From: awerling@NMSU.EDU (WERLING)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:57:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992, Brent Winiger wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:08:34 -0700 WERLING said:
> >
> >There should be more free language on network television.  Nudity too.
> >Though I'd like to see less violence.
> >
> I suspect you wrote that just to get a reaction.

Probably a logical deduction, but if I recall correctly, I started to
write a post, on this topic, but couldn't figure out how to expand on it,
so I left my remark "as is."

> But let me bite on it anyway.

I'm glad you did...hence, conversation!

> You can see all the nudity you want on cable, porn magazines, etc.

Cable is expensive, and porn magazines are even more expensive.  Further,
nudity does not equal sexuality.  It is not even a requisite for sexuality.

> You can
> also hear all the free language you want on cable

Major portion of my paycheck, though I am going to get cable, simply
because for some reason my TV doesn't even pick up the local channels.
But that's neither here nor there.

> 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.

> Network TV is
> one of the last, (but quickly disappearing) bastions where some measure of
> constraint is exercised.

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
Jordon).  Commercial-induced superficiality is a greater element in social rot
than profanity or nudity.

> Many millions of us are parents who are
> concerned about the effect that smut and filthy language have upon our
> children.

I must question your terms "smut" and "filthy."  What makes the myriad of
arbitrary words smutty or filthy?  The ears that hear them.  If you teach
your children that they are merely words to be used very selectively (they
can incite violence, and they are usually used to insult or degrade, but
not always) then the language becomes a neutral tool, not a weapon of your
devil.

> If these last measures of constraint are removed, our TV goes out
> to the garbage.

It's already there.  Deep in the cesspool.  It probably cannot be saved.
But a little realism might lend integrity and might make television worth
keeping around.

Whether or not they continue to exercise this restraint, I'd recommend
tossing the TV out on the roadside anyway, for your childrens' benefit.

> 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.

> 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.

>      We've also got pending lawsuits against a couple of small school
> districts by the ACLU for trying to continue their long-standing tradition
> of short, generic prayers at graduation ceremonies.  These districts can't
> fight it, since they don't have the money.  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?  My
high school graduation was only four years ago, and I remember that it was
a generic prayer, with the main exception that the word "god" was used in
it.  I'm ashamed of myself for not fighting that kind of crap on my own front.

>      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.

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@dante.nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU