+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 62

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Is This Considered Fascism?

    On another thread in this politics forum, I was told that my view of wanting values, faith-based principles, and decency in America is in fact advocating for Fascism. I am going to do some research as I want to see if that claim holds any water. I am inept in what the concept all entails, but I DO know a little about it. I AM aware that fascist precepts are creeping into our gov't. system, but I did not think that it would be connected to being a "values voter." I thought it would be connected to the opposite end of the spectrum, possibly, as when the opposite is in play, a whole slew of different societal problems/ills are apparent. There are always going to be issues/problems in societies, but in choosing between these two, my so-called "Fascist" precepts seem a lot less damaging.

    So, here is an article and part of an email I received that tells you, the reader of this board, what I advocate for. In this example, I am thankful that things are turning around, as there has been too much trash on TV, for too long. The FCC is finally doing its job more effectively! Society needs ethics and values! I think without it, it would be anarchy!

    Please let me know if this reflects Fascism, and why or why not. Thank you.


    -----------------------------------------------

    NEWS RELEASE from MORALITY IN MEDIA, INC.
    475 Riverside Drive, Suite 239, New York, NY 10115
    Contact: Robert Peters 1-212-870-3210

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MORALITY IN MEDIA COMMENTS ON FCC ORDERS RESOLVING NUMEROUS BROADCAST INDECENCY COMPLAINTS
    NEW YORK (March 15, 2006) – Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, had the following comments on the FCC’s release today of orders resolving broadcast TV indecency complaints.

    “To my knowledge, prior to September 22, 2004, when the FCC issued an Order finding that the MTV-style Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show performance, which included repeated sexual references and culminated in the baring of Ms. Jackson’s breast, was indecent, the FCC had never before determined that a broadcast TV network violated the federal broadcast indecency law (on the books since 1927) for airing network programming. Today, the FCC reaffirmed that determination, and is to be commended for doing so.

    “Today, the FCC also issued an Order determining that five other network programs, ‘Our Sons and Daughters,’ ‘The Surreal Life 2,’ ‘Billboard Music Awards,’ ‘NYPD Blue,’ and ‘The Early Show,’ also violated the broadcast indecency law. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is to be commended for taking up where former FCC Chair Michael Powell left off in 2004.

    “The FCC actions are the result of widespread dissatisfaction with the content of broadcast TV, as reflected in opinion poll after opinion poll which have repeatedly found that large majorities of adult Americans are offended by the glut of sex and vulgarity on TV. Parents in particular are also concerned about the effects that TV sex and vulgarity are having on children.

    “The FCC actions are necessary because the broadcast TV networks no longer have an industry-wide code and self-imposed internal standards that generally reflect community standards. Today, TV networks are primarily interested in reaching morally challenged teens and young adults, and one proven way to do that is with programming that is sexual and vulgar.

    “The FCC actions are constitutional because our nation’s founding fathers viewed the First Amendment within a framework of ordered liberty – not as a license to pollute public spaces with indecent talk and pictures – and because the Supreme Court (FCC v. Pacifica) has already rejected the argument that enforcement of the law constitutes impermissible ‘censorship.’

    “I also think the FCC continues to dismiss valid indecency complaints because its definitions of ‘indecent’ and ‘profane’ are too narrow and because FCC confuses indecency with lewdness. The law prohibits ‘indecent’ language, and content can be ‘indecent’ without being ‘lewd.’”

    MORALITY IN MEDIA, a nonprofit national organization with headquarters in New York City, works to curb traffic in illegal obscenity and to uphold standards of decency in the media.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    In January, 2005, we asked you to join us in filing formal complaints against CBS and their affiliate stations for broadcasting Without A Trace, complete with an extended teen-age orgy scene. Within days, 165,997 AFA on-line supporters had filed formal complaints with the FCC.

    This week, the FCC announced it agrees with you and is fining 111 CBS stations $32,500 each for broadcasting this indecency. This major accomplishment happened because you took action! This is the largest fine ever against the networks and their stations.

    In addition, the FCC reaffirmed a $550,000 fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl.

    I want to thank you for taking time to get involved. This proves we can make a difference when we join together!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Trash first amendment rights to protect the nation from another wardrobe accident? Even you can do better than that. If the folks at the Morality in Media org are so offended by certain tv shows they can change the channel OR TURN THE DAMN THING OFF. Which strikes to the heart of my argument from the other thread.

    FASCISM:
    Can be defined a number of different ways. What is more important to this discussion is recognizing fascistic behavior before the disease actually takes hold and destroys all our rights and freedoms.

    One of the first symptoms of fascist behavior is the fanatical, very often unfounded and miss-informed assault on minority rights. The evangelical “holier than thou” bible thumping loonies insist that we should establish some kind of Christian Nation. Then they lie by re-writing history and trying to convince everyone that it is what our fore father’s intended. More lies created to support their agenda include that Christians are under assault, and the godless liberals are in control of the media.
    Jees how can we protect our children?
    Answer: Destroy the constitution.

    The assault on rights is always followed by a violent and aggressive assault on all minorities themselves, dissention and any shred of liberal thought and any one who advocates liberal thought and open debate.

    In pre-war Germany the first list of enemies involved THE MEDIA. The equivalent of TV then was theatre and the performing arts. Hitler proclaimed that they were decadent; they were run out of town and harassed. He also claimed that the theater of the day was a threat to common decent people and fostered homosexuality and immoral behavior.

    Sounds familiar wouldn’t you say Boone?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    On another thread in this politics forum, I was told that my view of wanting values, faith-based principles, and decency in America is in fact advocating for Fascism. I am going to do some research as I want to see if that claim holds any water. I am inept in what the concept all entails, but I DO know a little about it. I AM aware that fascist precepts are creeping into our gov't. system, but I did not think that it would be connected to being a "values voter." I thought it would be connected to the opposite end of the spectrum, possibly, as when the opposite is in play, a whole slew of different societal problems/ills are apparent. There are always going to be issues/problems in societies, but in choosing between these two, my so-called "Fascist" precepts seem a lot less damaging.

    So, here is an article and part of an email I received that tells you, the reader of this board, what I advocate for. In this example, I am thankful that things are turning around, as there has been too much trash on TV, for too long. The FCC is finally doing its job more effectively! Society needs ethics and values! I think without it, it would be anarchy!

    Please let me know if this reflects Fascism, and why or why not. Thank you.
    Hi Boone,

    As PSB pointed out, if TV has become more vulgar, disturbing, base, and empty, the solution for everyone is to turn it off. That is the power to exercise one's "values."

    While the innocuous title "Values Voter" might not strike fear in the hearts of many, the phrase is vague. Vagueness leads to an open interpretation, which can lead to an abuse of power. Values are a private, personal matter. Legislating, setting ground rules, making boundaries, setting standards about "values" is not the business of any government or governmental agency. If the citizenry ask for such intrusion, they will get A LOT MORE than they bargained for.


