certain things that have no place being on the air, on the internet, on shelves, etc., and contrary to what you say, the government DOES have a responsibility to step in. Also, contrary to what you say, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Christians speaking out against this filth. Entirely to the contrary, we are to do just that, and not stand pat while the left tries to impose more and more of its obsessed will on us all.

Part of what needs to be censored is the propaganda in films with Jewish directors, as Hollywood is essentially a landfill nowadays, which is why I’m not interested at all in 99% of the movies that come down the pike. On the other hand, a movie like “The Passion of the Christ” airs, and although it’s historically accurate, all the obsessed, biased, prejudiced folks on the other side of the fence come out with their staunch propaganda and insane comments against it. My gosh, I hate Hollywood.

Yeah, there’s a lot that needs to be censored out there. The government does owe it to us. I’d also like to see the government pay close attention to the homosexual propaganda that besieges kids in elementary schools. (No wonder more and more parents are turning to home-schooling. Home-schooling is a great way to teach your kids. Don’t believe the fact that it’s not effective. That’s just one of many tons of lies from the left.)

By J. Morris

February 21, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Gregory, Sr., I have to chuckle at your assertion that the founding fathers (why do we always bring up the founding fathers - do we honestly believe the evolutionary process of governemnt and society ended the day the founding fathers put pen to paper? Do we think THEY thought that 200+ years into the future the country would not have changed? I doubt it.) would have hated the kind of programming that currently exists.

I hate to break it to people, but violence and language and sexual situations have permeated popular entertainment for a very long time. Shakespeare, Voltaire, Moliere…farther back, Seneca, Plautus…there are too many to name. The literary and theatrical history of the world is full of bawdy and offensive language, sex, violence, murder, blood, gore, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The only difference between then and now is that the characters and places have changed…that, and the folks named above did it better than the hacks writting most programming today.

And Greg Sr…if you think the clean channel would rake it in more than the uncensored one, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

By J. Morris

February 21, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Zack, I really think you would be soooo much happier if you just moved to the middle east - Saudi Arabia, or one of the other Sharia-based nations. Since you are so in favor of censorship, theocracy, and everything else that is absolutely antithetical to a free society, you would feel FAR more comfortable there.

I’ll even pitch in for your plane ticket.

By TJT

February 21, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

How about this idea - why don’t parents take responsibility for what their children watch on T.V., and allow the rest of us tax-paying adults to decide what we want to watch on T.V.? Sound fair? My parents kept tabs on me when I was a teenage, and consequently I didn’t watch programs that were objectionable to them. It worked, and did not deprive any other adult, tax-paying citizens of their rights to what whatever they deeded appropriate on T.V.

By Mara

February 21, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Zack, what is it exactly that you and your friends need the protection of the government for? Are you being pelted by cuss words? Poor battered thing! It has to be sooo inconvenient to y’all that the same document that gives you the right to endanger your children by keeping an infinite number of fire-arms is the same document that give Chris Rock the right to say “kiss my a*” on television. First Amendment, second amendment, all the amendments, are there to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the MAJORITY. And, by the by, this isn’t a democracy - it is a democratic republic. Slight difference but if you’re going to use the “might makes right” arguement than at least you should be accurate.

By J. Morris

February 21, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

A good, but wasted effort, Mara. Accuracy is not exactly Zack’s strongpoint. I suspect he has never heard of Alexis de Tocqueville, or even John Stuart Mill, nor he wouldn’t care if he had, as the only philosophers to whom he lends any credence are the authors of the Bible and of the Left Behind series.

I try to take what he says with a grain of salt, but sometimes as the day winds down, it’s fun to poke at him with a verbal stick…kind of like making the “aggressive body language gestures” at the gorrillas in the zoo - the ones that the primate house exhibit tells you NOT to make. You know he’s going to react predictably, but it’s still fun.

By Jack

February 21, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

If “The Passion” had not had as much blood & guts nobody would have went to see it. People say that everyone should watch it to make them a better Christian. I don’t agree with that for if you were a good/notgood Christian to begin with a movie would not change you.

By Zack

February 21, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Mara—Your comments don’t speak highly of you. Nor does J.’s support for what you said speak highly of him.

The constitution supports liberty for individuals until individual actions infringe on the rights of others. (Unfortunately, many years and much corruption later—our laws are not based on this at all times, with abortion being a perfect example.)

We do have a right to free speech, but porn is hardly something protected by the constitution. Porn kills. It really does. Just go do a survey at a prison and ask the inmates what the first step was in their downfalls. Each one will tell you it was porn. You want something like this protected?

By J. Morris

February 21, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Zack also likes to make broad, sweeping statements with no basis in fact…statements like: Each one will tell you it was porn. Oh, oh - and when he either doesn’t like (or more likely understand) an argument you make, he says that your words don’t speak well for you, or insults your intelligence.

He also seems to think that the individual acts that infringe upon the rights of others include anything that hurts his feelings or challenges his religious beliefs.

Isn’t he a hoot?

By RS

February 21, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Ohhh, brother, Zack, I see you’re still dying to live in a fascist dictatorship/police state. JM is right, you WOULD be happier in the Middle East where such a WORLDVIEW is admired. And I’ll help him pitch in for a one-way ticket for you.If you don’t care for something you see on TV, change the channel or turn the set off. I assume even YOU have the intelligence to figure out how that is accomplished. When working, tax-paying adults have their choices limited & rights taken away in order to protect children, (protect them from what? From what they only see/hear on the playground anyway!?!?then something is wrong with that picture. Nowadays, with all this “self-esteem” garbage, children rule the world anyway & that is wrong. Hate Hollywood? So don’t visit/move there. I’m sure all their denizens will breathe a huge, collective sigh of relief. And no, porn doesn’t kill. People do. Of course, I knew you’d once again sink to anti-Semitic remarks when someone who IS Jewsih dares to disagree with you. Pathetic. Of course someone of your calibre has no recourse but to resort to childish name-calling when you realize logic & truth are NOT on your side. Your monumental ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to make me A) laugh B) vomit

By MG

February 21, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

I honestly cannot see why this is so controversial. As a parent, you certainly have the right to determine what’s appropriate for your kids to watch. But TV programs have indicators at the beginning to tell you what the program will contain. If you have objections to the programming in general on a given network, WATCH A DIFFERENT ONE!

As someone else said, programming content is entirely driven by money and ratings. You may not like the content of Desperate Housewives or some other show, but clearly SOMEONE DOES or it wouldn’t be on. Those shows that people don’t watch GET CANCELLED. What’s on the networks reflects WHAT PEOPLE LIKE TO WATCH. It is not rocket science, people.

Stop using the tv as a babysitter. Pay attention to what your kids watch, TAKE THE TVs out of their bedrooms, and if you still don’t like what’s on, turn it off! I am a parent, I have a 2 yr old, I think most of what’s on the major networks is junk, and I rarely make it past HGTV or The Travel Channel. But clearly SOMEONE out there likes the programming, so, by all means, have at it! I know what my option is - turn the channel or turn it off!

I do not understand how as a society we think everything needs to be taken care of for us without taking any responsibility for it. We have become a bunch of high maintenance whiners.

By Crystal

February 21, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Now, wait a minute, Mara.

“Amendments (to the Constitution) are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.”

Don’t you mean equal protection for all citizens? Minorities can be just as tyrannical as majorities. Remember the cruelties of the Sunni minority regime headed by Sadaam over the majority Shiites in Iraq? I don’t believe the principles of a democratic republic were meant to differentiate betwwen “majority” and “minority” citizens. Just differentiate between right and wrong for all citizens so as to maintain democratic “rights”.

By norman

February 21, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

The reason Zack is a fascist whether he knows it or not is that Fascism is militant Christianity got up in modern dress.

By norman

February 21, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

When conservatism and traditionalism, political, social, and religious, find that they are perceived as old fashioned and out of date, they seek a more modern dress. That dress is based on ultra-nationalism, and we call it Fascism.

By Bruce

February 22, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

MG, When your 2 year old reaches school age and comes home crying because the other kids tease her/him because all she/he gets to watch on TV is HGTV or The Travel Channel what will you tell her/him? Oh I get what you are saying once we all only let our kids watch HGTV or TTC then that will be all they have to talk about. Great idea!

I censor what my kids watch, but even the Cartoon Channel and Toon TV is full of viloence and sex. Even the commericals on HGTV and TTC carry this crap. We must draw the line somewhere. I am not against adults having their channels to watch what they want to watch (HBO, Showtime, Playboy, etc.) but does it have to be on EVERY channel? I am all for using common sense here, given we are not so selfish that we don’t want it all.

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Crystal,

While I do understand what you are saying, in this case you are incorrect. Certainly, in an authoritarian or dictatorial environment, such as that which existed in Iraq and spawned the Sunni/Shia problem you mentioned, or the rule of the minority Afrikaner over black South Africans, the minority has dominion over the majority by definition. There is an entirely different set of problems inherent in those governmental structures. However, the political philosophical concept of “The Tyranny of the Majority” is one which depends specifically from democratic systems of government.

Again, I refer you to Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America which, though written nearly two hundred years ago, remains relevant today. Tocqueville opines that in a system where policy reflects the will of the majority, there is a tendency for the majority to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. Though I hate to use is as an example yet again, segregation is a perfect example of this. The will of the majority was that African-Americans were second class citizens. Did that make it right? By no means, and eventually the safeguards built into the Constitution prevailed (and others were added) and destroyed this unjust system.

Tocqueville expresses deep concern that the American system of Democracy quickly yields to the tyranny of the majority. He refers to the majority as despots, and suggests that as the majority continues to increase in size and in orthodoxy of opinion, that its despotic nature will continue to grow. I think we need only look at some of the people posting on this blog to discover the truth behind his concerns.

The Constitution and its amendments exist to protect the minority from the tyranny inherent in a wilful majority. The majority in a Democracy needs no protection. The minority certainly does.

By Texas

February 22, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Hello Crystal, I’m a Christian, not a good Christian, (I sin too much) I still lose my temper when as soon as I get out of church, someone cuts me off, or no one will let me in. I’m working on patience, but well you know. Anyway, I told you that I was a sinner, because many say Christians should remove the splinter from their own eye before worry about someone else’s. So…

You know what I find objectionable? Just a few short months ago, Christmas was celebrated. A Federal Holiday, however, many found it intolerable for any display of Christianity. (No Nativity Scenes on the Public Square, No Christian Christmas Carols etc. etc.) They (Progressives/Extreme Far Left) stated that Christianity should be displayed in our church’s not in a public venue. No Freedom of expression for Christians. Some have gone as far as to judge European Christians far better than us Condescending American Christians. I know far to many Christians are well “Synthetic Christians.” They are Christians only verbally, certainly not by their actions. But that’s another subject. Anyway, to get to the point, today, on this forum, the subject of Television Content is being discussed. Now isn’t it amazing, that the King of Peace (Jesus Christ) is intolerable but smut on TV perfectly within the bounds of Artistic Expression. Isn’t it amazing, “Common Decency” must be displayed at our work place. We can’t go to work cussing. (TV cussing perfectly okay). We can’t go to work bearing our Breast. (Well I don’t have any but you get the idea). “Common Decency”. Rules have to be established or some will take it to the extreme. If Christianity must be displayed in a Church and out of the Public, why then, can’t smut be in the triple X theaters and off the Public Airwaves, and if it isn’t, then the FCC (Federal Communications Commissions) are certainly in their/our rights to take the necessary action.

I know parents have a responsibility to guide their children. Monitor what they are doing. But today on TV, most commercials are disgusting. Beer Commercials for example. They show girls wearing bikinis running around as to suggest if you drink beer, your going to have all these beautiful bouncing… Well you know. Now, during the super bowl, Budweiser had a display of common decency when at an a Airport our Soldiers where returning from Iraq, and everyone was applauding, now that was a good beer commercial. I don’t drink, so there’s not a whole lot I can do. Some say boycott their product, well my only recourse is the FCC. (I can file a complaint). But again, my point is that there are ways of advertising that will sell your product just as well, and we as a society, we can be decent about it.

Diane brought up the comedian George Carlin. I guess because the F word is the adjective Carlin uses to describe everything. I remember as a child Bill Cosby. (Remember the Noah skit). Anyway, Bill is every bit as funny. But you know what’s unique about Bills monologue, No Cussing! You see, we can have comic entertainment on our public airwaves and remain decent.

After all, if it is intolerable for Christains to have a Nativity Scene on our Public Square, it should be every bit as intolerable for indecency on our Public Airwaves.

By Eric

February 22, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Has anyone ever noticed how toleranct and inclusive the public has become of Christianity’s voice in the public discourse?! (NOT!!!) True diversity and appreciation for opposing views escapes us.

The air waves belong to the public… a majority should decide what gets aired and dissenters have the right to use what influence they can muster to counter-act; that’s democracy. Sometimes things go your way, other times not; live with it.

If you feel Christians are imposing our ‘decency laws’ on you then the only intelligent thing for you to do is to mount your own ‘anti-decency law’ campaign…

While you’re at it, get your kids involved in the protest over a nice episode of ‘Desperate Housewives’! (Grrrrrr!)

By David Apple

February 22, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

I would be interested in someone citing examples of … “Of course Christians are often guilty of inciting violence” I can only think of two examples: 1) The role of Christians supporting the Civil Rights movement in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. However the violence was against Christians and others participating in non-violent protest. 2) The American Civil War was the most violent activity in our nation’s history, and the fight to end slavery was an effort lead primarily by Christians who respected the right to freedom and self determination of every human being. Can anyone think of other examples?

By MG

February 22, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Bruce, if you actually read my post, I did not suggest that the answer is to only let your kids watch HGTV. In fact, what I said was that’s all I watch. I think most of the rest of what’s on tv is crap. SO I DON’T WATCH IT. That’s my choice.

The issue, if there is one, will continue to be one of money and ratings. You or I may not like what’s on the networks, but clearly someone does and they watch it. I can’t imagine what anyone sees in any of the reality shows on tv, for instance, but obviously, millions do.

You can always turn if off and do something else.

By Archie

February 22, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

First of all Shanti nor Dianne defines what is adult television content so I guess they mean primetime television 8 pm to 11 pm. Anyway I feel the government should enforce its rules about content before 10 pm. It’s hard to watch tv between 8 and 10 pm believing that you’re not going to hear any profane words or see any strong sexual innuendo, but you hear words like “a*” and “b.tch” on the first program in primetime. Trying to train your child to not use certain words which have now become mainstream is tough. I don’t support censorship at all but I think it’s not going to hurt anyone to enforce the rules as adults we can stay up later to watch shows with all the artistic expression we need or want. Frankly it’s nice to be able to watch a show with the entire family and not have to squint because of the language that you weren’t expecting. I wasn’t offended by Miss Jackson because I only saw her for 10 seconds and I think much worse stuff comes on tv, such as the backside of that cop on NYPD blue. Networks are hypocritical anyway and as someone said it’s all about the money, but if the rules are enforced as written then everyone should get what they want.

By Bruce

February 22, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Texas, Here is another one. We want to have legalized abortion because “well kids are going to have sex and there is nothing we can do about it”. So we must have a way for them not to be hindered for the rest of their lives.

Well kids are going to watch TV and there is nothing we can do about it either. And no turning it off is not the answer. Cleaning it up is. Now don’t get confused, my point is not to compair abortion to the crap on TV today. (although it probably could be linked) Instead it is, kids are going to do it anyway so we must do something to clean it up.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Well, this is a good issue to discuss. As a parent, I am certainly vigilant in telling my children what they can and cannot watch. The problem is that shows change over time. For instance, one show that we watched as a family for several years, was “Everybody Loves Raymond”. Over the last 3 seasons however, we stopped watching it because it changed from funny family fare to unfunny adult topics. What was once perfectly acceptable for my kids became unacceptable. What if I had just allowed my children to watch it without monitoring it based on its HISTORICAL acceptance? It seems that shows that run out of ideas resort to reducing themselves to cheap, inappropriate comments and adult content. That is usually when the shows end up in cancellation, because people quit watching them. Another issue I have came up several years ago when Fox began broadcasting NFL games. As an avid Falcons fan, I would sit down with my 10-year-old son to watch the games. Fox showed the MOST INAPPROPRIATE COMMERCIALS for a Sunday afternoon that you could possible imagine. One in particular was for a show where the Father (and I use the term loosely) was standing there salivating over his son’s nearly naked girlfriend. I quit watching football for a couple of years. Now tell me what kind of “WARNING” should I have gotten for watching an NFL game on TV. The networks CANNOT be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to content. The airwaves belong to the public…not to the networks. I filter content on the internet, but inappropriate material still gets through. I use parental controls on cable, but it does not block commercials. There has got to be a better way to protect our children than this. Another question is, “What about those parents who don’t keep inapprpriate content from their children. About 15 years ago,I surveyed my 4th grade class to find out what their favorite movies were. Most of them mentioned R-Rated slasher movies. Are you telling me that SLASHER MOVIES are appropriate for 9-year-olds? There has got to be a better way.

By Lyrazel

February 22, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

To those who want your government to take a more active role in your TV viewing you must LOVE the idea of paying more taxes. Why not spend your tax cuts on new government services???? Wow! Brilliant!

By Bruce

February 22, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, It is not a matter of more taxes, we already have laws against this kind of crap but they are not being enforced. Just enforce the laws and clean it up.

By norman

February 22, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Do good laws make good people, or do good people make good laws?

