Skip to comments.
Sacrificing our children: Chuck Baldwin ponders how much America hates its kids
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| Saturday, September 8, 2001
| Chuck Baldwin
Posted on 09/08/2001 12:29:40 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Sacrificing our children
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
It was widely reported this week that the upcoming fall lineup of network television programming is going to be the raunchiest, vilest, most vulgar yet. According to the reports, all three major networks are planning to run television shows that push the standards of acceptable behavior to their lowest point ever. The reports say that expletives like the "s" word and the "f" word will be used. They also report that several shows will openly blaspheme God and mock Christianity.
People who have previewed them say the new shows will turn our television sets into moral slime pits. If that is not enough, reports also state a deal has been reached with the Red Chinese government that will put communist programming (propaganda) on most U.S. cable and satellite systems. Do we really hate our children that much? It appears we do.
Bible students often marveled how pagan cultures of antiquity could deliberately sacrifice their children to idols. Now, it seems easier to understand. The pursuit of hedonism and materialism has caused millions of Americans to sacrifice the hearts and minds of their own children. America's children today are passing through the fire of debauchery as surely as Israel's children once passed through the fire of Molech.
One has to wonder if there is anyone left who can say "no" to filthy lucre. Will actors and actresses play any part, no matter how vile it may be? Will they utter any word, no matter how blasphemous it is? Will they perform any act, no matter how debauched it is? Will parents sit back and say nothing as their children are turned into moral zombies? Will corporate America sponsor any show, no matter how harmful it is to our culture? Do we really hate our children that much? It appears we do.
It is difficult to imagine that so many would give up so much for so little. I submit that this is not natural. It's not natural for adult people to be so eager to damn their own children. It's just not natural. Adults today are willing to destroy children's lives for the prospect of making their lives a little easier.
The natural inclination of normal adults is to be willing to sacrifice their own comfort or convenience in order to protect the lives and well-being of their children. They would never think of turning their culture over to forces that will destroy their children. Then again, it is obvious that we are not living in a normal society today.
Today we kill unborn babies and justify it by saying it will enhance medical research. We expose our children to any act of decadence and justify it by saying we are expressing "tolerance." We worship at the altar of materialism and justify it by saying we are good capitalists.
However, there was a time in this country when any attempt by film producers, educators or corporate leaders to pollute the minds and morals of America's children would have been met with the fiercest resistance. We loved our children that much.
For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: JohnHuang2
Three words: TURN IT OFF!
2
posted on
09/08/2001 12:58:42 AM PDT
by
dandelion
To: JohnHuang2
One has to wonder if there is anyone left who can say "no" to filthy lucre. One has to wonder if there is anyone left who knows how to change the channel or turn it off.
To: JohnHuang2
Ah yes, the gradual moral decline is still progressing into an ever deeper pit. Whose to blame? The networks? The actors? The writers? I think the people to blame are the people who give these shows their ratings. The viewers. More and more people these days like to watch trash on TV, and I'm not talking "Junkyard Wars" on TLC. I'm talking about visualized vomit such as "Love Cruise".
What should be done about it? Here's my idea. I would like to see Cable and Satellite providers give everybody the option of what channels they want. They could simply charge on a per channel basis, rather than a charge for a bunch of channels you don't watch, along with the few you do watch. This would be great because people could specifically target the networks they don't like by not paying for those networks. That way, each network would have very specific feedback of what people think about their programming - in terms of dollars, which is all that most networks seem to understand.
I'm not going to say, however, that the networks should be shut down. They can put on the air whatever they want. But nobody can force me to watch. Besides, I'm not going to post on the "bang_list" and uphold the 2nd amendment, and then turn around and try to abridge somebody's right to free speech. I just want to be able to have a way, monetarily, to let the networks know that I don't like what they're boradcasting.
As a closing thought, there seems to be a cycle of events that all great nations go through in their lifetime. I dont' remember exactly how it goes, but it's something like this...
Founding on religious morals...
leads to freedom (God helped us)...
leads to prosperity (thank God)...
leads to complacency (this is nice)...
leads to apathy (God? So what)...
leads to bondage (WTF?)...
leads to revolt... (God help us)
cycle repeats.
Where is the United States in that cycle? I think somewhere between apathy and bondage. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will allow us to skip the 'bondage' portion of the cycle.
To: VRWC_Member428
"They could simply charge on a per channel basis, rather than a charge for a bunch of channels you don't watch, along with the few you do watch..." I've often thought that exact same thing. I'd be rid of about 200 channels off my satellite.
One thing from the article that I would like a better explanation of:
"If that is not enough, reports also state a deal has been reached with the Red Chinese government that will put communist programming (propaganda) on most U.S. cable and satellite systems"
What's THAT all about???
5
posted on
09/08/2001 3:54:35 AM PDT
by
fone
(all your media are belong to ted)
To: fone
One of the multimedia tycoons is attempting to gain entry into the Chinese market. As a precondition to their allowing cable TV into their nation, they insist on a communist channel being aired throughout the companies service clientele. Apparantly, this is coming to fruition i order to gain marketshare by the media giant.