    From Values Voters’ Contract with Congress:

    For some decades now supposedly “liberal” and “progressive” forces within our society have waged an insidious campaign to corrupt and destroy the moral foundations of our liberty. Under the compassionate guise of government welfare and social programs they have eroded our fortitude and self-discipline, taxed away our independent resources, and in particular undermined the centrality of family as the locus of individual self-reliance. Under the guise of sexual freedom and self-determination they have corrupted our sense of responsibility for our own offspring in the womb and for our biological relationships in general. This ultimately affects all relationships that draw upon the capacity for self-sacrifice we ought naturally to learn and practice in the context of decent family life. Under the guise of scientific knowledge, and a fallacious separation of religion from public life, they have thrown off the yoke of reason, and denied our sovereign right to acknowledge, as a people, the existence and authority of the Creator. But the Creator’s being and will represent the principle of unity that makes possible both the diversity of individuals and the orderly community that, on the whole, they may become. Thus, though they masquerade as the champions of community and compassion, these self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” have discarded the principle of unity, the sense of a common good, indispensable to both.



    The above passage is the opinion of the writers. In the embolden line the writers claim, "under the guise of scientific knowledge and a fallacious separation of church and state" however, in the authors preamble, they are affirming the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. To twist information, to skew facts, to cloud the issues, is not a way to foster values. Through obfuscation and Orwellian double speak, groups, can and do, steal power from the average everyday working citizen. This is why fascism, is able to creep into our lives, like a thief in the night. Stealing not only our freedoms, but our intelligence, our individuality, and our uniqueness. All the attributes that make us human, and make life worth striving for, fighting for. and sometimes dying for.

    DeeDee1965

  4. #4
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Boone,

    As PSB pointed out, if TV has become more vulgar, disturbing, base, and empty, the solution for everyone is to turn it off. That is the power to exercise one's "values."

    While the innocuous title "Values Voter" might not strike fear in the hearts of many, the phrase is vague. Vagueness leads to an open interpretation, which can lead to an abuse of power. Values are a private, personal matter. Legislating, setting ground rules, making boundaries, setting standards about "values" is not the business of any government or governmental agency. If the citizenry ask for such intrusion, they will get A LOT MORE than they bargained for.

    that is a great way of summing up a response to this matter. Its not that we as american people dont want values in our country, we just dont want a specific religious group telling us what values we should be legally abiding by. Government exists to create and enforce the law of the land, not the beliefs of the land.

    its funny but we would prefer a government or authority to tell us what we CANT do than what we SHOULD do.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    I found this item of interest.
    GAMPAC is just what they say they are, no ambiguity here.
    The Value Voter’s Campaign, however, is enveloped in illusion and deception. They wrap themselves in the American Flag, rewrite history and march on Washington demanding the creation of a Christian Nation falsely claiming it is what the Founding Father’s intended.
    Ellen Johnson wrote this letter as a fund raising plea but is still worthy of note. I admire her style.
    GAMPAC opposes every Bill listed by the Value Voter’s campaign. So do I.
    We are NOT a Christian nation, and we never were.
    It is time to destroy this dangerous illusion


    "This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with
    God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no
    power on earth can stop us." D. James Kennedy, Character & Destiny:
    A Nation In Search of Its Soul

    Dear Godless American:

    The Godless American Political Action Committee needs your support.
    You already know the amount of funding being poured into the radical
    reactionary fundamentalists' efforts to tear down the wall between
    religious organizations and our government. We need your help to
    prove that what Kennedy said above is wrong. This country belongs to
    all of us, the religious as well as the non-religious/secularists.


    The good news is that we are growing. Between 1990 and 2000, those
    recognized as Christian fell from 82.5% to 76% while those
    identified as secularists/non-religious rose from 7.5% to 13.2%. We
    climbed from 13,116,000 to an estimated 38,865,604 in 2004. We rank
    as the second most populated religious grouping in the United States.


    That also makes up the bad news, because the fundamentalists know
    these facts, as well. Their decline in numbers is motivating their
    insurgence against the Constitution, state and federal judges, and
    all school children. Now we can all begin to understand the meaning
    of Kennedy's diatribe above. Although we are equal in number to
    those in the RRF camp, they are much more organized.

    They have used that organization to accomplish electing a majority
    of politicians to the state legislative bodies and the U.S. Congress
    and the Presidency. You and I can work together to change this.

    There are many organizations asking for your support that, in
    different ways, work on behalf of the separation of government and
    religion. They do good work! But GAMPAC is the only vehicle for
    Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers
    that not only tackles these important issues, but goes that extra
    step of helping to elect politicians who represent us and our agenda!

    We join these organizations in their efforts, but we supply one more
    avenue that none of them have been willing to do, that is creating
    an actual fund to support those elected persons who believe in our
    vision of a free nation dedicated to the liberty of all citizens,
    not just those who are willing to be led like sheep.

    Hundreds of you are actively using our Legislative Action Center to
    send messages to your Representatives, Senators, State Delegates and
    State Senators to stop the radical reactionary fundamentalists from
    succeeding. We also need every one of you to make a contribution
    right now to support the effort of all Americans who want to protect
    freedom; who want to protect the Constitution; and who want to send
    their children to secular public schools, not sectarian ones where
    they spend all day praying and learning that the sun and stars
    revolve around the earth.

    Do not let Anne Coulter, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Jerry
    Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tom Delay, Tony Perkins and the rest take
    dominion over the United States and legislate that we all must
    become Southern Baptists. They claim to be the majority. They are
    not the majority. They are organized. Join us and fight back.


    Go to the Godless Americans Website -
    http://www.gampac.org/pacdonate.php - and become a sustaining
    contributor by donating as much as you can afford on a monthly basis
    to be charged to your credit card. The form we provide allows you to
    totally control the amount of your donation and when it starts and
    ends and whether it is a one time donation or a monthly charge.

    Please help us help you. Thanks.

    Very truly yours,



    Ellen Johnson
    Executive Director, GAMPAC

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Just some points to ponder...taken from
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...4.waldman.html

    The Framers and the Faithful
    How modern evangelicals are ignoring their own history.

    By Steven Waldman
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thomas Jefferson stood, dressed in a black suit, in a doorway of the White House on Jan. 1, 1802, watching a bizarre spectacle. Two horses were pulling a dray carrying a 1,235-pound cheese—just for him. Measuring 4 feet in diameter and 17 inches in height, this cheese was the work of 900 cows.
    More impressive than the size of the cheese was its eloquence. Painted on the red crust was the inscription: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” The cheese was a gift from religious leaders in western Massachusetts.

    It may seem surprising that religious leaders would be praising Jefferson, given that his critics had just months earlier been attacking him as an infidel and an atheist. In the 1800 election, John Adams had argued that the Francophile Jefferson would destroy America's Christian heritage just as the French revolutionaries had undermined their own religious legacy. Adams supporters quoted Jefferson's line that he didn't care whether someone believed in one god or 20, and they argued that the choice in the election was: “God—And a religious president...[or] Jefferson—and no God.”

    But in a modern context, the most remarkable thing about the cheese is that it came from evangelical Christians. It was the brainchild of the Rev. John Leland—a Baptist and, therefore, a theological forefather of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham. Even though Jefferson was labeled anti-religion by some, he had become a hero to evangelicals—not in spite of his views on separation of church and state, but because of them. By this point, Jefferson had written his draft of the Virginia statute of religious freedom, and he and James Madison were known as the strictest proponents of keeping government and religion far apart. Because Baptists and other evangelicals had been persecuted and harassed by the majority faiths—the Anglicans in the South and the Puritan-influenced Congregationalists in the North—these religious minorities had concluded that their freedom would only be guaranteed when majority faiths could not use the power of the state to promote their theology and institutions.

