I read over my column when it saw print this week in CBG and was rather surprised to find about a quarter of it missing. While running a section about Howard Stern and censorship that was basically a reiteration of stuff I said earlier in this blog, I then went off on a further tangent which I thought might get some controversy going, since CBGs been pretty quiet lately.
Well, apparently it’s gonna stay quiet, by choice.
Below is the entire section of my column that was deleted without my being informed:
“And every time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson
• 
Maybe
I just had a major mardy argument with my pseudo-boyfriend. He stormed out of my flat. I don’t know if deciding to surf the internet instead of chasing after him was a good idea but at least I’ll be able…
I’m not Mennonite (or Amish) (THANK GOD!) but my Gramma is. She wears a “covering” and a different style dress. Once mennonite/amish children join the church in this faith (and, in some sects of it, sooner) they are required to wear these things too. So yer telling me (Laughing!) that they shouldn’t be alowed to wear these things if they attend public school? (And some do!)
You realize this is part of the reason why they came here from Switzerland and Germany long ago. Not that their kids weren’t allowed in public education but because people said they coudn’t practice their faith in the manner they chose too. Are you saying we should go back to that???
Now of course because they are peaceful everyone laughs at this thought. BUT they do have ways of looking at things that can be effected if some people have their way in government.
They are pacifists, my uncles even served as a “conscientious objectors” during the Viet Nam War. Oh and guess what? They don’t believe in saying the Pledge of Allegience because they believe they can only pledge their allegience to God, the subversives. Yikes! Some people are really upset about THAT one!
Some use electric and phones, some do not. Some drive cars, some horse and buggys. (The whole liscensing thing here was a difficult thing for them because they have to walk the balance of of this world/ but not of it’s systems. They have some sorta system worked out with the government but I’m not sure exactly what. Believe me that pìššëš people off!)
Yes, no one has set up laws to stop them from practicing their faith the way the want here…..YET, but, in some of both right and left ways of thinking, there should be. Scary. That’s taking away the very thing that makes this country good. And it is. (Like I said before, you don’t like it? Then for heaven’s sake MOVE TO FRANCE.)
As someone once said, “Peter, you have lurched uncontrollably into the truth.”
The truth is there IS a double standard at play here. A white male who disrobes a black woman in public is disturbing, but a black man disrobing a white woman in public would likely be arrested for attempted rape.
A bit exagerrated, but not overly so. Race still matters in this country (boy, does it EVER!) and it still pushes a lot of hot buttons in people. Including it would seem the editors of The Comics Buyers Guide.
I’d be more than a little annoyed if a editor mangled my column like that (and I am a writer and have been a editor). I think someone owes PAD an explanation–and a bit more respect.
Blade Star and Frog Kid,
Neither of you has specified exactly why you feel threatened by people who religiously wear religious garb. Should kids also not be allowed to wear crucifixes? What are they hurting? What is the problem? You are trying to infringe on other people’s rights. Besides teaching our kids about science and how to read and write ( a job almost none of them are doing very well at, be they in the city or suburbs, but i digress) schools also provide a setting for social interaction. If little Johnny becomes friends with Zoreh – a muslim who wears headgarb – and laughs with her and gets to know her as a person, then he is far less likely to simply think of people who “look like Zoreh” as terrorists or weirdos. Tolerance, guys, tolerance. You don’t like it when you feel others are infringing on your rights, THEN DON’T DO IT TO OTHERS.
Den, I don’t find a yamulke offensive, just silly looking. Add a propeller and it’s perfect.
Frankly, I like jews A LOT more than any flavor of Christianity. I don’t recall the jews ever starting a holocaust and they don’t seem to go around insisting everyone else live by their religion…
Who decided they are priveledges? Why is gambling a priveledge? Why is drinking a priveledge? Why is smoking a priveledge? The only thing I named that could be considered a priveledge is driving!
Neither you nor the government have the right to tell people they can’t drink, smoke, or gamble. Driving involves a lagre heavy metal vehicle capable of high speeds on public roads. The others are nobody else’s gøddámņ business. Same with drugs actually.
I’m very happy, laughing at people like you who are sao uptight you can’t even voice an opinion your afraid my offend someone else. Enjoy your repression, I feel only pity for you.
Perhaps I can weigh in here as a teacher, since I actually DO work with students on a regular basis, unlike some of the people in this particular argument.
I’ll also caution at the beginning that I’m neither Jewish, Muslim, nor Wiccan, so it’s certainly possible I’m being inaccurate later on. Corrections welcome.
Is allowing a Jewish kid to come in with a yarmulke going to mean you’re letting a Wiccan come to school naked?
