Religious Right launches moral crusade

[esskreemr]

With record fines being levied last year, America's moral minority seeks to impose the same ridiculous standards to cable, satellite and satellite radio. Will this result in all media being heavily censored or a backlash the likes of which will reverberate for decades much like the 60s and 70s?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050301-4660.html

[SamIam]

Wouldn't want any of the kiddies to see any ti**ies now would we?

Better to let them see people being shot and blown up.

Then we can all grow up to be moral killers.

Haven't these hypocrites realized yet that you can be exposed to more in 30 seconds on the internet than in a whole day watching the boob toob?

Boggles the mind!!

[jeff]

Good link, pointing out that 99.8% of the complaints were from a single organization of zealots, and that fines for broadcasting a curse or some skin far exceeded fines for real crimes where people get seriously hurt. For example, see also http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...&tid=98&tid=17 "FCC to Fine Curses More Than Nuke Violations". Nice sense of proportion there.

[Soldier]

Before we start the name-calling (oops, too late), are we sure this is all of the "religious right" doing this? Or is it perhaps only a select group of people pushing for it - minority rule again?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Before we start the name-calling (oops, too late), are we sure this is all of the "religious right" doing this? Or is it perhaps only a select group of people pushing for it - minority rule again?

before we start backing up and taking defensive swings, people can be religious and left. people can be religious and not in the religious right. this thread and article aren't targeting people who are christian, just the zealots that want to impose their beliefs on everyone else, etc. this is what the religious right essentially does.

[Soldier]

I didn't realize I was backing up and taking defensive swings, only bringing up a consideration of generalizations.

I'm quite hesitant to say that the religious right always wants to push their beliefs on others. If I read the label correctly (wash cold, tumble dry - no, wait, wrong label), the religious right are those people who are religious and politically right-wing, no?

If that is the case, then I happen to be part of the religious right, and know a whole lot more who are. And none of us want to impose our beliefs on everyone else.

Even setting that aside, you still did not answer the question of whether that was a movement from the religious right as a whole, or from one specific group that happens to be part of the religious right.

[Bokken]

It's a small distinction, but there is the religious right and there's the Religious Right. In common usage those words typically describe the ultra-right-wing zealots of whom Jeff speaks and not the majority of religious conservatives.

By the way, if you want to talk about blowing things out of proportion check this out (link courtesty of 8-bit theater): http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.as...4&nav=EQlpWjof

It seems to me that what this organization is really up in arms about is, bluntly, sex. They don't like it, they don't want it displayed or publicized or talked about at all. Ever. Look at how ferociously they go after sexual content compared with violent content...curious, no?

>Freud<Tell me about your muzza. Interestink...

[esskreemr]

I think I mentioned this story before, but it is one of those things that have stuck in my mind about censorship.

I was watching one of those "America's worst accidents caught on tape" shows (not sure of real name). A small helicopter had lost its vertical stabilizer and went down in a storm drain with the cockpit facing down. These construction workers, one's name was Tiny (he was probably touching 350), rush over to help. Tiny basically deadlifts the helicopter up so that the others can pull the pilot to safety. While "Tiny" was leaning over to lift the helicopter, a bit of his butt crack was smiling out from the top of his ample jeans. They blurred the two or three inches, I'm not complaining, mind you. His buddies get the pilot out and carry him to safety. The pilot's arm was dangling by a tendon from where it had been caught beneath the copter, no blur. This always struck me as odd.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I'm quite hesitant to say that the religious right always wants to push their beliefs on others. If I read the label correctly (wash cold, tumble dry - no, wait, wrong label), the religious right are those people who are religious and politically right-wing, no?

The Religious Right is a common term for the politically active, ultra-morally conservative individuals who hide behind a thin veil of puritanical religious zeal. Ironically, these same individuals seem to be dredged from the pit of "I used to be a sinner and now I've found Jesus" and seem to be trying to "make up" for their past wicked ways.

Originally Posted by soldier

Even setting that aside, you still did not answer the question of whether that was a movement from the religious right as a whole, or from one specific group that happens to be part of the religious right.

I don't think there is any one group that solely comprises the "Religious Right", I think it is a label that encompasses a wide range of individuals/groups that seek to impose their limited belief system on others.

Much like the idea that most liberals are on a never ending crusade to remove any reference of God from the government. For many of us, Separation of Church and State is mostly an attempt to keep the government as neutral towards religion as possible. A gross simplification which I'm sure someone else will be willing to provide a more detailed explanation.

[noodle]

sorry soldier, i misread your post a bit, made it sound much more passive aggressive (somehow).

anyway, i think the term "religious right" has kind of shifted into this paradigm. yes, someone can be religious and on the right, but not be on the religious right. just like gay means happy and to fence is to sell stolen goods.

[jeff]

Bokken interprets me correctly. I have absolutely no problem with people being devout and have friends and relatives with strong religious beliefs. What I do have a problem with is people trying to force their beliefs on me and everyone else. If they can't convince me in the pulpit they try to get the government to force their behaviors on me.

And where does it end? Randall Terry said "after we make abortion illegal, we'll do the same for contraception" (these guys are truly obsessed about sex, aren't they). Or, if some in religious right don't believe women should be in positions of authority, will they then try to legislate women back into the kitchen? Or demand you go to church every Sunday. Their church. I'm definitely talking about the _subset_ of religious people that want (correction: insist) that everybody believe and behave as they do.

Note in esskreemr's link how it was a single organization doing 98% of the complaints and demands for censorship. I don't think they're representative of religious people in general. We should have the same disdain for them that the Administration has for people submitting spurious lawsuits.

To esskreemr's comment about the "recovered sinner" aspect of some of these people, I think that it doesn't reflect on religion in particular, but to the individuals who were messed up having unstable, obsessive personalities unable to moderate their impulses. They couldn't use alcohol in moderation and became drunks, and then got saved. I'm glad they got over their problems, and if religion helps them that's all to the good. However, the same lack of moderation then makes them go overboard on their "new thing" as well. (Any similarity to well-known politicians is unaccidental).

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by noodle

sorry soldier, i misread your post a bit, made it sound much more passive aggressive (somehow).

anyway, i think the term "religious right" has kind of shifted into this paradigm. yes, someone can be religious and on the right, but not be on the religious right. just like gay means happy and to fence is to sell stolen goods.

Fair 'nuff.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Bokken

It's a small distinction, but there is the religious right and there's the Religious Right. In common usage those words typically describe the ultra-right-wing zealots of whom Jeff speaks and not the majority of religious conservatives.

By the way, if you want to talk about blowing things out of proportion check this out (link courtesty of 8-bit theater): http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.as...4&nav=EQlpWjof

It seems to me that what this organization is really up in arms about is, bluntly, sex. They don't like it, they don't want it displayed or publicized or talked about at all. Ever. Look at how ferociously they go after sexual content compared with violent content...curious, no?

>Freud<Tell me about your muzza. Interestink...

That's some amount over-reaction.

Originally Posted by short story author

"My story is based on fiction"

On Thursday, a judge raised Poole's bond from one to five thousand dollars after prosecutors requested it, citing the seriousness of the charge.

I'm glad I am not a resident of Kentucky.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Gav

I'm glad I am not a resident of Kentucky.

So are most of us, but maybe not for the same reasons...

[Moonitic]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So are most of us, but maybe not for the same reasons...

Mother in law from hell resides there...

'Nuff said.

[Flagrant da Nut]

friggin morons
fuggerheads that are now going to stop you from thinking

[jBirch]

Ah but what is missing from this debate is the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy fact that, for many Christians, to let someone else go to hell is a sin on its own. It is akin to taking that person and shoving them into the Pit.

Shouldn't they then take every measure to help to ensure that YOUR soul is saved too? Including repeal laws that the Beast has caused to be passed through his corruption of the Way? Or that they believe makes them sinners by virtue of the fact that they are members of the society (Sodom & Gommorah)?

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

- Matthew 5:29

[Bokken]

Organized religions and their crusades, I tell ya...

While I certainly appreciate the fact that they're looking out for my immortal soul, I have a hard time considering it charity or benevolence. If their interpretation is as jBirch suggests, that not doing anything to "save" me is equivalent to their shoving me into that black, besmirched stinking pit it's simple self-interest and not enlightened benevolence. Of course, that opens another can of worms with regard to method and motive, ends justifying the means, etc.

To directly answer the question, No. They may feel they should but this country is not a theocracy - I pray it never becomes one.
Anyway, most sects of Christianity are an all-or-nothing package. The religious teachings are inseperably intertwined with the politics, activities, and social structure. I know a lot of Christians do a lot of good, and I respect that. But don't tell me that just because your book tells you that your version of the Almighty is the correct one, I should follow it.

Life of Brian strikes again! Who wants to follow the gourd? Or the shoe?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ah but what is missing from this debate is the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy fact that, for many Christians, to let someone else go to hell is a sin on its own. It is akin to taking that person and shoving them into the Pit.

Shouldn't they then take every measure to help to ensure that YOUR soul is saved too? Including repeal laws that the Beast has caused to be passed through his corruption of the Way? Or that they believe makes them sinners by virtue of the fact that they are members of the society (Sodom & Gommorah)?

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

- Matthew 5:29

Well, this comes down to what you believe to be a sin. For instance, there is nothing in the bibile about using expletives such as the f-bomb unless they are used as a curse. Yet, our society has deemed these words as vulgar (goes back to the Norman Invasion of England).

The same goes for nudity. All nudity does not automatically infer sex. Is nudity even public nudity specifically forbidden in the Bible? The only thing I could find with a quick search was a page that said there were

According to one source, there are 104 references to the word "naked" and its derivatives in 87 verses of the King James Version of the Bible. But with the New International Version, a translation preferred by many conservative Christians, there are only 49 references in 47 verses.

So then the Right becomes wrong simply because they are trying to impose a false sense of morality that isn't even dictated by their source of "God's word".

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Bokken

Organized religions and their crusades, I tell ya...

While I certainly appreciate the fact that they're looking out for my immortal soul, I have a hard time considering it charity or benevolence. If their interpretation is as jBirch suggests, that not doing anything to "save" me is equivalent to their shoving me into that black, besmirched stinking pit it's simple self-interest and not enlightened benevolence. Of course, that opens another can of worms with regard to method and motive, ends justifying the means, etc.

Well of course it's self-serving! Pretty much the whole premise of Christianity is to behave well and get into heaven for eternity. Part of behaving well is to encourage others to behave well too.

To directly answ