THEOCRACY WATCH!!! Texas Gov signs anti-gay, anti-choice legislation in church - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-13-2005, 01:55 PM   #226
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I am not advocating that 13 and 14 years old, or any irresponsible people raise children. They can put the babies up for adoption, can't they? When I said "when a child is conceived, it's time for the mom and dad to step forward and do right by the baby", sometimes the "right thing" is to give the child to people who will be able to raise it.
Life must be so great when things are this easy. Not having to deal with the pregnant children, not having to think about the children these children are having, thinking that "they can put the babies up for adoption, can't they?" solves the problem.

Not understanding the social conditions that lead to teen pregnancy in the first place, thinking that just telling these darn kids not to do it will magically turn off their libidos.

Golly, what a great world. Are the dishes made of candy there, too?
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 06-13-2005, 02:10 PM   #227
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:41 PM
With all due respect, people are not victims of their libidos.

If you set no expectations, people will do as they please.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 02:19 PM   #228
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
With all due respect, people are not victims of their libidos.

If you set no expectations, people will do as they please.

and if people fail, as they inevitably do, what then?

how many lives must we ruin?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 02:35 PM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and if people fail, as they inevitably do, what then?

how many lives must we ruin?
Kill one to "save" the other?

Real life has real consequences.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 02:41 PM   #230
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Kill one to "save" the other?

Real life has real consequences.




you're assuming that we're killing, firstly.

i take a very practical approach -- i have no idea where life begins or ends, nor do i feel qualified to make a judgement as to whether a fetus is the equal of a living, breathing 14 year old girl who was raped by her father or mother's boyfriend or happened to simply make a very bad decision and didn't know how to protect herself because her school district has abstinence-only sex education.

therefore, i leave the choice in her hands. it's between her and her Maker.

what would really ruin lives would be a return to the world of back-alley abortions where scared young girls get butchered.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 02:54 PM   #231
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Another inroad by the theocracy.

The New Blacklist

By Doug Ireland, LA Weekly. Posted June 13, 2005.


The Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America -- and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities they don't like.

Spurred on by a biblical injunction evangelicals call "The Great Commission," and emboldened by George W. Bush's re-election, which is perceived as a "mandate from God," the Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America -- and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities they don't like.

And it's working. Just three weeks ago, the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA) announced it was ending its boycott of corporate giant Procter & Gamble -- maker of household staples like Tide and Crest -- for being pro-gay. Why? Because the AFA's boycott (which the organization says enlisted 400,000 families) had succeeded in getting P&G to pull its millions of dollars in advertising from TV shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

P&G also ended its advertising in gay magazines and on gay Web sites. And a P&G executive who had been given a leave of absence to work on a successful Cincinnati, Ohio, referendum that repealed a ban on any measures protecting gays from discrimination was shown the door.

"We cannot say they are 100 percent clean, and we ask our supporters to let us know if they discover P&G again being involved in pushing the homosexual lifestyle," growls the AFA's statement of victory over the corporate behemoth, "but judging by all that we found in our research, it appears that our concerns have been addressed." The Wall Street Journal reported on May 11 that "P&G officials won't talk publicly about the boycott. But privately, they acknowledge the [Christer] groups turned out to be larger, better funded, better organized, and more sophisticated than the company had imagined."

But the P&G cave-in to the Christian right is only the tip of the iceberg. In just the past year and a half, AFA protests and boycotts -- or even the simple threat of boycotts -- have been enough to make a host of American companies pull their ads from TV shows the Christian right considers pro-gay or salacious. "Desperate Housewives" has lost ads from Safeway, Tyson Foods, Liberty Mutual, Kohl's, Alberto Culver, Leapfrog and Lowe's after the AFA's One Million Dads campaign targeted the show's sponsors. "Life as We Know It" got the same AFA treatment -- and lost ads from McCormick, Lenscrafters, Radio Shack, Papa John's International, Chattem and Sharpie.

And it's not just programs on the broadcast networks and their local affiliates that are feeling the heat from the Christian right. When the AFA targeted Comedy Central's "South Park," the popular cartoon satire saw ads on the show pulled by Foot Locker, Geico, Finish Line and Best Buy.

Nissan, Goodyear and Castrol stopped running ads on "The Shield" after AFA complaints. Sonic Drive-In pulled its ad support from "The Shield" after a single email request from AFA's Rev. Wildmon. S.C. Johnson and Hasbro ordered their ads taken off "He's a Lady" when it got the AFA treatment. And the list goes on ..... Call it a new, 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not advertise" if the religious primitives smell sin.

Just two weeks ago, the AFA undertook a new letter-writing campaign aimed at Kraft Foods (makers of Oreo cookies, Maxwell House coffee, Ritz Crackers and the like) for supporting the "radical homosexual agenda."

Kraft's crime? It's a corporate sponsor of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. Founded in 1980 by Dr. Tom Waddell -- a 1968 Olympic decathlete -- these Gay Games VII will bring gay athletes from all over the world to the Windy City for a complete catalog of Olympic-style competitions. The honorary chairman of the Chicago Gay Games? The city's mayor, Richard Daley, who declared that he is "committed to the success of the 2006 Gay Games because it is an expression of international goodwill and a celebration of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, which are important to Chicago."

