| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2005 01:17:09 AM |
| Object: |
That insane Christian kook |
From The New York Times, 1/20/05:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html
Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON -
On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some
influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention
to a new target:
the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?"
Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the
guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and
political allies to celebrate the election results.
SpongeBob needed no introduction.
In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon
show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men,
perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and
likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of
Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a
"pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's
television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many
others.
The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of
elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes
tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are
Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding.
Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the
Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about
multiculturalism.
The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or
its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity.
The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not
mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family
Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the
alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site
belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay
youth.
"The fact that some people may be upset with each other peoples'
lifestyles, that is O.K.," Mr. Rodgers said.
"We are just talking about respect."
Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need
medication."
On Wednesday however, Paul Batura, assistant to Mr. Dobson at Focus on
the Family, said the group stood by its accusation.
"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is
manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said.
"It is a classic bait and switch."
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
22 Jan 2005 05:49:03 AM |
|
|
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon
show
And who, let's face it, will watch any old rubbish...
(No, it's true. My friend's boy sat avidly through the whole extended
marketing campaign that was Pokémon, then Digimon, then something called
Bay Blade (sp?), and Yu Gi Oh... Sorry, I meant "Yu Gi Oh!" (forgot the
vital exclamation mark there). Basically, anything with an extensive
range of merchandise and rubbish Manga-style animation, the kids seem to
love it.)
he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men,
perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and
likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of
Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
What exactly is a 'Mermaid Man'? I assume that's where the whole GLBT
inference comes in: shouldn't that be 'Merman'?
The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of
elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes
tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
See, what troubles me isn't that homosexuality is being promoted to kids
in elementary schools, or whether it specifically should or shouldn't be
- it's that kids in elementary schools are being encouraged to think
about sexuality AT ALL. I'm assuming an elementary school is akin to a
British primary school, so will accommodate kids between about 4-5 years
and 11 or 12. And this issue has been raised in Britain, too. Now,
given that puberty doesn't start bothering kids until the higher end of
that range, is it really necessary to start expecting them to be up to
speed on all the latest philosophies regarding sex?
Aren't kids allowed ANY childhood any more? When I was a kid (which was,
admittedly, when mammoths walked the Earth), sex was something that we
just didn't really think about until weird things started happening to
us. You know what I mean. Until then we were flying around the place
like, well, like kids - completely oblivious to all that nonsense, and
far too concerned with weightier matters, like whether it's really
practical to play rounders with a tennis ball, or how long it's worth
arguing that you did actually shoot someone and so they should die 'cos
otherwise it's not fair and there's no point playing.
Which raises another point: I don't know about you good folks, but until
I hit secondary school there were wars going on around me almost all the
time. Fortunately I don't mean real ones - I mean those ones where
everybody arms themselves with anything to hand that could serve as a gun
and runs around going "ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah" at everyone. Nobody
thought it was worth interfering there. None of the teachers felt an
urgent need to come out onto the playground and teach us the error of our
terrible violent ways. We even played girls vs boys war sometimes, and
no-one thought that was encouraging sexism (incidentally, for what it's
worth, the score always stayed pretty much even, I think). And, for the
record, I don't think I turned out to be a violent psychopath simply
because no-one stopped me playing war and shooting at other kids with a
stick. I still learned as I grew up that war was a bad thing, that
killing wasn't too cool, and yet I can still play war-based computer
games without actually wanting to do it 'for real'. That's a whole other
debate, of course.
What I'm basically getting at here is that there are parallels. Why do
we think we need to artificially accelerate kids' development in regard
to sex, if we don't do it with regard to the other inescapable realities
of life? Or rather - given that I know that there IS a fashion current
in Britain to ban stick-guns and war-based games on the completely
unfounded basis that they breed real violence in children - perhaps I
should ask why we suddenly feel the need to make these changes when,
frankly, we've always functioned quite well enough without them? I
should mention that I'm certainly not a person who's resistant to change.
If something's broke, then by all means fix it. But if it's NOT...
Why not let children develop at their own pace? Oh, I know I probably
sound prudish - probably give the impression I'm wanting kids sheltered
from those realities. Not a bit of it. I've always been a keen advocate
of answering kids' questions on this subject and others openly and
completely honestly. I'm pretty convinced that the questions that're
being asked can guide any parent or guardian as to the rate the child's
developing. But seriously, does an elementary schoolkid really NEED to
be bothered with the politics behind sex, any more than they need to be
taught the reality behind war at that age?
Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need
medication."
Nonsense. This is one of the most overused cheap shots in the book. "I
disagree with someone, therefore they must be mentally ill". While I
agree the critics are probably the same sort of people who want Harry
Potter banned for teaching witchcraft (and bearing in mind I can't stand
Harry Potter myself, on the far simpler grounds that they're just crap
books in my view), that doesn't necessarily mean that medication's the
way to tackle their obvious difficulties. That is, in fact, giving them
too much credit, because it absolves them of any responsibility.
What's needed here isn't medication - it's education. Life experience, a
good, long look at the real world, and a healthy dose of common sense.
Of course, some people are and will always remain immune to such
treatment - and the best way to deal with them is to ignore their
rambling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
23 Jan 2005 12:03:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Midjis < @ . > wrote:
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of
elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes
tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
See, what troubles me isn't that homosexuality is being promoted to kids
in elementary schools, or whether it specifically should or shouldn't be
- it's that kids in elementary schools are being encouraged to think
about sexuality AT ALL.
Except that, as you would know if you had read the entire newsclip,
there was nothing about sexuality in the video.
Aren't kids allowed ANY childhood any more? When I was a kid (which was,
admittedly, when mammoths walked the Earth), sex was something that we
just didn't really think about until weird things started happening to
us.
It is currently considered more enlightened to let he kids know what
is going on before it actually happens to them.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
23 Jan 2005 11:05:06 AM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:
Except that, as you would know if you had read the entire newsclip,
there was nothing about sexuality in the video.
Oh, come on. So you don't agree with what I said - that's fine. But
isn't this "if you'd read..." routine a bit tired?
I know what the item said, and I know that there weren't any references
to sexuality in the video. But I wasn't talking about the video - I was
talking about the argument surrounding the video. What I said was
motivated by this obsession that some people have about sex, their desire
to see references to it in everything, and their need to have everyone
talking about it and thinking about it all the time. I'm talking about
these people who spend their time worrying about how we should be selling
sex to our kids, when in fact I don't think there's any real need to do
so at the sort of ages stated.
It is currently considered more enlightened to let he kids know what
is going on before it actually happens to them.
Like I said, I'm not one of these people who objects to any kind of
change, regardless of the purpose of it. As I also said, I just don't
believe in fixing what ain't broke - and I'm sorry, but I just don't
accept that allowing kids to discover sex and sexuality at their own
pace, as the human race always has, is dangerous for them. I said I've
no objection to telling them anything they want to know about sex and the
mechanics of sex - and of course the law lays down several clear rules
about what you can and can't do. But as far as the politics of sex is
concerned, I can't help but think they'd be perfectly all right being
allowed to form their own opinions instead of being taught in lessons
what they ought to be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
22 Jan 2005 06:35:25 AM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
From The New York Times, 1/20/05:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html
Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge
Because they know they can't score a hit on the serious
topics with their nonsense "arguments".
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON -
<snip>
"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?"
Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the
guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress
and
political allies to celebrate the election results.
SpongeBob needed no introduction.
In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon
show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men,
perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and
likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of
Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a
"pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's
television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many
others.
The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of
elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes
tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are
Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding.
Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the
Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about
multiculturalism.
The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or
its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity.
MSNBC's "Countdown" ran the entire video at the end of
their newscast. There is not one effeminite character
or mention of homosexuality in the entire video. The
whole furor by the fuhrer is over the video's tone:
one of tolerance and acceptance of family diversity.
Period.
The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not
mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is the legal group
that filed a civil suit and won a judgement against
the Ku Klux Klan, which bankrupted the KKK.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family
Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the
alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site
belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay
youth.
We already knew they were confused.
Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need
medication."
Or stop taking it.
"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is
manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said.
"It is a classic bait and switch."
That remark from a religion pedera^H^H^Hdler. Turn off
yer irony meters, folks.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
23 Jan 2005 06:59:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:35:25 -0600, wrote
(in article <1106397324.993519.179200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
snip
In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon
show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men,
perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and
likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of
Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
snip
Perhaps someone should point out for Mr. Dobson that sponges, starfish and
barnacles don't fall into the human categories of "male and female," at least
as far as Mr. Dobson is capable of distinguishing.
I have handled quite a few sponges and starfish in my time, not once was I
able to claim that this one or that one was male or female. And barnacles
were just something that the Navy scraped off ship bottoms.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
łHead up my *****, indeed. I mean look! I can see the Islets of Langerhans from
here!"--Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Religion Is A Disease...Clayton Is The Placebo" |
|
| Title: Re: That insane Christian kook |
24 Jan 2005 01:01:49 AM |
|
|
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE18FBD90026F83BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:35:25 -0600, wrote
(in article <1106397324.993519.179200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
snip
In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon
show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men,
perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and
likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of
Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
snip
Perhaps someone should point out for Mr. Dobson that sponges, starfish and
barnacles don't fall into the human categories of "male and female," at
least
as far as Mr. Dobson is capable of distinguishing.
I have handled quite a few sponges and starfish in my time, not once was I
able to claim that this one or that one was male or female.
The males are the ones with a big sea slug!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