    Each side of our modern culture wars has attempted to appropriate the Founding Fathers for their own purposes. With everything from prayer in school to gay rights to courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments at stake, conservative and liberal activists are trying to capture the middle ground and win over public opinion. Portraying their views as compatible with—even demanded by—the Founding Fathers makes any view seem more sensible, mainstream, and in the American tradition. And in truth, you can find a Jefferson or Adams quote to buttress just about any argument. But there are a few facts that might actually be stipulated by both sides in the culture wars. First, the original Constitution really didn't say all that much about religion. God is not mentioned, and the only reference to religion is a ban on providing religious tests for holding office. (Ask why, and the arguments would resume with fury: Conservatives say the Founders left it out because they wanted the states to regulate religion; liberals say it was because the framers were secularists who wanted strict separation between religion and government).

    Second, there was a widespread view among religious people of all flavors that the Constitution would be much stronger if it had a Bill of Rights that more explicitly guaranteed religious freedom. The 18th-century evangelicals were among the strongest advocates of this view and of the Bill of Rights, which declared that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.” Throughout the states, evangelicals pushed hard for ratification of the Bill of Rights in the state legislatures. Indeed, part of what made Jefferson cheese-worthy in the eyes of a Baptist leader like Leland was his advocacy of a Bill of Rights.

    Modern Christian conservatives concede that point and hail the First Amendment, but they argue that it by no means follows that either the Founders or the proto-evangelicals wanted a strict separation of church and state. They point out—accurately—that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights includes the phrase “separation of church and state.” And they argue that what the First Amendment intended to do was exactly what it says—and no more: prevent the “establishment” of an official state church, like the ones that had been prevalent in the colonies up until the time of the revolution. In the book The Myth of the Separation, religious conservative David Barton argues that the Founders simply did not support separation of church and state. Indeed, he maintains, this was a Christian nation founded by Christian men who very much wanted the government to support religion. The contemporary intellectual battle over the role of religion in the public square will be determined in part on who can own the history.

    (continued)

  7. #7
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    lemme get this straight so i understand what this is saying.

    the founding fathers did in fact want religion in the government (the 2nd point), but failed to address it anywhere(1st point).

    it would seem to me that either they were very forgetful the day they finished the constitution, or they DID NOT WANT RELIGION INFUSED WITH GOVERNMENT....PERIOD!!!

    thats what is not so good about some Christians, its not enough they converted half the world, they want the other half so badly they will force it on you through government, fear of hell, or any other way they can.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    It is ironic, then, that evangelicals—so focused on the “true” history—have neglected their own. Indeed, the one group that would almost certainly oppose the views of 21st-century evangelicals are the 18th-century evangelicals. John Leland was no anomaly. In state after state, when colonists and Americans met to debate the relationship between God and government, it was the proto-evangelica1s who pushed the more radical view that church and state should be kept far apart. Both secular liberals who sneer at the idea that evangelicals could ever be a positive influence in politics and Christian conservatives who want to knock down the “wall” should take note: It was the 18th-century evangelicals who provided the political shock troops for Jefferson and Madison in their efforts to keep government from strong involvement with religion. Modern evangelicals are certainly free to take a different course, but they should realize that in doing so they have dramatically departed from the tradition of their spiritual forefathers.

    New light

    To understand why, we need to go back to the period known as the Great Awakening, a spiritual movement of the 1730s and 1740s that challenged the style and theology of the existing churches. The dramatic wave of revivalism started in New Jersey and western Massachusetts, where ministers such as Gilbert Tennent and Jonathan Edwards preached about the importance of personal born-again experiences. These isolated revivals became a mass movement with the arrival in the fall of 1739 of an English preacher named George Whitefield. A friend of John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism, Whitefield had developed a following after writing about his conversion experiences and travels from depravity to salvation. He was described as handsome, yet one of his eyes was crossed inward, a sign, some said, of a divine mark. His voice was powerful, almost hypnotic. He attacked the Church of England for its lethargy and lack of emphasis on the simple message that only God's mercy keeps us from damnation. Churches banned him from their pews, so he went into the fields, where he drew worshippers by the thousands.

    Whitefield was what we would now call an evangelical. “None but such as have a living faith in Jesus Christ, and are truly born again, can possibly enter into the kingdom of heaven,” he declared. Like modern evangelists, Whitefield used the latest media innovations to spread the gospel far and wide. In his case, that meant tapping into a burgeoning network of newspapers that had sprung up in the colonies—one of the most important being the Pennsylvania Gazette, a small publication purchased by Benjamin Franklin in 1729. For six months before Whitefield's arrival, the Gazette had printed dispatches about his preaching in England—the 20,000 who showed up at Kensington Common, or the time he delivered a sermon on a tombstone, or how he used tree limbs as pews. Once Whitefield arrived, Franklin offered saturation coverage of his every move, the huge crowds in Charleston and Wilmington, and the money he was raising for an orphanage in Georgia.

    Franklin strongly disagreed with Whitefield's central message. A strict Calvinist, Whitefield believed that good behavior could not get us into heaven; Franklin, self-described Deist, did. But there was much about Whitefield, and the evangelicals, that Franklin liked. Whitefield relentlessly attacked the established clergy not only for its stodginess, but also for its lackadaisical attitudes toward moral evils. He denounced mistreatment of slaves, endorsed education for blacks, and established several charities. Because he was preaching in open fields, he drew people from a variety of denominations, classes, and even races.

    When local clergy stopped giving Whitefield a place to speak, Franklin helped build a new hall for him—and for clergy of any other religion. Franklin boasted that it was “expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” For Franklin, evangelicals represented the democratic spirit railing against authority and insular institutions.

    In part for this reason, the Great Awakening transformed the colonial approach to the separation of church and state. Throughout the colonies, churches divided into “Old Lights” and “New Lights,” with the latter group tending to oppose the established churches more vigorously. As the years proceeded, the Church of England and the official churches became closely linked in the public mind with royal tyranny in general. For the New Lights, opposition to the official church became opposition to English rule, and vice versa.

    This idea, seeded by the Great Awakening, was revolutionary in itself. Most of Europe had for centuries operated under the theory that the state took its authority from God. It had both the responsibility and right to intervene in religious matters. Conversely, the religious institutions tended to rely on the state to help enforce its doctrine. More important, most of the colonies had imported the idea that an official “established” church was an absolute necessity for promoting religion. In the South, it was the Anglican church, while in the North, the Puritan-influenced Congregationalist church was dominant. In both cases, there was a broad acceptance among the colonial elites of the idea that established churches were traditional and sensible. By equating political and religious persecution, the evangelicals helped lay the foundation for a radical political shift in the colonies.

    One of the fastest growing of the evangelical groups was the Baptists, the current heart of the “religious right.” As the Baptist influence grew, so did the Anglican backlash against it. In May 1771, an Anglican minister and a sheriff interrupted one Baptist preacher's hymn-singing, put a horsewhip in his mouth and dragged him away from the meeting to be whipped in a nearby field. In Virginia, four Baptist preachers were imprisoned for their emotional sermons. “These men are great disturbers of the peace, they cannot meet a man upon the road but they must ram a text of scripture down his throat,” said a lawyer who argued the case against them. They refused to stop preaching and were sent to jail, singing hymns along the way. They preached to crowds through the barred windows of the jail.