By Mara

February 22, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

David Apple I can cite a couple - do you recall the Crusades? True, a bit out of date but.. Did you know that Hitler was a Christian and revered the Catholic heirarchy? The dogma of the church (Jews killed Jesus!) was the basis for his pogrom of genocide. Today we have the remnants in that with the anti-Semetic actions of skinheads. Now we have the Republican party who, as we know, is the party of Christian conservatism and values. If Iraq were a christian country do you honestly believe that as many civilians would be counted as “collateral damage”? Be that as it may, you asked I provide. In regard to government enforcement of indecency…who gets to decide what’s indecent? Many people thought Robert Maplethorpes photographs were indecent, I found them profoundly moving and beautiful with their interplay of light and shadow, the graceful lines of the human form. I like Bill Cosby and George Carlin. I do not object to dedicating a certain number of hours in the evening to un-objectionable pap but I am not willing to give up my viewing interests to do your job and protect little Johnny from the cuss words. I personally don’t particularly like the religious channels begging for money and telling anyone who doesn’t share their faith that they are less than decent, moral people. However, if you want to terrorize your kid by letting them watch programming that tells them they WILL burn in Hell forever for stealing that 50 cent candybar, well, that’s your business. So we come back to the question on exactly whos definition of moral and decent we use.

By Bruce

February 22, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Mara, As I have said it has already been decided. Just enforce the laws we currently have.

By Scalia

February 22, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

The people who are causing for censorship, the supposed Christian right conservatives, have never truly read the bible all the way through. The majority of the bible is full of the same things that we see on television. Moses was put in the river by his mother, Solomon and his many wives, all of the fighting that Joshua did, Jacob married two sisters (Rachel and Leah) and had children with both of them. And you complain about the content on television? That visual alone is just as scarring.

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Yet again, we get the rallying cry of today’s Conservative - No big governement! (Disclaimer: “No Big Government” does not include anything that violates my belief structure. Anything that impedes free expression of anything that I don’t believe in is subject to the control of Big Brother)

Anyone who doesn’t realize that the Superbowl is the advertising event of the year lives in a cave. Advertisers who spend millions of dollars for a 30 second spot are not going to make commercials for kids because kids (and I don’t know how many times we can make this point) DONT - PURCHASE - PRODUCTS. OK? It’s all about the Benjamins. It has nothing to do with Fox - whatever network hosts the Superbowl is going to show the same commercials. Do you have any clue as to the target demographic of the NFL?

And yet again - it is only your opinion that adult content is not funny or entertaining. Obviously, as has been stated over and over and over, most people do find it funny and entertaining. So, basically, you’re saying “To heck with the rest of you - I don’t have the parenting skills to deny my child when he begs to watch television I don’t like, so the rest of you are going to have to make do with content fit for my 10 year old.”

The world does not exist to help you “protect” your children from threats which, frankly, exist only in your mind.

By norman

February 22, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Good point, Scalia. A famous 19th-Century American atheist, Robert Ingersoll, wrote a book called The Bible Unmasked, which had on its cover a picture of Joseph in a falling loin cloth fleeing the bedroom of Potiphar, the wife of his employer in Egypt. Yes, the Bible since it deals with people and their doings is bound to be sallacious and off-color. You would not want your children to read it any more than seeing Mom’s afternoon soap opera.

Mara: there is a very interesting book called The Holy Reich which points out how most German Christians in the 1930’s found Nazi propaganda perfectly compatible with their Christian belief.

By lozen

February 22, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

David Apple, here’s another example for you. Anne Hutchinson stood trial alone, with no lawyer to defend her. She faced a panel of 49 powerful and well-educated men. She was accused of sedition, or trying to overthrow the government. And she faced banishment if convicted. Hutchinson’s “crime” was expressing religious beliefs that were different from the colony’s rulers. In the year 1637, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, that was against the law—especially for a woman. Hutchinson, a Puritan, came to America in search of a place where she could worship freely. But when she arrived, she found the Bay Colony’s religious rules very intolerant. The ideas she brought with her from England quickly landed her in trouble. Hutchinson believed that people could communicate directly with God—without the help of ministers or the Bible. This was in direct contradiction with the established religion. Local ministers taught that people could only find God by following the teachings of the Bible. And that only they could interpret the Bible correctly. At meetings she held in her Boston home, Hutchinson criticized the teachings of the colony’s ministers. In Massachusetts Bay, as was the custom at the time, all ministers were men. The Church controlled the political power. There was no Constitution or Bill of Rights. Only those who belonged to “approved” churches could vote. Magistrates, or government officials, used the Bible as their legal textbook. And people who broke the law could be punished severely—jailed, whipped, or even executed. Many considered Hutchinson’s teachings illegal. Anne Hutchinson’s meetings deeply divided the colony—and caused alarm among the colony’s leaders. Many people, including the governor, Henry Vane, supported Hutchinson. But others—including powerful religious leaders and the powerful former governor John Winthrop, opposed her. They believed that women should obey men at all times, and that women should be forbidden to teach about religion. And they feared that if people followed Anne Hutchinson, the ministers would lose their influence over the people. The colony might even dissolve into a civil war. As Hutchinson’s following grew, the leaders took action. They stopped William Wheelright, Hutchinson’s brother-in-law, from becoming a minister. Then they banished him. In 1637, they reelected John Winthrop governor. Still Hutchinson refused to stop criticizing the ministers. In August of 1637, the ministers called a conference, to discuss Hutchinson’s teachings. They discovered some 82 “erroneous opinions” Hutchinson had made. The magistrates called other Hutchinson followers to trial, convicting and punishing those who stood by her. Then they tried Hutchinson herself. The lead prosecutor was Governor John Winthrop. For nearly all of the first day, Winthrop was the only accuser who spoke. Hutchinson he said, held meetings that were “not tolerable” in the sight of God. In addition, she had stepped beyond the bounds of what was allowed for women. As the trial continued, more men spoke against Hutchinson. But she used the Bible and the men’s own words to skillfully defend herself. She stated that holding meetings in the home to discuss religion had been a common Puritan practice in England. She told the men that God had spoken to her directly, and that only God could be her judge. But in the end, the verdict was against her. She was banished from Massachusetts Bay. Hutchinson left in spring of 1638. The religious persecutions continued. Quakers were singled out for very harsh punishment, partly because their religion forbid them from swearing oaths to the government or serving in the military. Just being a Quaker was punishable by whipping, mutilation, or death. Between 1658 and 1661, four Quakers were hanged. But even amidst persecution, the idea of religious freedom grew. After the colonies won their freedom from Great Britain, the, new leaders of the United States of America put religious freedom in writing. Article VI of the Constitution declared that “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to and Office or Public Trust under the United States.” Amendment I stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” After she left Massachusetts Bay Colony, Anne Hutchinson lived out her years in exile, first in Aquidneck, Rhode Island and later on Long Island, where she died during an attack by Native Americans in September, 1643. Hutchinson had not succeeded in changing the laws of her time. But her courageous actions helped set the stage for an America in which religious freedom was a reality.

By Boscoe

February 22, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

The dogma of the church (Jews killed Jesus!) was the basis for his pogrom of genocide. Mara, that is so moronic I actually have to question how lucid you are during the day. The German leadership during that period blamed the Jewish people for their problems, economic or otherwise. Norman, that same book, The Third Reich, also says the Pope of that day, Pope Pius XII, was committed with the German leaders to rid the country of the Jews which is false as I have proven to you in earlier posts. You people do the same thing you accuse me of….you believe everything you read without giving thought to where the information came from!

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

And let’s not forget the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, Irish Protestants and Catholics blowing each other up over whose church was the “right” church. And heck, during the Reformation Catholics and Protestants massacred each other in the millions over religion.

None of this is to suggest that all Christians are violent, by any means - but it does answer the rather insipid question asked earlier.

By Bruce

February 22, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Please forgive me but what was the point of your last post?

By chuck

February 22, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

The Constitution has NEVER protected obsenity. Obscenity is NOT a matter of free speech. It is rather a matter of community standards. To paraphrase, I cannot necessarily give you a definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it.

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe that children are adversely affected by pornography and violence on television? We as a society are going to be inundated with these violently perverted little cretins over time. It really is a societal problem. So many of you are saying you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your viewing habits because “I” don’t want to do my job as a parent. Well, I do my job as a parent, but what about the thousands that don’t. A number of studies have been done among serial rapists, and serial murderers. Almost without exception, these worst offenders had been regular users of pornography, particularly violent pornography. I have NO PROBLEM limiting this garbage on the public airwaves. Maybe you all ought to examine your own lives to see what is so horribly wrong that you have to fill your lives with such filth.

By Michael D

February 22, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Diane Glass may be a Democrat, but WOW is she a looker!!

Yea cmon.

By norman

February 22, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: as usual you are confused. The book I referred to is by Richard Steigmann-Gall and is called THE HOLY REICH. You are confusing it with John Cornwell’s HITLER’S POPE, a very different book. Cornwell shows how Pius XII destroyed the German Catholic Center Party, making Nazi programs easier to get through and how the once anti-Nazi German Catholics were led towards collaboration with Hitler, partially thanks to papal policy. The Steigmann-Gall book is about how much Nazi ideas of religion contained normative Christian materials. In the end both Catholics and Protestants, for different reasons, worked closely to support Hitler and his policy.
The Protestant Churches of Germany have admitted their guilt. The Catholic Church refuses to do so.

By the way, most of the Nazis who escaped from Europe to Argentina and other places of refuge were enabled to do so by Catholc Bishop Hudal in Rome, a pro-Nazi German bishop who was not hindered from saving Nazis from punishment by Pius XII. Pius XII also worked towards preventing Jewish children saved from the Nazis from being returned to their relatives if they had been baptized during WWII. All in all, the papal record stinks to high heaven. The 1960’s play THE DEPUTY by Rolf Hochhuth was totally correct in its portrayal of the Vatican during WWII. John Roncalli, who became Pope John XXIII, stands out as one of the few who did not act in a pro-German way. The exception that proves the rule.

In Slovakia the Catholic Church pressured the Nazis to take the Jews off the Slovaks’ hands — rather impatient to start the killings. The states that did the most to help Jews were Protestant Demark and Orthodox Bulgarias. But then the Vatican did nothing to help the Poles who were murdered and starved by the Nazis and whose priests were in large numbers exterminated. The Vatican preferred Germans to Poles.

Boscoe, if there is a Heaven and Hell it is clear where the hierarchy of your church will be found.

By Michael D

February 22, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Your Comment…

“To paraphrase, I cannot necessarily give you a definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it.”

Therefore when YOU spot these obscenities we should all be held to your moral standards? Is that your point or are you only interested in playing “little Dictator.”

Pay attention little chucky chuckles…perhaps you may view the movie “The People VS Larry Flint.” This movie will provide a solid background with regard to free speech. OH but wait, be careful, as there may be some obscenity’s in this movie. lol…

By Lyrazel

February 22, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

FOX is cable. Cable is subject to self-monitoring their content so any change of the FCC laws would not cover FOX broadcasts. In my opinion, anorexia and racy, cheap values is clearly being marketed on Disney (ABC is Disney…think desperado housefraus…soap operas…the REAL wonderful world of Disney…)—but why no parental boycots against Disney? If there were, Disney would return to dressing their starlets like Annette and Sandra Dee.

Classic example of how BIG BUSINESS buckles to customer complaint would have to be Wal-Mart and its decisions to only sell books and other media with appropriate family content. The big marketers do listen. Organizations are already formed to boycot products, tv shows and content…sign up and turn off like Fearless Leader does…you might change the world. TV IS ALL ABOUT MONEY! YOUR MONEY!!!

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

You know Chuck, the thing is - it doesn’t matter what is out there and what isn’t. If it hadn’t been the porn that inspired the criminals, it would have been something else. Unstable people are unstable people. There are millions of people - yes, that many! who view “pornographic” materials who are perfectly happy and healthy, who are able to seperate their fantasy life from real life. It’s the same with video games, role playing games, books, etc. - everything that the hysterical moral minority insist leads to crime in this country.

And…um…really…there is no porn on network television, so let’s stick to arguments that actually have something to do with the topic, mmmkay?

Eric Rudolph was inspired to violence and murder by the Bible…let’s ban that too! I realize that you approve of the deaths of the people he killed, so that must make it OK.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Michael, I don’t need to see anything to do with Larry Flynt. I know if if it has something to do with him it will be disgusting. That kind of stuff is available on cable (unfortunately), but it definitely should not be available on broadcast tv.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

I don’t approve of MURDER in any form…whether it is abortion or killing abortionists.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

BTW Mr. Morris, since when has staying on topic been important to you?

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

PORN IS NOT AVAILABLE ON NETWORK TV YOU MORON. FOCUS. COME BACK TO THE REAL WORLD AND NOT YOUR DERRANGED PSUEDO-REALITY. THERE IS ALSO NO NUDITY BEFORE 10, NONE OF THE “BIG” SWEAR WORDS, AND NO BLATANT SEX. GOSH!

There. Got that out.

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Nice way to avoid the argument Chuck.

By norman

February 22, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

J Morris: you were acting so goody-goody earlier in the week, but those fascist Christians are finally getting to you. Good, it is good to have you call someone a moron who is clearly a moron. Keep it up.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

What argument is that Morris, the one where you typically try to come off as an intellectual and then end up avoiding the topic and just calling names? The typically liberal format. If you can’t win on the facts, call names.

By Akeya

February 22, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Why are we so intent on having the government treat us like little children who cannot do anything for ourselves. AS a parent, it is my responsibility to monitor what my child watches. A nipple’s a nipple’s a nipple….their main purpose is to suckle children. So why do people act as though it’s so sinful to see one?
Now, I do admit that there are just some things that kids don’t need to see. But as a parent, it is my decision to decide what it is and when my child should be allowed to see it.

Turn off the damn tv for Pete’s sake…

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck, it’s called losing my temper at people like you who refuse to even discuss the arguments presented them and instead call the kettle black.

However, by allowing myself to sink to your level, I have yielded to your tactics. Please - address the points I made, so that we’ll know you have something worth saying.

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Oh, and just in case you need it boiled down for you:

Argument A) There is actually no porn on network television, so your argument that children need to be protected from it, exemplified in this statement: “Almost without exception, these worst offenders had been regular users of pornography, particularly violent pornography. I have NO PROBLEM limiting this garbage on the public airwaves.” is utterly specious.

Argument B) Unstable personality types, as any study of Psychology will show you, will eventually out in reaction to SOME kind of stimuli. Whether that stimuli be pornography, video games, the music of the Beatles, or - yes - even the Bible is irrellevant. The vast majority of people absorb these stimuli and process them for what they are - not a part of reality. Therefore, your argument that porn causes crime equally specious. If they weren’t killing people because of some porn-induced fantasy, they’d be killing people because Pride and Prejudice made them angry about the treatment of women during the Regency.

There - you have two topics. Discuss.

And Chuck, I don’t try to come off like an intellectual. I am an intellectual. I’m also a tempermental SOB and sometimes fall prey to the ad hominem pitfall. Don’t let that fool you into thinking my arguments aren’t valid.

By Zack

February 22, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Norman—Apparently, you heard the word “Fascist” at some point in your life and liked it so much that you decided to go around calling everyone that. I guess that’s your motivation. Do you realize how you sound on here?

J. Morris—Again, you have a typical post of hatred and ill-will and no substance. Why don’t you work on this?

Crystal—THANK YOU for putting Mara in her place yesterday. Yes, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the minority, something that RS wants desperately to impose on the majority. (She and Mara might be the same person. Heck, she “Mara” and “Norman” might be. Oh, and “J. Morris.”)

RS—Aside from the bratty part of your post yesterday, I noticed you stole several lines I had used on here before with others. Didn’t your mom (or at least your English teacher) ever tell you not to plagiarize? Thanks for the compliment, though. I also can’t blame you for plagiarizing from my material and trying to get by with it in the sense that you know as well as I do that your posts in themselves are terrible.

You said that porn doesn’t kill. As usual, you have absolutely nothing to support your thesis statement. You never do. You just have your biases and prejudices and absolutely nothing to support them, except, of course, for the hot air that perpetually exudes from your mouth, along with the wind pressure from your flapping tongue. I’m so sick and tired of people defending porn. As I said, go do a survey of prison inmates and ask them what the first step in their downfalls was. They’ll tell you it was porn. Such surveys already have been conducted. However, so far, you’ve just insisted on ignoring evidence and instead pushing your obsessed agenda and all the biases and prejudices that come along with it.

Quit resorting to your desperation tactics. Any time someone disagrees with you, you whip out the “anti-Semitism” card. Guess what? I’m someone who doesn’t fall for that nonsense, and I’ll be more than glad to put you in your place just like I’ve done time and time again on here and expose you for the lying myth-spreader that you are.

Fact: Jewish film directors ARE spreading propaganda via the big screen. Fact: Norman has made terrible comments against Christians and Blacks, and YOU have shown nothing but support for him and his comments the entire time. Fact: “The Passion of the Christ” IS a historically-accurate movie and DID draw unprecedented audiences across all demographics. Fact: Hollywood has shown its bias and prejudice against Christianity in its attempts to degrade this film. If opposing Jewish attempts to attack Christianity is “anti-Semitic”, I want to be the most anti-Semitic person around. I’m sick and tired of bigotry being shown to Christians all the time, and then Christians being attacked when we stand up and have the nerve to defend our faith.

Let’s talk about you a little more, RS. You defend slutty behavior by male and females and are flippant about abortion. (I sure hope any children you have tune you out in this regard.) You then ask Pro-Life advocates how many children they’ve adopted, as though they’re the problem. This is totally insane!

