Posted on 12/17/2004 9:08:47 AM PST by watchdog_writer
NBC leads the networks in bashing religion. Only one network, PAX had no negative depictions.
Supposedly, 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in God, but some of us know the difference between profession and understanding God. It was no surprise to me when a local liberal talk show host said he supported abortion, gay rights, and the absence of prayer, and religious symbols from public places, the kicker is that he professed to be a “christian Catholic”, but added not a very devout one! Now that statement showed about as much ignorance about God as his political ignorance.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So if the MSM doesn't openly endorse religion, it is bashing it? We shouldn't hold someone's personal belief as a condemnation of an entire institution. ping for later.
Supposedly, 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in God, but some of us know the difference between profession and understanding God. It was no surprise to me when a local liberal talk show host said he supported abortion, gay rights, and the absence of prayer, and religious symbols from public places, the kicker is that he professed to be a “Christian Catholic”, but added not a very devout one! Now that statement showed just about as much ignorance about God as his political ignorance.
So what did the study consider negative? In a Feb. 10 episode of NBC's "Will and Grace" in which sidekick Karen tells lead character Grace, "Let's go buy that historic church and turn it into a gay bar."
Typical of all liberals, NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network could not comment on the study because it had not seen it, but she said, "We reject its conclusion." Never let the true facts get in the way or your ideology. Basically the leftist and atheists know that religious peoples are all deluded and stupid, so any reference to them can not be derogatory, merely descriptive.
“Mainstream media” will never accept the truth that its audience is 90 percent Christian. "Our programming reflects the diversity of our audience, which averages more than 10 million viewers per night," she said. "It is never our intention to appear — nor do we accept the notion that we are — 'anti-religious.' " How ridiculous can they get with their denials? I wonder if I could get away with saying that the “kikes” run Hollywood, by saying that I “it was never my intention to appear to be antisemitic? The problem with liberals is that they just don’t get it and if they do they just deny, deny, deny. Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, called the negativity "systemic" around Hollywood, adding that "a disinterested observer might conclude there is some kind of anti-faith collusion taking place." But liberals are not “disinterested observers”. They have the same point of view that the other the other liberals that hey hang out with share. I am convinced that most of them just believe that we all think the way they do.
Pax is a network that deserves our loyalty and viewership. Pax had the fewest references to religion, but 90.7 of those were positive, the study said. If in fact 90 percent of viewers are religious, then why is it that the networks can get away with anti-religious programming? The answer is too obvious to state on this blog. If all Catholics for example were shunning anti-Catholic programming would the study have concluded that: "anti-Catholic bigotry" was "rampant" on network shows.
Unfortunately you miss the point as most liberals do. Who said if an network doesn't openly endorse religion it is bashing? Would you say that depicting a sexual act next to a representation of a Christmas manger is merely not "openly endorsing religion"?
"We shouldn't hold someone's personal belief as a condemnation of an entire institution." How about an entire institution shouldn't condemn someone's personal beliefs? Or is that too complicated for your liberal mind to grasp?
So, we can't really expect Hollywood or Network TV to be fair to the faithful since they just don't get it.
I, for one, am glad they can't pander to us.
And they all said "amen"!
Imagine my horror. Sitcoms making jokes. Shocking.
Amazing how this story can tell us without doubt that Pax had 0 negative items about religion in the x number of hours they viewed, but could not be specific about the negative references on the other networks, instead giving us only those 3 anecdotal references.
Whiners. No less so than the election whiners in Ohio.
Newepaper regurgitation of PTC press releases on the need for TV Control are as valuable as those based on VPC releases on the need for Gun Control.
So, did they need to list EVERY instance to convince you the truth of their study?
The newspaper isn't that big!
I guess so. I'm not convinced that religion being the brunt of sitcom humor rises to the level of "bashing" religion.
Liberals are good at making themselves into martyrs. Don't put religion into that category. Religion is a very strong entity in this country and a few jokes on some silly shows should not faze it. But here's an idea: Change the channel or read a book.
Ping to self.
But hold my feet to the fire and I will say this: While I think gay couples should be able to have some of the equal protections such as tax breaks, estate planning considerations that hetero couples have, I do not think the church will or should recognize their unions. And that is totally up to the church.
As for blacks being bashed, have you watched the WB or UPN lately? They bash themselves mercilessly. But I guess it's better when blacks bash blacks and gays bash gays.
Religion does get it from all sides, but many of the same writers who come up with this stuff would consider themselves religious. It's just work to them. Just like it's entertainment to us. I admit that my lack of religious upbringing would lead me to be less offended than you by all of this.
And I think I need to add that for the past 3 months I have not owned a tv. Just a laptop for the DVD's. So I'm a little off my tv watching.
To be sure, thefactor is intelligent, but crafty. It does not surprise me that you are pro-choice. Your reason for being pro-choice, “too many people can’t control themselves”. Are there no condoms? Are there no adoption agencies? And since this is the season to be marry should I quote Scrooge? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Well then let them die and reduce the surplus population. Tell me why killing an 8 month old infant by its mother is any different than killing the mother and child as Peterson apparently did?
As for gays, there is no need to lecture us about the difference between militant gays and other gays. As a New Yorker you are no doubt familiar with Mulberry Street and the SanGiniaro festival are you not? Do they not parade religious articles in the street? Should we not be offended, and should it not be at the very least disorderly conduct for two gay men to follow the parade, one holding a jockstrap in the air as he walked backward, while the other gay male, licking his lips and smelling the jockstrap in obvious orgasmic detail parade before old and the very young? I am giving you an eye witness account. I expect we will agree on this point.
As for the motives of those who are intolerant of our religious beliefs, they are not relevant. There is no requirement of an evil mind before condemning the conduct as offensive. The act is wrong in and of itself. The actor does not have artistic license to violate the right to the free religious expression of others. Perhaps you do not see religious bigotry as intolerance. But I do. Perhaps you can explain the origins of the universe without believing in something you cannot understand, but I cannot.
As an accommodation to a society that has been polluted by secularism, I recognize that civil unions are now necessary. The “toothpaste is out of the tube” it is now time to try to clean up the mess. We can not return to the “good old days” of “Father Knows Best”. We are beyond that point. We have ventured down the proverbial “slippery slope.”
You cleverly frame the marriage issue in religious terms by saying: “I do not think the church will or should recognize their unions.” I do not say this for your benefit, since I am sure you already know. It is not the Church in this instance that opposes gay marriage; it is the 80% of the voting public. Surely you know who won the election, and that all of the referendums condemning gay marriage as an acceptable secular policy passed by an overwhelming majority. Do you not?
I do not have the time to begin a discussion about how blacks continue to be enslaved by social welfare programs, nor do I suspect that you need my input on that point. I recognize that you are intelligent, but your lack of understanding of how conservative philosophy is a superior working model for a well-ordered society is evident.
I am please to be able to converse with you, and if you don’t mind a suggestion, since you do not have a TV, which I acknowledge is a good think. If you have not already read it, I will recommend a book to you.
“The Death of Right and Wrong” by Tammy Bruce.
I do, however, favor abortion when rape is involved or when the mother's life is in danger.
As for religion, I realize you do not need my acceptance of it. But you also need to understand that religion is a learned phenomenon. Like math or chemistry. Well, I just never took the course. But I know plenty of people who did and am always interested in listening to their philosophy even if I have no interest in enrolling in the school.
And of course I realize that I live in NYC and my views may become diluted, but my core belief system will always mirror the red states. We are the kind of people who make this country what it is: the greatest one in the world. I will keep a look out for the book you recommended. Thanks.
I said I was pro-choice BEFORE conception.
I stand corrected. I apology for being so sloppy. Sometimes the simplest concepts escape my grasp. Now that I understand, I see it is a very clever and concise way to making your point. Next time try using a big hammer to get my attention.
I agree with you that when the mother's life is in danger. In that case we are presented with a choice between two unacceptable alternatives. A life in being, a wife, perhaps a mother of other children, arguably has greater consequences if ended than the consequences of ending the life of an unborn child. I suspect that many mothers would sacrifice their lives for their unborn children, which attests to the value of a mother's life. As for rape, abortion when it is not a choice between the life of the mother or that of the child is murder, and two wrongs do not make a right.
religion is a learned phenomenon. Like math or chemistry
I thought that also, until I came to the knowledge of the truth through faith. I admit that reading the bible had something to do with it, but it was not an intellectual pursuit. It was spiritual.
You see it was the failure of math and science to explain the complexity of matter from DNA to the infinity of the universe that raised me to a higher spiritual plain where the only answer for me was the existence of an intelligence superior to the drivel of scientists who have absolutely no clue beyond the laughable “big bang” theory, and random selection.
There is no school. Faith is not a corporate entity it is a personal relationship between man and God.
As for living in NYC, it is like trying to say clean inside a cement mixer. But I discern you are a person of good character and intentions. Such character does not come from man, but from God. You are closer to Him than you suspect.
Here is God's promise to all of mankind: Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
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.