Posted on 01/20/2005 7:25:31 AM PST by E Rocc
SpongeBob in crosshairs
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — On the heels of electoral victories to bar same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said that SpongeBob's creators have enlisted SpongeBob in a “pro-homosexual video,” in which he appeared with other children's television characters.
The makers of the video, Dobson said, plan to mail it to thousands of elementary schools this spring to promote a “tolerance pledge” that includes tolerance for differences of “sexual identity.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Well, that is akin to the old "there are no enemies to the left" leftist united front idea.
It was counterproductive for the left. In the end the extremists made the left a joke. San Francisco and Berkeley are laugh lines.
To have power to sway opinion and culture you need to approach things along the paths of least resistance and put an acceptable image out there.
People with bad marketing, if they carry your message, are doing you no favors.
Here's what Nile Rodgers, who produced the purportedly pro-gay video said:Personally, I think any video that contains Sister Sledge constitutes cruelty, and may backfire. >:)"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."
I'm all for tolerance, I tolerate the homosexual life style, I just do not want the government overtly supporting it and propagandizing us about it. On that basis, I think Dr. Dobson is wrong about this.
Seriously, my problem with the video is less with its producers than with the idea of using it to indoctrinate schoolkids. I suspect it will be used in violation of the Hatch Amendment, which requires positive parental consent for any child to see it, or be exposed to the program surrounding it.
Dobson seemed to go further, endorsing the wierd "Sponge Bob promotes gayness" concept.
In a free society, the culture is what individuals make it, through their choices. Attempts to suppress it are dangerous, and incompatible with liberty. The only exception is when non-consenting individuals are harmed or wrongly exploited.
-Eric
Hey, now . . . get in the pit and try to love someone!
Yes, they are. Incredible. Which means they're either arguing for argument's sake or they agree with the homesexual activist groups who want children to think that homosexality is "normal," regardless of the fact that this is, more likely than not, being done without the knowledge or consent of the parents.
Hey, now . . . get in the pit and try to love someone!Far and away his best song ever....but I think there's a few folks around here that would think he meant something other than moshing by "the pit". >:)
-Eric
I still have a fondness for Sister Sledge. I remember that great Pirates team that won the world series in, I think, 1979 using "We Are Family" as its theme song. That was a good time to be Pittsburgh sports fan. Here's hoping this Sunday will bring those times back again!Well there's a point we can disagree on...LOL. We're raised from birth around here to hate the Steelers, Yankees, and Wolverines.
I despised that song on its face even before the Pirates/Steelers adopted it. Thanks for reminding me what made me hate it even more. >:)
-Eric
Pfft! Everyone knows that Sandy Koufax was gay. In fact, I'm doing a exquisite drama tackling this very subject. Look for it, this summer.
I don't care: I have loathed Squarehead Spongepants from the first moment it came to my notice.
Sorry, Ollie - no way. My career couldn't take yet another epic, artsy, overblown flop.
As long as she has some "tasteful" nude scenes.
The pro-homo activist agenda has nothing to do with liberty. Their agenda is a form of belligerent cultural coercion in those cases in which they try to force their agenda through the legal, school and court systems. Tolerance of someone living with someone of the same sex (however gross) is one thing, but allowing these clowns to hijack cultural institutions is a completely different matter. If they feel this nagging imperative, maybe they should voluntarily deport themselves and form their own country, with their own laws somewhere else?
Sponge Bob is a different story, that's what channel blocking is for, etc. What you watch is clearly your own personal decision. That is an issue that relates to personal liberty.
On the other hand, militant legal agendas that attempt to actually force changes in law are a completely different story should be halted by all available legal means. They are the cultural aggressors and it is not within their rights to re-mold institutions and laws in society in their own warped image.
This is not their right and liberty is not the issue. The way our society has functioned since 1783 has worked reasonably well, and the traditional institution of marriage (legally defined as being between one man and one woman) is generally well-established in our tradition, our general cultural mores, our laws, customs and generally-accepted historical precedents.
Society at large is well within its rights to fight back, stop, and roll back, the encroachments that the liberal anti-family movement has made in the last couple of decades.
Put into the longer-term historical perspective, they are an emerging militant, revolutionary element and their attempts at cultural hijackings are clearly a direct assault on this country. With zero apologies, I hope that this phenomenon in recent American history is only a temporary aberration in our country’s history which has been “corrected” by present and future generations. What these people create or do on their own is their business. What they endeavor to do unto public institutions in general is not theirs.
I am 100% dead against public funds being used to directly or indirectly support the liberal gay agenda. When taxpayer funds are on the line, taxpayers have the right to jump in to the battle.
Using hard-earned taxpayer money to support offensive and militant causes in the public arena is coercion.
"Again I say this respectfully, but if the GOP adopts the a morality jihad agenda, then the party will get about 20% of the vote rather than hovering around 50%."
You got to be kidding right? Clinton won because Christian conservatives stayed home. Wake up its been reported everywhere that this was the case. Bush won this time because Christian God Fearing Conservatives went out and voted for him. The left had the media, hollywood and almost all of the 527c money pushing their agenda. They came out big too. If it wasnt for us "moral" conservatives you would be watching Kerry as pres. This is not made up just the facts - I believed in fairy tales when I was a child too, but its now time for you to grow up and accept the fact that Values are the issue electing Republicans today. If they go the other way you WILL definitely see conservatives looking for other parties/candidates that hold their beliefs.
Put into the longer-term historical perspective, they are an emerging militant, revolutionary element and their attempts at cultural hijackings are clearly a direct assault on this country.For the most part, they aren't "hijacking" anything. They are splitting off and competing. You don't see the "crasser" elements of the culture attempting to suppress high culture, or religion, or anything like that.
Yes, some leftists do. But they are just as likely to come down on Eminem for saying something politically incorrect.
America actually has several cultures, which are competing with one another for adherents. That's something that's fully within the American tradition of liberty. Only the likes of Wildmon and Dobson, and the "political correctness" crowd are fighting "culture wars" where they actually try to supress other cultures. That's incompatible with freedom.
-Eric
I'm embarrassed to admit that is a little amusing.
"Again I say this respectfully, but if the GOP adopts the a morality jihad agenda, then the party will get about 20% of the vote rather than hovering around 50%."Oh, he's not kidding at all. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush who enjoy "vulgar" culture. They voted for him because of security and because they don't trust the Democrats. If the GOP made a big push for "decency", they'd have been more likely to hold their nose and vote for Kerry. Christian conservatives will not. So those "swing" votes effectively count double. That's reality.You got to be kidding right? Clinton won because Christian conservatives stayed home. Wake up its been reported everywhere that this was the case. Bush won this time because Christian God Fearing Conservatives went out and voted for him. The left had the media, hollywood and almost all of the 527c money pushing their agenda. They came out big too. If it wasnt for us "moral" conservatives you would be watching Kerry as pres. This is not made up just the facts - I believed in fairy tales when I was a child too, but its now time for you to grow up and accept the fact that Values are the issue electing Republicans today. If they go the other way you WILL definitely see conservatives looking for other parties/candidates that hold their beliefs.
Clinton won because he faced candidates who didn't seem to care. Its ironic that the "Christian Conservatives" stayed home if they did. The GOP platforms were far more culturally conservative in 1992 and 1996 than they were in 1980 or 1984.
Reagan basically blew off the whole "moral majority" agenda, and there's no doubt that "indecency" was far more accepted in 1988 than it was in 1979, particularly in broadcasting. His results speak for themselves.
Also look at what happened in 1993 and 1994 in New York and New Jersey. GOP candidates backed by Howard Stern won every race.
-Eric
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.