    As a result of this persecution, the evangelicals were strong supporters of revolution, believing that their fight for religious freedom would rise or fall with the war against political tyranny. After the revolution, they pressed their opposition to the official church establishments and their support for separation of church and state.

    The first faith-based initiative

    Historians on both sides of the modern culture wars have attempted to study the writing and passage of the First Amendment looking for clues about the Founders's intent. But to understand the role of broader public opinion, there's much more to be learned from the individual state fights over religious freedom. Right before the Declaration of Independence and for two decades after, state legislatures grappled with church-state issues with much greater specificity than the federal constitutional convention had. These battles were fought not only with a few elites in a committee room but also among a broad range of local landowners, merchants, and churchgoers. One of the most significant of these battles took place in Virginia.

    After the revolution, there was a sense throughout the state that religion was in decline: Churches were struggling, and immorality was on the rise. Leaders of the dominant Anglican Church—which had turned into today's Episcopal Church—began pressing for state support of religion.

    In 1784, Patrick Henry, the most popular leader in the state, campaigned for a law that would tax Virginians to support the promotion of Christianity. It is important to realize that Henry was not pushing to create a formal establishment of the Anglican church, and obviously Henry was no Royalist. He was taking the far more liberal view that religion in general should be aided. Under his proposal, voters could designate the denomination, or even the specific church, that their tax dollars would fund. Baptists could give money to the Baptist Church, and Presbyterians to their own church. Henry's bill even went so far as to provide that those who didn't want to support religion could have the option of targeting their tax dollars toward education in general.

    (cont.)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    The measure, “A Bill for Establishing a Provision for the Teachers of the Christian Religion,” gained wide support. It was viewed as a gentle and flexible approach to encouraging religion—surely an important goal—while remaining consistent with the spirit of the revolution. Richard Henry Lee declared that “avarice is accomplishing the destruction of religion for want of legal obligation to contribute something to its support.” A petition sent in by citizens in Amelia, Va., declared that “As every Man in the state partakes of the Blessings of Peace and Order” —and peace and order flow directly from the morality produced by religion—“every Man should be obliged to contribute as well to the Support of Religion.” Even George Washington supported the approach. One major Virginia leader stood in opposition to Henry and this popular proposal: James Madison. Though not as well known as Henry, Madison had just played the central role in the constitutional convention and had growing influence within the legislature. He fervently believed that even though the assessment did not create a religious establishment, it posed a severe threat to religious freedom.

    On Nov. 11, 1784, the tall, charismatic Patrick Henry and the frail, brainy James Madison faced off in the legislature. Henry argued that nations that had neglected religion had suffered and declined. Madison tried to counter by pointing out lands where religion had flourished without government support. Madison lost. By a vote of 47 to 32, the legislature voted for a resolution declaring that the people of the Commonwealth “ought to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of the Christian religion.”

    During a legislative hiatus that followed, Madison tried to turn public opinion by writing one of the most important documents in the history of American religious freedom, the “Memorial and Remonstrance.” He asserted that even though the assessment would support Christianity in general—and that taxpayers could even designate which church they wanted their money to aid—it still was akin to an “establishment.”

    “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” he asked. The bill, he said, was “an offense against God,” and previous efforts throughout history to provide financial support for religion had backfired. “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

    Madison's paper was circulated widely throughout the state. He went from town to town arguing on its behalf, and at one point stopped by the home of John Leland, the Baptist leader who had earlier sent the cheese to Jefferson.

    What soon became clear is that Madison did have allies in his radical view that even the gentle assessment constituted a threat to religious freedom: the evangelical Christians.

    “This scheme should it take place is the best calculated to destroy Religion,” declared one petition from evangelical Presbyterians in Rockbridge. “We shall be more likely to have the State swarming with Fools, Sots and Gamblers than with a Sober Sensible and Exemplary Clergy.” A Baptist group in Duputy pointed out that because money would pass through the tax system the “Sheriffs, County Courts and public Treasury are all to be employed in the management of money levied for the express purpose of supporting Teachers of the Christian Religion.” They added that it was sinful to “compel men to furnish contributions of money to support that Religion which they disbelieve and abhor.” The Baptist General Association in Orange, Va., rejected the idea that government aid was necessary to help religion as “founded neither in Scripture, on Reason, on Sound Policy; but is repugnant to each of them.” When the legislators returned to Richmond to vote on the measure, the tide had shifted. “The steps taken throughout the Country to defeat the Gnl Assessment, had produced all the effect that could have been wished,” Madison reported. “The table was loaded with petitions and remonstrances from all parts against the interposition of the Legislature in matters of Religion.”

    It's worth noting that the focus of the evangelical argument against state aid to religion was not merely fear of persecution. After all, the assessment law had made it clear that Baptists could funnel their taxes to Baptist churches. Rather, the evangelicals believed that Christians were to render unto Caesar what was his—that the religious and political spheres were meant, by Jesus, to be separate. One Baptist petition declared “We do... earnestly declare against [the assessment bill] as being contrary to the spirit of the gospel and the bill of rights.”

    They further argued that the approach ignored an important lesson of Christian history, that the greatest flowering of Christianity occurs without government support. “The Blessed author of the Christian Religion, not only maintained and supported his gospel in the world for several Hundred Years, without the aid of Civil Power but against all the Powers of the Earth, the Excellent Purity of its Precepts and the unblamable behaviour of its Ministers made its way thro all opposition,” one petition declared. “Nor was it the Better for the church when Constantine the great, first Established Christianity by human Laws. True there was rest from Persecution, but how soon was the Church Over run with Error and Immorality.”

    With the evangelicals providing the political ground troops, the legislature then went even further, approving Thomas Jefferson's statute on religious freedom. The statute prohibited not only formal establishments, but also the use of government funds to aid any particular religion on the grounds that no man's taxes should be used to support religious beliefs with which he does not agree. “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

    A similar dynamic developed during the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The evangelicals provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart. “Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners,” writes the eminent historian Frank Lambert in his excellent book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. “New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state.”

    The infidel-evangelical alliance

    Some religious conservatives today point to a slew of comments and actions from the Founding Fathers indicating their support for an intermingling of religion and state. These are not hard to find—in part for a reason rarely acknowledged by either side in the culture wars: The founders did not agree with one another on how to interpret the First Amendment.

    John Adams, Patrick Henry, and others believed the First Amendment really was meant to block the formal establishment of an official church, but allowed much mixing of church and state. For instance, Adams endorsed national days of fasting and prayer and appointment of congressional chaplains. Jefferson and Madison were on the other end of the spectrum, demanding the clearest separation of church and state. As president, Jefferson reversed the practice initiated by Washington and Adams, and refused to have a national day of prayer. Madison agreed. He cited the appointment of chaplains as being a direct violation of the “pure principle of religious freedom,” especially given how “strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Government in the Constitution of the United States.”

    Just as the Founding Fathers disagreed, so too did people of faith. Congregationalists and Episcopalians were the chief defenders of state-supported religion and more aligned with the views of Adams and Henry. It was the evangelicals who backed the more radical views of Jefferson and Madison. Leland, for instance, agreed with Jefferson's opposition to congressional chaplains. “If legislatures choose to have a chaplain, for Heaven's sake, let them pay him by contributions, and not out of the public chest,” he once wrote. Indeed, as Rabbi James Rudin notes in his new book The Baptizing of America, “Leland was even against the Sunday closings of U.S. post offices, feeling this represented government favoritism by officially recognizing the Christian Sabbath.”

