From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Christian Action Network (was Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech)
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:58:34 GMT

>In article <1992Oct7.162814.1220@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>> The Cute Bald Chick didn't refuse to appear with ADC because she found
>> him offensive, but because she found him wrong.  Andrew Dice Clay
>> attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make a

In article <12664@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Gays can't hit back?  Today's Santa Rosa Press-Democrat (10/8/92,
>p. A1) tells about what happened when Christian Action Network's
>anti-Clinton ad ran on TV channel 50 here -- the station withdrew
>from its contract (I didn't even know they could do that) to run
>the ad, after having run it for three days.  They insist that the
>threats of boycott from the homosexual community didn't have any
>effect -- they just changed their mind about whether the ad met
>their broadcast standards -- three days after they started running
>it, and the phone calls started.
>By the way, no other TV station in the Bay Area would run the ad.
>Don't tell me that gays don't have a lot of power.
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

I haven't seen the ad in question, but I presume, from the nature of the
post, that the ad attacked Clinton on the basis of his stance on gay
rights.  Lets assume for a moment that, improbable as it may seem,
the Chritian Action Network really withdrew the ad due to reasons other
than "threats of boycotts".  What could those reasons possibly be?
Here in Oregon, we will soon have the privilege of voting on measure
nine, a proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution that would
effectively strip gays of many rights enjoyed by all Oregonians.
(if anyone would like to see the text of this measure, let me know and
I'll e-mail it to you, and make up your own mind)
A large assembly of organizations have joined together in opposition
to this measure.  Among them (according to my count in the Voter's
Pamphlet) are 28 churches and religious groups.  They have generally
expressed the opinion that such measures go against their faith, whatever
their religious views on homosexuality.  Perhaps the viewers of the
Christian Action Network expressed similar views, prompting the Network
to pull the ad?  But then, Mr. Cramer explicitly states that it _must_
have been due to the gays.  But what of all the religious organizations
in Oregon opposing Measure Nine?  I get it now!  All those organizations
must be controlled by gays!  Its all a great conspiracy!  (smileys for
the sarcasm impaired)  Why look for an evil plot when simple disgust
for bigoted hatred can explain it?  I'll close this with a quote from
Abraham Lincoln, also from the Voters Pamphlet:

"On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel.
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves;
and under a just god, cannot long retain it"


DISCLAIMER:  This post is entirely my own opinion and in no way represents
my employer.
-----
Seth J. Bradley
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections