Skip to comments.Oh, That Gay Agenda, Part II
Posted on 11/12/2005 2:44:29 PM PST by sionnsar
There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of more prominent revisionist Episcopal news sources than PEP (Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, part of the Via Media gang of groups recently caught plotting the takeover of dioceses and parishes following what may be a bloodbath at General Convention in June 2006).
But somehow, some way, this AP story happens to end with this line:
Supporters of church policy on gays, meanwhile, have labeled Duncan and his backers as "neo-Puritan" Protestant fundamentalists.
Gee, where have we heard that before?
This is just the latest example of the Associated Press using the term "some" in a way that's so strict as to go beyond misleading, and dangerously close to flat-out false. Only Joe Mandak, the AP reporter, Mandak didn't even use the "some" qualifier - he just flat out states that "supporters of church policy on gays... have labeled Duncan and his backers as "neo-Puritan" Protestant fundamentalists." How many supporters, Joe? All of them?
Somehow, I doubt Mandak just happened to have that phrase rattling around in his head. PEP, you're busted. And Mandak, you're a tool.
Few people outside the wonkish world of the political blogosphere think twice about news stories from the Associated Press. There is a sense that the AP is like Consumer Reports: An unbiased, "just-the-facts-ma'am" source of news, with no agenda of its own.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The AP trails only Reuters and Agence France-Presse in the way it twists words, crafts headlines, and chooses which stories to cover in an attempt to grind its political axes. For example, it doesn't use the word "terrorists" to describe Islamic bombers who target innocent civilians. It refers to them as "militants," sometimes "insurgents," and occasionally even "activists." It recently made up a story quoting Tony Blair saying something about the London bombings he in fact never said.
In much the same way that a documentary filmmaker editorializes - consciously or not - by choosing what to include or exclude in the frame, news agencies can editorialize by choosing what to cover and what not to cover, and how they "slug" - or word the headlines of - their stories.
Case in point is this story with the headline: "Some Black Preachers Embrace Homosexuality." If you're skimming headlines and not digging into the story's copy, what's the impression 99% of people tuck into the back of their brains? "Wow... some black preachers embrace homosexuality. Not what I heard last year. Things must be changing."
The cleverness of this headline is it implies that a significant percentage of black preachers - at least, significant enough to warrant a news story by the AP - are fine and dandy with homosexuality. Most people read it the same way they would read, "Some SUV's Present Rollover Risk," or "Some Senior Citizens Returning to Workforce." If one reads the headline but skips the article, one carries away the impression - often accurate enough, I admit - that the number of things or people referred to by the word "some" is significant enough to make one think twice about that next SUV purchase, or about the changing nature of the workforce. But as we'll see, the correct way to interpret this headline - "Some Black Preachers Embrace Homosexuality" - is the way one would interpret the statement by a neighbor that "Some kids ran through my garden."
If you actually read the article, you see that exactly two preachers are quoted in support of homosexuality: The Rev. James Forbes of Riverside Church in New York City, and the Rev. Cari Jackson of something called the "Center of Spiritual Light." By referring to "some black preachers," this AP reporter has used the word "some" to mean the absolute minimum under the rules of rhetorical logic, which is: "more than one."
Riverside Church is affiliated with - surprise! - the United Church of Christ, second only to the Metropolitan Community Church among denominations that are even vaguely Christian, in its embrace of the radical gay agenda.
It's also easy to assume from the headline that this embrace of homosexuality by black preachers is something happening in more than one place. But if you read the story, you'll see that the only other religious figure quoted - Rev. Cari Jackson - was speaking at the same church, Riverside. And who is Jackson? Her Center of Spiritual Light claims to be a "psycho-spiritual healing and wellness center" in New York City that "honors the sacred riches in diverse religious traditions and healing practices." Not exactly in the mainstream of black American Christianity.
Is this really news? Or is it the AP's way of creating the false impression that black spiritual leaders are softening their stance on homosexual behavior? Here's a good way to answer that question.
First, let's assume that for something to be newsworthy, it must be not just true, but precise. So let's first take a look at how the story actually appears when you see it on Yahoo!'s web site:
To be fair, the article says that "several religious leaders and politicians" were present, so let's assume that in this case, "some" also means "more than two." Now let's take a look at it when the headline is changed to describe more precisely what the story really reports:
Keep this in mind the next time someone recoils at the suggestion that there's an agenda being pushed by gay activists in the secular culture and in our church, and that the mainstream media are helping them push it.
Now that there are churches take an official position favoring homosexuals, it seems like we could claim that some in the government are favoring some churches over others and cry "separation of church and state".
Also, since it is an official religious viewpoint, the acceptance of homosexuality in our public schools should also be banned.
I've often thought along these lines. The government and public schools should not be imposing the gay activists' moral and religious beliefs on everyone else.
'Twould be honorable to be counted such.
If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.
See above, re: our discussion on the NC Board on use of language...
Joe Mandak is probably another infected maggot homosexual pretending to be a reporter. The yahoo search with his name and gay shows a long history of writing articles pushing the homosexual agenda while condemning those who stand against it.
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.