    In other words, the Founding Fathers were divided on separation of church and state—but most of the evangelicals weren't. They overwhelmingly sided with Jefferson and Madison.

    (cont.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    On one level, this little-known alliance between Jefferson, Madison, and the evangelicals was pragmatic; for different reasons, they shared similar goals. But the connection went far deeper. When evangelicals smashed ecclesiastical authority—by, say, meeting in the fields without the permission of the local clergy—they were undermining authority in general. They were saying that on a deep spiritual level, salvation came through a direct relationship with God and that the clerical middleman was relatively unimportant. Jefferson and other enlightenment thinkers were glorifying the power of the individual mind to determine the truth—through evidence rather than merely tradition. As the historian Rhys Isaac put it, “Jefferson's system proclaimed individual judgment as sacred, sacred against the pressure of collective coercions; the evangelicals did the same for private conscience.”

    Today's Christian conservatives often note that Jefferson's famous line declaring that the first amendment had created “a wall separating church and state” was not in the Constitution but in a private letter. But in that letter, Jefferson was responding to one sent to him by a group of Baptists in Danbury, Conn. We usually read Jefferson's side of that exchange. It's worth re-reading what the Danbury Baptists had to say because it reminds us that for the 18th-century evangelicals, the separation of church and state was not only required by the practicalities of their minority status, but was also demanded by God. “Religions is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals,” the Baptists wrote, warning that government “dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehova and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Government had no business meddling in the affairs of the soul, where there is only one Ruler.

    The original intent

    The evangelical wariness of the political world persisted for many of the next 200 years. The creation of the Moral Majority changed that. Angry about court rulings allowing abortion and banning prayer in school, Falwell and others argued that Christians should dive aggressively into the public realm in order to promote Christian values. The election of Ronald Reagan, the emergence of the Christian Coalition, and the enormously important role that religious conservatives played in the election of George W. Bush all seemed to validate that strategy. At this moment in history, the evangelical involvement in politics is so strong—and their advocacy of greater government support for religion so persistent—it's difficult to remember that this view is relatively recent.

    What the mainstream media have missed is that this separatist strand of the evangelical movement never went away; it was just defeated and quieted. Look carefully, and the spirit of John Leland can be discerned in some modern evangelicals.

    The popular commentator Cal Thomas and the author Ed Dobson, both former officials of the Moral Majority, wrote a courageous book in 1999 called Blinded by the Might, arguing that proximity to power had prompted religious conservatives to abandon their principles and distracted them from their religious mission: “We have confused political power with God's power.” And the Baptist legacy reappeared after George Bush's election when a number of religious conservatives surprised pundits by suggesting that churches should not accept money from the faith-based initiative. Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that while he hoped Bush's faith-based plan passed, he personally “would not touch the money with the proverbial 10-foot pole.” The fears expressed by Thomas, Dobson, and Land were the very same ones that Leland or Bachus would have had: that with government involvement will come government interference. Modern religious conservatives have mostly decided to go along anyway because they felt a greater good—the promotion of President Bush and the general encouragement of religion—outweighed the risks.

    That moment of nervousness by some religious conservatives about the faith-based initiatives was largely ignored by the mainstream media because it was a minority opinion among contemporary evangelicals and didn't fit the agreed-upon playbook—the Christian right got Bush elected so surely it must like religious aid—but it indicated that this spirit of John Leland and Isaac Bachus is not entirely dead in the evangelical movement.

    A small group of influential evangelical historians have, of late, tried to rebut the notion that the country was founded as a Christian Republic. Mark Noll, George Marsden, and Nathan Hatch, the preeminent evangelical historians, wrote a book called The Search for Christian America in which they gently, but firmly, attempted to correct a number of misconceptions that modern religious conservatives have about their own past. “The tragedy is that we come to believe that we are attuned to the wisdom of the ages,” they noted, “when in fact the sound we really hear is but an echo of our own voice.”

    So far these individuals—the ones we might call the Original Intent Evangelicals—have been overshadowed by higher-profile Christian conservative leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Charles Colson. These leaders insist that the Founders meant only to block the establishment of an official state religion, not to stop all government support of specific religions. Therefore, they argue, the Constitution should be read to allow vouchers for schools that teach religion, prominent displays of the Ten Commandments in government offices, even open proselytizing by military chaplains. In some cases, they go even further. The GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates last year passed a measure that would amend the state constitution—and override language that Jefferson himself had written—to allow prayer and proselytizing on all public property (a Senate panel ultimately killed the measure). And a plank in the 2004 Texas Republican platform declares that “the United States of America is a Christian nation” and disparages “the myth of the separation of church and state.”

    Contemporary religious conservatives can certainly find quotes from Founding Fathers to support their claims that government should aggressively support religion. They'll have a harder time finding quotes from 18th-century evangelicals. Falwell and company are free to chart a different course from earlier Christians, but they should do so with the knowledge that some very pious evangelical leaders believed this was a dangerous path. When the Rev. Falwell meets his maker, he may well get a pat on the back from Patrick Henry, but he's sure to get a tongue lashing, and a sermon, from the Rev. Leland.



    Steven Waldman is editor in chief of Beliefnet, the leading faith and spirituality website and a Washington Monthly contributing editor. He is writing a book on religion and the Founding Fathers.

  11. #11
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phinnly Slash Buster
    I found this item of interest.
    GAMPAC is just what they say they are, no ambiguity here.
    The Value Voter’s Campaign, however, is enveloped in illusion and deception. They wrap themselves in the American Flag, rewrite history and march on Washington demanding the creation of a Christian Nation falsely claiming it is what the Founding Father’s intended.
    Ellen Johnson wrote this letter as a fund raising plea but is still worthy of note. I admire her style.
    GAMPAC opposes every Bill listed by the Value Voter’s campaign. So do I.
    We are NOT a Christian nation, and we never were.
    It is time to destroy this dangerous illusion


    "This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with
    God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no
    power on earth can stop us." D. James Kennedy, Character & Destiny:
    A Nation In Search of Its Soul

    Dear Godless American:

    The Godless American Political Action Committee needs your support.
    You already know the amount of funding being poured into the radical
    reactionary fundamentalists' efforts to tear down the wall between
    religious organizations and our government. We need your help to
    prove that what Kennedy said above is wrong. This country belongs to
    all of us, the religious as well as the non-religious/secularists.


    The good news is that we are growing. Between 1990 and 2000, those
    recognized as Christian fell from 82.5% to 76% while those
    identified as secularists/non-religious rose from 7.5% to 13.2%. We
    climbed from 13,116,000 to an estimated 38,865,604 in 2004. We rank
    as the second most populated religious grouping in the United States.


    That also makes up the bad news, because the fundamentalists know
    these facts, as well. Their decline in numbers is motivating their
    insurgence against the Constitution, state and federal judges, and
    all school children. Now we can all begin to understand the meaning
    of Kennedy's diatribe above. Although we are equal in number to
    those in the RRF camp, they are much more organized.

    They have used that organization to accomplish electing a majority
    of politicians to the state legislative bodies and the U.S. Congress
    and the Presidency. You and I can work together to change this.

    There are many organizations asking for your support that, in
    different ways, work on behalf of the separation of government and
    religion. They do good work! But GAMPAC is the only vehicle for
    Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers
    that not only tackles these important issues, but goes that extra
    step of helping to elect politicians who represent us and our agenda!

    We join these organizations in their efforts, but we supply one more
    avenue that none of them have been willing to do, that is creating
    an actual fund to support those elected persons who believe in our
    vision of a free nation dedicated to the liberty of all citizens,
    not just those who are willing to be led like sheep.

    Hundreds of you are actively using our Legislative Action Center to
    send messages to your Representatives, Senators, State Delegates and
    State Senators to stop the radical reactionary fundamentalists from
    succeeding. We also need every one of you to make a contribution
    right now to support the effort of all Americans who want to protect
    freedom; who want to protect the Constitution; and who want to send
    their children to secular public schools, not sectarian ones where
    they spend all day praying and learning that the sun and stars
    revolve around the earth.

    Do not let Anne Coulter, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Jerry
    Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tom Delay, Tony Perkins and the rest take
    dominion over the United States and legislate that we all must
    become Southern Baptists. They claim to be the majority. They are
    not the majority. They are organized. Join us and fight back.


    Go to the Godless Americans Website -
    http://www.gampac.org/pacdonate.php - and become a sustaining
    contributor by donating as much as you can afford on a monthly basis
    to be charged to your credit card. The form we provide allows you to
    totally control the amount of your donation and when it starts and
    ends and whether it is a one time donation or a monthly charge.

    Please help us help you. Thanks.

    Very truly yours,



    Ellen Johnson
    Executive Director, GAMPAC
    this is great news!!!!! (the rising number of secularists)
    i wish i had some spare money to donate...

  12. 03-20-2006, 04:50 PM

    Reason
    Link doesn't display

  13. 03-20-2006, 05:15 PM

    Reason
    pictures won't display

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Well, I wanted to post this with the pictures here, but I cannot get that function to work...this referenced from:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1028864/posts

    so to view the photos, please go there.

    God in the Temples of Government - Photo Essay
    HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Nov 24, 2003 | Carrie Devorah


    Posted on 11/25/2003 2:15:28 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe


    On November 13, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary ordered the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from his post. The decision resulted from Moore’s refusal to obey what he considered a tyrannical order from a federal judge commanding him to remove a stone monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama supreme court building.

    The federal court, which was not overruled because the Supreme Court refused to consider Moore’s appeal, insisted that the state of Alabama could not acknowledge God by displaying a religiously-based representation, even though the Alabama constitution says, "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama."

    HUMAN EVENTS intern and photojournalist Carrie Devorah went to federal government buildings in the District of Columbia and photographed some of the many religious and religiously inspired items in those buildings. In addition, she obtained a picture from the White House of the Adams Prayer Mantel. These pictures are a small sampling of the many religious images scattered throughout government buildings in D.C. and around the country.

    Will all of these images eventually be removed by the order of unrestrained federal judges? Will the Alabama state constitution—the current version of which was adopted over 100 years ago, in 1901—have to be revised? More important, will Congress and the President act to restrict federal courts’ jurisdiction over such matters, as the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives them the authority to do, before it is too late?

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    And a related story to my initial post:

    This Spring: Tens of Thousands of Teens Rally Against "Virtue Terrorism"

    "We're sick and tired of pop culture telling us it's cool to . . . behave badly."

    Fueled by Their Faith, Teens Mobilize BATTLECRY—Taking Stand Against Pop-Culture Forces Contributing to Teen Sex, Drug Abuse, and Suicide

    March 23-24: San Francisco, AT&T Field

    April 7-8: Detroit, Ford Field

    May 12-13: Philadelphia, Wachovia Spectrum

    DALLAS, March 14, 2006—Some forty years after rebellious youth started a cultural revolution rejecting rules and boundaries, American teens are once again challenging societal norms. Only this time, the young rebels are in “reverse rebellion.”

    Spring break may have been manipulated by the media, celebrities and peer-pressure to become a party-time for youth, but God has always used a "remnant" to go against the status quo when it is contrary to His values. Now tens of thousands of teens have decided to sound a battle cry for truth and take a stand for what is right.

    “We’re sick and tired of pop culture telling us it’s cool to sleep around, dress like tramps, get high on drugs and alcohol, and behave badly,” said 18-year-old Amanda Hughey from Orange County, Calif., who, along with tens of thousands of other teens, will take part this spring in the BattleCry movement. “Life is not MTV, and if we continue to live like we’re starring in those outrageous music videos, our generation is doomed.”

    TODAY’S TEEN REALITY:

    MTV is profoundly influential in the lives of its young fans (watched by 73% of boys and 78% of girls ages 12 to 19) by glamorizing drug and alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, and violent behavior. MTV airs (on average) 9 sexual scenes per hour and more than 8 un-bleeped profanities per hour (Parents Television Council, 2004).

    80% of 15 to 17-year-olds have had multiple hard-core porn exposures (Family Safe Media).

    8,000 teenagers contract an STD every day (Heritage Foundation, 2003).

    “It’s ‘virtue terrorism’ and teens have had enough!” said Ron Luce, founder of Teen Mania, one of the world’s largest youth organizations, which is advancing the BattleCry movement and message. “The media and retailers who peddle this garbage for the sake of cash and controversy are doing so at the expense of our kids.”

    TEENS RESPOND WITH BATTLECRY:
    An initiative of Teen Mania, BattleCry is a national movement of hundreds of thousands of teenagers who, fueled by their Christian faith, are taking a stand against the pop-culture forces contributing to the unprecedented spread of STDs, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and suicide among the
    teenage generation.

    Integrating high-voltage live stadium events (produced primarily by teens), interactive teen-inspired Web technology, and a powerful coalition of youth and adults, BattleCry is inspiring, empowering, and equipping
    teens to value godly character over culture. Stadium events feature:

    Tens of thousands of teens declaring the rights to “reclaim the values that made this nation great”

    Dynamic speakers including Ron Luce, Franklin Graham, Miss America 2003 Erika Harold

    Chart-topping musical guests including TobyMac, Pillar, Jeremy Camp, KJ-52, and Delirious

    Registration and coalition information available at www.BattleCry.com

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    On November 13, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary ordered the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from his post. The decision resulted from Moore’s refusal to obey what he considered a tyrannical order from a federal judge commanding him to remove a stone monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama supreme court building.

    The federal court, which was not overruled because the Supreme Court refused to consider Moore’s appeal, insisted that the state of Alabama could not acknowledge God by displaying a religiously-based representation, even though the Alabama constitution says, "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama."
    The Almighty God in this statement is clearly a secular God not recognizing any one diety only a generic Higher Power.
    The ten commandments however is clearly favoring Christians. I'm not surprised that evangelists can't see this, it is part and parcel of of deceptive and delusional agenda to ignore these details.
    Art works in Government buildings that depict Christian iconagraphy may have astetic and historical value but they are by no means a shrine or in anyway an acknowledgement of the concept that America has always been a Christian nation.
    If the evangeligals are going to keep making an issue of this to prove that it some how supports their agenda to impose a Christian Theocray then we should by all means have them removed.
    Last edited by Phinnly Slash Buster; 03-20-2006 at 06:37 PM.