Stand up against abortion. Stand up against promiscuity. Stand up against attacks on Christianity. Stand up against attacks on Black people. Quit pretending to be innocent when you’re anything but that. As for your “insults” against me, well, you call me a monumental moron. However, MY posts aren’t monumentally moronic, as yours are, so all you’re doing is giving me a compliment. Instead of spreading all your biased and prejudiced tirades on here and trying to insult me, why don’t you consider bringing something worthwhile to the table? If you do, you can for once establish some credibility.

to my friends on here…clausentowashington@yahoo.com Feel free to drop me a line sometime.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

There is a cultural war going on in America, between those who would degrade our culture and those of us who want to preserve it. This is evidenced in the following:

A survey conducted among the 104 top television writers and executives found that, of the 104 who were asked if adultery was wrong only, 49% said it was. That means that 51% maintained that they believe that adultery is morally right. Meanwhile 85% of the rest of America believes adultery is wrong.

Take a look at this interesting article by Pat Sajak of “Wheel” fame at: http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/discernment/hollywood-america.html

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Zack, you are truly an idiot.

By Zack

February 22, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Coming from someone with your posts, thank you.

By norman

February 22, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Zack has just about admitted he is an anti-semite and so we should take him at his word.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

While there is not supposed to be pornography on broadcast tv, the content during the so-called “family hour” from 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. has decidedly ADULT content. For example, Friends came on at 8:30 p.m. It consistently promoted sex outside of marriage, glorified a woman who left one of the characters for another woman, had a character who jumped from bed to bed and there was never any mention of the consequences for any of these things. No STD’s, no emotional trauma, etc. Not legally pornography perhaps, but certainly not apprpriate for “family viewing”. Your second argument about “unstable personality types” is hogwash and you know it. Tell me ONE PSYCHOLOGIST who supports that position. If you can point me to the web-site, I would be glad to read it. I don’t believe it exists. Web-sites supporting my assertion abound. Do a Google search for pornography and serial rapists and murderers. You will find dozens of relevent sites.

By Crystal

February 22, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

We need some new BUZZ words here. ‘Obscenities, bigots and morons’are really getting tiresome. And Norman has completely “worn out” the ever present’fascist’. Could we try (a) NO government (b)I’ll decide. ???

There. Take your pick. If not, go wash your mouth out with soap.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

BTW, the same would hold true for Survivor, The Simpsons, Will and Grace, and many other shows.

By Tim

February 22, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Actually after ‘Seinfeld’ went off the air ‘Friends’ moved into the 8:00 p.m. spot… and now that that is off ‘Joey’ is on during that time (and Will and Grace is on at 9:00… don’t forget that is during ‘family hour’ too… wouldn’t want our children watching that either because it is a comedy therefore they may ‘turn gay’ thinking that it is funny to be gay)

By chuck

February 22, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Based on your post, Tim, it is obvious that being gay is not particularly funny.

By Tim

February 22, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

not usually… nor would it be funny to be a student in your class… I truly sympathize with those poor children… and people wonder why Georgia is 49th in the nation

By Zack

February 22, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Crystal—As I’m sure you’ve noticed, buzz words have been insanely popular by liberals now for quite some time. They would love for us all to believe that those who oppose homosexuality really are bigots and that those who oppose Jewish attacks on Christianity are anti-Semitic. (Notice how they don’t bat an eyelash at the attacks on Christianity, the staunch hypocrites.) Of course, this is to be expected from folks who honestly try to call opponents of abortion opponents to women. (WHAT???) This is well past the point of absurdity.

Then Norman comes on here and makes all his blatant and overt comments against Christians and Blacks and gets absolutely no argument from his friends.

Time to get back to work and write a paper tonight. This is probably my last post for the day, so bye.

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Well Bruce, as I expected you’ve changed your argument. You were talking specifically about Porn, and now you’re saying - we’ll I wasn’t REALLY talking about porn, just stuff that I find innappropriate. I think it’s interesting that the shows you listed are some of the highest rated shows in history. If your “community standard” applies, I think the viewing numbers show that it is YOU who is out of step with the community standard of decency, hmm? Otherwise, your just saying that because you find the content objectionably it is obscene and therefore needs to be banned.

As to the second argument, I challenge you to find a psychologist who DOESN’T think that basic personality instability acts as a primary contributory factor to anti-social and criminal behavior. I know every Psych professor I ever had certainly emphasised this. Here’s a quote from Psychologyinfo.com, which certainly seems to be reputable. Notice the distinct lack of mention of exposure to porn: While most, if not all, sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria for one or more of the sexual disorders, many offenders also are diagnosed with additional psychological disorders requiring treatment. Mental retardation, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance abuse can all influence an individual’s sexual behavior, leading to a sexual offense.

Let’s just make a few real-word references, even though I kind of already did. Charles Mansen - inspired NOT by porn, but by Helter Skelter. Is there something inherently evil in the Beatles - besides Yoko, that is - music? No. Eric Rudloph - inspired by the Bible. Same question, same answer. The Columbine kids - inspired by a video game. While the religious right continues to insist that violent video games cause crimes, the millions and millions of copies of these games sold without an equivalent increase in the crime rate say - Nope.

Thanks for playing - try again.

By Boscoe

February 22, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Norman, Norman, Norman you are still being deluded. As for Pius’s attitude toward Nazism, in an address at Lourdes in April 1935, before he was elected pope, he stated:[The Nazis] are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult. An analysis of Pius’s 1942 Christmas message by Reinhard Heydrich’s Reich Central Security Office concluded: In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung…the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for…God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews…That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the papal statement that mankind owes a debt to ‘all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.’ Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals. Several items I have found make it impossible for me to believe Mr. Cornwell’s accusation that Pius XII was anti-Semitic. In the papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, whose final form Pius XI attributed to then-Cardinal Pacelli, he made the statement that Catholics must never be anti-Semitic because “we are all Semites spiritually” and ought to hold the Jewish people in high regard accordingly. Rabbi Lapide relates that shortly after his election, Pius reaffirmed: “It is impossible for a Catholic to be an anti-Semite; spiritually all of us are Semites.” In “The Real Story of Pius XII and the Jews” in The Salisbury Review, Spring 1996, James Bogel writes: After the war was over, Pius XII received a large delegation of Roman Jews in the Vatican and ordered that the Imperial steps be opened for them to enter by. These steps were usually reserved for crowned Heads of State…The Pope received them in the Sistine chapel and, seeing that his Jewish visitors felt uncomfortable in that place, he came down from his throne and warmly welcomed them telling them to feel completely at home, saying “I am only the Vicar of Christ but you are His very kith and kin.” I have reached the same conclusion as Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Jewish Polish lawyer who served as the Director on International Affairs Department for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. In A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and the Jews, which he wrote in response to the publication of Roch Hochhuth’s play, The Deputy, in 1963, Dr. Lichten called the criticism leveled at Pius XII after the play’s publication “a stupefying paradox”, because: “No one who reads the record of Pius XII’s actions on behalf of Jews can subscribe to Hochhuth’s accusation.” If I were asked to recommend one thing that someone who was considering this subject should read, I would suggest this work. It is available at The Jewish Student Online Research Center (JSOURCE)

By Scalia

February 22, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Let’s talk about what I am sick and tired of. I am tired of people using psychologists as if they are the gospel. What they speak is nine times out of ten subjective. Psychologists are getting funded for their research, and i guarantee that they will lose money if they go against the company that is funding them. I also am tired of people using surveys, etc. as well, because they are being funded by companies as well.

Have your own opinions, use your own minds, and stop listening to what other so-called “experts” are saying. Money runs the world. Anything goes as long as it turns a profit. Bush isn’t going to condemn what’s on television, and risk alienating his wealthy friends.

By Lyrazel

February 22, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

I never saw Passion but just because its a christian directed film did not mean anything either. ITS A MOVIE! In my opinion if the content is blood and guts and vein popping entertainment its the amount of blood, guts and violence people are paying to see, so to me, a bloody-gore filled movie makes the crucifixion into side-show entertainment. Passion was not my thing, I did not see it. I needed no government agency to help me make this decision. Did I stop anyone from seeing it? Nope. I just did not go. Easy.

I never watched Friends. (Boring adults overreacting bores me) My mom adores Friends. My mom is 80. She can handle false sexual relationship discussions of situations that only happen on TV. She knows the difference. She doesnt need a government agency to tell her. I only got through 10 minutes of Whoever Loves Raymond Can Have Him and the new flood of situation comedies because I verbally wonder why pretty women portrayed married to ugly fat men…show me a studly dude with an ugly wife on TV! My hubby gets tired of my tirades and we change channels…no government agency required. I watched two episodes of DH before hubby and I said: this is boring. We arent interested in how fake suburbanites deal with blender fixations…

I think if you count on TV shows how many people get murdered nightly compared to how many people have sex you will find more people are murdered. Which says more about American TV viewing. Broadcast TV viewers get guns, bullets, battles and gore nightly, pedophiles, serial rapists, all sorts of crimes are openly discussed to lurid graphic detail but add a sexual relation between two adults and critics pop out of the woodwork.

By Zack

February 22, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Scalia—Yes, you’re right about people putting WAY too much emphasis on psychologists. These people are as confused as they come, at least most of them. Talk about disagreement, there’s no more disagreement than there is in a room full of psychologists operating from different models, and people PAY to get the THOUGHTS of THESE people?

I had a feminist Psychology professor two years ago who was as biased and propaganda-laced as they came. She had a huge bias against men, particularly men, and she was all for gay marriage. She contradicted herself all the time. She claimed to be against stereotyping, but she openly stereotyped men more than once. I made some comments to her that probably still infuriate her. It’s always nice to refute a feminist.

Indeed, psychologists are NOT the answer. People oftentimes ignore the Bible, which is consistent, and seek the inconsistent and mostly-unsupported views of psychologists. I don’t understand this.

Now…I’m gone.

By Sct

February 22, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

I was horrified the other day when I caught my 9 year old son watching a religious service last Sunday morning on TV.

What if he grew up to be intolerate of others? What if he grew up idolizing the USA like a God? What if he put more value in money than he did a human being? What if he wanted to start praying in public although Jesus taught against it?

If I allowed him to keep watching these religious programs I know that one day he might respond “I want a bag of stones for my birthday so I can cast them at the sinners with my fellow church members.”

As a responible parent I turned off the television. It was that easy. Banning all religious programs would not be right, besides they bring in too much money, it would never happen.

By Zack

February 22, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

oops… “…particularly Pro-Life men”

Bye.

By Boscoe

February 22, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Pornography is harmful to everyone. Eighteen separate studies have shown pornography desensitizes all viewers, and may lead to extremely violent behavior. Pornography desensitizes the viewer. All pornography—soft, hard, and even so-called ‘neutral’ sex-education materials, desensitize the viewer, enabling him to be conditioned to sexual acts, violent and nonviolent, as an essential part of human behavior. This conclusion has been reached in 26 separate studies. Leading sexual violence researchers Neil Malamuth, Ed Donnerstein, and Dolf Zillman state that, in general, “Pornography desensitizes. Exposure to these materials, whether violent or nonviolent, coercive or noncoercive, experimentally increases male aggressive behavior against women, and decreases both male and female sensitivity to rape and the plight of the rape victim. Both males and females, after viewing this material, judge the female rape victim to be less injured, less worthy, and more responsible for her own plight.” Pornography is addictive. Several studies have shown that all persons, normal and unbalanced, who view pornography develop a craving for ever more deviant materials. Many persons even begin to employ more violent methods in their sexual relations. As with drug users, those who use pornography seek more and more deviant materials to maintain their previous level of sexual arousal. Pornography degrades marriages. Pornography users generally view material that shows attractive women performing almost any type of act with any number of men (or animals, for that matter). The users begin to expect that their wives should also perform acts that are at least a little more ‘adventurous’ or ‘experimental’ that those they are used to, and will become dissatisfied when their non-using partners will not live up to their porn-induced fantasies. They may even become dissatisfied with their wive’s physical imperfections. Pornography increases crime in dangerous offenders. More than 65 studies have shown that dangerous offenders (child molesters, killers, rapists, incest fathers) are not only more likely to commit their crimes if they employ pornography, they are likely to precede their violent acts with the extended use of deviant materials. Male sex offenders soon begin to display addictive and compulsive behavior when using porn. Their mechanisms for relieving stress soon all become related to deviant sex. They offend more and more often. About two million pedophiles, rapists, child molesters, sadists, and those who solicit teenaged or child prostitutes commit more than two million crimes annually. This number accounts only for those incidents that are reported—the total number is obviously much higher. Those who naively cling to the belief that pornography is ‘victimless’ should wake up and look at the facts. Thousands of persons have been tortured, raped, and murdered by warped human beings as a direct result of pornography. There are thousands of such cases cramming police files all over the nation. Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy, an infamous serial killer responsible for the murder of as many as 36 to 50 young women and girls, granted an interview with Dr. James Dobson on January 24, 1988, the day before he was executed. Ted Bundy stated in this interview, “In the beginning, it [pornography] fuels this kind of thought process … Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement—until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.”

By steve

February 22, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

I did a search on the web and found this from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry -

*American children watch an average of three to fours hours of television daily. Television can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Unfortunately, much of today’s television programming is violent. Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may:

• become “immune” to the horror of violence
• gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems
• imitate the violence they observe on television; and
• identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers

Extensive viewing of television violence by children causes greater aggressiveness. Sometimes, watching a single violent program can increase aggressiveness. Children who view shows in which violence is very realistic, frequently repeated or unpunished, are more likely to imitate what they see. Children with emotional, behavioral, learning or impulse control problems may be more easily influenced by TV violence. The impact of TV violence may be immediately evident in the child’s behavior or may surface years later, and young people can even be affected when the family atmosphere shows no tendency toward violence.

While TV violence is not the only cause of aggressive or violent behavior, it is clearly a significant factor.*

I do believe there is evidence that shows that what we watch does influece our behaviors. That is why advertisers spend millions of dollars on commercials. Not only that, but companies go to great pains (and expense) to have their products placed in movies and tv shows because they know people are influenced by what they see, even if it is not blatantly promoted.

Having said all of that, I think the FCC has to be able to enforce restrictions for what is aired, especially during family viewing hours. With cable, satelite, vcrs, and dvds available, no one is being deprived of options. However, free broadcast tv should have some standards during a time when families are watching.

Personally, I have always enjoyed watching baseball and NCAA basketball. But I do not feel comfortable watching sports on television with my children now because the commercials are often so crude and inappropriate. As a result, we got rid of cable tv and just do not watch much except videos/dvds that meet our approval. I’d like be able to watch a ballgame with my kids again.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Here you go JMORRIS:

Mounting evidence suggests that negative perceptions of women in entertainment can affect women in real life. Research examining onscreen violence toward women finds that emotional desensitization can occur after viewing as few as two films with sexually degrading and violent themes. Studies also show that men who view a number of films in which women are portrayed in sexually degrading or violent situations become increasingly less disturbed by violence against women and less sympathetic toward female victims of violence. In addition, films initially found demeaning to women are judged to be less so after prolonged exposure. 10

Some people target pornography as the medium most likely to depict women in an offensive manner. A series of 1988 studies of prisoners reveals that “86% of rapists admit to regular use of pornography, with 57% admitting actual imitation of pornographic scenes in commission of sex crimes.” 11 A number of studies have also shown that violent pornography has a numbing effect, allowing men to commit sexual assaults without recognizing the pain suffered by their female victims. 12 Furthermore, studies where pornographic films are shown to students disclose that in the end, male students are more hostile toward women’s rights and to their struggle for equality. 13 In fact, the American public considers many movies demeaning to women; a survey found that 68% of the public believes sexual portrayals of women in American movies “often” amount to exploitation. 15 “Slasher” films further distort reality by sending out the message that sexual violence is normal or acceptable. Popular slasher films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre , Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street regularly portray scenes of graphic violence against passive female victims. Recent studies have found that college men exposed to just a few of these films tend to lack empathy towards female victims of rape, believing she “deserved what she got.” 16 In addition, these men often do not believe the rapist should be punished. 17
References:
Based on data published by the Commonwealth Fund, stating that 3.9 million American women were victims of domestic violence in the last year alone. First Comprehensive National Health Survey of American Women , New York: (1993). The Commonwealth Fund.
“1 in 7 U.S. women raped, agencies say.” (November 18, 1998). Daily News .
National Crime Victimization Survey . (1996). Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
The Commonwealth Fund, July 1993.
Collins, K.S., Schoen, C., Joseph, S., Duchon, L., Simantov, E., and Yellowitz, M. (May 1999). “Health Concerns Across A Woman’s Lifespan: The Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Women’s Health.” The Common Wealth Fund.
Sternberg, S. (January 25. 1999). “Study: Abuse sends women to ER.” USA Today (Health).
Ibid.
Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey , op. cit.
Donnerstein, E., Slaby, R. and Eron, L. (1993). “The Mass Media and Youth Aggression.” American Psychological Association.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E. and Penrod, S. (1988). “Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Violent and Sexually Degrading Depictions of Women.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55(5).
Linz, D. and Donnerstein, E. (September 30, 1992). “Research Can Help Us Explain Violence and Pornography.” The Chronicle of Higher Education .
Lederer, L. (1995). “Pornography and Racist Speech as Hate Propaganda.” The Price We Pay .
McKenzie-Mohr, Z. (1990). “Treating Women as Sexual Objects; Look to the Male Who has Viewed Pornography.” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bulletin .
Also see Morrison, T. “We Get the Message: Pornography in the Workplace,” Southwest University Law Rev . 22, pp. 53, 89: “Behavioral and social scientists have discovered over and over again in a multitude of studies that pornography affects male attitudes about rape, desensitizes men, sexually arouses them, and reduces their general inhibitions against sexual aggression.” (Torrey also lists and summarizes the most important social science research.)
Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J. “Effects of Massive Exposure to Pornography.” In Malmuth, N. and Donnerstein, E., eds. (1984). Pornography and Sexual Aggression .. In Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J., eds. (1989). Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Consideration .
Russell, D. (1993). Against Pornography (Russell Publications: Berkeley, CA).
Los Angeles Times Poll , Survey #360, June 1995.
Dines, G. and Humez, J.M.. (1995). Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Text Reader (Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA).
Dines, G. and Humez, J.M.. (1995). Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Text Reader (Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA).
Gerbner, G. (1988). “The Annenberg Report: The Generation of Insecurity.” The Business of Film .
Morgan, M. (1983). “Symbolic Victimization and Real World Fear.” Human Communications Research , 9(2).
Peterson, D.L. and Pfost, K.S. (February 1989). “Influence of Rock Videos on Attitudes of Violence Against Women.” Psychological Reports .
Ibid.
“I Want Action” by Poison from Look What The Cat Dragged In album. Produced by Capitol/Enigma, 1986. (lyrics accessed online: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5835/. Last retrieved on February 29, 2000)
“Anything Goes” by Gun ‘N Roses from the Appetite For Destruction album. Produced by Geffen Records, 1987. (lyrics accessed online: http://w1.857.telia.com/~u85703051/gnr/index.html. Last retrieved on February 29, 2000)
Stallworth, R. (March 1994). Gangster” Rap: Music, Culture & Politics . Murray, Utah: Utah Division of Investigation.
Johnson, J., Adams, M., & Ashburn, L. (1995). “Differential Gender Effects of Exposure to Rap Music on African American Adolescents’ Acceptance of Teen Dating Violence.” Sex Roles 33, 7/8.
Jhally, S., ed. (1995). Dreamworlds II . Media Education Foundation: Northampton, MA.
Cesarone, B. (January 1994). “Video Games and Children.”
Provenzo, E.F., Jr. (March 1992). “The Video Generation.” American School Board Journal 179.
Ibid.
Duke Nukem, 3D video game released by 3D Realms Entertainment
Croal, N. and Hughes, J. (November 10, 1997). “Lara Croft, the Bit Girl: How a game star became a ’90s icon.” Newsweek .
Jenkins, R. (1997). “Video games teach sexism, violence, xenophobia.” Times of London .
Ibid.
Masters, B.A. (November 1, 1998). “Cracking Down on E-Mail Harassment.” Washington Post .
Stalking. (1995). The National Center for Victims of Crime.
Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry, A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President . (August 1999). The Attorney General’s Office.
Miller, G. and Maharaj, D. (January 22, 1999). “N. Hollywood Man Charged in 1st Cyber-Stalking Case.” Los Angeles Times .
Ibid.
Slavin, T. (February 21, 1999). “A Chilling Case.” London Observer .
Ibid.
Niccolai, J.. (September 17, 1999). “White House Targets ‘Cyberstalkers.’” ComputerWorld On-Line News .

By AllaboutME

February 22, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

…porn on tv…. its the lady with the big pink wig who cries all the time on cue…yeah….ever notice how many products are sold by religious broadcast shows (mugs, cups, keychains, videos, pamphlets, makeup, dolls yes there is a realistic crucifixion doll you can take off its cross) by tv preachers who cant even remove their gold rings and rolexes before asking for money? obviously preaching christ isnt cheap…they can put satilites into space but still need pledges of faith to fund telecasts…now thats selling indulgences isnt it? wouldnt jesu come and samsonite the temples? ever notice how the psychic hotlines and prayer room vigils share the same 800 numbers…hey…blame it on Ted Kennedy…

none of you ever noticed the sexual tensions between gilligan and the skipper did you….yeah right little buddy…

By chuck

February 22, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

What’s the matter science boy? No answer to the RESEARCH. As for your rediculous argument about “unstable personalities”. How BOGUS! It’s what MADE the personalities unstable that you ignored. What do you think that might be. Based on all of these studies, do you think it could be exposure to pornography and violence? HMMMMM. Thanks for playing. GAME, SET and MATCH.

By chuck

February 22, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

ooops, “ridiculous”

By J. Morris

February 22, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

“Science boy?” Oooh, talk about name-calling.

I am perfectly aware that it is a popular theory that all of the things you crammed into your post are popular cause celebre for the reasons behind violence. However, I suspect that in all of them, the common thread would be a lack of basic parenting. I’ve played violent video games all my life, and I am hardly desensitized to violence. I’ve watched hundreds of actions movies and am hardly desensitized to the abuse of women - or anyone else for that matter, including pain-in-the-a* book-burners.

One of the studies you quote - amazingly I was able to separate one out from the vast miasma of citations - says “One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games,” said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D”. Note the “habitually aggressive” and “May be” lines. Pre-existing tendencies are exacerbated by exposure to the violence. Well, duh.

Most of us are well-adjusted and know the difference between fantasy violence and the real thing. The idea than an otherwise normal individual would be swayed by a porn movie or game to suddenly become violent is ludicrous. There is always some underlying factor, be it mental instability, neglect during the crucial stages of childhood development, whatever. The game doesn’t CAUSE it, the porn doesn’t CAUSE it…it exacerbates it. Just like exposure to religious fervor can cause young people to do horrible things to people, like inspiring them to blow up nightclubs in the name of Jesus, or plow planes into buildings in the name of Allah.

By Crystal

February 22, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Look, folks, this is supposed to be your opinion, not everybody’s in the library of congress. Could you cut it a little shorter? Great appreciation will be shared by all. Thanks and good night sweet scribes.

By Sam

February 22, 2005 05:22 PM | Link to this

Religion is the opiate of the people…Marx

By steve

February 22, 2005 05:29 PM | Link to this

All About Me,

Just wanted to let you know that as an evangelical Christian, I agree with you about much religious tv. Many of us conservatives Christians refer to TBN as the Totally Blasphemous Network. Just wanted you to know that what you see on tv is really representative of the extremes in the neo-pentecostal movement, and not evangelical Christianity.

J. Morris,

I agree with you to a certain degree. Clearly, most people who watch a violence on tv are going to then, as a direct result, go commit violence themselves. There are too many factors involved to say that for sure. But, I do think we are all effected to some degree or other even if we do not realize it. I remember reading an article about the movie ET (yes, I realize I am going back a few years!). In the movie, ET eats Reeces Pieces Candy. They did not do any major advertising campaign to promote Reeces Pieces and yet at the same time sells went through the roof. But people were impacted by what they saw in the movie and it effected their behavior. Certainly, not all of us are effected in the same way by what we see. I never bought Reeces Pieces because of ET, but clearly others did.

Again, personally, I just wish tv could be a little more family friendly. A few weeks ago, I was watching an animal show on Saturday morning with my children. Harmless, right? One of the commercials was for a very adult oriented tv show and I had to dive for the remote to turn off the tv. It just seems like there is no safe time anymore for families. I am very willing to unplug the tv if that is what I have to do, but I wish that were not the case. I would like to see the “family viewing hours” restored. What is the harm in that? The “edgier” programs could still be shown after most kids are in bed.

By norman

February 23, 2005 07:03 AM | Link to this

The most dangerous tv time for kids may well be Sunday morning when preachers on almost every channel here in the South rant and rave about sin and damnation. I would like to see a V chip for religion, or better yet to ban it from tv. Tobacco and alcohol sales are banned, why not redneck religion?

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 07:23 AM | Link to this

J. Morris, I think you have me mixed up with someone else but as long as it is Chuck, thanks for the compliment.

By Texas

February 23, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy PADRE PIO, the famous Capuchin Stigmatic, in an interview with William M. Carrigan in 1945 said: “HYPOCRISY IS THE GREATEST EVIL OF OUR TIME. It exists in all levels of our society, in high places and in low places.”

Padre Pio had no claim to scholarship, but his deep wisdom concerning the spiritual welfare of man flowed through his life and works, and touched all who came into his sphere.

Hypocrisy In Our Day…

We are all familiar with hypocrisy in Politics - in Education - in the Courts - in Medicine - in Advertising - in Religion. We see it constantly in the Media. TV Newspapers - and Magazines as well as Radio and Theatre - all find it good stock in trade.

Few of them will pass up the use of half truths - prejudices - slanted reporting - calumny - detraction - mythical argument - distortion of facts - falsifications - pretense of virtue while supporting vice - glorification of violence….if they add to the saleability of their stocks in trade. These hypocritical forms are found constantly in the media. So common are they that they have been acceptable methods of selling ideas. They are the reason for so many ethics standards appearing in govemment and business.

A Kind of Brain Washing… The sales pitch for almost everything that touches our lives includes hypocrisy. To convince the gullible, nearly everything from cosmetics to religion is presented as seeming different than what it really is. We see in politics, promises that are impossible to honor, in education theories that could destroy society, in medicine false arguments which prevent the next generation from arriving on the earth, in commerce most advertising on TV and in the press distorts the truth, the porno people and the amoral sales people sell their stuff with the argument that somehow `what is adult’ is sinless, that what may be bad for children is not had for adults.

In religion - how the struggle goes on for souls! Those who truly seek God are entrapped in a thousand schemes to Iead them to God by this or that road, and often worldly advantages are part of the package.

Hypocrisy is rampant in the whole spectrum of moral consequences in human conduct. Humanism is taking its toll among our childnn “Seek your own value system” is drummed into them in school, on T.V. and in the media generally. When they ask “When do we know we have a value?” they are told “As long as you are comfortable with it.” No one seems to remember that God gave us our value system through Moses. Padre Pio never thought there could be a better one.

By Texas

February 23, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Dealing with Hypocrisy Padre Pio not only understood the great evil of hypocrisy, but he also knew how to deal with it.

TRUTH In the confessional he demanded “full disclosure” of his spiritual children. CREDIBILITY is the first fruit of truth. TRUST becomes the offspring of credibility, he wanted his children to trust the word of Christ. JUSTICE Trust leads directly to the exercise of justice. Respect for persons and property follows naturally. LOVE enters freely where there is truth, credibility, trust and justice. PEACE can be enjoyed where justice and love fill the heart and mind.

Padre Pio’s magnificent example in applying these six steps in attaining rightmindedness and Christlike conduct completely eradicates all vestiges of hypocrisy — The evil that destroys families, societies and nations.

Every child conceived has a right to be born, by the laws of nature he has that right; furthermore he has a right to a period of innocence, and again in nature that right is provided. All the hypocritical arguments to the contrary cannot change it.

By RS

February 23, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

Why, thanks you, Zack, for comparing me to Mara, Norman & J. Morris. What a compliment & I mean that sincerely. PLAGIARIZING?!?! Can’t you tell when someone is making fun of you??? OK, keep quoting so-called studies about porn causing people to turn to a life of crime; I’ve long given up on you ever thinking for yourself. You accuse Norman & me of bigotry, then you come right out & admit to being anti-Semitic. Can we all say “hyporite”? Pro-life advocates ARE the problem or at least an essential factor. You raving nutcases are the ones trying to get the law passed that will force a plethora of diseased, deformed, retarded, unwanted, drug-addicted babies to be born into a world where they are not wanted, will be abused, neglected & cause a myriad of serious problems, among them poverty, overpopulation, more disease, crime, a compromised environment & more. As for my calling you a monumental moron..well, Zack, I tell it like it is.

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

RS,

You said, “You raving nutcases are the ones trying to get the law passed that will force a plethora of diseased, deformed, retarded, unwanted, drug-addicted babies to be born into a world where they are not wanted, will be abused, neglected & cause a myriad of serious problems, among them poverty, overpopulation, more disease, crime, a compromised environment & more.”

Don’t we have all this even with abortion being legal? Where’s the compasion and understanding you require us Christains to have?

By Texas

February 23, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

RS,

“we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights â€â€? of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Since when does anyone’s right to live depend uponsomeone else wanting them? No one could quarrel with that as an idealistic goal. Wouldn’t it also be a wonderful world if there were no unwanted wives by husbands, no aging parents unwanted by their children, no unwanted Jews, blacks, Catholics, Chicanos, or ever again a person who, at one time or place, finds himself or herself unwanted or persecuted. Let’s all try to achieve this, but also remember that people have clay feet and, sadly, the unwanted will probably always be with us.

I’ve been told that aborting unwanted babies would leave more wanted ones and, therefore, there would be less child abuse.

Exactly the opposite has happened. In New York City during the ’60s, the number of abused children had averaged about 5,000 cases a year. Abortion was legalized in 1970. By 1975, over 25,000 cases were reported. The figures for the entire U.S. are:

Date Total Number 1973 167,000 1979 711,142 1993 1,057,255 1996 1,220,000

U.S. Dept. H.H.S., Nat. Center of Child Abuse,Child Maltreatment 259

Canada’s statistics show the same:

Year Abortions Child Abuse 1971 16,172 422 1978 38,782 1,762 1994 104,403 30,366*

Child Welfare Branch, Ministry of Human Resource, Ontario, Canada *These are the totals reported from all provinces except PEI and includes physical,sexual,and emotional abuse. Note that provinces vary in definition of “child abuse” and reporting requirements.

Ohio reported 27,248 cases in 1981 and 65,965 in 1985, a 142% increase according to a survey by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Families and Youth for the largest state increase. The same survey reported over a 55% increase nationwide from 1981 to 1985.

To determine whether a nation is growing or dying, we must examine three factors: birth rate … death rate … immigration.

Birth Rate: This is the ultimate determinant. In a developed nation the average woman must bear 2.1 children (Mean Fertility Rate) in order to maintain a level population.

In an undeveloped nation the rate must be 2.3 or more because of higher infant and child mortality.

Death Rate: In recent years fewer people have died than have been born in most countries because the average age of life expectancy has been extended. Everyone will die, of course, but for now this has resulted in increases in population. In recent years fewer people have died than have been born in most countries because the average age of life expectancy has been extended. Everyone will die, of course, but for now this has resulted in increases in population.

Immigration and emigration: Many want to come into the U.S., Canada and most developed nations. Few want to move to Cuba, Libya or Russia. These dynamics explain why the total populations of the U.S., Canada and Australia (to pick three) are still growing, even though their birth rates are below replacement level. Many want to come into the U.S., Canada and most developed nations. Few want to move to Cuba, Libya or Russia. These dynamics explain why the total populations of the U.S., Canada and Australia (to pick three) are still growing, even though their birth rates are below replacement level.

With a much higher percentage of their people aging, but still alive, most Western nations have a rapidly aging population. In the U.S. people born in 1970 had a life expectancy of 70 years. In 1993 it was 76 years. By 2050 it will be 82 years. U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 14, 1995, P. 9.

With heavy immigration to fill the younger age slots, we see a progressive change in ethnicity, e.g., the U.S. is becoming more Hispanic; Germany, France, Italy,

Greece and Israel more Muslim. In Italy, the birth rate is 1.2, the lowest in the world in countries keeping accurate records. In ‘93, there were 5,265 more Italians buried than were born. If this continues unchanged, within 100 years, its population will shrink from 57 to 15 million, with half of those over 65 years old.

Russia is worse. Accurate statistics are not available, but by the mid ‘90s, estimates place the birth rate under 1.0 among non-Muslims and burials exceeding births at over 1 million per year. Italy Birth Rate …, Boston Globe, July 31, ‘94, p. 13 W. Montabono, “Italian Baby Boom Goes Bust,” Los Angles Times June 24, ‘94, A1 & A6

By AllaboutME

February 23, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

…so…o I gotta ask and Im sorry I do but: if anti-abortionists got together and put on a tv show, a reality show about a women having an abortion, would they gather their children around the set to show THE TRUTH…

By norman

February 23, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

AllaboutME: of course they would allow their children to see the abortion, that is the whole point, to scare them so they never seek an abortion. They allow their children to hear redneck preachers talking about hell and damnation, why not see a real live abortion. The only thing these people would not let their children see is good, clean, healthy sex. Because sex is bad, unclean, and unhealthy, the Bible tells them so.

By norman

February 23, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

This site demonstrates what I have been at great pains to convey: those who are believers in a hell and damnation religion (Zack, Randy, Boscoe, and all the rest) are mentally ill. Those who are secularists are for the most part nice and healthy people. This is clear. The Bible thumpers act like crazy people, the secularists like someone you would have to tea.

By Lyrazel

February 23, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Texas is there a problem with the USA/Canada including more hispanics into its members? Is there a problem with having more muslims in europe? Is this white-baby breeding phobia or is it the duty of white folk to have more kids to keep a majority in the USA and Europe? Your stats were downright creepy…keep the white folks breeding so minorities dont soil our nation. I know, from reading your previous posts you are a man of strong faith, but, do you see how these stats are bigotry in the worst forms?

By Texas

February 23, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, The point was abortion. RS brought up overpopulation as a arguement for abortion. I merely stated facts and statistics that do not support her arguement.

By RS

February 23, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Bruce & Texas: The rights of already existing, viable taxpaying adults should take preference over clumps of cells. Bruce, my compassion (& remember, I am not a Christian nor have any of you ever seen me professing to BE one) is reserved for us working folk whose taxes are supporting the crack/AIDS spawn of lazy welfare filth. Many of this trash, in, say 15 years, will end up gunning down some of the very taxpayers who’ve subsidized them, for something as minute as a wallet containing $5. Sorry, but MY life is more valuable than that scum. If you don’t agree, I feel sad for you that you think garbage like that is equal to you.

By chuck

February 23, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

I don’t want to get into a whole abortion debate here because it really has nothing to do with the topic, however, since it has been raised I would just encourage all of you pro-abortionists to watch the National Geographic Channel (not exactly a bastion for right wingers)on March 11 at 8:00 p.m. The program is called “In the Womb” and it is a complete explanation of what happens with that so-called bundle of cells from conception through birth. I haven’t seen it yet, but the commercials look especially interesting. I think some of you will be amazed.

As for watching an abortion performed on television, I probably would not allow younger children to watch it, though I probaly would allow my 16 year old and 13 year old watch it.

By RS

February 23, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I HAVE seen programs like that & they didn’t sway me, nor will they ever. Sorry. I’m a practical person, not a sentimental one.

By chuck

February 23, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

RS, If you are PRO-ABORTION, you are not very practical at all. Many of the same people you demonized in your previous posts would be working, and contributing to the economy. I would much rather have those children grow up to take some of those jobs that are now being filled by illegal immigrants. The 40 million babies that have been killed since Roe v. Wade would be contributing to the Social Security system and would have been more than enough to keep the system solvent decades into the future. As for your tirade against all of these “crack babies”, that’s a load of crap. You know good and well that most of the babies that are aborted come from middle class to well to do families that don’t want the embarassment of a child born out of wedlock. They are more concerned about their social standing and convenience than anything else. A good friend of mine is the director of a Crisis Pregnancy Center and she tells me that this is OVERWHELMINGLY TRUE. We do not live in an affluent town either. How’s that for practical?

By Zack

February 23, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

RS—As usual, your posts bring absolutely nothing productive to the table, just more of the same extreme relativism and humanism which is common among yourself, Norman, J. Morris, etc.. You people want to rationalize your way through life even though reason tells you better. Then you call those who DO listen to reason nutheads (oh, and anti-Semites). You’re very desperate in your attempts to make points and are running out of patience with yourself. You need to recognize the fact that your worldview is wrong.

As for abortion, as I’ve said before, it’s not YOUR place to decide who should be born and who shouldn’t. You advocate slutty behavior by men and women and have had the audacity to say on here that it’s okay to have casual sex and then abort the baby if the couple doesn’t want it. You’re indeed a barbaric person. You really are. You have no visible redeeming qualities, and I feel sorry for any children you might have.

By Crystal

February 23, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

We don’t need a subject to debate. Let us have a non- title,name calling forum where everybody explains first, how intellectual and agnostic they are.

The second paragraph of non-subject comments could be totally “name calling” of everybody on any subject. Names must be original.

The third paragraph would be a contest to see who could say the most in two words; examples: Shut up! Put up! Slap ‘em! It’s boring!

Anybody who writes more than 300 words will receive a mild electrical shock from their local power company, done by raising the current rate.

Now get up and get off your obesity or the dream may come true.

By Lyrazel

February 23, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

No. I would not watch a show about an abortion. But I would not put it past some folks to put such on tv.

By Zack

February 23, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Chuck—RS doesn’t want sexual responsibility being taught. First of all no matter what kind of family a baby would be born into, it’s NO ONE’s place to decide to abort it. It’s wrong, and no Supreme Court decision can change the fact that it’s wrong.

RS doesn’t want sexual abstinence taught because to her it’s unrealistic and a waste of time, which is anything but true. There are a LOT more virgins out there than people realize, and there would be even more if people were presented with the truth as opposed to propaganda.

She has said many times that it’s perfectly okay to have an abortion and to have casual sex and then abort the baby if the couple doesn’t want to raise him. This is completely barbaric.

By Jack

February 23, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

RS did not say that and I’m fairly sure she did not mean that. Dilbert!

By Scalia

February 23, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

So Zack, do you condemn people that abort babies because their father is of another race and they do not want their blood tainted by somebody of another race? I have seen many people that still look at interracial families with disdain. I would love to know how many of the aborted babies would have been biracial?

By mit

February 23, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

watch the documentary “Childern underground” it follows kids aged 8 - 16 living in a subway station.

briefly, the romanian govt. outlaws abortion and contraception to increase the work force. the result: an estimated 20 million homeless childern.

the bad part: some kids have homes, the parents don’t want them there or are abused, negelected and runaway. the parents don’t even try to find them because they have enough trouble feeding themselves much less their kids. All the kids huff paint on the street corners too. crazy.

By Texas

February 23, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Scalia, There where over 1 million abortions in 1995. Women who obtained legal abortions in 1995 were predominately white and unmarried. I was going to list all the statistic’s but taught otherwise. You can obtain all the information @ Abortionfacts.com

By RS

February 23, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

So, Zack, condemning a baby to a horrible life is RIGHT? Ohhhh-kay! (!?!) Yes, teaching abstinence is unrealistic. It may get through to SOME teens/pre teens but the majority are ruled by their hormones. Now, if you bothered actually READING my posts, you’d know I don’t advocate casual sex. (Thanks, Jack!)

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Surely there can be some compromise on this subject.

It seems to me those who are against control on what is aired want every channel 24 hours a day of nothing but adult content material. There are channels dedicated just for that purpose. Can’t you be happy with those? Can’t your adult programs and commericals be aired there. Why do they have to be everywhere?

By chuck

February 23, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

MITWIT, If you are going to make stuff up why not at least make it somewhat believable. These are the actual population figures of Romania:

Population of Romania Population: 22,355,551 (July 2004 est.) Age structure: 0-14 years: 16.2% (male 1,861,801; female 1,770,746) 15-64 years: 69.4% (male 7,712,612; female 7,791,900) 65 years and over: 14.4% (male 1,330,994; female 1,887,498) (2004 est.)

Further, The Romanian government did not outlaw abortion, though it would have been nice if they had. Read the following:

With a political system in place that made long-range planning the cornerstone of economic growth, demographic trends took on particular significance. As development proceeded, so did disturbing demographic consequences. It soon became apparent that the country was approaching zero population growth, which carried alarming implications for future labor supplies for further industrialization. The government responded in 1966 with a decree that prohibited abortion on demand and introduced other pronatalist policies to increase birthrates. The decree stipulated that abortion would be allowed only when pregnancy endangered the life of a woman or was the result of rape or incest, or if the child was likely to have a congenital disease or deformity. Also an abortion could be performed if the woman was over forty-five years of age or had given birth to at least four children who remained under her care. Any abortion performed for any other reason became a criminal offense, and the penal code was revised to provide penalties for those who sought or performed illegal abortions.

Don’t believe everything you watch on television.

By Texas

February 23, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Gianna Jessen

Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a “botched abortion”, a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother’s daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak …

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes…

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state’s capitol buildings. The quote says, “Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct.” Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life

By Brian Curtis

February 23, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Well, it didn’t take long to wrench this topic around to abortion, did it? And now that it’s arrived there, we can all just drift away and let Zack & Co. continue raving about the Greatest Evil Ever Perpetrated on a Clueless Humanity.

I would ask what this has to do with the topic, but I know by now that none of the fundamentalists will even understand the question, much less be able to answer it. In some fevered minds, everything is about abortion. Such one-issue voters are notoriously easy to exploit, again and again.

By Brian Curtis

February 23, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Oh, what the heck. I know you’ve been doing your usual cut-and-paste sermons without reading anything, Texas, but I WILL take a moment to answer one of your (purported) questions: “Show me when killing is the answer.� Okay; will do!

Ah, but what about HUMANS, you ask? Well, we have no solid track record there either�even assuming that a fetus was somehow considered equivalent to a human (which, of course, it is not).

Frankly, we’re so comfortable with killing that it forms the primary theme of our most popular entertainment�we looooove violence! Even more than sex, in fact; because children shouldn’t be exposed to sexual content, but they can watch all the violence (and play all the violent games) they want, right?

Now, in my own mind, abortion�which does, after all, kill a living organism (though not a person) should be treated like killing in war or self-defense. It should be avoided if at all possible (preferably with birth control and safe-sex methods), but it must always be legally available as a last-resort option. A tragic necessity, in other words.

None of which, of course, has the slightest relevance to the topic of adult content on TV.

By Brian Curtis

February 23, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Oh, what the heck. I know you’ve been doing your usual cut-and-paste sermons without reading anything, Texas, but I WILL take a moment to answer one of your (purported) questions: “Show me when killing is the answer.� Okay; will do!

Ah, but what about HUMANS, you ask? Well, we have no solid track record there either�even assuming that a fetus was somehow considered equivalent to a human (which, of course, it is not).

Frankly, we’re so comfortable with killing that it forms the primary theme of our most popular entertainment�we looooove violence! Even more than sex, in fact; because children shouldn’t be exposed to sexual content, but they can watch all the violence (and play all the violent games) they want, right?

Now, in my own mind, abortionâ€â€?-which does, after all, kill a living organism (though not a person)—should be treated like killing in war or self-defense. It should be avoided if at all possible (preferably with birth control and safe-sex methods), but it must always be legally available as a last-resort option. A tragic necessity, in other words.

None of which, of course, has the slightest relevance to the topic of adult content on TV.

By Randy

February 23, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Hi my name is Norman, I have had this theory that I have been wanting to try for years. The theory is to take a object that is WHITE tell people time after time after time, that it is BLACK. I think that if I say the white item is black enough times, some people will start believing that it is actually black. Now most people will see through my “illusion” but a few will start to believe the white item is black. *Now I have been doing this for months, I have convinced a few people(like Iozen) that the white item is black(she was easy), but I have a problem, I may be starting to believe it myself. I’m am so confused. The white item is actually the greatest white item ever, in fact it’s the greatest gift ever given to man or woman. I want to go back to reality, but I can’t, that would admit I’m wrong!

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

RS,

Well your true colors are coming out. You wrote this morning:

“If you don’t agree, I feel sad for you that you think garbage like that is equal to you.”

This is the very thinking that brought about Slavery as we know it today. Do you really think you are better than someone else? What happened to you that makes you feel this way? All people have worth including the unborn!

I am going to put you at the top of my prayer list.

By Zack

February 23, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Bruce—Very well put. She sure doesn’t show much compassion for the unborn, just as she doesn’t show much for Christians and Black people. I love exposing a fraud and putting said person in his/her place. VERY good post, my friend. Thank you.

By RS

February 23, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Bruce: I appreciate your prayers but if I truly thought that I, as an honest working person who lives a decent life, is no better than crack-addicted criminal trash, born or unborn (i.e. a clump of cells)I’d be in a very sad way indeed. Did you read the message Texas posted at 1:27? Me, I’d rather never have been born than have to go through life crippled/blind/deformed. What I value is QUALITY of life.

By RS

February 23, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Zack: I show compassion for the women/girls who have to endure an unwanted pregnancy & then have to spend years supporting something they never asked for. I could not care less about a lump of flesh. I have compassion for REAL Christians, not phonies. And when have I ever displayed any anti-black sentiments? YOU tell ME. Oh, and I think you might have felt my use of the term “worldview” was aping you; no, I was mocking you. By the way, Zack, I need to apologize for calling you a moron; you aren’t. A moron is an adult with the mentality of an 8-year old. An imbecile is an adult with the mentality of a toddler. An idiot is an adult with the mentality of a baby under age 3. You, my dear, are most decidedly the latter.

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

RS,

Is your life, as it is now, anything compared to the quality of life Ray Charles had? He was blind. How about a close friend of mine that lives a quality of life most healthly people would love to have. He is bound to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. What about President Roosevelt? Bound to a wheelchair. Quality of life is not determined by physical handicaps.

You my friend are crippled yourself. Mentally!!!!!

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

RS,

What about the elderly living in Nursing Homes? Should they be put down because they do not live the quality of life you do?

By Jack

February 23, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Been to a nursing home lately Bruce? I advised my family that I do not wish to be in one. I’d rather die. RS, Does no good arguing with these people, they cannot be swayed. Nice try though!

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Yes I have my church visits one twice a month to hold service for those living there. My mother died in the same nursing home. It does not matter if you want to go to one or not. The question is do we kill them because they do not live the same quality of life RS does?

By mit

February 23, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

oh, youre from romania. my numbers were wrong though i was in a hurry.

Former Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu outlawed abortion and contraception and ordered women to bear as many children as possible in his failed effort to increase the Romanian workforce. He was executed on Christmas Day, 1989, but today Romanians live with the fallout from that edict — and as the film shows, the children are mostly ignored. An estimated 20,000 children live on the streets of Bucharest, Romania’s capital and largest city, many finding shelter at night in subway stations. Not all of them are orphans — some are runaways, escaping poverty or abusive parents, often both.

By chuck

February 23, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with Bruce RS. I know so many people (many are former students)who brought such joy to my life in spite of their “quality of life” issues. I have a wheel chair bound student now who plays basketball and soccer, makes all A’s and B’s and is just great to be around. Someone once said “I am convinced that only 10% of life is what happens to me. The other 90% is made up of how I respond to it”. That is a paraphrased version of the quote. You seem to have such a dour disposition towards life in general. I know you don’t care what I think, but it just seems to me that something is missing.

By Jack

February 23, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Bruce, No “We” should not kill the old folks instead of putting them in nursing homes but if they choose to meet their maker who are we to tell them what to do? My Dad was in one for 3 years and did not even recognize his own family for 90% of the time. He expressed during his life that he did not want to go out that way but the good old govt made him. Maybe you would prfer to be a vegetable but I don’t.

By chuck

February 23, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

MIT, You are right, that there are problems in Romania, but there are a lot of good things going on there and the problems they are experiencing have NOTHING to do with the outlawing of some abortions. Their problems exist because of the difficulty of switching from communism to a market based economy. So many of the politicians over there still hold to those communist tenets with which they were brain-washed that it is difficult getting things done there. Our church sends mission teams over there at least twice a year and I can tell you that things are changing. There are some great orphanages over there that we provide medical supplies to and the Christian church is growing by leaps and bounds. One church that we are working with has started over 30 mission churches in outlying rural areas and thousands are converting to Christianity (over 2000 last year alone in the are surrounding Bestritsa). Many people don’t understand just how horrible Ceacescu was.

By Bruce

February 23, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

RS,

First you say a woman should be allowed to kill the unborn child inside of her because she didn’t ask for it. I say she did ask for it. It is a consequence of her actions. Therefore, she asked for it. She knew it could happen and rolled the dice and got caught. Now she wants a “do over”, that is just not right.

Now you are saying we should do away with all BORN people that are crippled/blind/deformed just because they do not live the quality of life YOU think they should have.

And to top that you have Jack that wants to kill all the elderly. (Jack I am praying for you too.)

And you people say Christains are crazy??????

By norman

February 23, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

As I cannot help repeating, these Christians are nuts!

By ed king

February 23, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Shaunti has more intelligence in her pinky finger than Diane has in her whole body.

By Jack

February 23, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce. You are beyond reason. You just love to put words in people’s mouths. Would love to put a fist in yours.

By lozen

February 23, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Zack, As usual, your posts bring absolutely nothing productive to the table, just more of the same extreme fundamentalism and conservatism which is common among yourself,Chuck, Randy,etc.. You people want to fantasize your way through life even though reason tells you better. Then you call those who DO listen to reason nutheads. You’re very desperate in your attempts to make points and are running out of patience with yourself. You need to recognize the fact that your worldview is wrong.

As for abortion, as I’ve said before, it’s not YOUR place to decide who should be born and who shouldn’t. You advocate unreal behavior by men and women and have had the audacity to say on here that teenagers will remain adstinent even though statistics show 80 percent of teens have sex before graduating from high school. You’re indeed a barbaric person. You really are. You have no visible redeeming qualities, and I feel sorry for any children you might have.

By lozen

February 23, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Randy, you’re wrong. Norman convinced me of nothing. I grew up around simple minded bibliolators who worship the bible and know nothing of the great spirit. It is you and people like you who have convinced me there’s something wrong with a religion that produces people full of hate, self righteousness and hubris. Even Yeshua said, “you can know the tree by its fruit.”

By Texas

February 23, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Brian, Yes I do read what I post, as a matter of fact several times before I do.

I did not ask the question about killing, Gianna Jessen did. (The abortion survivor).

In addition, I’m against the death penalty, and I believe if someone trespasses on me, to forgive them.

If in your “own mind” an unborn child is not a person, well, I know I can’t change that. I’m just giving information for all to come to a better understanding of the facts. Use them as you wish.

Lastly, my original post had to do with Hypocrisy: “on TV and in the press distorts the truth, the porno people and the amoral sales people sell their stuff with the argument that somehow `what is adult’ is sinless, that what may be bad for children is not bad for adults.”

My second post (“Every child conceived has a right to be born, by the laws of nature he has that right; furthermore he has a right to a period of innocence, and again in nature that right is provided. All the hypocritical arguments to the contrary cannot change it.”)

The intent was the period of innocence related to the subject.

Afterwhich, I responded to other post which I agree was off forum.

By Zack

February 23, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

RS—First of all, you denied plagiarizing me yesterday and said you were making fun of me. WHAT??? Do you ever read what I say? Do you have any kind of attention span? You’ve tried to insult me numerous times, but I was referring to the structure of what you had written and how you stole a couple of my lines. Anyway, what I said didn’t seem to register. I’ll come back to you in a minute.

Norman—Amidst all your outrageous posts, supported by zero evidence, you’re calling the Christians nuts? I guess you would. You don’t know what a nut is and wouldn’t even recognize one if you looked in the mirror. Please, Norman, put aside your hatred toward Christians and Blacks and seek the answers, as opposed to spewing more and more propaganda.

Scalia—I see you’re trying to put words in my mouth. You stole that idea from RS, you little liar.

RS—I never said every teenager would be abstinent, but it would help, contrary to what you say. You advocate casual sex and abortion on demand. You lie through your teeth to me, and it has been so nice putting you in your place time and time again, along with Bruce and others.

By Scalia

February 24, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this

Zack, you still did not answer my question. Do you condemn people that have abortions because their families do not want them raising an interracial child in a society that still frowns upon that?

Once again, out of the 40 million that were unborn, I would like to know how many of them would have been biracial.

As for the name calling, did I strike a nerve?