6
posted on
09/08/2001 4:15:16 AM PDT
by
Cvengr
To: Cvengr
Who(m) is making this deal? Ted? Rupert?
Actually, the sheople will probably like a commie channel. Hell, they've seen it on CNN for years now...
7
posted on
09/08/2001 6:35:09 AM PDT
by
fone
To: dandelion
Bump!!
8
posted on
09/08/2001 6:58:22 AM PDT
by
EdReform
To: fone
Rupert Murdoch is the one who made the deal with the Chinese that he gets to feed cable to the chinese and the Chinese get to feed a channel to the americans. Rupert Murdoch is also the one who gave the big speech in Hong Kong where he said that the Falun Gong people were idiots, etc. and that they deserve to be arrrested and jailed due to the fact that they meditate in public, he did that of course strictly to get along with the Chinese. I remember reading a nice article by Murdoch in National Review where he went on and on about how he was a conservative. It seems he'll do anything for money.
9
posted on
09/08/2001 7:30:06 AM PDT
by
Red Jones
To: JohnHuang2
many lower income people can't afford cable tv. Therefore, they get the networks and the networks specialize in garbage nowadays, so these people have much inferior tv choices than what free tv was available 30+ years ago.
Also, we have a lot of commercials on network tv now, I believe 16 minutes per hour. This is high compared to other nations, it is regulated in other nations at a lower level. But here in America the limitations were modified to allow this 16 minutes per hour of commercials. Why did the networks need and lobby for and get this change? Because in the 1980's big corporations paid huge sums of money to acquire the networks. Then in order to pay for their huge investment they needed more commercials per hour, then the government changed the rules to allow it.
To: fone
If you get any of the "History" channels, watch out for "History Viewpoint." Nine times out of ten, this is an admiring and sympathetic LONG program on China. Every week. Sometimes more than once a week. Don't worry about it COMING here; worry that it is ALREADY here.
11
posted on
09/08/2001 7:42:54 AM PDT
by
redhead
To: JohnHuang2
I watch Fox News channel and 'Jeopardy'. Sometimes on Friday evenings we watch 'DINNER & A MOVIE'. We watch Rick Steves on Sunday afternoon 'Travels in Europe'. That is all, no sitcoms anymore. We listen to talk radio. I didn't realize how out of touch I was until I started doing Pace Bike Spin class at the gym and I don't know any of the music from the 1980s or 1990s!!!! I didn't listen to FM radio at all then, and I still don't. It is good to be "out of touch" with popular culture! I recommend it!
12
posted on
09/08/2001 8:07:37 AM PDT
by
buffyt
To: Red Jones
Taking your statement at face value,
you report, I'll decide...
13
posted on
09/08/2001 10:22:05 AM PDT
by
fone
To: redhead
I get 3 History channels. Always hit the "info" button first;
if I see the word "China" the show gets a pass.
Although I must admit, being forever facinated with Nazi Germany I have learned quite a bit from that channel on how the Father Land brainwashed the people.
Not unlike Amerika today...
14
posted on
09/08/2001 10:24:59 AM PDT
by
fone
(::Ihre ganze Unterseite sind gehören uns!)
To: VRWC_Member428
"They could simply charge on a per channel basis, rather than a charge for a bunch of channels you don't watch, along with the few you do watch..."While this is not likely to happen, there are alternatives. I don't have any kids, but I do have a cable-ready TV that allows me to put a password lock on channels. If I did have children, I would simply use that to block what I didn't want them to see.
Granted, you are still paying for a slew of garbage that you don't want, and you can't ensure that your children won't watch them at a friend's house. But if both you and your kid's friend's parents were thinking along the same lines, you could at least minimize the damage.
15
posted on
09/08/2001 10:39:39 AM PDT
by
Sicon
To: Storm Orphan
"I can't....
...reach ...
... the remote.... to turn off the smut! My eyes are burning, my children are now jaded... oh the humanities....
Oh God, the filth on that television... let me tell you just how bad it is sister holy holy...."
How can you expect the sister taffy types to deprive themselves of the hottest gossip and holier than thou material they could ever dream of owning without going to by an x rated video personally?
Hey, now that's an idea...
Sister Daffy thinks: "I just can't
...drive to
...church
...this sunday
... without passing that adult video store...
I simply must turn in and see how evil those 'sinners' really are BEFORE going on to church, so I can share my thoughts about the "wicked things of this world" with my sisters in sunday school class. They will be so impressed with me..."
To: Robert_Paulson2 dandelion Storm Orphan
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."
To: JohnHuang2
i take it chuck isn't related to the 'other' baldwins!
nuke beijing now!
To: BurkeanCyclist, Storm Orphan
So then, you need the help of the entire continent to turn the channel on your TV... apparently the americans with disabilities act did not go far enough for some of our disabled folk... sorry to hear that...
To: Robert_Paulson2
You're sick!!!
20
posted on
09/08/2001 5:38:54 PM PDT
by
likeitis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson