Welcome to America, where a message of tolerance has corporations shaking in their boots.
All three major networks refused a commercial for the United Church of Christ–one that featured two bouncers refusing admission to (among others) two men who one assumes were supposed to be gay. They weren’t skipping or fondling one another, and one of them wasn’t wearing a wedding dress. And the announcer’s voice said, “No matter who you are or where are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
ABC refused it because they don’t air religious ads (although dramas with nudity and profanity, that’s okay.) And CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays (which is a hoot coming from the network that airs “Will and Grace.” Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.)
This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)
You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen when a simple message of tolerance and acceptance inspires fear of reprisal from those who preach intolerance and segregation. And how much further yet we can fall.
PAD
• 
Have you read “The Handmaids Tale” by Margaret Atwood? I read it when it first came out and was sure nothing like that would ever happen in this country. Slowly, but surely we seem to be headed in that direction. Fear (of seeming to air or write an unbalanced piece)is also the reason journalists have a “he said/she said” approach to the news, instead of looking behind what is said to the facts. May I also commend the church’s message. I’ve often wondered where some of these groups are getting new converts when they seem to exclude so many.
Oh, by the way, I would like to wish you and your family a very happy Hannukah at sundown tonight. My daughter will be getting a nice haul now, and, since my husband was raised a Baptist, she will, like your family, be getting a nice haul from the other side of the family at Christmas.
I’m kinda surprised at your reaction PAD, as as a long-time comic book professional, you should be more aware than most people how the wonderfully slippery road of self-censorship/ “regulation” operates. It really is quite fantastic as now the govt or “concerned citizens” don’t have to say anything. The industry’s own fear will push them further into the fold.
PAD wrote “Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.” There’s a good deal of evidence to support this. It took a long time for WILL & GRACE, DAWSON’S CREEK, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER to show a kiss between a same-sex couple in a relationship. By contrast, for comedic purposes, same-sex kisses have been shown on SPIN CITY, SEINFELD, even back to ALL IN THE FAMILY. (The latter made TV GUIDE’s list of top 100 television moments.) It’s less dangeous to laugh at someone than to accept them.
I disagree with PAD about the “they’ll air this, but not that” attitude of ABC. If they never air religious ads, this is consistent. As for the message of the ad, I always found a contradiction in many church’s “we hate the sin, but we love the sinner” attitude towards homosexuality: “We consider what you do an abomination, we think you’ll go to hëll for doing it, we will fight tooth and nail to prevent you from marrying — but as long as you totally deny your sexuality, you’re more than welcome here.” Still, if churches in American turned away everyone who used birth control (even a sin for married couples in Roman Catholicism!), there’s be a *lot* fewer people there. At least some churches are reaching out to people instead of condemning them.
This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)
Excuse me? In a land full of political correctness because liberals don’t want to offend people, you blame this (at least primarily) on conservatism? Give me a break.
First, as a very outspoken conservative, I am appalled that they refused to run the ad. And I am confident I am not alone. This ad was not that controversial to begin with. And while I may “preach” that homosexuality is wrong, I would welcome any gay couple who came to my church.
Second, the networks did NOT cave to conservative protests. In fact, Fox News is airing the ad. So there goes your suggestion our the window that this is the fault of conservatives. You have pointed out well the hypocrisy of the networks in rejecting the ad.
Yes, I agree we are in trouble in this nation when a very positive religious ad is rejected by the networks. But your analysis of the reason fails to look at the reality of what is happening.
Jim in Iowa
Can’t say that I have ever been to a church that would not allow anyone in their doors.
I see the decision to not air this as more liberal bias than conservative.
Most churches are going to welcome anyone, there is no other way to fulfill the mission of leading others to Christ if they don’t.
It seems very paranoid and less than believable to me to be blaming the right in a case like this.
Yet another entry from “PAD’s Recliner of Rage”, eh?
I really have nothing to contribute, I just wanted to make a “Late Night With Conan O’Brien” reference for a little levity. First person who can name where that comes from wins a cookie!
I’d have to say that the blame for this kind of political climate probably lies with both the liberals and the conservatives.
The “fear” mentioned by PAD in his post and the political correctness of liberals have different foundations, but the end result can be the same.
From PAD:
“This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)”
Yeah, those Crafty Consertatives only have fear to work with, unlike the Enlightened Liberals that will welcome with open arms things they don’t agree with or understand.
Except for…
The case of Stephen Williams, suspended from his teaching job for using supplemental materials containing the word God in them. Things like the US Constitution and other historical records.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883
Or a December holiday parade in Denver that includes gay and lesbian shamans, but not Christians who want to sing yuletide hymns or carry a Merry Christmas message.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_3365940,00.html
Or Macy’s changing their policy for advertising and clerks saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Do you think they will have a “After Holiday Sale” instead of the traditional “After Christmas Sale” this year?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41700
Or school bands not allowed to even play the music for Christmas carols. Not the lyrics, the music itself has been banned.
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Carols+out+in+some+N.J.+schools&intcategoryid=5&SearchOptimize=Jewish+News
“I see the decision to not air this as more liberal bias than conservative.”
Sure, because the networks are quaking in their boots over protests from outraged liberal organizations regarding gay marriage. Please.
PAD
PAD,
You’re right! Networks and corporations NEVER cave in to LIBERAL groups! Just ask Al Campanis (who actually roomed with Jackie Robinson and stood up for him and then was forced to resign after msnterpreted remarks that were considered insensitive, Jimmy The Greek, Rush Limbaugh (after his Donovan McNabb comments) and many others.
In your world, I guess Jesse Jackson NEVER pressures or shakes down corporations, then backs off when he/his organization get the attention or money they are seeking.
And I guess open-mindedness and tolerance of differnt ponts of view was on the minds of the staff of the various college newspapers that refused to run ads by David Horowitz stating 10 reasons he thought reparations for Blacks were a bad idea.
If you could ever try to use your critical thinking skills regarding this issue, you would realize that you are obsessed about this issue and paranoid about “conservatives” in general.
You hate Bush. Fine.
But that sure as hëll doesn’t give the Republicans or “conservatives” the “fear” issue on their own.
1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That’s fear.
2.) Having Kerry tell seniors that Bush had a “secret plan” that was going to cost seniors IMMEDIATELY hundreds in their paychecks is playing on fear, and it contnued a “proud” tradition, of Democrats, (as McCain said recently in discussing the need for reform) “scaring the hëll out of senors for decades.
3.) Having Democrats and black leaders telling their “flock” that Bush would set back Black people 40 years, that Black people can’t prosper without the current affirmative action programs, that(this was actually said in Philadelphia) that Bush would bring back slavery is playing on fear.
4.) Racial profiling is playing on the ingrained distrust and “fear” many blacks have for cops and our criminal justice system (which was definitely earned, but which makes the manipulation today that much more despicable
5.) It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false.
6.) Oh, and it’s liberals like Ted Kennedy who proclam that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would “force women back into back-alley abortions” when A.) Many women die as a result of “safe and legal” abortions and
B.) If a majorty of the American people have now come to favor abortion “rights” as is often claimed, then there should be nothng to worry about. It can simply be legislated. Unless…
There are, of course, many other examples of “fear”. I’m prety sure Kerry didn’t portray our military as inept bunglers regarding the “missing” explosives during the last week of the campagn to reassure the American people that thingswere going well. He wouldn’t have been “feeding on fear”, would he? Nah:)
Oh, and only someone who has become as illogical as yourself regarding this issue and conservatives/Bush in general would see “intolerance” in a network refusing to run a religious ad when it shows NO reliogious ads – from the catholic church to Jerry Falwell, even – and two others who simply dd not want to mess with somethng that could be seen as interpreting Jesus’ message and being controversial.
Or was it conservatives who wanted jokes about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. – by a black cast in a comedy – to be excised?
Think rationally, for heaven’s sakes.
“You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen”
I guess you do, if you are determned to be cynical, angry and determined to blow every perceived slight and every perceived issue out of proportion.
Jerome Maida said:
“5.) It’s ‘well-meaning liberals’ who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental ‘issues’ proven to be false.
I don’t think its fair to make this claim without providing a sited source- my father made the same claim, and I have been waiting a year for him to provide me with evidence of something he claims there is plenty of. Even if you find some, most politically charged studies are pretty easy to debunk (especially when follow up studies done by independant research groups fail to reproduce the results). The last I heard, Bush’s own scientests brought him back evidence that global warming exists.
I haven’t seen this ad, and I haven’t been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:
Since when did churches start employing bouncers???
A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that’s just my own, lonely, opinion.
Hmmm. Having seen the ad (on that pinko commie democrat mouthpiece channel Fox) I can hardly think of a more innocuous reason for a controversy. Sure, the ad is deceptive–it doesn’t just preach that the UCC is open to diversity, it also claims that (unnamed) other churches actively exclude minorities, including gays. can’t recall the last time I heard of any real church telling blacks, latinos, asians, etc they couldn’t worship there but all things are possible I guess.
As for PAD’s predictable blame the conservatives notion…well, ABC says it doesn’t air religious ads. End of story there. I can’t find anything to back up his claim that “CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays”. CBS also mentioned some vague policy against ads advocating a particular religion (Note–this is for the Network, not local affiliates) among other reasons. Others have said that it was the implication, without evidence, that other churches are bigots that did them in (an easy test would be to simply remove the part about the bouncers and see if it passes).
In fact, according to the boston globe, ” the president of research for NBC, Alan Wurtzel, said the spot ”violated a longstanding policy of NBC, which is that we don’t permit commercials to deal with issues of public controversy.” Wurtzel, who is in charge of broadcast standards at the network, said such issues should be handled by the news department and not in advertising.
”The problem is not that it depicted gays, but that it suggested clearly that there are churches that don’t permit a variety of individuals to participate,” Wurtzel said. ”If they would make it just a positive message — ‘we’re all-inclusive’ — we’d have no problem with that spot.”
The same article has this bit of questionable sincerity from a UCC spokesperson: “Taylor said the ad is not intended to criticize other denominations.” Because, you know, hiring bouncers to boot people out is not something one would criticize…
So liberal CBS bans the ad, while conservative Fox runs it…and PAD blames conservatives. Of course.
Uh… for everyone who wants to blame liberals for this… liberals aren’t the ones who hold up the bible as an excuse to hate homosexuals and condemn homosexuality, conservatives are.
A group therefore implying that the church would welcome gay people seems like it would upset the bible thumping homo-haters, who are, by and large, conservative… and at this point, people would rather just not piss them off just to avoid the headache of dealing with them…
and that is fear. That is intimidation.
Conservatives are the type of people who just have to tell others how they need to live their lives. They’re proactive ones who tell you that you must do this and do that, and not to this and not do that. And should someone ever present a viewpoint that disagrees with their agenda, it’s not long before complaints and protest.
Do liberials do it too? Certainly, but Conservative groups do it far more often, are much better at it, and tend to promote cultures of hatred and intolerance.
A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that’s just my own, lonely, opinion.
What’s the big deal with the Ten Commandments, anyway? The Old Testament is still considered valid, yes, but Christians should pay even more attention to the update, a.k.a. New Testament. If there is a definite Christian set of guidelines, it should be the Sermont on the Mount, no?
1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That’s fear.
Instead, Bush has simply put a backdoor draft by preventing those whose enlistment is up from leaving the military.
3.) Having Democrats and black leaders telling their “flock” that Bush would set back Black people 40 years, that Black people can’t prosper without the current affirmative action programs, that(this was actually said in Philadelphia) that Bush would bring back slavery is playing on fear.
As opposed to republicans in Philly who were circulating fliers in black neighborhoods telling them that if they or any member of their family has so much as an outstanding parking ticket and they try to vote, they will be arrested and their children taken away?
5.) It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false.
Source, please.
A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that’s just my own, lonely, opinion.
An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead.
I haven’t seen this ad, and I haven’t been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:
Since when did churches start employing bouncers???
Apparently, the only people who aren’t allowed in UCC churches are conservatives. Although I hear you can sneak in if you’re a black conservative. You just have to shut up and do what you’re told. You know, just like the Democratic party.
I haven’t seen this ad, and I haven’t been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:
Since when did churches start employing bouncers???
Apparently, the only people who aren’t allowed in UCC churches are conservatives. Although I hear you can sneak in if you’re a black conservative. You just have to shut up and do what you’re told. You know, just like the Democratic party.
Funny. I’ve read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you’re being a bit reflexively partisan?
We don’t allow the Ten commandments to be posted in schools because we have (or did have) something called a seperation of church and state.
A list in which the first item is “I am the Lord thy God” is religious.
And while I may “preach” that homosexuality is wrong, I would welcome any gay couple who came to my church.
Sure, you “welcome” them at the same time that you tell them if they don’t force themselves to be straight they’re going to hëll.
Think rationally, for heaven’s sakes.
This country elected Bush in 2004. It’s hard to be rational in the face of a country devoid of rational thinking.
“An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead.”
But then you’d have millions of school children asking the question, “Where’s the ‘separation of church and state’ clause?” Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?
1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That’s fear.
Okay, Jerome, it’s put-up-or-shut-up time on this one.
I propose a wager — $100, to be precise. If the draft is reinstated within the next 18 months, you pay to the charitable organization of my choice. If it is NOT reinstated within 18 months, I’ll pay to the organization of your choice. (Note that political parties are not charities.)
Determination of what would constitute “a draft” can be made by a group of people here we’d both consider fair judges — I assume we could find such a group.
I am sufficiently convinced of Bush’s goals and the requirements it would take to achieve them that I’m willing to put up the stakes (not an insignificant sum for a teacher with a new baby, I’d point out).
Are you willing to defend your claims with some sort of concrete assurance? Or are you going to just continue trying to rant and rave about this one without being willing to support it?
2.) Having Kerry tell seniors that Bush had a “secret plan” that was going to cost seniors IMMEDIATELY hundreds in their paychecks is playing on fear
Proof that he said this, please? (I also take a lot of issue with claims that Kerry in any way represents liberalism, but that’s an entirely different conversation.)
5.) It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false.
Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you’re full of crap on this one.
Now, I’m perfectly willing to admit that both sides can use fear in demagogic ways — but frankly, you’re going so far out of your way to present conservatives as blameless victims that you’re coming across as one of Karl Rove’s paid lackeys. Not really interested.
Up for the bet, Jerome?
TWL
But then you’d have millions of school children asking the question, “Where’s the ‘separation of church and state’ clause?” Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?
Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn’t want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson’s letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of “original intent” that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.
“A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that’s just my own, lonely, opinion.”
I would be ok with this…as long as you also have up there the 5 Pillars of Islam, a diagram of where chakras can be located, the wiccan rede and a full course on darwinism. I would be perfectly happy with that.
“An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead.”
But then you’d have millions of school children asking the question, “Where’s the ‘separation of church and state’ clause?” Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?
The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee.
BTW, about the ad in question … while I haven’t seen the ad itself, my own sense of this particular firestorm is that the networks are being conservative in rejecting it — but “conservative” in the don’t-rock-the-boat sense, not in any sort of political sense.
That also explains why Fox would air it, being the youngest and the least inertia-ridden of the big 4.
I don’t think this particular decision is political; there are certainly examples of the networks making very politically biased decisions, but I don’t really see this one as one of them.
TWL
We could also have the 180 Tenets of Taoism put up as well which make the Ten Commandments look like Cliff Notes for being nice.
I’ve been thinking…maybe it isn’t fear that separates the Blues & Reds. Maybe it’s something even more fundamental:
“Elizabeth Fried, a hair and makeup artist from Chelsea who took advantage of the pet-friendly policy, was sauntering in flip-flops through the store with her Chihuahua, Romeo. Since the store opened, she said, she has bought a light fixture, faucets and a toilet seat, none of which she installed herself.
“We’re city people,” she said. “Most of the stuff, we don’t do ourselves. I can do very little myself. Except spend the money.”…..But if the store is to bridge the gap between the self-sufficient and the helpless, it may take some time. Bill McDermott, a transplant from South Dakota who stopped by to pick up supplies for a plastering job in his apartment, took a look around at the power tool section.
“New Yorkers don’t know anything about this stuff,” he said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/fashion/05HOME.html
“Funny. I’ve read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you’re being a bit reflexively partisan?”
You may hear less about purges and slapdowns of Democrats who don’t follow the party line because they’ve already managed to get rid of them. You can be a pro-choice republican and still go far in the party–Guliani, Shwartzenegger, Rice, Powell, etc. Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?
Some big name Republicans are pro-affirmitive action. Who are the major Democrats who are willing to risk losing african-american votes by even discussing ending racial preferences?
Granted, the GOP is not nearly as inclusive as it should be, but the Democrats are not blameless in that regard.
Tim,
If Jerome doesn’t take you up on the offer, would you let me?
In return, I promise that the charity I’d pick would be one that we both would agree is worthy–something like Ronald McDonald house. I would not pick one that is overtly religious or conservative in nature. Me, I feel that being proven right is it’s own reward anyway, no need to rub someone’s face in it (you may of course disagree and if I end up giving $100 to the Atheist Lesbian Society For The Incarceration Of White Republicans I’ll only have myself to blame.)
Tim,
PS–it’s posts like your one above that make me respect you so much. We may disagree on 80% of the issues (or maybe not) but if push came to shove I’d always have your back.
Sadly, I’m not one of those gun-owning conservatives so it might not do you much good…
Bill,
Let me think about it. I’ve no doubt you’d pick something relatively inoffensive, but I’m not sure if being able to place the bet with someone is entirely the point.
(And no, I wouldn’t pick the ALSftIoWR, though now that you’ve brought it up I might see if someone here is interested in founding it. 🙂
TWL
It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false.
Yes, source please. Certainly, CFCs and ozone is a settled matter–hard not to be, when you find the remnants of the molecules AND the process in the stratosphere. Ðámņ near every atmospheric scientist has agreed that global warming is a concern…the only controversy is the extent. What things have been debunked?
Bill,
Which of the two posts above is the one you meant? I need to take note of my respect-gathering skills properly. 🙂
(And I doubt we disagree on 80% of the issues. Probably more than 50, but not 80.)
TWL
“5.) It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false”
Here’s one “well-meaning liberal” that’s inviting you to Shishmaref Alaska to tell the people whose village is falling into the sea, that there’s no global warming.
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/news/nation/6449098.htm
Call it what you want. Call it fear, I don’t care much. But at least recognize that not everything human beings do is smart considering we’d like to stay here on the planet for a while.
What always cracks me up about this story on the news is the fact that they point out that their network will not run this ad…
and then they run it in the package.
So… we can’t run it, but we’ll run it to show you what we can’t run.
Looks to me like they’re just doing the story so they have an excuse to run it.
“The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee.”
And this conservative Christian would love such a debate as well. The First Amendment and the writings of the Founders speak plainly on the issue.
Peter, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m a Catholic and a Conservative, yet I can hardly recognize what is going on. Like most of America, I don’t really want to encourage homosexuality, but nor do I wish to descriminate against it. I also cannot fathom that “JESUS HATES GAYS” is even a message that any resonable person would want to send. It pains me to see Christians acting in a decidedly un-Christian way.
Oh heck: religion + gay = headache, with a dask of television and you have a migraine
And yes I am gay so I say that statement with a lot of knowledge and a lifetime subsription to the nearest chemists! In other words folks: It’s happened before (in some way or form) and will happen again! Remember “Ellen” people, and of course we wont get started on “Queer as Folk”.
May I suggest it’s an ongoing debate/argument/point of interest about what is and isn’t shown on television?
Sure, you “welcome” them at the same time that you tell them if they don’t force themselves to be straight they’re going to hëll.
Where, exactly, did I say I believe a gay person is going to hëll? My belief, and the belief of a large number of evangelical Christians, is that we get to Heaven because of God’s grace, not my living a good life. If someone is a drunk, a drug addict, is promiscuous, or lies all the time, I would also tell them that their actions are harming themselves and others. But I never have said, nor do I believe, they are going to hëll because of their actions. So quit putting words in my mouth without knowing what I believe. It is possible to disagree with someone without believing they are going to hëll simply because they don’t agree with me.
5.) It’s “well-meaning liberals” who have frightened the hëll out of people with everything from global warming – or is that a new Ice Age? – overpopulation and other environmental “issues” proven to be false.
Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you’re full of crap on this one.
Two of the things mentioned in the original post are mutually contradictory (global warming vs. an ice age), and one of them, over population, is no longer feared like it was 30 years ago. So the demands for his source are beside the point. I can dig up my stuff from the Club of Rome back in the 70’s that made a lot of dire predictions that have not come true.
Go read Sunday’s issue of Parade magazine and the article by Michael Crichton. He lists a lot of things that we have been told were coming and that never happened. One of them was that the world was going to be overpopulated and there was a coming Ice Age. As late as the early 70’s, credible scientists were warning of global cooling, not global warming. And there were A LOT of scientists who believed this was the case. So forgive me if I have a healthy dose of skepticism about global warming. Especially when a volcanic explosion can put an enormous amount of “polutants” in the air. Some think this will lead to more global warming, while others think this actually is “masking” the warming that is taking place.
Bottom line: There is evidence that we have warmed some in the last century. But the evidence is far from conclusive that global warming is the disaster many are predicting. (Note: I am all for cutting back polutants wherever we can. I believe we should be responsible in using our natural resources. It is the “fire and brimstone” warnings that are not yet certain that bother me.)
Jim in Iowa
“Two of the things mentioned in the original post are mutually contradictory (global warming vs. an ice age)”
Well, maybe not. Sounds crazy but it is possible that when the polar ice melts it will set in motion events that will lead to an ice age.
I agree though, that anyone who says they know for sure is blowing smoke. To coin a phrase.
No, Jim, asking Jerome for his sources is not beside the point. He’s challenging the science, and as a science teacher I’d frankly like to see what evidence he’s got for his claim. (And while you mention a lot of claims, the clear thrust of his point is that “environmental concerns are full of nonsensical fear-mongering” — and as global warming is the particular case most under discussion, that’s the one I focused on.)
“They’ve been wrong before” is an argument you rejected when I discussed giving women the vote, so I hardly think it stands up to scrutiny here.
And while I’ll get around to the Parade issue eventually (it’s sitting at home), you’ll have to forgive me if my opinion of Michael Crichton, who’s made his entire career out of dramatizing the fear of science and the Frankenstein complex, is perhaps not very high.
TWL
I’m just concerned that a message of tolerance… ANY message of tolerance, was rejected. Tolerance pushing is a GOOD thing, REGARDLESS of where it originates.
We live in horribly troubled times. The country is divided and many feel either disenfranchised or outright angry. Can we really afford to ignore or dismiss something, even just an ad, if it promotes something positive? A little could go a long way.
And by the way, dismissing warnings as “not yet certain” goes right back to the discussions of the scientific method which you protested as detracting from “the main point” earlier.
NO prediction can be entirely certain. While I take the main point of your argument, your specific phrasing reflects a poor understanding of how scientific predictions actually work.
The details matter, good sir — and the phrasing reflects the underlying thought more than most people think.
TWL
And while I’ll get around to the Parade issue eventually (it’s sitting at home), you’ll have to forgive me if my opinion of Michael Crichton, who’s made his entire career out of dramatizing the fear of science and the Frankenstein complex, is perhaps not very high.
Good point about Crichton. I would not use his Parade article as a source, just as a list of examples. Many he cites are widely recognized as being overblown hype in the past. I did find his article ironic in light of “The Andromeda Strain” and “Prey” and “Jurrasic Park.”
Jim in Iowa
“The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee.”
And this conservative Christian would love such a debate as well. The First Amendment and the writings of the Founders speak plainly on the issue.
Hurm. Just realized how potentially partisan my post could sound. Let me clarify.
My glee isn’t at the idea of millions of schoolkids embracing the concept of the Separation of Church and State (although, admittedly, I would hope they would), it’s at the idea of our youth engaging in open and (hopefully) civil conversation of the basic tenets of our nation. The thought of kids becoming a more involved and informed citizenry at such an early age is what sets my heart aflutter.
We could also have the 180 Tenets of Taoism put up as well which make the Ten Commandments look like Cliff Notes for being nice.
Hëll, while we’re at it, we should have Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s Art of War while we’re at it. Might as well teach kids something about capitalism and the warfare of words. 😉
resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.
I would also say it’s prevented the state from becoming a tool of religious institutions as well. For the most part.