By norman

February 24, 2005 07:18 AM | Link to this

Iozen: glad to know you don’t feel I brainwashed you! Is it not interesting that Randy assumes you have been brainwashed because you don’t buy his crap? I guess women cannot think, they can only be brainwashed by idiots like me.

Christians are not only mentally defective, they are very dangerous people. They are also disgraceful, deceitful, brainless, and a throw-back to our primitive ancestors — going back even to the apes.

Speaking of evolutionary change, I saw a wonderful fish symbol on a car the other day with the words SHUSHI inside the fish.

By Boscoe

February 24, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Norman, I prayed for you today….

By norman

February 24, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, God doesn’t listen to the prayers of people like you.

By RS

February 24, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Chuck: Ah, my friend, key words..”brought joy to my life in spite of ‘quality of life’ issues..” Um, isn’t that a bit selfish? It’s about THEIR lives. I see what you’re saying, but what you view as ‘dour’, I view as sensible, practical, no-nonsense. I’ve never been one of those dreamy, sentimental “love-conquers-all” types with my head in the sand. Bruce: Not every woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy “asked for it”. On the contrary, if the pregnancy is, indeed, unwanted, she most assuredly did not “ask for it”. Yes, a lot of times it’s carelessness but what about rape? Bad luck?Zack: No, I didn’t forget you although I’d love to. Yes, I fully support abortion on demand; it is, after all, MY body. But why do you keep thinking I advocate casual sex? When did I ever say that? YOU’RE the one not paying attention, but being an idiot, I suppose it’s not your fault.

By Texas

February 24, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Proven Ways to Get Along Better With EVERYONE

Before you say anything to anyone, ask yourself 3 things: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

Make promises sparingly and keep them faithfully.

Never miss the opportunity to compliment or say something encouraging to someone.

Refuse to talk negatively about others; don’t gossip and don’t listen to gossip.

Have a forgiving view of people. Believe that most people are doing the best they can.

Keep an open mind; discuss, but don’t argue. (It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.)

Forget about counting to 10. Count to 1,000 before doing or saying anything that could make matters worse.

Let your virtues speak for themselves.

If someone criticizes you, see if there is any TRUTH to what he is saying; if so, make changes. If there is no truth to the criticism, ignore it and live so that no one will believe the negative remark.

Cultivate your sense of humor; laughter is the shortest distance between two people.

Do not seek so much to be consoled, as to console; do not seek so much to be understood, as to understand; do not seek so much to be loved as to love.

By AllaboutME

February 24, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

…my question was if they decide to have a reality tv broadcast of an abortion would you watch it…I was not begging the abortion issue that has turned the righteous into frothing bandicoots… you people must really hate…really…hate! I read your posts so full of condemnation and surrelous comments designed to degrade someone ONLY for their non/beliefs…so it leads me to believe there is the georgia right wing which is living in the gutters of bigotry and hatered…and a georgia left wing who uses the same bully tactics and ignorance to respond…which is very amusing to people in the sidelines…after awhile its really boring…yes…you are boring…you cant debate a subject without frothing commentary about people who express ideas you dont like…you slur the women posting with inuendos about their indecency in life…to prove what? you cant even debate an issue without turning it into a mocking sideshow farce with posts too long and so full of drivel you dont even read them before you post…what intellegence! what values! whatever…small wonder I believe you all should go crawl back under rocks…evolution never happened in georgia….from some of these posts…I see it never will…..

By RS

February 24, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

RS, Yesterday at 3:25 you posted the following:

“Zack: I show compassion for the women/girls who have to endure an unwanted pregnancy & then have to spend years supporting something they never asked for.”

Now I am sure you will come back with I didn’t mean everyone but it sure sounds like thats what you meant. Statics show only about 1% of abortions preformed today are because of rape or acts other than convenience. 9 out of 10 abortions are preformed for convenience. If you are not, your posted certainly sound like you are very selfish individual.

Jack,

I will gladly take a fist to the mouth if you think you can handle the consequences.

Chuck, Zack, Randy and the rest,

Last week Norman posted death to all Christains, now this week RS wants to exterminate all those that are handicapped and teh unborn, and Jack is threating to punch me in the mouth. I don’t get it because Norman and others have said it is us Christains that are evil. I guess they got their violent tendencies from watching to much TV.

By RS

February 24, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure which one of you referred to me as “selfish” (you posted under MY name!?!) but isn’t bringing an unwanted child into the world to be neglected & abused selfish? And exterminated is a strong word. Rather, I agree with Jack that a terminally ill/severely injured person should be able to make the decision to end their life. Well, no, “life” isn’t a word I’d use in such a case. Try “existance”.

By Boscoe

February 24, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

So you’re admitting then that God exists Norman?

By Seaborn

February 24, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Norman,

I saw an interesting show on the history channel the other night. The subject was “instruments of torture”. Can you guess which historical era had the most heinous torture devices? It was the great Catholic purification of the Spanish Inquisition. Basically, before the Catholic church could kill you for heresy, you had to confess…which is where the torture devices came in. The great “iron maiden” came from this great period in Catholic history. This is the same “organization” that preaches against both abortion and “pre-conception” birth control.

And, I just saw that the pope calls “gay marriage” proponents evil…Evil? Yes, registering at Macy’s and having two same-sex statues on a wedding cake is just absolutely insidious..

In my opinion this pope represents everything I hate about religion…May his God call him home today..

By norman

February 24, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Someone is using my name in vain. I did not write that post concerning rosary beads. Would the management of this site please remove it and see that I am not impersonated.

By norman

February 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Seaborn: William Buckley recently recounted that at mass he had refused to pray for the pope’s recovery since he was so far gone it was better for him to die. I have a different take on this: it is time that senile old Polak left us, for the little good and much harm he is doing. The “idol in the Vatican” is a remnant of the medieval period and Catholics as well as everyone else has to get over this nonsense.

Boscoe: I did not post that item about rosary beads. When I use the word God I use it ironically.

You who have taken my name in vain: beward of my wrath and power! I will smite you unto the seventh generation.

By norman

February 24, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

The most absurd institution in the modern world is the Papacy, a legacy from the late Roman world which only the melodramatic Italians could have invented. That the present pope is Polish makes no difference, since the Poles are the Italians of the Slavic peoples, with their delusions of grandeur and emotionalism and flightiness and unreliability throughout their history.

Anyone who takes a papal pronouncement seriously needs help. Of course, many Catholics, thank God!, have learned to ignore the popes and the other men in silk black, white, and red skirts.

Boscoe, are you not embarrassed by having to profess belief in the infallible nonsense of this or any other effeminzed pope? And don’t tell me about the meaning of infallibility, I know all about what it includes and excludes. The very idea that this Vatican idol should be taken seriously should embarrass you immensely. But then, I know you are not easily embarrassed, with your proclivity to cite obscure theologians for every issue under the sun. You are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Be gone, I say, Begone ! Ye wretched Catholic!

By Chuck

February 24, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

By norman

February 24, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck: conservatives are either fools or knaves, or both. Just like Christians.

By Jack

February 24, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

RS, My comment about the fist in mouth was directed at Bruce NOT you. You are reasonable and do not have to put words in other people’s mouth to make a good arguement. Bruce on the other hand would probably right at home if he could create a time machine and go back to the crusades. I’m not fond of Norman but he is way higher on the food chain than Bruce.

By Boscoe

February 24, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Seaborne.During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race. and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (suicide code).Sounds remarkably similar to what is happening today! It has been said that more perished through the Endura than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings. In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his delegate, should receive “meet punishment” (debita animadversio). In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty. The King of France dictated the punishment. Norman The pope, as the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith. To answer your question then, NO I am not embarrassed.

By norman

February 24, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

So, y’all see that Boscoe defends the Inquisition. I am not surprised since he is an authentic fascistic Catholic, a very traditional one. You probably thought all that nonsense about Catholics burning people was redneck Protestant propaganda. No, it is the truth.

By John

February 24, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Norman, are you turning over a new leaf?

By Jack

February 24, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Watch it Norm, thats my favorite prayer. (because it works for me)

By kate

February 24, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

I thought you didn’t like christains Norman? Make up your mind!

By Alex

February 24, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Norman is bipolar! He has gone completely mad! Norman makes Pyongyang look normal.

By Jack

February 24, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Norm! Stop toying with us!

By RS

February 24, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’m sorry you thought I took that comment as directed to me; I didn’t & I think you’re a nice, intelligent person with the increasingle rare ability to be able to think for himself. Why thank you but try convincing Zack I’m a reasonable individual who doesn’t put words into the mouths of others.You’re right about Bruce. Oh I get a kick out of Norman but objectively speaking, I can see why he might rub others the wrong way (sorry, bro). By the way, I’m sure his last few posts were typed with tongue firmly ensconced in cheek

By norman

February 24, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Again this prayer is not from me. I have complained to the management of this site that someone is using my name in vain.

By Boscoe

February 24, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

I know I am a dirty fascist, sorry.

By Gerri

February 24, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

One of the reasons kids are so obese these days is because they watch too much tv. Get rid of the “decency standards” and make more programming adult in nature. Let the kids go outside and play instead of spending hours in front of a medium that exists to sell products, NOT to entertain or educate children. People who whine about not enough quality tv for kids are people who are not quality parents.

By Seaborn

February 24, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

RS,

I believe that it was Bruce that put your screen name in the name field when he was posting his comment. I imagine it was a mistake, just got the edit boxes mixed up…I’ve almost done it myself.

Boscoe, I was just stirring the pot a bit…not really interested in a history lesson…but thanks for making my point for me.

So everyone that was tortured and murdered in the name of religion during that time deserved it?

By Jack

February 24, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

RS, Thankyou for the nice comment!

By Bruce

February 24, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

RS, My apologies! I was the one that called you selfish using your name as the poster. In my hast to get the post out I mistakenly used yoru name instead of mine. That is no excuse and I will not let that happen again.

By Jack

February 24, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

So you not only put words in other people’s mouths, you also make posts in THEIR name….pitiful.

By Bruce

February 24, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

My apologises to you too Jack. I was not aware that you were perfect and never made a mistake. Please let me know when you plan to walk on water again. I would love to see it.

I’m am still praying for you.

By Jack

February 24, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

“Oh Lord its hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way”

By Seaborn

February 24, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

My international travel is somewhat limited, but I have spent some time in Europe and my impression is that they have a much more laid back attitude about sexual mores and innuendo on the tube and elsewhere. I’m sure some will disagree but I don’t think that this has lead to more sexually related crime (I imagine there are statistics somewhere though that say this). If you go anywhere along the Mediterranean you are most likely going to come across a number of topless beaches, but everyone seems quite well behaved…it’s really nothing unusual there…no one is offended and there are ton’s of kids around…

But we go bonkers in the US, for and against sex…what’s the difference?

By Lyrazel

February 24, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Ah, now that we have established who is why and what belongs to whom: a NYTimes article by Frank Rich today articulates the quandry of TV life in America. A. Americans really like to oogle, steamy scenes, raw inuendos on tv. B. Americans stop watching shows if content is cleaned up. C. Money talks over morals.

Its so nice to see everyone so happy today.

I had to laugh though….I really wasnt expecting the spanish inquisiton…..lol

By Crystal

February 24, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Just brought up this “gone crazy” blog. Very few people know what they’re talking about and some don’t know who posted what. The rest of ‘em haven’t noticed the difference, much less the topic.

As Scarlet said, “Tomorrow is another day.” I hope so. Bye!

By Jack

February 24, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

You shouldn’t give up on the “loony bin” so fast Crystal. We’re just havin fun.

By Seaborn

February 24, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

By Jack

February 24, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

In Europe they have full frontal nudity on their regular broadcasts and they don’t have a higher percentage of sexually deviant behavior than we do. Should we let the govt do our parenting for us. NO of course not. Not their role.

By lozen

February 24, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Of course Boscoe defends the Inquisition! The people who were tortured and burned deserved it because they were heretics and continued to practice their own religions! The Cathar he refers to were Gnostic Christians! In 1203 Pope Innocent III approved a war of genocide against the Cathars. The last known Cathar was burned at the stake in 1321 CE. In 1227 Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisitional Courts to arrest, try, convict and execute heretics. In 1252 Pope Innocent III authorized the use of torture during inquisitional trials. This greatly increased the conviction rate. In 1258 Pope Alexander IV instructed the Inquisition to confine their investigations to cases of heresy. They were to not investigate charges of divination or sorcery unless heresy was also involved. In 1265 Pope Clement IV reaffirmed the use of torture. In 1326 The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft and to develop “demonology,” the theory of the diabolic origin of Witchcraft.

It could happen again. The catholic church was under attack by many groups; the protestant reformation wasn’t far off. The church was fighting change and losing power. (Sounds like what’s happening right now!)

By lozen

February 24, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry folks. I just couldn’t let Boscoe get away with his revisionist version of the inquisition!

By Jack

February 24, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

You go Girl!!

By Texas

February 24, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Since it’s kinda slow, I’m posting this for RS

In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to learning disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career, while others can be main streamed into conventional schools.

At a Chush fund-raising dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all that attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, “Where is the perfection in my son Jerry?

Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God’s perfection?”

The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father’s anguish and stilled by the piercing query. “I believe,” the father answered, “that when God brings a child like this into the world, the perfection that He seeks is in the way people react to this child.”

He then told the following story about his son Jerry:

One afternoon Jerry and his father walked past a park where some boys Jerry knew were playing baseball. Jerry asked, “Do you think they will let me play?” Jerry’s father knew that his son was not at all athletic and that most boys would not want him on their team. But Jerry’s father understood that if his son were chosen to play it would give him a comfortable sense of belonging.

Jerry’s father approached one of the boys in the field and asked if Jerry could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said, “We are losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we’ll try to put him up to bat in the ninth inning

Jerry’s father was ecstatic as Jerry smiled broadly. Jerry was told to put on a glove and go out to play short center field. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Jerry’s team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Jerry’s team scored again and now with two outs and the bases loaded with the potential winning run on base, Jerry was scheduled to be up. Would the team actually let Jerry bat at this juncture and give away their chance to win the game?

Surprisingly, Jerry was given the bat. Everyone knew that it was all but impossible because Jerry didn’t even know how to hold the bat properly, let alone hit with it. However, as Jerry stepped up to the plate, the pitcher moved a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Jerry should at least be able to make contact. The first pitch came in and Jerry swung clumsily and missed. One of Jerry’s teammates came up to Jerry and together they held the bat and faced the pitcher waiting for the next pitch. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly toward Jerry.

As the pitch came in, Jerry and his teammate swung the bat and together they hit a slow ground ball to the pitcher. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could easily have thrown the ball to the first baseman. Jerry would have been out and that would have ended the game. Instead, the pitcher took the ball and threw it on a high arc to right field, far beyond reach of the first baseman.

Everyone started yelling, “Jerry, run to first. Run to first!” Never in his life had Jerry run to first. He scampered down the baseline wide eyed and startled. By the time he reached first base, the right fielder had the ball. He could have thrown the ball to the second baseman that would tag out Jerry, who was still running. But the right fielder understood what the pitcher’s intentions were, so he threw the ball high and far over the third baseman’s head. Everyone yelled, “Run to second, run to second.”

Jerry ran towards second base as the runners ahead of him deliriously circled the bases towards home.

As Jerry reached second base, the opposing short stop ran to him, turned him in the direction of third base and shouted, “Run to third.” As Jerry rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, “Jerry run.”

Jerry ran home, stepped on home plate and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a “grand slam” and won the game for his team.

“That day,” said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, “those 18 boys reached their level of God’s perfection.”

[ Author Unknown — E-Mail Ministry (emailministry@emailministry.org)]

By Jack

February 24, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Brought tears to my eyes Tex. Maybe you should do research for Lifetime, the ” I hate men” network.

By Randy

February 24, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Let’s all pray for Norman, Norman you are in my prayers to Jesus.

By Randy

February 24, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost, but now I’m found, WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE. You are in our prayers Norman.

By Jack

February 24, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

We should leave Norm alone. He’s good at stirring up the pot.

By Bruce

February 24, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

If only we could all see the prefection God has planned for us. What a nice way to end a long day. Thanks Texas and may God richly bless you.

By John M.

February 25, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

I’m all for point/counterpoint type discussions, but why does the AJC choose Shaunti Feldhan to present the conservative viewpoint? The woman cannot write. I’ve been reading her columns for a few weeks now, and there is no logic or reason to anything she writes. Any conservative message gets lost in the laughter.

By Boscoe

February 25, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

First of all Lozen, the punishments you mention were all in use years, in not decades prior to the start of the Inquision. Those Popes did not invent it, nor did they decide who recieved which heretic recieved which type of punishment. The Inquisision did not just come to be because the Catholic Church decided it did not have enough power. Just as you or I have the right to defend ourselves when attacked so does the Church. It was being attacked, physically attacked. Christians were being killed just because they were Christians. As study in the history of the Inquisision will show this to be true. Which is exactly what the Inquisision is HISTORY. Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty. It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost. It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion.

The point of bring up the Inquisision is this. It is to show Catholics and other religious people who read the postings on this forum so that they can learn more about what it means to believe in the One God. Now your argument is a fairly typical example of the way agnostics who lean toward atheism argue. An agnostic will say, as you have said, that the question of God’s existence is a matter of opinion. In other words, you hold that there is no way a reasonable man can decide the question of whether there is or is not a God. So it is all a matter of opinion. Consequently, it would be wrong for the believer in God to insist that God really exists, that he is the Creator of mankind, that he will judge all men when they die. For if the believer insists that this is the truth, then the believer must hold that the agnostic or atheist is wrong, that he is an opponent of God and of the way of life of believers. Naturally, the atheist or agnostic resents being called wrong, being called an enemy of God and an enemy of those who hold the existence of God as a truth. The agnostic would rather that the believer hold that the existence of God is only an opinion or personal view or personal feeling. Then both the believer and the non-believer could get along quite nicely in American society today. They could then decide matters by popular vote. Now let us suppose for the sake of argument that the believers win the vote. And suppose the believers repeal the Roe vs Wade decision, ban homosexual marriage, and outlaw all those who promote atheism just as the U.S. once outlawed the Communist party. Non-believers would object strenuously that the believers are imposting their views on them. They would especially be angry because they consider the morality of the believers to be stupid, repressive, old fashioned, and unenlightened. But suppose the unbelievers win the elections and put in laws which they think are fair. Then the believers would strenuously object. What is the point of all this? It is that the agnostic is not being so fair and open minded as he would like to think. He is asking the believer to give up his belief in God as a truth and hold it only as a private opinion which he must then keep to himself. He is asking the believer to let the secularist or non-believer make all the laws and regulations that make unbelievers comfortable. In effect, he is asking the believer to surrender. Now what is the believer asking of the non-believer. In effect, he is asking the non-believer to surrender, to keep his opinions to himself, to put up with laws that would make illegal actions to which he may feel he has a right. So what we have here is a tremendous clash, a tremendous difference in what life on earth is all about. Thus there is a real and deep war going on between believers and non-believers, a war that is being played out on the stage of American democracy. What am I saying, then, to the religious people who read this web site. You have to hold that the existence of God is a truth or you do not really believe in God. And if the existence of God is a truth, you must be willing to give your life to uphold that truth. You must be willing to be persecuted by a democratic majority who thinks that belief in God is either a private opinion or utter nonsense. Now I did not mention anything about Christ or revelation. I am just speaking about the belief in the truth of the One God. For if God is real, then he is the judge of man both in this life and the afterlife. So there will be no easy way to get around this difficulty about belief or non-belief in God. Politics will not be able to solve it. Discussions will not be able to solve it. Arguments will not be able to solve it. What we have here is the beginning of a huge confrontation between those who believe in God as a truth and those who hold that belief in God is a mere opinion or even a falsehood. Society was just like this at the beginning of the Inquisision!

By Jack

February 25, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

I’ll agree with your view on Shanti. Diane is quite a looker though!

By Randy

February 25, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

I have a PRAISE, I coach a 13-14 year old girls softball team, 11 girls, of which 10 went to church. Last night I found out that the other girls have gotten the 11th girl to go to church and now she wants to be a team leader. Another immortal soul bound for heaven, Jesus’ angels are singing. Just another example of how important it is for all children to be raised by Christian parents, really it’s a injustice if they are not. This is meant for the other Christians on this site.

By norman

February 25, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, as usual your comments are right on the money! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

By Boscoe

February 25, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

UH,….. thanks Norman,…….. I think

By Jack

February 25, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I read your post Boscoe, after I saw Norm’s post. Yes, you did a good job on that one.

By Crystal

February 25, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Well, here we are still on the Inquisition. That’s torture. And that, of course, is closely related to our topic “Should the government crack down on adult TV content?” Next week’s topic will be “Should the government crack down on adults acting like children on forums?” Entries must include the Inquisition, abortion, religion, fascist and other name calling. All sensible remarks will be removed as offensive. Long posts will be returned to haunt the writer. Anyone boring will be burned at the stake. Let the fun begin.

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

You raise a very compelling argument Boscoe. However, what happens to all the other voting constituants of this society, who truly do believe in GOD but are not of the same faith? What about true believers of OTHER faiths who are all part of America? (Hindu, Bhraman, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and others) Wouldnt you also oppose blanket faith legislation designed to empower one religion over other? Is that the job of government to promote faith legislation? Or is a church deciding politics is more important than leading its congragations to god?

Getting back to the inquisition……it aint gonna happen again. There are too many changes between modern and medieval life, first and formost would have to be use of bibles. (It was heracy to own or to read a bible if you were not ordained with the church Book of Hours and Prayer books were and still are not Bibles). 2. Rise of Middle Class (most people were serf under dominion of leige lords, who were also suppliers of people for crusades) 3. bubonic plage and disease provided fear of god more profound than AIDS or even cancer does now. 4. scientific advances (Gallileo was jailed during the Inquisition to denounce his own study of astronomy) 5. empowerment of women as being equal under the sight of god…6. the power of excommunication against the public has dwindled because of the protestant church, 7. TV! Yes, that idiot box keeps the pro and con sides on the couch watching TV while seville burns…so to speak…

By norman

February 25, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

I am being continually impersonated with views that are not my own. You know my views. I am incapable of praising Randy, Zack, Boscoe or any other Christian fanatic. I do not cite prayers, but I do on occasion take God’s name in vain.

Just keep looking for my real posts and ignore the ones that Zack and Co. are creating in my name.

By norman

February 25, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Y’all see in Boscoe discussion of the Inquisition how a fanatic thinks: he will kill someone to save their soul. That is little different from what Fascists later on did. It is also what we did in Vietnam, destroying villages to save them. There is nothing more immoral and repugnant than this. I cannot stand it myself and I think Boscoe should be tried before the International Tribunal at the Hague. He is a war criminal.

By boscoe

February 25, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

I am a bigot, a fraud, in short, a Catholic

By norman

February 25, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Don’t cry for me, Argentina!

Or:

Weep not for me, weep for yourselves and your children. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

By Bruce

February 25, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Crystal,

You forgot Evolution.

By Bruce

February 25, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Randy, Great news! Thanks after a week of mistakes and being pounched in the mouth its good to know God is still in control.

By Boscoe

February 25, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Well since we don’t know which Norman is real let’s ingnore all of his posts. Lyrazel, people have never forbidden to own or read a bible. There simply wasn’t any available. The advent of printing presses made books more readily available to the populace. During the days of the Inquisision copies were made by hand, so only the wealthy had money to pay the price for any books in that time not just the Bible. Books were a sign of wealth then similair to what homes and cars are these days. Because books in general were of much more value than they are now the Church used to make the Bible available to those who could read by chaining it to a table. Not to prevent ownership but to prevent stealing something valuable. Your other arguements only prove my point all the more. It depends on what side of the debate on which you stand that defines your reasoning. What happen in the eleventh century is the same that is happening now. You can see from the posts on this forum what side of the line people are on. There isn’t a middle ground here. This is also apparent around the world within each countries government. A clear dividing line. Eventually, possibly soon, it will come to a head.

By norman

February 25, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Randy: if all those fools you hang out with are going to heaven, we with brains are glad we’ll be somewhere else.

Who’d want to spend eternity with fools?

By norman

February 25, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

We do know who the real Boscoe is: the heretic-burning, fascistic know-it-all who wishes he had medieval ecclesiastical power to enforce his rididulous faith.

By Zack

February 25, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Norman—Don’t you ever get tired of posting the same thing over and over without any sign of a credible point?

RS—You disgust me. You attack the teaching of abstinence in schools—something 100% effective; you promote passing out condoms, which are immoral and ineffective; you promote the lie that they ARE effective; you promote sexual IRRESPONSIBILITY and promote killing one’s baby simply if someone does not want him. You also put words in my mouth over and over and just show signs of being a straight-up liar, which doesn’t surprise me.

I see no difference in your worldview compared to Hitler’s. Hitler didn’t like Jewish people, so he supported the killing of them. You don’t like the idea of raising kids, so you support the killings of these kids. Indeed, you are absolutely a scum-of-the-earth person. (So is Scalia, someone who also tries to put words in my mouth. Thankfully, those in the know see her and you for what you both are.) Anyone who approves of the murdering of innocent life is indeed a sick individual, and you’ve shown this time and time again on here.

As for the “It’s my body” propaganda, you can say that all you want until your vocal cords can’t say it anymore, but it’ll change not one ounce of the truth. My friend, it’s not YOUR body. Try telling God, “It’s my body.”

Folks, by the way, do NOT buy Girl Scout Cookies. This company is pro-choice now. Do NOT support Ford, another pro-choice company. Do NOT support Disney, a pro-gay, pro-choice company that is subtly trying to brainwash kids and adults.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Zack, RS has more brains and reason in her little finger than you or Bruce have in your entire bodies.

By norman

February 25, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Zack: we let you repeat your same nonsense over and over again: that men are sinners needing the blood of an obscure Jewish peasant who died two thousand years ago in order to avoid hell.

How can you still repeat this junk which sensible people have always rejected?

By norman

February 25, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Jack your a fool just like everybody else here!

By lozen

February 25, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Zack, funny you should bring up Hitler. I’m reading a book about Hitler and over and over as I read about him and his excitability, his political tirades, his outbursts of violent argument and denunciation of others I think about you! And I agree with Jack; RS obviously is an educated person who thinks with a full deck. I could never say the same about you.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

I love you too Norm.

By norman

February 25, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Jack: that did not come from me.

By Zack

February 25, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Jack—I don’t need your commentary. If you think RS is a reasonable person, then you’re saying murdering innocent lives, promoting casual sex, etc. are reasonable. They aren’t. Also, she shows tons of hatred toward Christians and Blacks. (Her buddy Norman has taken many shots at both groups, without one iota of refute from her, or anyone else, really, except myself, Randy, Boscoe, Bruce, etc..)

RS likes to impose the will of the minority on everyone else. She reminds me of the sorry person at GA Tech who wanted to ban—as I recall—prayer before football games. How one person in a democracy can do this is highly in question. It’s wrong, very wrong.

Scalia—Don’t ask me twisted questions in an attempt to prompt a certain response from others. You know what you’re doing.

Norman—All the reason and wisdom in the world supports the Bible. Jesus is the Son of God, and Christianity is the only religion that supports unconditional love and intolerance for evil. This means, fellow Christians, that we’re to stand up against the evils of the world like abortion, gay marriage, cloning, stem-cell research, evolution and “safe sex” (two myths) in schools. Wake up. Take a stand. Do something for God.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Probably from Randy or Bruce…

By Jack

February 25, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

I am officialy putting Zack, Randy & Bruce on IGNORE. You guys can post about me all you want if it makes you feel better.

By Tim

February 25, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Zack… were you not breast fed enough as a baby… or on the other hand were you breast fed too long… cus Lord knows you have some issues to work through… breath in 2, 3, 4… breath out 2, 3, 4

RS… I am shocked… when did you start promoting casual sex?

By norman

February 25, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Until very recent years legitimate fears were expressed that technology would build weapons that would annihilate mankind. This remains a threat as such weapons now exist. But new economic evils have arisen in world technology where evil controls communications that destroy the souls of mankind�a much worse annihilation. The two most influential sources in a small mid-western town, used to be its Catholic Church and Catholic school. Today, the school is gone, the Church severely weakened; the great influence of the Catholic Church has been replaced by the influence of taverns and television.

By lozen

February 25, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’m sure you will no longer post anything on this board since you now know Zack “does not need your commentary!” And of course it was Zack who posted “Your a fool” and not norman. Norman knows how to spell contractions; Zack doesn’t know how to spell “you’re a…” Sad isn’t it? Yum, Yum I can’t wait to get my girl scout cookies. Any person and any organization that values women and reproductive freedom for women is pro-choice. Women are the only people who can bring life into this world and women are the only ones who should make the decision about whether or not to bring life into the world. Zack, my body does not belong to your god! That’s because your god does not exist except in your mind, Zack. I’ve studied religion for 40 years and there is no evidence at all that your god exists. The god you have made up hates women, hates sex, hates gay people, hates people who think for themselves, hates anyone who disagrees with you, hates Disney! Will you please get some help before you have a nervous breakdown or hurt somebody?

By Zack

February 25, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Jack—I don’t care if you put me on ignore. I find it ironic, though, how you “open-minded liberals” are open-minded until it comes to a statement against abortion, homosexuality, egalitarianism, cloning, stem-cell research, direct lies to students in classrooms via evolution, “safe sex”, etc..

The liberal bias is so sickening. Liberals are tyrannical in how they push their ageanda on us all. They really are. If they had it their way, everyone would have free speech except for Christians. Christians don’t exactly hurt the liberal cause by choosing to be quiet.

I probably won’t be back on here. I guess RS will come on and call me every name she can think of and do her best to undermine my posts. However, this, of course, is someone who advocates casual sex and abortion on demand. Abortion is murder. It’s wrong. It’s injustifiable.

Have a good weekend, and thank you, Shaunti, for your consistently-strong posts. As a fellow forumer said recently (how rare: an objective liberal), you are specific in your statements, whereas Diane is broad and general, and you always make the stronger case. Diane is a fine example of an intelligent person with a distorted worldview. I just wish people would wake up to the reality that this world we live in is not good and that we need to stand up and change some things, with abortion being one of them.

As I’ve said before, Christians, beware: new age propaganda has reached the church. The Bible warned us that it was coming, and it is here. (Norman, this 2,000-year-old book hasnt missed a prophecy and never will. You need to consider this the next time you try to construe an argument against it.) Rick Warren—new ager. Joel Osteen—new ager. If you’re wondering about a church’s doctrine, compare it to the Bible, which is God’s absolute truth. Obviously, Warren and Osteen are NOT preaching the gospel. Keep a discerning eye about you.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

WOW We are really getting to you Jack. Thanks for the compliment. NORMAN might be funny, if he wasn’t playing with people’s immortal souls. But he would rather be considered funny or clever than care about anybody, when it comes right down to it. Again, Norman wants to call something that is WHITE, Black and do it enough times that some people believe him. Fortunately, most people can see the forest for the trees. Bruce, I have coached 9 or 10 teams in softball over the last 6 or 7 years(fall and spring), of the 120ish girls I have coached at least 110 have been Christian and we have helped get probably 4 or 5 of the other ten to go to church. Last year we had 12 girls on the team 11 went to church, the girls all started talking about where they went to church and when the 12th girl was asked where she went, she said “we don’t go to church, we must be weird” soon after that she and her family started going to church. I coach in an Atlanta surburb.

By norman

February 25, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

I prefer tv and taverns to the Catholic church horror.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Zack, There is no need for us to “beware” of non-Christians. There really aren’t enough of them to even much more than pay attention to. If you want to talk about a minority, look at the statistics on people who don’t believe in God, it’s well below 5%. We post on this forum to try to help some of them see the truth, but they can hit me with anything they have. I AM UNFAZED.

By Boscoe

February 25, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Norman said, well one of them did anyway…Zack: we let you repeat your same nonsense over and over again: that men are sinners needing the blood of an obscure Jewish peasant who died two thousand years ago in order to avoid hell. How can you still repeat this junk which sensible people have always rejected? Norman, crucifixion was a common form of punishment in Rome. Name one other man that was crucified. How come that crucifixion is the only one told about? Why is that “norman”?

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, the bible was not allowed to be owned/used/preached by laymen. See prior to Lollard. Back in 21st century, I still cant believe persecution of christians is happening in America except in their own minds…further…I dont think anyone would get off the couch to join a revolution these days…especially in America. Revolutions are led by the young, the idealists and not by middle aged, well educated middle class people. I dont expect any faith-based revolution that wants to take away American freedoms in vice & luxury so firmly established and so activily promoted by business interests will succeed. I dont see moderate christians flying the banner of religious percecution and the massive block of moderate upper/middle class dont seem to want a holier than thou legislator to infringe on their rights! My husband says I could be wrong, and I can only say if a pendulum swings far in one direction, the backward swing is equally as mighty and are you prepared for an onslaught of liberal socialism? ;-)

By Jack

February 25, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

There should be a “zealot” blog for these guys…I mean losers.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

My last comment not directed at you Lyrazel.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, We aren’t dealing with a pendulum. That’s just wishful thinking on you part.

By Scalia

February 25, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Zack, why are you on the defense? After reading about Hitch the movie, I am further inclined to believe that most of the aborted babies were the result of an interracial breeding. For example, going back to the movie Hitch. The people that were casting for Will Smith’s love interest made a point of picking somebody Hispanic, because the people of America were not ready for a black/white love interest.

You still never answered my question, Zack, and I never put words in your mouth. I posed a question, you called me a liar, etc. I never once called you out of your name, and being a Christian man, you should be ashamed of yourself. “A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly.” Proverbs 14:29

By Randy

February 25, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Being a History major in undergrad school, I am well aware of what a Hedonistic society did to its women(Rape, murder etc) if that is what some of you want in a liberal socialism society, you might be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

I thank God everyday that certain people in this blog are not the rulers of the world. i imagine they (in the name of God) would harm a great many people…thanks again Lord!

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Why thank you, Jack…but Im a lefty socialist with pinko ties…ought not side up with me…

Zack, ah, organize! Boycott! Power of the Almighty Dollar works with big business! My own experience with the girl scouts was a disaster when I was dismissed as a Brownie for signing my mother’s name to gain every badge in the handbook…

I hate Disney, lozen. Not Walt. Walt was cool, anyone who could conceptualize Fantasia in 1940s was cool…but the megolomanic company that completely ignores laws against marketing aimed at children.

By lozen

February 25, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you’re right, many others were crucified just as many others performed healings and other awe inspiring acts and claimed to be the messiah. It’s not simple or easy to answer (there were many factors involved) why one of these men, Yeshua, became what he did in the western world. One thing for sure he had a zealous P.R. man in Paul. My question to you is this: If Jesus was the true messiah, why didn’t the majority of jewish people who were right there at the time of his life and death and who had been waiting so long for a messiah, accept him as the one?

By norman

February 25, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Spartacus was crucified. So were lots of other people mentioned in Josephus’ Histories.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

The more these other guys talk, the more I like Norman. At least he doesn’t put words in other’s mouths and doesn’t do a whole lot of cutting & pasting

By Randy

February 25, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Iozen, read your bible, that’s one of the ways the Messiah would be known, rejected by his own people. (JEWISH)people.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

The question is not, name someone else crucified, but name someone else who has 2 billion followers currently and that many of his followers have accepted death, instead of renounce their faith, such a 11 of the 12 disciples. Most people won’t do that for a lie, so it is absolutely true.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Jack, That’s the whole point to this life and this forum, choose who you are going to follow, Jesus or evil.

By lozen

February 25, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Randy is the perfect example of people seeing what they’re looking for and thinking that’s reality. He says, “Being a History major in undergrad school, I am well aware of what a Hedonistic society did to its women(Rape, murder etc)…” Every patriarchal society has raped and murdered women. What did the “christian” society of the south do to it’s black slave women? Every day just in this one state there’s at least one story about a woman and/or children who have been murdered by the husband/boyfriend/father! Being an anthropology major, I have seen what happened in societies that were not patriarchal. There’s no evidence that Cherokee indian women were raped or murdered before contact with white men. Christian missionaries were outraged when they first had contact with the Cherokee indians. They said men were “under petticoat rule,” the women were in charge, and all of them had several husbands in a lifetime. All they had to do to divorce a husband was throw all his things out of the house because the house belonged to the woman. There was no problem with the children being fatherless or unprotected because it was understood in their society that the woman’s brother was responsible for her children. Does it seem more practical that protection and care of children works better when a blood relative of the mother is responsible? It certainly shows there’s more than one way to deal with the situation!

By Jack

February 25, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

If he doesn’t see what he’s looking for he simply makes it up. Then its his reality. His way or the hi-way!

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Excellent job once again folks ! Forget the original topic ! Let’s keep arguing religion again ! This board is so boring at times. If I wanted to take a nap I’d attend Sunday school.

Now, should the government control adult content on TV? Yes, if someone doesn’t pretty soon porn will be the norm on public television. I for one would like to channel surf & not have to see cop/mystery shows about a serial murderer & rapist, child rapist, misc. sex offenders praying on women. It’s depressing enough in the real world to hear about it, much less having most all drama shows always featuring stories about it FOR ENTERTAINMENT.

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Randy, here is why I feel it is a pendulum effect: a national prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)—the “noble experiment”—was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became organized; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition—most economists and social scientists supported it.

See? Americans dont behave well penned up and told to reform. We might side with the right but we keep watching Desperate Housewives…we dont conform as a society…we are a nation of individuals…and who drives 55 except when followed by a cop? Of course you do…but you are the exception….

By lozen

February 25, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Whiley, where have ya been darlin’? We covered all that on Monday and Tuesday!

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

lol lozen ! I was reading for a while, but became bored quickly when the religious arguments & quotes from the bible came up. Missed you guys ! (most of you anyway)

By Seaborn

February 25, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

So Randy,

According to your formula, the validity of a belief increases in direct proportion to the number of people holding that belief?

The sun once revolved around the earth and the earth was flat some time ago…is this right?

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Hmmmmm, I can only point a long scrawny finger toward the knights who raped and pillaged across the Europe & Holy Lands…in the name of Jesus, and other fine groups of warriors for god; all warriors have GOD on their side. Now answer ? when was the Hedonist society in charge? Hellenist? Long live Hedonism…overindulgence and apathy!

Whiley, come on, we lasted until Thursday talking about the subject…let them froth, its friday and I need a good latte…

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

WHAT in the world is wrong with Desperate Housewives? It is a hilarious well written comedy/drama. Is it because it’s a show that features women? OH MY a show that doesn’t have a man as the main character? How disgusting! They glorify independent women that have sex & minds of their own? Oh no the world is going to end tomorrow!

Offensive shows are the cop dramas, all full of crime, sex offenders & criminals.

I love DH !!!!!!

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

DH reminds me of a soap opera…failed to keep me interested…sorry…enjoy it Whiley!

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Whiley, hubby and me had more fun guessing about (and filling in) the sex lives of the Weather Channel anchors…in our days of paying for tv…in one month ALL the women seemed pregnant (except Jennifer Lopez), and John Goodlay was smiling with too much tooth………hahahaa

By Seaborn

February 25, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

You bring up a good point about paying for tv…so you gave it up? I pay for cable but I don’t know why…I just flip up and down the stations…everything is so bad. I watch the Simpsons reruns and then go do something else or watch my own DVDs. I think it’s the vapid content of tv that will ruin it, not obscenity. And I just don’t get reality tv at all…

By Tim

February 25, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Whiley… I am right there with you… Desperate Housewives ROCKS!!!

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

I gave up all my pay movie channels & realized there are more than enough stations that play movies. So you don’t really miss out on anything except real swear words & nudity. Which is fine with me since it is a rare day when one gets to view a naked man.

Lyrazel, the weather channel? he he I only watch when there is a storm on it’s way. Court TV is too depressing, murder trial after murder trial.
IFC is really good. Movies you’ve never heard of, but filled with actors/actresses you know. Higher quality of movies too.

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Seaborne, it wasnt hard to do. The Simsons are on 2 channels, btw. FOX, TCB, TNT, ABC, NBC,CBS, UPN, 2 PBSs and my favorite UNI which has soap operas to die for!!! no sex but lots of bizzarros! If you dont know why you are still paying for it but not watching it, is it social conditioning. Remember its your money…$564/year for basic…Think about what mega-company you are supporting with your $47-86/month checque…but, you got to be a brave person to buy a set of rabbit ears in 21st century America…like using cash…people stare!

By lozen

February 25, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Four and a half billion people on this planet do not follow Jesus! Anyway, what good does it do to have two billion followers when they’re all fighting each other all the time? “We catholics are right and you baptists are wrong!” “No! We baptists are right and you catholics and mormons are wrong!” There are 34,000 separate christian groups in the world! Why can’t y’all just get along? 75% of americans say they are christians, but by the conservative definition (being born again) only 35% of americans are really christians. There are many people who claim to be christians and who just don’t pay much attention to religion at all. Every single christian in this world has his/her own definition of god, which rules should be followed, and what the bible really means,etc. Most christians don’t believe what you extreme people on here believe. And, believe it or not, some christians actually follow what Jesus said and practice peace and love instead of using their religion to beat others over the head with their rigid rules and regulations and try to tell everybody else in the u.s. how to live!

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

I keep threatening to get rid of cable but I also want to stay with my better half. She likes DH as well. More often than not, there are 200+ channels of CRAP.

By William

February 25, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but I don’t get not wanting to watch/see something as a reason for us to do away with it. One really can change the channel or cut the TV off. And I’m a bit surprised at the number of people that are concerned because of their children. There were certain programs that my dad didn’t want me to watch. When I went to my aunt’s house, she was much less rigid about what my cousins could watch. We loved horror movies: the scarier and gorier, the better. Have I become desensitized to violence? I suppose I have: I can listen to people speak about almost anything in graphic detail while I’m eating and not be nauseated. Yet I was reading a comic book the other day that described a dog being tortured by some children, and I was moved almost to tears. Incidentally, it was the behavior of the father of one of the boys that led the kids to torture, not TV. Watching people engage in sex in movies didn’t inspire me to have sex at 14. Watching someone get hacked up didn’t lead me to mutilating animals or other humans. The argument that what we watch on TV influences us so much that we can do nothing but become what we see is bogus in my mind. It removes responsibility from the individual. Do we really believe in “The Devil made me do it” reasoning still? I hate to say it, but I believe that there are some people that are just bad seeds. Whether they choose to give in to their inclinations or turn away from them is totally up to the individual.

My sister is a bit more open about what she allows her children to watch, but she lets them know what types of behaviors are acceptable and what types aren’t. They don’t question it (not yet, anyway): they accept it for what it is, because Mom said it’s not the way we should be. Parents really should have more faith in themselves and what they instil in their children.

By RS

February 25, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Seaborn; thanks for the explanation; Bruce already apologized, which I accept. In fact, Bruce, you’re quite brave to own up to it. Seaborn & Jack: Europe vs America; yes, if we keep snickering about sex like dirty-minded 12-year old boys, sex crimes will never decrease. The body is NATURAL. Nudity is NATURAL & no Zack, that doesn’t mean I advocate rampant promiscuity. Jack. I tell it as I see it; you obviously are highly intelligent & don’t blindly follow the crowd. One thing though. Diane & Shaunti are equally attractive (I think) & if you compliment one, you should in turn, compliment the other as well. Sorry, dear, that’s just something I have issues with, for reasons I won’t get into…(oh, gawd, the “I Hate Men” Network! Ha ha! Yes!!) Texas, sweet story but a tad too sentimental for my taste, remember, I’m the practical, no-nonsense one here. Lyrazel: Ah, haven’t you read Zack’s, Boscoe’s, Chuck’s etc posts? Any non-Christian is scum. Tim: By golly, so it is! Since I feel it’s impractical to expect teens to abstain from sex because they’re being told to, I must be Satan’s Handmaiden & be in favour of indiscriminate bed-hopping. Zack: Thanks for the tip. You just helped me plan my weekend. I think I’ll go buy a Ford, stuff myself with Girl Scoul cookies & head off to Disney. Actually, did you know Henry Ford was a rabid anti-Semite? THAT should drastically change your opinion of him, shouldn’t it? And thank you for comparing me to Scalia; she has more brains in her pinky than you do in your whole, er, God-owned body. You are such an ignorant, miserable excuse for a human being & I use that term loosely. Because you’re bitter & sour, you try to suck the joy out of life for everyone unfortunate enough to come in contact with you. If you were a nicer person, I’d pity you. Get some help.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, No a validity of a belief doesn’t increase according to the number of people who hold that belief. However, a validity of a belief does increase when one has an spiritual experience(some call it born-again, really it’s a spiritual awakening) which confirms that belief and lets them know it is true. That’s the difference in the people in this forum, some have had that experience(like Tim) and the others of us who call ourselves Christians and the rest of you haven’t. I don’t blame the ones of you who aren’t Christians, you just don’t know, or you have rejected the spiritual awakening, or have yet had a chance to have it. If you ask the Christians on this forum why they post, it’s out of love for those of you who don’t know. Sometimes we may say the wrong thing and we certaining aren’t perfect. But we do it to help you all understand and out of love.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

We don’t want the responsibility of raising our children. We want the Church and the government to do it for us…..NOT

By Boscoe

February 25, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Brought up in Nazareth, He began to preach publicly during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. For approximately three years He taught the Jewish crowds wherever He could find them. He held out to them the fulfillment of their ancient hopes of a Messias, but a spiritual fulfillment. The Jews did not entirely accept that, they had always expected the Messias to be a knight in shinning armor not a poor man. Jesus made enemies of the Pharisees and others in Jewish life by His popularity. They decided to do away with Him. He was condemned on a charge of making Himself equal to God, and then crucified by the Roman authorities of Palestine. Norman they never found the body of Spartacus.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Its about time you showed up RS. I thought you had given up on us!

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Who raises adults in America? This culture seems only to be able to raise children.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Really there is always going to be a fight between Good and Evil here on this earth, we Christians are like people in a lifeboat from the Titanic and we are just trying to help as many people into the lifeboat before they freeze to death as we can. We are trying to help.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Spartacus is still alive, he changed his name to Kirk Douglas, his son married Catherine Zeta-Jones.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

You probably won’t get many into the lifeboat with your attitude.

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

It’s really not that difficult to monitor what my kids watch. Not at all. You just have to check out the shows they want to watch. What’s the big deal?

I filter what I watch also. I tend to get depressed about the world when I watch too many shows or violent movies. Makes me dislike men too much & distrust everyone around me. The cure for that is put on America’s funnies animals, the Simpsons, DH & That 70’s show! What other shows are a sure to make you laugh?

By Randy

February 25, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Well Jack you have my apologies then, don’t go by me, I’m not very sharp. Forgive my attitude, we want everybody in the lifeboat.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

I like Seinfield but its kind if goofy at times. The old Cosby shows are good too. I also like to watch TV land

By RS

February 25, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

No, Jack, sweetie, I wasn’t ignoring you, I was ignoring Zack (maybe if enough of us do, he’ll go away. Ah no such luck, darn it). Seriously, I’ve been having a busy day & have hardly had a chance to sit down till now. I get Randy’s point, a true Christian IS loving but I see nothing loving about Zack. In fact, he’s one of the nastiest, most embittered individuals I’ve ever encountered anywhere

By Bruce

February 25, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Jack,

It appears that all you are trying to do is stir up trouble. I for one do not see any credibility in your statements mainly because none of your comments are your own. You just simply agree with the crowd. Please take me off your list.

However, I will continue praying for you and all of you “yet to be Christians”. (Thanks Randy for the phrase, I hope you don’t mind me using it.) God is alive and doing wonderous things in the lives of those that love Him. I know he is alive because he lives in my heart.

By Lyrazel

February 25, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I do enjoy the puns of Paul Kangas on Nightly Business Report…good for a chuckle…Lost has been quite interesting….I mean for free tv…but Im a COPS fanatic…love how it reveals the true fashion sense of America…

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Gotta go. Love you all!!

By RS

February 25, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, “Seinfeld” rules! Likewise “Drew Carey” & “Will & Grace” but of course the Bible-thumpers will have us believe that NO ONE should be allowed to watch theses highly amsing clever shows because they aren’t FAMILY-FRIENDLY! (Yes, I’m a Nick-At-Nite/TV Land fan too)

By Seaborn

February 25, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Randy,

You should watch some of your assumptions about the posters here. Not everyone divulges everything about themselves. I’ve actually had a number of spiritual experiences. When I was 17 I had the opportunity to go to Europe and one of the places we went to was Assisi, Italy. In Assisi, like much of European cities, is a cathedral. However, this cathedral was built around the original church that St. Francis had built by hand. It’s actually inside the cathedral. I had been in dozens of holy places, but when I walked into that small church I was overcome…Was it the touch of God? Was it my own mind? Even then I had read a lot about St. Francis, and as I had a fondness for animals I always was drawn to stories about him. That same summer I was also blessed by the pope in a mass blessing(two popes ago..not the current one). I’ve obviously shown in my previous posts that the papacy doesn’t really impress me. I’ve had other “spritual experiences” but none of them made me “come to the Lord”. I also have never been a drug addict or an alcoholic where I needed to replace the crutch of addiction to substances with the crutch of addiction to religion.

I also doubt your motives..sorry I’m cynical. I believe you give less glory to the almighty and more to your own smug sense of ego and piety.

By Jack

February 25, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Kiss off Bruce.

By RS

February 25, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Bruce: Sorry but I just can’t see at all where/why Jack is a trouble-maker; far from it. Seaborn: You certainly have a point. I’m not a Christian, actually I’m Jewish, but I most assuredly believe in God & have had some deeply spiritual experiences proving HIS working in my life (sorry, Norman..) But if you’re a Bible-thumping fundie, Christianity is THE only viable religion & that makes you better than the rest of us..Or so these people “think” (?!?)

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Good point about Seinfeld ! Even though I’ve seen them all they still make me laugh ! LOST is so good I hate when the commercials play. Whatever happened to that WANDA show? I remember when it first aired it made me laugh so much ! I don’t mind sex jokes or racy stuff in comedy as long as it isn’t foul comedy. Sex is actually a pretty funny thing if you really think about it.

By Bruce

February 25, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

RS,

If he would have an original thought of his own I probably wouldn’t feel that why. But just look at his last post. Childish at best. I guess I just don’t take kindly to threats.

I will continue to pray for him… oh and you too.

Have a good weekend everybody, see you next week, same Bat time, Same Bat channel.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, maybe you are right(on my ego), my apologies.

By lozen

February 25, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, Your story about Assisi is wonderful. I had a similar experience when I entered a small village church in El Rito, NM. Another when I attended a neo-pagan gathering, another when I studied with a group teaching Eastern religious practices and another when I attended a blessing ceremony by a navajo medicine woman (who was also a nun)! That was awesome. And that’s why I don’t believe there is only one way to the great spirit. The great spirit is everywhere.

By RS

February 25, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Well, Bruce, I think you pushed Jack a little too far & understandably, he was irritated. Lozen, I myself have had (very positive) experiences with Eastern, Jewish mysticism & Native American religions. They are very spiritual, empowering & place great emphasis on the theory that we are as one with each other & the Earth. Isn’t that what it’s all about, or SHOULD be about?

By Whiley

February 25, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Yawn !
I’m starting to fall asleep again. Which message board am I on? This is freaking me out ! I can’t seem to escape from Bible-land ! ! HELP MEEEEEEE !

Hey you don’t have to be a bible-beater to be a good decent person. You don’t have to attend church to be a decent person. It’s ok if you don’t follow the crowd. Don’t let threats of fear, burn in hell, eternal damnation, etc. get to you. Think for yourself.

OK back to the real topic. Funny shows. I love funny relationship shows. Real relationship craziness is funny because we’ve all been through it. Friends, Mad about you, Cheers, what else?

By Seaborn

February 25, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I’ve always thought of going back to that cathedral to see if I would have the same experience, guess I’m afraid I won’t…it is a nice memory.

Randy, have a good weekend.

By lozen

February 25, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

RS, Some of us have been exposed to the world, different people, and ideas and cultures. I think we live in a world so different from Randy’s there really is no comparison. In Randy’s simple mind there are only two choices: Jesus or evil! It’s sad someone who thinks like that would try to tell others how they should live. Have a great weekend my friend. You too Norman.

By Randy

February 25, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Well at least most of you know there is a good spirit.

By RS

February 25, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Back at you, Lozen! Looking forward to “seeing” you again next week. I don’t think Randy seems like a nasty or malicious person at all, just a little misguided. I feel bad for him because I get the feeling he’s missing out on a lot. Fortunately though, I tend to suspect he doesn’t relize it..