Um … no, for three obvious reasons.
1) Indecent exposure laws.
2) Sanitary concerns for both the kid in question and his/her classmates. I mean, in chem lab the kid’s GOT to have closed-toed shoes if nothing else, and I’ve yet to see anyone come to school claiming that wearing ONLY said shoes is acceptable.
3) From what I know of Wicca, it is not a requirement of the religion that one be naked when in a public place. It IS required by some Jewish traditions that a male wear a yarmulke in public, or by Islamic tradition that a girl wear the head covering (the name of which I’m blanking on at the moment).
It’s not a “fashion sense” to them, despite Bladestar’s usual ability to assume the rest of the planet exists solely for his amusement and scorn.
I think the comparison to gang colors is usually a pretty spurious one — wearing a yarmulke is not, generally, a political statement that another group is “the enemy” who you’re going to fight if dissed. It’s a statement of personal faith.
I’m a pretty strong-minded atheist myself, and I’m personally of the opinion that it would be awfully nice if humanity as a species stopped using religion in any way beyond guiding one’s own personal code of behavior — but I think banning the wearing of religious symbols is usually a mistake.
If there are instances where the symbol could somehow plausibly increase the odds of violence (as may be the case in France; I don’t know), then school authorities obviously need to deal with the situation, and it MAY be that banning the symbol is the only practical option — but it strikes me as a choice of later resort, not first.
As for the First Amendment, Roger’s right in that they don’t apply full-scale to minors in school; there’s ample evidence showing that from the past. It’s not especially illegal for a country to do what France is doing, even this one — but I think it’s somewhat questionable.
Who decided they are priveledges? Why is gambling a priveledge? Why is drinking a priveledge? Why is smoking a priveledge?
I don’t know who all these people are who build outhouses on ledges, but if they don’t stop smoking and drinking while they do it they’re gonna fall off…
TWL
Who still builds outhouses? (Port-a-potties don’t count) 🙂
I think the comparison to gang colors is usually a pretty spurious one — wearing a yarmulke is not, generally, a political statement that another group is “the enemy” who you’re going to fight if dissed. It’s a statement of personal faith.
Sure, it’s a statement of faith.
But sometimes you have to think whether it’s worth the outcome when you have cases of Jewish kids getting threatened because of their religious-related garb.
Or whether you’re going to get shot because you decided to wear red or blue.
I went to high school in a small Iowa town where the biggest uproar with regards to school stuff was that our mascot was a Blue Demon.
But I can see how such rules could and should apply in areas where the above examples are a problem and the safety of the kids is at risk. Regardless of one’s faith, etc.
Who still builds outhouses?
Methinks someone missed the pun…
Sure, it’s a statement of faith.
But sometimes you have to think whether it’s worth the outcome when you have cases of Jewish kids getting threatened because of their religious-related garb.
Well, two paragraphs down from the one you quoted, I did allude to that possibility and say that banning the symbol might be the only realistic way of avoiding violence — but trying other things first strikes me as preferable. Go after the people actually committing the violence first. (I know, easier said than done if it’s so systemic.)
I mean, if someone’s getting threatened because they’re black, it’s not like the school can go with banning black people. Ditto if you’re gay.
Actually, now that I think about it, the gay analogy is a fairly good one. Teens get threatened (or worse) for being gay all the time — the solution is to deal with the gay-bashing, not prevent students from being out.
TWL
“Blade Star and Frog Kid,
Neither of you has specified exactly why you feel threatened by people who religiously wear religious garb.”
Jerome,
I never feel threatened by religious garb. I was trying to explain the idea behind the religious laws in France(sorry if I’m not always as clear that I’d like it to be). To resume: When I was a kid(in the 80s) nobody was allowed to wear a cross/kippa/etc in school, and everybody was okay with it. Ten years ago, muslims begans to wear veil, and at the same time we began to notice an increase in religious extremisms(mainly related to the Palestine/Israel conflict). France having the greatest muslim and jewish communities of Europe, you can see where it could become a problem, specially if the extremist muslim community keep using the Israel/palestin problem in the debate.
To conclude, I wanted to say I totally understand your point of view, and in many ways I think you’re right. But with extremism growing, I can see the good thing in a religion-free school, too.
Frog Kid,
Thank you for responding to my post and disagreeing in a respectful, intelligent manner (you should try it sometime, Bladestar, it works a lot better than attacking people, calling people who disagree with you names and basic disrespect of others’ views and an overall immaturity).
But Frog Kid,my point is that if we oppress people in order to “protect” them, then the bullies, bigots, etc. win. Only by letting people – even children – live their lives as free as possible and confronting people who would pressure/hurt others can we solve problems like bigotry. Though I have had a healthy skepticism of organized religion for a long time but I did go to Ctholic school growing up and a lot of people – but especially young kids, who may feel that by not wearing their crucifix/religious garb that there is something wrong with them or that they have sinned – who would rather confront the intolerant bullies rather than have the school system protect them by having them deny their faith.
Jeff Winbush,
I am currently a writer and have been an editor myself, and I do not feel CBG has committed some act of censorship or shown “disrespect” to PAD. You know stuff gets edited all the time, due to space, content, accessibility to the general public, etc.
Also, PAD has stated he went on a “tangent”. Maybe CBG simply felt this went from controvesial to downright inflammatory and insulting to many of their readers. You or I may not agree.
I do feel PAD probably should have been told beforehand, but it is not something they are obligated to do. And his subsequent backtracking from his own statements just on this board leads me to conclude that CBG probably felt this was not worth the headache.
Lots of interesting little tangents, here. Now, the one possibility that I haven’t seen, and for the love of WHATEVER you hold holy, let’s not go down there, anybody think that Janet MIGHT’VE been trying to take some of the heat off her zombie-skinned brother? And I just think that it’s REALLY funny that something that’s SOOOOOOO inappropriate for TV spent so much time being replayed on all the cable news stations.
As far as the article that STARTED all this, yeah, CBG should’ve given you the heads-up, Hey, Peter, we gotta change this.
As far as the whole respect-my-religion-but-not-yours deal…my brother’s a Wiccan, when he was my best man, he took off his pentacle before we went into the church, just because he thought some people in my family wouldn’t have been as understanding as me. Still dyed his hair dark blue, though. Know what? There are PEOPLE out there. They’re DIFFERENT than you. DEAL WITH IT, PEOPLE! Live and let live.
Oh, and BTW, Peter, just want to thank you for Imzadi. It’s been a HUGE help in a sideways kinda way with some problems that my wife’s having and my way of helping her.
Rat,
Thanks you! Couldn’t have said a lot of what you said better myself.
And again, as a writer myself, while it’s always preferable if an editor lets you know beforehand of a change, it is not necessary nor is it always practical. She’he may be under a tight deadline, etc. Given the wide berth they usually give Peter to express his views, I feel it is unfair to condemn them in this instance.
William,
The Tempest in the C-cup is a line I swiped from one of my fave chat show guys. Lionel did a riff on how stupid the reaction to this thing was on the weekend version of his show and was using that line to describe it. His website has a photo of the Janet flash that’s been changed a bit. It’s worth finding.
That site is lionelonline.com.
This may have been posted by now. Sorry but I’ve been out of town for a few days. Another point to this not being race is that this is hardly the first Janet being sexy thing. A friend reminded me of Janet’s hands on bøøb mag cover from about ten years ago. Not the level of bøøb flashed at the halftime show but it was a display of a black woman being sexual. And it was on every news stand all over the country and on TV 24/7 for about 2 weeks. No huge backlash. Again, not skin color but time and place of the events and how much was shown.
\\let’s not be so arrogant to assume that the US’s spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. \\
What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who’s defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be…
\\let’s not be so arrogant to assume that the US’s spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. \\
What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who’s defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be…
What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who’s defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be…
Missed the point, didn’t you?
Hi Peter:
Just out of curiosity, what did the CBG editors tell you when you asked them why they made the cuts?
I’m very happy, laughing at people like you who are sao uptight you can’t even voice an opinion your afraid my offend someone else. Enjoy your repression, I feel only pity for you.
Coming from someone who is so obnoxious towards anyone who disagrees with you, I find this statement laughable.
I’m glad you think it’s so easy a situation to adress.
Well, explain to me how forcing a child to violate his or her religious beliefs protects them from abuse at home, since you’re now arguing that said violations incur abuse. It seems to me that your silly law will only encourage more child abuse.
I don’t understand what your saying, sorry. How do you solve the problems of the husband who stop MD in helping their wifes…
Simple: If the husband interferes with patient care, the doctors call security and have him hauled away.
How does banning religious garb in schools protect ER patients again?
Or is Europe just moving in stages back towards the days when if you didn’t subscribe to the state-approved belief system, you risk being sent to prison or burned as a witch?
I didn’t know you could solve social/cultural problems just like that. You should be president.
Thank you. All it really takes is a healthy dose of respect for every individual’s rights. Too bad the default mentality in far too many countries appears that an individual’s body belongs to the state, not the person.
Maybe it’s because I’m from Pennsylvania, where Amish, Mennonite, and a dozen other faiths that require some outward garb are commonplace, that I just don’t find the practice offensive. Obviously, Bladestar subscribes that philosophy that if you don’t like he does, you are just a target for his scorn. Where do you fit in?
I’m not a particularly religious person, but I respect other people enough to follow the philosophy that if what someone does isn’t hurting another person, it’s none of my business.
Imagine how peaceful the world would be if everyone would do that?
Den,
Well said. As I’ve stated – and what posters like Bladestar seem to find so repugnant – is that if we want liberty in this country, it has to apply to everyone equally. As Alan Keyes said when asked by an ultra-religious, conservative supporter of whether or not the First Amendment applied to “offensive” bands like Marilyn Manson, “You have to be careful, because if today we decide that bands like Marilyn Manson are no longer protected by the First Amendment, then when the other side gets in power they may decide it is illegal for you to sat that homosexuality is an abomination.”
Personally, I don’t listen to Marilyn Manson OR think that homosexuality is an abomination. But again, once we suppress things we don’t like, sooner or later we will lose some of our rights as well.
The Constitution does not say, “Thou shalt not offend”.
\\Missed the point, didn’t you?\\
Don’t think so, really…
Too bad Jerome and Den miss the point every hour on the hour…
Yet they have the nerve to say “The Constitution does not say, “Thou shalt not offend”.” yet they whine about my posts…
Sill children, rights are for adults
Bladestar, disagreeing with your hateful position is not whining. You have gone on record as saying that you want all individuals to have to conform to your way of thinking and appearance.
I’ve got your point. It’s just that you’re wrong.
Bladestar,
You sure seem to enjoy using the word “whine” a lot. Maybe you should buy a thesaurus.
So, you’re admitting you have purposefully been trying to be offensive? Good. You have long ago abandoned any pretense of engaging the rest of the posters in a civilized, intelligent debate in which we may all learn. You ignore whole arguments and respond with vitriol to anyone who disagrees with you, have stated children have no rights;stated that it’s perfectly okay and healthy for 13-year old girls to prostitute themselves to make a buck, seem to feel all members of all religions somehow oppress you, even if it’s just peacefully wearing garb of their faith (while at the same time calling the FCC “scumbags” for purportedly trying to protect children and others’ sensibilities). You have said Christians “deserve” bashing and have mocked orthodox Jews as well – stating a propeller on a yamulke would be “perfect’, THAT was really respectful.
You even fail to acknowledge there are points you bring up in which I AGREE with you. You just look for an excuse to attack people. While it’s your right, it really doesn’t accomplish anything, except have people take even your valid viewpoints less seriously.
Whatever. You are obviously a very angry person who can’t bring himself to engage in polite discourse with others. I the enjoyed the respectful,intelligent interaction with the others on this topic.
Too bad you couldn’t join us.
No one’s whining about your posts, Bladestar — not Den, not Jerome, and not me. You’ve got every right to your positions — just as we have every right to point out you’re taking on the role of jerk with enthusiasm and gusto.
TWL
Sorry Jerome, my ignorant friend, but I never said children have no rights, just that they don’t have the same rights as adults.
Secondly, any offensiveness in my posts is strictly in your small-minded interpretation. The only things that can be offensive are those the viewer/reader/listener seeks to FIND offensive.
Good for you Tim, you at least have have a brain.
When you get an intelligent thought Jerome, I’;ll be glad to discuss it with you. But while you are still so ignorantly focussed on protecting the entire world’s feelings, you have no ground to stand on…
It’s not the FCCs or the government’s job to protect ANYONE’S “Sensibilities”! If it were, then no one would ever be allowed to broadcast ANYTHING!!!!
Actually, Blade, that’s one of the FCC’s primary defining missions – to uphold “broadcast standards”, an incredibly loosely defined goal. Every so often, we’re going to get an administration that goes a little overboard on the definition; however, our country’s political system is such that, at least every eight years, if not sooner, we’re just as likely to get an administration that throws the definition overboard.
Now, the CBG was within their own rights to edit PAD’s column any way they wanted. It was discourteous of them to do so without letting Peter know what the problem was, and give him a chance to redact it on his own; however, sadly, being discourteous is a right as well (isn’t it, Blade? Den?).
I just don’t see the whole thing as being all that apocalyptic, is all…
Orwell was just off by 20 years…
Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. “If you had an intelligent thought”, “my ignorant friend”. Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn’t have otherwise? Not that I’m losing sleep in either case.
Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. “If you had an intelligent thought”, “my ignorant friend”. Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn’t have otherwise? Not that I’m losing sleep in either case.
Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. “If you had an intelligent thought”, “my ignorant friend”. Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn’t have otherwise? Not that I’m losing sleep in either case.
I don’t respond when you agree because on those sides of the issue there’s not much left to say if we agree on an aspect.
No, I’d be in your face if we’re face-to-face too. I don’t need you, you aren’t in any position of authority, so I have no reason to kiss your ášš, so you get the full blown honesty that is missing from so much of public discourse, as people cower behind “fellings” and “social graces” and lie rather than come out speak their mind and tell the truth.
By the way, if you value freedom so much, then why does a young women prosituting her self of her own free will (not being forced) bother you so much? Her choice isn’t yours, so suddenly it’s horrible?
And Den, when did I say everybody has to conform to my way of thinking? When and where? Huh? Or do I hold so much power over you that you feel that just because I heap scorn on those I consider ignorant that you feel ignorant?
Saying that kids shouldn’t be able to wear religioos garb, or gang colors, or dispurtive clothing to school isn’t saying they HAVE to confrom to my ideas, it’s a simple statement of idea tat would eliminate a lot of problems in schools. Sorry you can’t tell the different, but that’s your problem, not mine…
Christians who try to force their religion on others DO deserve bashing and contempt.
And look at a yamulke, it looks like the beanie the old propeller-beanies did. Like I said, the Jews are more interesting and better about religion than any christian I’ve ever met…
Bladestar:
While I agree with some of what you say, I don’t like the way you say it. For instance, just because someone does not agree with you does NOT make them ignorant. Ignorance would be not knowing the issues through lack of education or lack of interest. Those who disagree with you know the issues and have some points of their own. Most of us tend to listen more closely to an argument for or against ANY subject if the one arguing has respect for those on the opposite side. No one here is asking you to change your opinions. We do sometimes take exception to the way you present them.
Bladestar, I’m done talking with you. You are obviously so blided by your hatred and scorn for everyone who thinks different than you to engage in any intelligent discourse.
Maybe after you’ve grown up, you’ll learn that other people have the right not have to change the way they dress just to make you happy.
Karen,
Thank you.
PAD,
Since this will be probably be my last post, and you probably will have a new topic after this weekend, I just wanted to reiterate that if I came off as being rude or attacking you in an earlier post, I aplogize as such was not my intention. I am extremely sensitive to issues of race for many reasons, and it does bother me that it sometimes seems that whites DO condescend toward blacks, as if they they are incapable of making it in such a supposedly racist society. Good-intentions by white liberals can be just as damaging as blatant ignorance by rednecks. Anyway, I have listed point by point why I objected to your thesis. I am hardly ever deliberately rude, especially to people who are really rude to me (as some of the posters have been) so I really hope you didn’t take it that way.
Take Care,
Jerome Maida
…no time to read all the comments here. Sorry. But in reaction to the article itself: this got huge media attention because there was a breast exposed on national TV during the single-most-hyped television event in this nation. I don’t care whose breast it is, *any* nudity during the super bowl (that is actually seen, unlike that of the streaker, whose nudity was not front-and-center on the TV screen) is going to be a big huge deal to some people in the American public. Maybe “a race issue” is food for thought, but it isn’t any more than a single cheerio in my mind.
Please Den, say it isn’t so!!!
mY poor fragile self-image is shattered by your turning your back on me. How can I go on living without…
Yeah right, like I care….
Just a thought…Perhaps Maggie (or John or Brent) cut this part of Peter’s column because of concerns that the next six months’ worth of “Oh,So?” might be taken up with letters discussing the Bøøb Shot Heard ‘Round the World–a subject not really related to comics. It is, after all, called “COMICS Buyer’s Guide.”
I do think Peter should have been informed of the cut prior to publication, though, as a courtesy.
Paul
Paul1963
Hmmm… Wouldn’t go with that one. BID has hit topics of race , sex, death and other things that were “outside” the comics field before. And this would sort of tail into comics because of some of the effects that this clamping down could have on the “kiddies” books. After all, comics still get tagged as kid’s stuff and people still go on hunts for something that they can get on TV and blame for bad children. Comics could, yet again, become a ripe target in these nutball times. Also, CBG could have had control of the content of their letters page by giving bøøb letters a limited run time without cutting the BID like they did. No, this seems like something else.
PAD
Did you ever find out why and is it something you can print? Just wondering.
The Super Bowl half time show, at least the little bit I saw of it, was pretty vulgar. But, guess what? So were most of the commercials. And, the game itself, people knocking each other around for the sake of a game, is vulgar and violent. I enjoy pro football, make no mistake about it, but it has aspects which give me pause. God forbid that tv execs put something worthwhile on tv.
Great job guys…
thank you very much for your help. You guys 64745 rock, thanks again.