But, following the AFA's lead, another conservative Christian group -- the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) -- has asked its members to take on Kraft and five other Illinois companies that are sponsoring what it calls the "Homosexuality Games." Proclaimed the IFI: "By allowing their corporate logos to be used to promote the 'Gay Games,' Kraft, Harris Bank and other sponsoring companies are celebrating wrong and destructive behaviors, and showing their disdain for the majority of Americans who favor traditional morality and marriage."

Here's a nice touch: The IFI's Web site features a statue of Abraham Lincoln, who some historians now credibly say was gay or bisexual. Will Kraft stand up to the pressure? The company's answer to this protest campaign is, for the moment, yes -- but for how long?

All across the country, the Christian right and its allies in the culture wars are mobilizing -- sometimes spurred on from the top by the AFA, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and similar national groups, but with increasing frequency local pressure campaigns and boycott threats are self-starters. They target everything from local broadcast outlets and local cable operators to libraries, bookstores, playhouses, cinemas and magazine outlets.

"The Christian right is incredibly mobilized," says Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, a 30-year-old alliance of 50 nonprofit groups. Bertin says, "There's been an explosion of local book and arts censorship -- a lot of activity by an emboldened grassroots, who think they won the last election on moral grounds. They barely need to threaten a boycott to get those they target to back down -- hey, nobody had to threaten to boycott PBS to get them to back off Postcards From Buster." Bertin affirms that "This new threat from below as well as above has already achieved a widespread chill" on creative and entertainment arts throughout the country.

A good example of successful up-from-below pressure in making corporate America bend the knee to the Christian right: the Microsoft Corp. Earlier this year, under pressure from a local protest led by Ken Hutcherson -- a conservative National Football League linebacker turned preacher -- Microsoft made a decision to stay neutral in the fight over legislation in Washington's state Legislature banning discrimination in employment against same-sexers, although many other companies headquartered in the state took positions in favor of the bill. But after an avalanche of counterprotests to Microsoft about their cave-in to Hutcherson, from their own employees (many of whom are gay), gay groups and the blogosphere, Microsoft reversed itself and supported the anti-discrimination bill. Too late: Two weeks earlier, the bill had been defeated by just one vote in the state Senate. Now, Microsoft is being targeted by a new, national conservative Christian protest campaign for having flip-flopped again.

Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, calls the new offensive a drive toward "theocratic oligopoly. The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country," adding that "e-mails to the FCC are more worrisome to me than boycotts" in terms of their chilling effect.

Even The New York Times is feeling the chill. At the beginning of May, an internal committee of 19 Times editors and reporters, who'd been asked how to improve the paper's "credibility" with a wider swath of America, came up with a key recommendation: Deliberalize the paper's news columns, especially through more coverage on religion from a sympathetic point of view.

The committee's report, "Preserving Our Readers' Trust," added that "the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, approaches cheerleading. By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter -- gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else -- we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural, and religious life."

Oh, "disturbing" to whom? Why, to the Christian right, of course -- whose email complaint campaigns against the Times are legion: It's the paper the fundamentalists love to hate. So why is the Times -- one of the few newspapers in the latest available study of circulation released earlier this year to significantly increase circulation rather than lose it -- feeling the need to kowtow to the religious opponents of gay marriage? The paper's willingness to do so is about as frightening a testimony to creeping theocracy as one could imagine.

Is the new conservative Christian anti-gay and anti-sex crusade a back-to-the-future nightmare? Remember your history: In the 1950s, the anti-Communist owners of a small chain of supermarkets in upstate New York started threatening the TV and radio networks with boycotts of sponsors' products if they employed any persons listed as supposed Communists or lefties, in a sloppily researched little pamphlet called "Red Channels."

It didn't take long for this small protest to instill fear throughout the broadcast industry, and the result was the Blacklist, a witch-hunt that lasted for years -- even after John Henry Faulk, the blacklisted star CBS-radio host and actor, won his landmark $3.5 million libel suit in 1962 against the blackmailers of AWARE Inc., which -- for a suitable fee -- offered "clearance" services to major media advertisers and radio and television networks, investigating the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. But Faulk didn't work in national broadcasting for another 13 years, until he landed a spot on the TV series Hee-Haw in 1975. It took that long to end a quarter-century reign of terror in the entertainment industry, 18 years after Senator Joe McCarthy was dead and buried.

Today's Christian right protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort."

Berlet -- who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right" -- says that "What's motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it's motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes."

The key to those doctrines is what fundamentalist religious primitives call the Great Commission, which is basically an injunction to convert everyone to Christianity. In the Bible (Matthew 28:19-20), it says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . ." The fundamentalist interpretations of these and other texts can be found on evangelical Web sites like Thegreatcommission.com, Transferableconcepts.com and Gospelcom.net. They have incredible motivating power for the religious right, and help explain the vehemence of the Christian right's intolerance of the freedom of others to think or act differently.

Says Berlet, "The re-election of Bush was a sort of tipping point for these people, who take it as a mandate from God -- they see that the leadership of America is within their grasp, and when you get closer to your goal, it's very energizing. It reaches a critical mass, in which the evangelicals feel they have permission to push their way into public and cultural policy in every walk and expression of life."

All that, says Berlet, is what is motivating the skein of conservative Christian boycotts, protest campaigns and censorship drives bubbling from the bottom up -- which get added emotional and pressure power from the fund-raising-driven crusades launched by political Christian right organizations like AFA at the national level. The confluence of from-above and from-below is a powerful mix.

There's one big problem: Nobody at the national level is tracking these censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed.

"People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at Political Research Associates would love to do it," says Berlet, "but we don't have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or Americans United for Separation of Church and State could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it, because nobody wants to give it. There used to be three major journalists writing about this stuff -- Sara Diamond, Russ Belant and Fred Clarkson. But none of them could make a living doing it, and they've all dropped out of the game."

Unless Hollywood, and the entertainment and broadcast industries, all want to live through an epoch of increasing content blackmail and blacklists, the wealthy folks who make a lot of money from those industries better wake up and start funding intensive and systematic research on the Christian right and its censorship crusades against sexual subversion and sin in the creative arts -- or soon it will be too late, and the "theocratic oligopoly" of which Martin Kaplan speaks will be so firmly established it cannot be dislodged
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 03:03 PM   #232
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:41 PM
...

It's called a remote control, people! Sheesh...

And the real kicker? You know those very same people would be all up in arms if I went out and tried to get rid of, say, religious programming/books that I didn't like.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 03:15 PM   #233
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
...

It's called a remote control, people! Sheesh...

And the real kicker? You know those very same people would be all up in arms if I went out and tried to get rid of, say, religious programming/books that I didn't like.

Angela
Boycotts are a staple of political speech. I'm sure you only object to their political stance, not the exercise of their rights.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 03:18 PM   #234
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 12:41 AM
No kidding, Angela.

And don't fuck with my New York Times!
__________________
Golightly Grrl is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 03:18 PM   #235
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
you're assuming that we're killing, firstly.

i take a very practical approach -- i have no idea where life begins or ends, nor do i feel qualified to make a judgement as to whether a fetus is the equal of a living, breathing 14 year old girl who was raped by her father or mother's boyfriend or happened to simply make a very bad decision and didn't know how to protect herself because her school district has abstinence-only sex education.

therefore, i leave the choice in her hands. it's between her and her Maker.

what would really ruin lives would be a return to the world of back-alley abortions where scared young girls get butchered.
We've all done this dance before - they are/are not people. I guess is comes down to a guaranteed butchering vs. a threatened butchering.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 03:22 PM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Life must be so great when things are this easy. Not having to deal with the pregnant children, not having to think about the children these children are having, thinking that "they can put the babies up for adoption, can't they?" solves the problem.

Not understanding the social conditions that lead to teen pregnancy in the first place, thinking that just telling these darn kids not to do it will magically turn off their libidos.

Golly, what a great world. Are the dishes made of candy there, too?
Martha, you have no idea what my life has been like. You don't know, and yet you presume to think I have no experience with this, and that my life has been a bed of roses.

Let me tell you something; when I was 22, and unmarried, I had a wrong relationship with a girl. She got pregnant, and my son died 8 hours after birth.

So you can keep your condescension.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 04:29 PM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
...

It's called a remote control, people! Sheesh...

Angela
It's not that they can't turn it off (most, when asked will tell you "oh, I never watch it anyway"), it's that they don't their neighbors (or anyone else) watching it either.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 04:50 PM   #238
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I see I didn't miss much here.
You've obviously been dodging my posts...

...Can't say I blame you...
__________________
OneBadStay is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 05:44 PM   #239
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by OneBadStay


You've obviously been dodging my posts...

...Can't say I blame you...


i can't say i blame her either.

all you had to offer were the same old lines that every other anti-choice/pro-lifer has. we've all heard it a million times, and these debates never seem to go anywhere on FYM. still, always interesting to feel the temperature of the room, especially on a topic that, for me, is a bit abstract.

i have a question:

why is abortion almost a uniquely American source of near-hysteria on both sides of the political spectrum? it seems like much less of an issue in other countries, even in heavily Catholic countries like Italy or Spain. what makes the US different? is there something about responsibility (or perceived responsibility) and shame and moral outrage that gets tied into this issue, along with that dirty dirty thing we call sex, that is somehow uniquely American?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 05:47 PM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
it seems like much less of an issue in other countries, even in heavily Catholic countries like Italy or Spain. what makes the US different? is there something about responsibility (or perceived responsibility) and shame and moral outrage that gets tied into this issue, along with that dirty dirty thing we call sex, that is somehow uniquely American?
Abortion is also a highly controversial issue in Ireland, and still illegal except in (very) restricted circumstances. I don't know about Italy and Spain but in countries like the Philipines, also heavily Catholic, I understand that it also fairly controversial.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com