SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the popular children's TV characters appearing in a new 'tolerance' video.
Posted on 01/08/2005 7:02:35 AM PST by NYer
In a new video to be distributed to 61,000 schools across the nation, homosexual activists are using popular children's TV characters such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Barney the dinosaur to surreptitiously indoctrinate young children into their lifestyle, a pro-family activist group charges.
SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the popular children's TV characters appearing in a new 'tolerance' video. |
Based on the 1970s hit song "We Are Family," the video will be distributed to public and private elementary schools nationwide March 11, along with lesson plans for teachers, points out the American Family Association.
The distribution, sponsored by FedEx, will coincide with the video's broadcast March 11 on Nickelodeon, PBS, and the Disney Channel in celebration of the proposed National We Are Family Day.
AFA researcher Ed Vitagliano sees the project as an "open door" to a secondary discussion of homosexuality, noting the the foundation has a "tolerance pledge" on its website that children and others are encouraged to sign, which includes sexual orientation. [Editor's note: This story previously linked to the website of a group that has the same name but no connection to the video. WND regrets the error.]
"While we want everyone to respect other people's beliefs, we do not consider it appropriate for children's television to be used in an effort to indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality," he said.
Vitagliano says the foundation is employing a bait-and-switch approach, with popular children's figures such as Arthur, Dora the Explorer, JoJo, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Big Bird and Bob the Builder.
The objective is to get children to the foundation's website "and there they're given the full pitch about homosexuality," he said.
Video producer Christopher Cerf called the video an "unprecedented event."
"For the first time characters from all of the important kids shows came together to appear in the same video," he said in a November news release. "The producers and performers from each show embraced the spirit and message of this project."
The We Are Family Foundation was founded by singer-songwriter Nile Rodgers, who wrote the hit song recorded in 1979 by Sister Sledge.
The video was financed by a grant from the Toni Mendez Shapiro estate.
"Cooperation and unity are the most important values we can teach children," Rodgers said. "We believe that this is the essential first step to loving thy neighbor."
The We Are Family Foundation says its partners in the production are the Anti-Defamation League, Crown Theatres, Disney Channel, FedEx, Nickelodeon, HIT Entertainment, Nile Rodgers/Sony Publishing/The Bernard Edwards Estate/Warner Chapel, Nelvana, PBS, Scholastic, Sesame Workshop, Toni Mendez Shapiro Estate, and WGBH-TV in Boston.
A Federal Express spokesman said the company is "proud" to provide shipping for the project.
"Promoting diversity is part of our corporate culture at FedEx," said William G. Margaritis, senior vice president, worldwide corporate communications.
Characters appearing in the video are from award-winning shows including "Arthur," "Barney," "Bear in the Big Blue House," "Between the Lions," "Blue's Clues, Bob the Builder," "The Book of Pooh," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Dora the Explorer," "Jimmy Neutron," "JoJo's Circus," "Kim Possible," "Lilo & Stitch: The Series," "Little Mermaid," "Madeline," "The Magic School Bus," "The Muppet Show," "The Proud Family," "Rugrats," "Sesame Street," "SpongeBob SquarePants," and "Zoom."
The video also features cameo appearances by entertainers Bill Cosby, Diana Ross and Whoopi Goldberg.
And that being said, calls for yet another cup for me to ponder upon! LOL
Have a good day :)
Very well stated.
Once a human being has made a choice to live in a manner that degrades the essence of his being, I not only have the right not to respect him, since he no longer respects himself or the human race, I have the responsibility and the duty to point out his error and the harm he brings to all mankind.
I don't know anyone from the KKK. I would actually like talking to them. They'd have a bigger problem with me than I with them.
After all you are being narrowminded by not seeking them out.
Certainly, you have the right to express your opinions - I've not said differently.
Speaking of which, why are you comparing your attitudes to that of the KKK? They after all are simply standing up for "values" and the right to excluding people based on their differences.
Except I do not accept or respect those values.
Oddly enough it is you who are standing up for their "rights" to do that. I prefer to have nothing to do with them.
By your attitude that nothing is wrong and everything is worthy of respect you are embracing their values along with everything else.
I am not sure how you do that. If everything is worthy of respect then it follows that nothing is worthy of respect.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs.
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).
The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...
They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'
Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.
Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.
This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the bedrock at the Dome of the Rock and the meteorite at the Kaaba as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.
There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)
Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s).
Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.
It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.
The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).
The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'
The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.
Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.]
One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered. The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils (yet another example of religious ceremony) for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child?
Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." The idolatry of "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
(SARCASM ON) The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. (SARCASM OFF)
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
We are born naked, when someone has the urge to fulfill a sexual fetish by wearing clothes of the opposite sex, that is a result of cultural conditions and upbringing, there is no "wear clothes of the opposite sex" gene. All clothing is fashion and social mores.
Good and interesting points.
After the 2004 election, the more pressing matter is to see some "respect" for Republicans' political views:
In one of the most troubling acts by Bush haters to date, arsonists set fire to a Bush political lawn sign and deck of a Bush supporter in Richfield. Thankfully no one was hurt.
"Straight male seeks Bush supporter for fair, physical fight" - From the Washington Post
Colorado teacher kicks student for wearing GOP shirt off campus
HIGH SCHOOL ATTACK (Kerry supporters attack Bush supporters with baseball bat)
Bail cut in case involving Rep. [Katherine] Harris
A circuit judge on Tuesday lowered the bail for a man accused of swerving his car toward U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris as she campaigned on a sidewalk a few days before her re-election in November.
[snip]
Seltzer, a Democrat, is accused of swerving his Cadillac at Harris, a Republican from Longboat Key, and her supporters as they waved to passing motorists Oct. 26 at the corner of Fruitville Road and North Washington Boulevard.
Seltzer told police he tried to intimidate Harris and her supporters, an arrest report said. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a charge that usually carries a bail of about $20,000.
Window smashed at Alachua County GOP headquarters
Representative Elect's Son Arrested in Tire Slashing
The 25-year-old son of newly elected congresswoman Gwen Moore was arrested Friday by Milwaukee police and later released in connection with the election day slashing of tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party, according to police records.
[snip]
On Tuesday morning, 27 tires on 20 cars and vans rented by the Republican Party to carry voters to the polls were slashed. The vehicles were parked in the 7100 block of W. Capitol Drive.
PA.: ALLEGHENY COUNTY GOP HQ IN PITTSBURGH WITHOUT POWER (Posted on 11/02/2004 ) The national media ignored this vile brownshirt activity from the Democrats.
Sinclair Advertiser being shot at two nights in a row? (DU)
Inqlings | Reporter quits at WHYY over angry message
A voice-mail message left last week at the Virginia office of Laptoplobbyist.com, a conservative Internet site, went like this:
"Hi, my name is Rachel, and my telephone number is... I wanted to tell you that you're evil, horrible people. You're awful people. You represent horrible ideas. God hates you and he wants to kill your children. You should all burn in hell. Bye."
Rachel is Rachel Buchman, 25, a regular reader of Laptoplobbyist's e-mail newsletter - and a reporter with public radio station WHYY-FM (90.9) for about three years. And she left her office number at WHYY in the message last Tuesday.
Odd world when sexual fetishes are constitutionally protected from harassment but not political views. Political correctness is leftist totalitarianism, it is an Orwellian nightmare.
You are quite correct about the idolotrous nature of television (and the Left); that is, in fact, what it has become and what its purpose is used for by the Left.
I minored in Psychology in college, and, so, have a grasp of the conditioned learning about which you refer. It is a double-edge sword, and used or misused as any other tool, depending upon who is its "master."
May I also suggest, if you are unfamiliar with the topic, a read on Cognitive Dissonance, an interesting theory on how humans behave and why. I cannot agree, however, with your position regarding the Government's role in making "moralistic" laws (this seems to be a Libertarian viewpoint), I do believe it is a Government's duty to make laws the protect society as a whole. Having said that, howver, I do NOT agree with the Government becoming what it has become today, in effect a nanny state. Extremes, IMHO, lead to disastrous consequences, whether those extremes concern personal decisions or public laws. While we agree on the idea of benefits/costs to society, I simply cannot agree that there should not be an immovable standard of right and wrong, otherwise, we're back to arbitrary laws and a moving, subjective, standard....which reminds me of what the lefties want to do with the Constitution, viewing it as a "living, and ever-changing" doctrine.
Sex education is moving beyond "reproductive learning" to "recreational sex" learning. Thank the Sex Positive agenda for that (the Homosexual Agenda is but the battering ram for the whole shebang).
More on Sex Positive teaching and the institutions that support it can be found here:
Let me say it agian slowly. All researchon twinning indicates that homosexuality is not heritable, If it were, all sets of twins would be either heterosexual or homosexual.
i've read one that attribute it to the wiring in the brain and the chemical reactions that correlate to sexual attraction(and that it can be both something you are born with, and something created as a result of childhood trauma).
There is NO evidence that sexuality is encoded in the genome. None, nada, zip. There is reams of evidence that childhood trauma and environment influence sexuality. All the more reason to keep kids totally out of environments preaching relativism.
So who knows? As with all such research it comes down to who's doing it, and what they want to prove.
Science knows. Read any twinning study and you will know as well.
i don't agree with such issues being forced down the throats of society either.
Good.
But it's the pendulum effect, and all O/one can do is hold-on and wait for the swing in the other direction while staying firm in Y/your own beliefs
Nope, one can oppose the indoctrination of our kids and grandkids frimly and voicferously by voting with our wallets and our feet.
" Not gays. i've yet to meet one queer that was into little boys. As a matter of fact, all of them that i know are as discusted by it as the straights. "
Then you need to explain why so many adult male molesters(queer pedophiles) only go after male children as we have seen with the male priests, Micheal Jackson, Jeffrey Jones, etc.,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.