  17. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by umdkook
    this is great news!!!!! (the rising number of secularists)
    i wish i had some spare money to donate...
    Look at the numbers. The scales are slowly tilting against the Ultra Rightist neo-con Theo-thugs. The reason we are hearing so much from the christian lobbies these days is because they are trying to push their agenda through before November when they are likely to lose their 'Home Team' advantage.

  18. #16
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Is This Considered Fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    And a related story to my initial post:

    This Spring: Tens of Thousands of Teens Rally Against "Virtue Terrorism"

    "We're sick and tired of pop culture telling us it's cool to . . . behave badly."

    Fueled by Their Faith, Teens Mobilize BATTLECRY—Taking Stand Against Pop-Culture Forces Contributing to Teen Sex, Drug Abuse, and Suicide

    March 23-24: San Francisco, AT&T Field

    April 7-8: Detroit, Ford Field

    May 12-13: Philadelphia, Wachovia Spectrum

    DALLAS, March 14, 2006—Some forty years after rebellious youth started a cultural revolution rejecting rules and boundaries, American teens are once again challenging societal norms. Only this time, the young rebels are in “reverse rebellion.”

    Spring break may have been manipulated by the media, celebrities and peer-pressure to become a party-time for youth, but God has always used a "remnant" to go against the status quo when it is contrary to His values. Now tens of thousands of teens have decided to sound a battle cry for truth and take a stand for what is right.

    “We’re sick and tired of pop culture telling us it’s cool to sleep around, dress like tramps, get high on drugs and alcohol, and behave badly,” said 18-year-old Amanda Hughey from Orange County, Calif., who, along with tens of thousands of other teens, will take part this spring in the BattleCry movement. “Life is not MTV, and if we continue to live like we’re starring in those outrageous music videos, our generation is doomed.”

    TODAY’S TEEN REALITY:

    MTV is profoundly influential in the lives of its young fans (watched by 73% of boys and 78% of girls ages 12 to 19) by glamorizing drug and alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, and violent behavior. MTV airs (on average) 9 sexual scenes per hour and more than 8 un-bleeped profanities per hour (Parents Television Council, 2004).

    80% of 15 to 17-year-olds have had multiple hard-core porn exposures (Family Safe Media).

    8,000 teenagers contract an STD every day (Heritage Foundation, 2003).

    “It’s ‘virtue terrorism’ and teens have had enough!” said Ron Luce, founder of Teen Mania, one of the world’s largest youth organizations, which is advancing the BattleCry movement and message. “The media and retailers who peddle this garbage for the sake of cash and controversy are doing so at the expense of our kids.”

    TEENS RESPOND WITH BATTLECRY:
    An initiative of Teen Mania, BattleCry is a national movement of hundreds of thousands of teenagers who, fueled by their Christian faith, are taking a stand against the pop-culture forces contributing to the unprecedented spread of STDs, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and suicide among the
    teenage generation.

    Integrating high-voltage live stadium events (produced primarily by teens), interactive teen-inspired Web technology, and a powerful coalition of youth and adults, BattleCry is inspiring, empowering, and equipping
    teens to value godly character over culture. Stadium events feature:

    Tens of thousands of teens declaring the rights to “reclaim the values that made this nation great”

    Dynamic speakers including Ron Luce, Franklin Graham, Miss America 2003 Erika Harold

    Chart-topping musical guests including TobyMac, Pillar, Jeremy Camp, KJ-52, and Delirious

    Registration and coalition information available at www.BattleCry.com
    whether you view it as morally rite or not, I think what you fail to realize is that these types of acitvities, images, tv-shows, and whatever else mentioned are not being promoted for what they show, they are being promoted because that is what teeneagers and young adults enjoy watching as their entertainment. ITS SIMPLY ENTERTAINMENT. there is no hidden or overt messege to go do drugs and sleep with lots of people, but it just so happens that movies about drug dealers earn more money than movies about celibate priests. entertainment is not in the business to promote morals, they are in the business to entertain.

    oh, and if i can find the time or the energy on those days in Philly, i will be there protesting against this sordid little group.

    also, im interested in how MTV promotes doing drugs and gettin high. i have watched it a lot and see nothing of the sorts. the only thing that MTV does do mentioned in this article is show girls doing ****ty things in music videos, but i dont know who thinks that is cool, except for the guys...
    Last edited by umdkook; 03-20-2006 at 06:16 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. LOL ... why MCA is considered a joke
    By rodney walker II in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2014, 05:40 PM
  2. Why isn't MAIL considered spam?
    By Administrator in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-09-2014, 12:50 PM
  3. What is considered a SCAM?
    By dcnhtown in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 05:29 AM
  4. Thanksgiving Considered Offensive In Seattle
    By hello1122 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 12:29 AM
  5. Pluto now longer considered a Planet.
    By coontie in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 11:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
$400, 000, 1789, 1st amendment, 2001, 2008, 811, absent, abuse, acceptance, accepted, access, accountability, accused, act, action, actions, acts, adams, add, address, administration, admit, adult, advance, advantages, advertising, advocates, affairs, afford, age, ages, aggressive, agreed, agreement, agrees, ahmed, ain, aint, alcohol, ale, algeria, algerian, alive, alleged, alliance, alliances, allowed, allowing, ama, amanda, amen, amendment, america, american, americas, anne, announced, annual, another, anthem, anti, apart, appeal, appeared, applause, appointment, appreciated, approval, approve, april, aries, army, arrival, article, artists, assault, assigned, assistant, association, ation, attacked, attacking, attacks, attempts, attention, attributes, authentic, author, authority, authorized, authors, auto, avoid, aware, azi, bad, baghdad, bait, balance, ban, banned, banning, barr, base, based, basic, basically, beach, beach house, behalf, behaviour, believers, bet, better, biblical, bit, blame, blessed, block, blood, blu, blue, body, bogus, bombing, book, books, booming, borrowed, bow, bowl, boycott, brand, break, bricks, bring, bringing, broadcast, broke, brooks, building, bunch, bur, bury, business, buster, cable, called, calls, calm, campaign, camps, cannot, capture, captured, card, care, carefully, cares, carry, case, cash, cast, catch, catholic, caught, cell, center, central, ceo, cer, ceremony, chairman, challenge, chance, channel, characteristics, charities, charles, chart, che, cheese, cheney, chicago, chris, christian, christians, christmas, christopher, church, citizenry, citizens, civil, claim, claiming, claims, class, clever, cli, clinto, clo, clock, club, clueless, co-op, code, collapse, coming, comments, commercial, commissioned, commit, common, community, company., complain, complete, con, concerned, concord, condi, confirmed, confirming, congressional, congressman, connection, cons, conservative, conservatives, constant, constitution, continue, continues, contrast, contributed, core, corporate, corporation, correct, couldn, countdown, country, county, court order, courts, creates, credibility, credible, credit, crisis, critical, crowd, cruel, cry, culture, currency, current, curtains, damn, dan, dance, david, day, days, dead, dear, debates, decades, decided, decision, declared, deeds, defeat, defeated, defend, defended, definition, dei, deliver, delivered, delusional, demanding, democrats, department, dept, des, designs, desire, destroys, destruction, detroit, devil, diatribe, dick, dictators, didn, difficult, dig, direct, direction, director, disease, disgusting, display, distract, district, disturbing, dive, diversity, divine, doesn, dog, don, dona, donation, dont, don’t, doomed, door, double, dow, draws, drew, drug, drug dealers, due, duped, dying, ear, earlier, early, earn, earth, east, economic, edward, effects, elected, electio, elements, eliminate, ells, eme, empower, end times, ended, endorsed, ends, enemy, england, enter, enterprise, environment, episode, eric, error, essay, establishment, eternity, eth, europe, eva, evangelicals, evening, evils, examples, excellent, executives, exercise, exists, exit, expand, experience, express, extended, extreme, eyes, face, faced, factor, fail, faithful, fall, false, falwell, families, famous, fans, fast, fathers, favoring, fear, fears, feature, featuring, federal, fee, feel, feeling, felt, fidel, field, file, final, financial, finding, finds, first amendment, fits, fix, flag, focus, folks, fool, force, forces, ford, forgot, forward, fos, foundation, foundations, fra, frank, franklin, free, friday, front, fully, fun, fund, funded, funding, funds, funny, furious, furniture, fury, fusion, future, gave, gay, gen, general, generation, geometry, george, george w. bush, georgia, gingrich, girl, girls, gli, global, gonna, good, gotta, gov, government, governor, grabs, grace, grand, great, greatest, green, ground, group, groups, growing, grown, growth, guarantee, guaranteed, guys, hail, hall, halted, hand, hands, hannity, happened, harassment, hard, harder, harry, hatch, hats, hay, heading, headquarters, healthy, hear, heart, hearts, held, hell, helped, helping, heritage, hero, hey, hidden, hiding, high, higher, hil, hip, his, holds, holidays, holy, homeland, homes, homosexual, honey, hooker, hopeless, horrible, horrors, horse, hosting, hot, hours, house, html, huge, huma, human, ial, ian, ico, identify, identifying, identity, ignorance, ignorant, ignore, ignored, ill, image, images, imagine, ime, immorality, important, impressive, inauguration, include, income, indicating, individuals, indonesia, industrial, industry, inflicted, influence, info, instructed, intelligence, inter, interactive, interest, internal, involved, involving, ion, isaac, isn, issue, issues, italy, item, jackson, jail, jan, jean, jefferson, jeffrey, jeremy, jerry, jersey, joel, john, johnson, joined, joint, joke, jonathan, jose, journey, joy, judge, judiciary, junk, kennedy, kensington, kevin, kick, kicked, kidding, killed, kind, kingdom, knock, lambert, land, large, last, latest, launch, launched, law, lawrence, lead, leaders, leading, leads, lee, legacy, legally, legitimate, lens, lessons, letter, liberal, liberals, liberty, license, light, liked, limbaugh, lincoln, line, lining, lis, listed, listen, lived, living, local, long, longer, los, lose, losing, lot, lover, loves, loving, luck, lying, mail, main, mainstream, making, malfunction, man., mankind, marching, mark, markets, marriage, marshall, marti, martin, mass, massachusetts, master, matter, mea, meaningless, measure, medical, meeting, mega, member, members, memories, men, mental, mention, mentions, messages, michigan, million, millions, mind, minister, ministers, ministry, minorities, mistreatment, model, moment, monica, monitoring, month, monument, moon, moore, moral, morals, more, morris, motivational, mount, movement, movie, movies, multi, multiple, muscle, myth, named, nathan, nation, national, nations, nature, nazi, needed, neo, ner, nervous, net, network, networks, new york post, night, normal, north, note, notes, nov, november, numbers, oath, obedience, october, odds, office, officers, official, officially, officials, ongoing, onli, open, operation, opportunity, opposite, options, orange, order, ordered, orders, org, organization, organizations, original, oro, orphanage, orwellian, owner, packing, page, pages, paper, parade, parcel, part, partners, partnership, party, pas, pass, passage, passed, pastor, patrick, patriot, patriots, pause, paying, pays, peace, peaceful, pen, pennsylvania, people, perception, perfect, perfectly, performance, person, personal, personality, personally, peter, peters, photos, picture, pictures, piece, place, planning, plans, platform, play, played, plea, point, policies, policy, politically, politician, poor, pop, popular, porn, pos, position, positive, post, posted, posts, potential, poverty, powell, power, pray, prefer, presiden, presidency, pressed, prevent, prime, principles, prisoners, private, process, product, production, profile, profit, programming, progress, promised, promising, promote, promotes, property, prophetic, proposal, protect, protected, protecting, protection, protects, prove, proven, proves, psb, public, public opinion, publishers, pull, pulled, punished, purge, push, qualified, quarter, question, questions, quick, quote, quotes, race, raise, raising, rallies, rally, rand, random, rated, raw, reaction, read, reagan, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, rebellion, rebels, receiving, red, reduction, references, refused, refuses, regimes, related, release, released, religion, religious, religious freedom, remember, remind, removed, replacing, representative, research, resolute, respond, response, responsible, rest, restore, resume, retro, rev, reveals, revelations, ria, rice, richard, rick, rio, riots, rise, rising, risk, robert, role, ron, ronald reagan, roo, room, rose, route, rove, roy, royal, rules, run, rush, rush limbaugh, sacred, safe, sale, salvation, san, sarah, sca, scan, scholars, script, sean, sean hannity, search, seats, seattle, secure, seem, sen, senate, senators, sends, sense, september, service, session, set, severe, sex, sexual, sexually, shared, sheet, sheriff, ship, shirts, shock, shop, short, showed, shows, shred, sign, signed, simple, simply, sincere, singing, site, small, smarter, sold, solution, solve, son, song, songs, sons, soo, sorry, source, sources, spanish, speaker, speaking, spend, spends, spiritual, spring, staff, stage, staged, stamina, star, starring, start, starting, starts, state, state department, stated, states, status, stays, steal, stealing, stein, steve, steven, sti, stone, stood, stop, stories, story, strategy, stream, street, strike, student, students, stupid, style, sued, suicide, suite, sum, summary, summer, sun, sunday, super, supply, supported, supporting, supports, supreme court, surge, survey, survive, system, systems, taken, takes, talk, talking, tall, targets, taxes, taxpayers, teach, ted, tells, temple, terror, test, texas, text, thankful, the wall, theory, they, thinks, thompson, thought, thread, threads, threatened, throw, thugs, thursday, tim, time, times, tired, title, tme, today, told, tolerance, tone, tonight, tools, top, tor, total, totally, touch, tour, town, trac, trace, trade, tradition, trail, transportation, traveling, treason, treasury, tribute, troops, trusted, tuesday, turn, twist, types, ultimate, ultra, unconstitutional, undeniable, under oath, une, union, united, united states, unlimited, unprecedented, urgent, url, usual, vacant, validate, van, vehicle, verify, version, vice, videos, view, village, vince, vinci, viola, violated, viole, violence, violent, virginia, virtue, vital, voted, voter, vulgar, waiting, wall, wanted, warming, wars, watched, watching, water, ways, week, weeks, welcome, welfare, wesley, west, western, wheel, whites, wide, wikipedia, win, wire, woma, won, workers, working, world, worth, worthy, wound, woven, wrap, writes, writing, wrong, yahoo, year, years, yesterday, york, young, youth, yrs

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •