From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:19:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              18 Nov 1992 11:57:41 -0700 from <awerling@NMSU.EDU>

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:57:41 -0700 WERLING said:
>
>> and even top 40 radio
>> stations. (Man I still can't believe what they are allowing!)
>
>Do you have examples?  I can't think of anything, but I also must admit
>I'm not entirely sure where the boundary lies between your standards and mine.
>
I don't think it is good for eleven and twelve year-old kids to be listening
to "I want your sex", "put your hands all over my body", "shes biting on my
chunk", "I'm long, & I'm strong, & I'm dyin to get the friction on", etc.
(all from recent top 40 songs)  Do you think young kids should be listening to
this stuff?

>The violence is excessive, and the commercialism is even worse.  The only
>reason television has kept certain kinds of nudity and "profanity" off the
>air is because of the FCC (who arbitrarily changes its mind about what it
>dubs to be profane) and, an even sadder reason, to keep its commercials,
>which are innundating your children with sexism, racism, heterosexism, and
>who-knows-what else (buying Air Pumps will make you into the next Michael

Hey, we agree on this.

>Jordon).  Commercial-induced superficiality is a greater element in social rot
>than profanity or nudity.
>
I'm not so sure about that.  Nudity can be very addicting for young teens. It
shouldn't be, but with the sexual connotations our society has put on it, it
can have an unhealthy affect on kids.


>> If these last measures of constraint are removed, our TV goes out
>> to the garbage.
>
>
>Whether or not they continue to exercise this restraint, I'd recommend
>tossing the TV out on the roadside anyway, for your childrens' benefit.
>

Probably a wise bit of advise.  I'm considering it.


>> Now pardon me for being defensive Andrew, but your proposal
>> seems like one more example of liberal ideology trampling the few remaining
>> privileges we traditionalists have.  (The privilege of being able to
>> watch network TV without having our moral sensibilities raped.)
>
>I wonder what your stance is on the PMRC.  But anyway, I understand where
>you're coming from on that paragraph (but if you're pro-PMRC, then I must
>pull back my sympathies.
>

What is the PMRC?

>> We saw public school teachers bringing in lesbian speakers to a class
>> on parenting.  The talk ended up being more a promotion for the gay lifestyle
>> than on parenting.
>
>You're now on task, of course, to show how anyone can "promote" the "gay
>lifestyle."  There is no such lifestyle, and you're about to make ME get
>defensive.
>
>> The teachers were suspended for two days because of parent
>> complaints, but the education association has rallied behind the teachers and
>> their actions, proclaiming that alternative lifestyles study is necessary,
>and
>> claiming that educational freedom takes precedence over antiquated moral
>> values.  The Board that gave the two day suspension has been hit with a no
>> confidence vote from the teachers and will probably be facing recall
> elections.
>
>Good for the teachers!  If you're not gay, you have no idea how important
>it is to us for POSITIVE reflections of us to children AND adults.  You
>bitching about this is something that strikes me in the heart, and it
>saddens me that you are so closed to the pain of others.
>

No you're incorrect on this one Andrew.  I acknowledge the pain involved.
I guess I didn't make this clear.  (Didn't want to either)  Its OK for the
teachers to bring in gay people to speak to a class on parenting. 1) - What
good is that except to gay parents?  2) - Most orthodox Christians believe
homosexual acts are wrong.  By bringing in gay speakers (who, didn't talk
much about parenting anyway), the teachers are giving an impression of
total acceptability to the acts.  Now the orthodox Christian community around
here is still a large chunk of the population.  The teachers are effectively
teaching something contrary to what the parents are teaching the kids.
Whether the parents are right or wrong isn't the issue.  The fact that moral
guidance is being removed from the parents is.  I wouldn't mind the gay
speakers a bit, if the other side were allowed to present their side.  But
they are not. (Separation of Church and State)   Most of these parents don't
gay bash, they want the homosexual people to live in peace.  But they also
want their kids to believe as they do, and are infuriated when their kids are
being taught the opposite of what they believe with no equal time for their
beliefs.  The fact that 1200 angry parents held a rally supporting the
school board two nights ago is testament to what I'm saying.
WE FEEL VICTIMIZED just as you do Andrew.  Its not good for the gay community
and its not good for the non-gay community to be teaching sensitive subjects
like that in school without consensus from the parents.


>> Even though the communities
>> are highly religious, one student is able to trample on the privileges of 99%
>> of the students in the schools because the liberal ACLU has more money.
>
>Excuse me, but what about those students who don't believe in god?
>

Just how much will it hurt them to ignore a thirty second prayer they don't
believe in anyway?  For crying out loud, most of the kids want God to be a
public part of a special event in their lives like graduation.  Most of the
community does too.  If the prayer was causing any real harm to the non-
believer, I'd agree with you, but I don't see the harm.

>>      If the ACLU and liberal ideology groups have it as a goal to wipe out
>> every last reference to God and traditional values, they are certainly being
>> very effective in implementing their plans to achieve that goal.  Its too bad
>> so many Catholics and other Christians are supporting their plans.
>
>That is not the goal.  The goal is to keep the government from pushing
>your god on those of us who don't even believe in him/her/it.

It might not be said publicly, but I have little doubt that it is the case.

>
>Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@dante.nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu

Brent
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic,soc.culture.jewish,alt.usage.english