# Focus on the Family Attacks SpongeBob



## PeachMonkey (Jan 20, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190699.stm

 Excellent use of their time.  Of all the things threatening families these days, SpongeBob SquarePants was certainly near the top of *my* list.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

Note the logic of the "good on values" crowd...

Children's cartoon: bad.

Bombing a mostly-poor country that posed no visible threat to us: good.

Homosexuals having the same legal rights as heterosexuals: bad.

Privatizing social security, thus disenfranchising the poor to an even greater degree: good.

Yup. Good to know the kind of kind, moral people that are defending America's families these days...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Oh, well, remember back when the Teletubbies got caught with those WMDs?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

I love you guys.

Now let's go find some queer-loving sponges to lynch.  And then suppress any free speech anywhere, ESPECIALLY those dangerous kids' programs!!


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I love you guys.
> 
> Now let's go find some queer-loving sponges to lynch.  And then suppress any free speech anywhere, ESPECIALLY those dangerous kids' programs!!



you all crack me up!  LOL

you're actually going to insist you don't have free speech?  you're hilarious


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you all crack me up! LOL
> 
> you're actually going to insist you don't have free speech? you're hilarious


No, I *do*, but I would be horrified to see the FOF nutjobs be able to suppress a kids' program because they somehow managed to get offended in some bizarre way.  THAT would be suppressing free speech.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> No, I *do*, but I would be horrified to see the FOF nutjobs be able to suppress a kids' program because they somehow managed to get offended in some bizarre way. THAT would be suppressing free speech.


 The solution for the FOF nutjobs (btw, feisty, that is hilariously put)  is simple... don't watch the program.  Everyone has the right to turn off the TV or change the channel.  There are shows on TV that I don't think are appropriate for my kids, maybe people would disagree with me but it is my right as a parent to make sure that the program is blocked from them watching it.  

 BTW and for the record... Sponge Bob Rules!


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 20, 2005)

My new religion: Worship SpongeBob. Items of worships: All toys associetd with the Yellow Great One.

Iconographic religious imagery: Gary the snail, cradled in the amrs of Bob, like the Virgin & Child.

Praise Bob!

Dave.


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 20, 2005)

Personally I can't wait for the testamonials and "scientific" studies from people saying  

"SPONGEBOB MADE ME GAY"

Also, I really want to see one of theses FOF nutjobs get caught in a prostitution sting....or something of the like...:uhyeah:

It is called don't get cable people.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 20, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Personally I can't wait for the testamonials and "scientific" studies from people saying
> 
> "SPONGEBOB MADE ME GAY"
> 
> ...


 LMAO! :rofl:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 20, 2005)

i recall saying something about christian fundamentalists on another thread...........
attacking spongebob? is nothing SACRED anymore?

shawn


----------



## bignick (Jan 20, 2005)

I always knew that somehow, in some way...a cartoon sponge with oddly shaped pants and a starfish for a friend would be the downfall of western civilization...


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 20, 2005)

it's so funny to see some people chalk this up like a covert conspiracy.  oh my God, let us not allow SpongeBob to speaketh of homosexual behavior, he is the devil.  

i really can't believe that some folks view this as a threat to condoning homosexual behavior.  it's one thing to take this view as an adult.  it's quite another to allow this preception to be passed along to kids.  so it's OK if your 9 year old boy comes home telling you he's in love with Timmy....?  to each his own.  

i always thought cartoon's were about child entertainment and/or instilling moral values.  when did it become a matter of individual human rights...?  oh well, just continue to tell them, "whatever makes you happy in the end is all that matters"...


we're in trouble :idunno:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 20, 2005)

Well, you know what they say: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled; was convincing the world he didn't exist."


----------



## kid (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> No, I *do*, but I would be horrified to see the FOF nutjobs be able to suppress a kids' program because they somehow managed to get offended in some bizarre way. THAT would be suppressing free speech.


I'm not sure that is gone so far as suppression of free speech, but I have to say that these guys certainly have a bizarre take on a children's show...Heck, so what if a children's does show healthy homosexual behavior.  We have shows that include people with disabilities and the reasoning was that it would help this group of children in school by introducing them to society and dispelling the myths.  Well guess what, homosexuals are suffering the same type of thing in our schools...

By the way, "FOF nutjob" sounds kind of...:idunno:


----------



## JPR (Jan 21, 2005)

FYI.  Here is Dobson's answer to why he is objecting to the distribution of the video featuring Sponge Bob:
   *******************************************************
From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth.

 We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that's beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads.

 The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video's sponsor. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.

 We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach.

 By calling it to light this video and its affiliation with this larger organization, we are attempting to do for parents what their busy lives often prevent them from doing themselves--connecting the dots.

           *********************************************************

   Their web address is http://www.family.org. You may not agree with his positions, but I know from personal experience that Focus on the Family does a lot of good work supporting families through promoting / building strong marriages and providing resources for positive parenting.

Before you consign the organization to the category of nutjobs you might want to look a bit more and see the positive impact they are having on families. 

   JPR


----------



## pete (Jan 21, 2005)

well i ain't a marine biologist or even a sponge diver, but aren't sponges asexual?

and, whoa, even if its all true, i got me a bigger problem condoning relationships outside one's species (a sponge and a starfish... may not even be same phyum)


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 21, 2005)

I'd be seriously alarmed about the kind of sick mind that would even *think* about a kids' cartoon character's sexuality!  How did this even occur to them?  It certainly never occurred to me.

These people seriously need to get a life.  And some psychotherapy.


----------



## someguy (Jan 21, 2005)

I hate sponge bob square pants.  It's a personal vendeta.  Don't ask.  
It's kind of silly to say sponge bob square pants is promoting anything.
Still if no one else will defend it I'll try..
Keep you kids away from the tv sponge bob square pants HOLDS HANDS with PATRICK  oh no.  He also lives next to a squid.  We all know how dangerous it is to live next to one of those.  
OK I got nothing.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 21, 2005)

Could someone please explain to me why anyone in Spongebob Squarepants is, in fact, gay?  Or heterosexual, for that matter?  As far as I recall, there is no actual sex in Spongebob, and no homosexuality.


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Could someone please explain to me why anyone in Spongebob Squarepants is, in fact, gay? Or heterosexual, for that matter? As far as I recall, there is no actual sex in Spongebob, and no homosexuality.


My guess is it was never explicitedly said, then they are going off the name  Sponge*BOB*
Course I know guys named Dana and Shannon so could be a girl named Bob....


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 21, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> My guess is it was never explicitedly said, then they are going off the name  Sponge*BOB*
> Course I know guys named Dana and Shannon so could be a girl named Bob....


Yeah that's true, because (one of) my aunt's name is Roberta and we always referred/called her as Aunt Bobbie.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> No, I *do*, but I would be horrified to see the FOF nutjobs be able to suppress a kids' program because they somehow managed to get offended in some bizarre way. THAT would be suppressing free speech.


Hey, thanks for the anonymous "ding" (very unlike the ding-ding) whoever was terribly offended by my own exercising of free speech.  LOL!


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I love you guys.
> 
> Now let's go find some queer-loving sponges to lynch. And then suppress any free speech anywhere, ESPECIALLY those dangerous kids' programs!!


Same 'gay' fear was mentioned about Interview with a Vampire and Lord of the Rings....

So, it is okay to 'love' your fellow man, but I'll be damned if I will interpret any emotional intimacy between men (even just because of time spent) as anything other than 'gay.'

Bert and Ernie come to mind too....

Funny stuff.

Maybe they are projecting....

Besides there are so many other reasons to dislike spongebob...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 21, 2005)

Well, I kinda thought that _Interview with the Vampire_ DID have homosexual references.  But I still don't see what that has to do with SpongeBob?


----------



## Lisa (Jan 21, 2005)

I am kinda curious now that I have read more into this thread.  I would really like to see this "we are family" video and see where these ideas are coming from.

 In response to the fact that the FOF doesn't like the fact that they are being shipped to schools and that "strangers" will be making the decision whether their children will see the video or not, perhaps these parents could go to the administration or parent councils of their children's schools and have the video previewed before it is seen by the kids?  I highly doubt any administration would open a video and show it to the students without first viewing it to see if it was appropriate or not.  Also Parent Councils would surely hold some weight if they objected.  Letters could be sent home to the student's parents for permission to allow their children to watch the video, or an info night could be held for parents to watch the video before their children.  There are many ways around it.  Truthfully, however, if enough stink is made public about it, the video will probably just be shelved in most schools because the administration won't want to deal with it.  It will seem a miniscule problem compared to the issues that administration has to deal with nowadays.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 21, 2005)

This is all part of the homosexual agenda, is it not?  Subverting the morals of our youth by recruiting them through the insidiously subtle machinations of a cartoon?  How deviantly devious!

Did Dobson ever go after Barney?  He ought to.  I mean, Barney is SO gay.  And purple.

Then there's Ernie and Bert from Sesame Street.  Two male puppets co-habitating.  An "Odd Couple" parody? _ I don't think so!_ 

How about Big Bird?  He even had a limp wrist...er...wing.  And he minced when he walked.  He was downright prissy.

Then there is "The Lord of the Rings."  Frodo looking at Sam with those big blue eyes throughout the movie...like a dying calf in a mudhole. Something was up, if you ask me.  

I don't think he was quite so thrilled a the marriage of Sam and Rosie inspite of how he acted.  Leaving Hobbiton at the end like that spoke volumes to me.  "The wound never healed," he said.  SURRRRRRE, Mister Frodo.  _Your broken heart _ never healed, you furry footed little little twinkie.  Off with the elves you go.  I'm sure that Gandalf was more than happy to take you along.

And speaking of the elves...did anyone notice at Helms deep they wore purple robes, gold armor and tiaras.  What is UP with that?  And they squealed when the Uruks killed them.  Didn't grunt in a manly fashion, didn't yell...they squealed.  No wonder they got wiped out.  Who would you bet on in a barfight?  The guy wearing black leather or the guy wearing purple?

Well...on a more serious note...guess I'm going to have to go and rent SBSP now.  If people are calling for it to be banned, I'm going to check it out.  

BTW...John Stewart's book was banned in Mississippi.  Sales are expected to go through the roof there and elsewhere as a result.  John Grisham, who is from Mississippi, told him this.  One of his books was banned there, as well.

There on my reading list now.

Feisty...want to go see Sponge Bob with me and Linda?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 21, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> Their web address is http://www.family.org. You may not agree with his positions, but I know from personal experience that Focus on the Family does a lot of good work supporting families through promoting / building strong marriages and providing resources for positive parenting.


 Dobson has built a career out of offering namby-pamby milquetoast common-sense as his "good work supporting families", wrapped in the steel fist of right-wing evangelical politics.

 Just as a side note, having lived and worked in Colorado Springs for many years, my friends and acquaintances have served Dobson and his wife as waiters in restaurants on a number of occasions.  They are abysmal tippers -- apparently, the idea of supporting families doesn't include supporting people who are working to support their own families.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 21, 2005)

Sponge-Bob is so sinister, I'm going to use his name as the BDSM safe-word for my poor girlfriend.  Or maybe I'll make her say "Dobson, Dobson!".

I've just had it with the silliness of this whole thing. Since when do the self-appointed moral police of the American public feel the need to go after cartoons? CARTOONS!!

I'm reminded of the bumper sticker, "The Moral Majority is neither." And yet they're a vocal minority, capable of influencing decisions that affect millions not belonging to their ranks.

Busy-bodies sicken me.  Perhaps if they cleaned up their own back yard...

Dave


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jan 21, 2005)

The person or persons protesting this has a problem it is called children. I bet any amount of $$$$ that with this negative PR. Their own children are sneaking over to a friends house or when Ma and Pa are away. Will tune to the Cartoon Network and be ruined for life.  

Maybe they will start coloring their skin yellow and start wearing shorts and a tie and go around talking in a squeaky voice.  Or maybe they will try and sit under a pineapple which I think has a better chance of happening and is more physically dangerous than thinking some child is saying to themselves. "You know what I think SpongeBoB is gay so I am going to be one too!" 

This line of logic is laughable.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Could someone please explain to me why anyone in Spongebob Squarepants is, in fact, gay?  Or heterosexual, for that matter?  As far as I recall, there is no actual sex in Spongebob, and no homosexuality.



The cartoon in question has no sexual message at all. It involves SB delivering a speech on tolerance. All the uproar stems from the included brochure that uses the episode as a springboard for a discussion on sexual tolerance.


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 21, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> FYI. Here is Dobson's answer to why he is objecting to the distribution of the video featuring Sponge Bob:
> *******************************************************
> From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth.
> 
> ...


You know, you have to wonder if the "agenda" (and I do love how the possibility of tolerence of sexual identiity is an agenda and not just a moral obligation) is "Beyond the comprehension of 6 nad 7 year old" children, how it is going to help advance the "agenda" Most 6 and 7 years I know were more concerned with not catching cooties than wether they should be holding hands with their same sex friends cause they might be in love.
Also just cause the group itself preached sexual identify tolerance doesn't mean they will force it in the video. In fact I think the group has said it isn't in the video cause they in no way wanted to harm the images of the cartoon charaters used.
My guess is the only reason the FOF nutjobs have issues with Spongebob is cause of this (I pulled from the CNN article on this):

"SpongeBob, who lives in a pineapple under the sea, was "outed" by the U.S. media in 2002 after reports that the TV show and its merchandise are popular with gays. His creator, Stephen Hillenburg, said at the time that though SpongeBob was an oddball, he thought of all the characters in the show as asexual."

Course if SpongeBob is asexual than that is really sexual identity tolerance as well cause we never talk about asexual humans.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 21, 2005)

This uproar made the local news here tonight, complete with video.  I have only seen little bits and pieces of SpongeBob, but I know my friends' kids love to watch him.  

As to sexual innuendo, how about the 'classic' cartoons we used to watch (boy am I dating myself here) like Pepe LePew - or was it okay to have a horny skunk running around because it was *just funny*?  Or the asides by Daffy Duck.  Or Popeye.  I guess chasing the *opposite* sex [in an improper manner] is okay for kids to watch...


----------



## pete (Jan 21, 2005)

thats all i can stands and i cant stands no more... leave popeye out of this.
he taught me to  eat me spinachk... now i am strongs to the finshk.  needs i say more....


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 22, 2005)

owwwh Popeye...

Well Pete.  There _was_ innuendo in those cartoons.  We've had this discussion.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jan 22, 2005)

Well, Kenpo Tiger, remember Bugs Bunny dressing up as a female, and actually being a really hot female bunny, (there's something wrong with this sentence) in some of those cartoons, and then kissing Elmer Fudd? Hmm. Nobody complained at the time, maybe back then people had a sense of humor. I've seen spongebob and cannot imagine a more nonsexual character. He is funny, charming and sweet, and yes, tolerant, and being more like spongebob wouldn't be a bad thing at all.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Then, there was Betty Boop.

One's still awaiting Dr. Dobson's explanation of why a little decency towards others, and little gentleness, would be such a very, very bad thing to promote.

His problem is that this ain;t the good old days--when, as U. Utah Phillips always said, "Men were men, and sheep were nervous."


----------



## The Prof (Jan 22, 2005)

Go Feisty Mouse!  You're too much, I love it!  Those people are nothing short of idiots.  When I saw that on the news, I almost choked.  Good Lord, give us a break here.

Maybe we should separate our sponges, who knows that they are doiing while we are sleeping.  We also should have known that eventually Sponge Bob and Square Pants would be outed.

The Prof



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I love you guys.
> 
> Now let's go find some queer-loving sponges to lynch. And then suppress any free speech anywhere, ESPECIALLY those dangerous kids' programs!!


----------



## The Prof (Jan 22, 2005)

There's nothing more disgusting than two sponges "doing it."

Prof


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 22, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> Well, Kenpo Tiger, remember Bugs Bunny dressing up as a female, and actually being a really hot female bunny, (there's something wrong with this sentence) in some of those cartoons, and then kissing Elmer Fudd? Hmm. Nobody complained at the time, maybe back then people had a sense of humor. I've seen spongebob and cannot imagine a more nonsexual character. He is funny, charming and sweet, and yes, tolerant, and being more like spongebob wouldn't be a bad thing at all.


I think you're correct - people took themselves much less seriously when it came to being entertained. But. I also think that cross-dressing was considered humorous back then - look at what went on in the movies with many of the popular male actors of that era (not Bogie - he was a man's man). And, *one* could also use certain epithets without fear of reprisal -- i.e., calling women *girls* (okay for us to do among ourselves but don't go there, boy friend!:hammer:  ) or referring to black men as *boys* or to gays as *******s* *queers* and so on. 

Our society has come a long way in certain respects and is quite backward in others... still.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Here's something one always wondered about: how come none of these clowns never got all hot and bothered about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer?"

First episode, Giles:

"This world is older than any of you think. And despite popular superstition, it did not begin as a Paradise."

Last episode, Willow:

"Oh...My...Goddess."

One suspects that SpongeBob is in fact a covert propagandization for contraception...


----------



## The Prof (Jan 23, 2005)

You are absolutely correct. We need to grow more and learn a bit more about tolerance and acceptance. The very best friend we can ever have may be the one we have rejected today. 

"An Example." In my younger homophobic (I cringe here) days, I remember seeing this very effeminate man on the judo mats. He was wearing a black belt.  I was a very cocky brown belt because I was considered one of those almost unbeatable guys. As I watched this guy warming up and rolling out I couldnt wait to get out there and cream him into the mats simply because he turned my stomach.
Finally it was randori time. I couldnt wait. We bowed and barley gripped each others gi when his first deashi harai (foot sweep) sent me flying into the air. It was followed with a few other foot sweeps and throws. I never even once came close to making him stumble.

Anyway, in the end and after  many more butt whippings by him, strangely, we became good friends.  He became my son Dinos God Father and I grew to love him as my brother and dearest friend. He has since died, but his gentle nature lives on in my heart. He taught me a very valuable lesson on life, and because of him I am a better and happier person today.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Regards,

The Prof



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I think you're correct - people took themselves much less seriously when it came to being entertained. But. I also think that cross-dressing was considered humorous back then - look at what went on in the movies with many of the popular male actors of that era (not Bogie - he was a man's man). And, *one* could also use certain epithets without fear of reprisal -- i.e., calling women *girls* (okay for us to do among ourselves but don't go there, boy friend!:hammer: ) or referring to black men as *boys* or to gays as *******s* *queers* and so on.
> 
> Our society has come a long way in certain respects and is quite backward in others... still.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 23, 2005)

Psst... Robert!  I don't think SpongeBob is one of *those* sponges.  You're showing (y)our age.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 23, 2005)

-What about HE-MAN and the Masters of the Universe? I could've sworn he was gay? Whatever. Those crackheads think teaching a little tolerance is going to turn those 6 and 7 year olds into gays and lesbians when they grow up? I think they'll be making those kind of choices by themselves, when the time is right. Teach kids to love, and they will do so. Teach them to hate...


A---)


----------



## BrandiJo (Jan 23, 2005)

FOF has some great programs and help alot of familys, BUT i dont see the need to go after sponge bob, UGH thats just nuts hes an annoying little cartoon that kids will out grow ....i watched barny growing up and he sure didnt make me gay ...and you have to wonder about him lol


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 23, 2005)

He-Man. At least the Thundercats had Cheetara. Next thing you know, the X-Men (and women) are going to be deemed a gay/lesbian cult... All that running around in tights... what about the dark overtones in Batman and Superman - or DareDevil or Spiderman or Elektra, for that matter?  When we were growing up, Disney's idea of dark was killing off Bambi's mother (and I still can't watch that movie to this day.)

I think a lot of kids are watching anime lately. At least Samurai Jack has a moral code somewhere amid all the violence. Same for Naruto.


----------



## TCA (Jan 23, 2005)

Maybe I am incorrect, but i was under the impression that the reason Focus on the Family made an issue of this was because the sponge bob character was being used for a 4 minute commercial to "grade school kids" explaining that homosexuality is ok.  Why do we need to be explaining anything about the nature of sex to any grade school kid, either hetro or homosexuality?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2005)

Because of the large number of bigots and haters who are telling kids in every way they can that they should hate people who are different, often claiming that God says so.

Incidentally, the video doen't tell kids that homosexuality is OK. It tells them that they should respect other people, and not be mean.

One can certainly see why Dr. Dobson objects.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 23, 2005)

I have a question.

Is it...like..._wrong_ to want to rub a wet sponge all over your body?  Does that mean you're gay?


I'm asking for a friend.  


Really.


Why are you looking at me that way?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Lisa (Jan 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have a question.
> 
> Is it...like..._wrong_ to want to rub a wet sponge all over your body?  Does that mean you're gay?
> 
> ...


 umm.... Feisty... ummm... remember that offer to come and train with Steve...ummmm... well, is the sponge thing part of the cirriculum? :idunno: I just need to know before I make anymore plans


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 24, 2005)

:lurk: 
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: GOD I LOVE IT HERE!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 
:cheers:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 24, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> umm.... Feisty... ummm... remember that offer to come and train with Steve...ummmm... well, is the sponge thing part of the cirriculum? :idunno: I just need to know before I make anymore plans




And just HOW will that effect you decision?  Hmmmm?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Lisa (Jan 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And just HOW will that effect you decision?  Hmmmm?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


 maybe I would be extending the length of my trip.  :angel:

 I think I best rejoin Shesulsa now... 
 :lurk:


----------



## 8253 (Jan 25, 2005)

Man that just aint right.  Who would want to pick on SpongeBob.  Im not a homosexual and i like SpongeBob.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2005)

Personally, I don't care for Sponge Bob.
I also didn't care for RugRats, or a few dozen other kids shows either.
But I don't see anything wrong with them.
What will we hear next?
That Kirk and Spock were secretly in love?
The Batman and Robin were  members of NAMBLA?
That Frodo and SamWise were flamers?  (Ok, that was proven in the VSD series, but still...)

It's a cartoon, for kids, thats done at that '5 yr old level', the level where hugging and holding hands and being friends isn't some evil social stigma.

Some people, need to get a farking clue.  Sheesh.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 25, 2005)

Praise Bob.

(Not you, Hubbard. The little yellow guy).

D.


----------



## JPR (Jan 25, 2005)

I understand many of your points that it is just a cartoon, why all of the fuss.  The problem is, that isnt what the fuss is over.


   The issue is that Sponge Bob, Jimmy Neutron, Elmo, and others are in a video being distributed to 61,000 schools.  The video itself is innocuous, perhaps even beneficial.  It is the pamphlet that accompanies the video that Dobson found objectionable.  The pamphlet addresses the issue of sexual identity which Dobson believes should be left up to parents to decide how and when to address.



       I try not to over react to anything, but from the experience of raising two children; I know that children are influenced by what they see.  I let my son watch Jackie Chan do drunken boxing and he now tries to emulate Jackie whenever I allow him to spar that way only based upon what he saw in a movie.  Corporations spend billions advertising to influence our attitudes, values, and choices.  They wouldnt keep doing it if it were not effective.


 Dobsons objection is really the same as many of yours, albeit for a different reason.  Simply dont use these characters outside of their own entertainment value.  He never claimed that the cartoon itself promotes any hidden agenda, nor did he advocate not watching the cartoon.  Again, that is a parent's right to choose for his or her own child.




			
				TCA said:
			
		

> Why do we need to be explaining anything about the nature of sex to any grade school kid, either hetro or homosexuality?





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Because of the large number of bigots and haters who are telling kids in every way they can that they should hate people who are different, often claiming that God says so.


 While I understand your concern, rmcrobertson, about what attitudes children are taught, that concern raises other issues.  Who has the right to tell me what my children have to learn, believe, or what attitudes I have to pass on to them?   Many parents teach their children things that I find objectionable / wrong.  Do I get to tell them how to raise their children?  Whose responsibility is it to raise a child?  

 And just to add experience to the mix, my children have felt the impact of intolerance as my wife has also.  My children are AmerAsian (Chinese) and we live in Southern Indiana which is not know for its racial diversity.  We moved to a larger town to minimize the impact their race would have on their growing up and we deal with the issues as they happen.  (BTW, the intolerance also comes from older Chinese as they were not too fond of interracial marriages either.)

 JPR


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

*The issue is that Sponge Bob, Jimmy Neutron, Elmo, and others are in a video being distributed to 61,000 schools.  The video itself is innocuous, perhaps even beneficial.  It is the pamphlet that accompanies the video that Dobson found objectionable.  The pamphlet addresses the issue of sexual identity which Dobson believes should be left up to parents to decide how and when to address.*

If the pamphlet isn't being handed out to the kids, and is merely directed towards teachers, then we're addressing the malleability of teachers here, and the philosophy of a school's attitude towards intolerance of sexual identity.  I would suspect that is an issue the school has allready addressed.  I doubt the pamphlet is going to change the mind of an administration one way or another.

*I try not to over react to anything, but from the experience of raising two children; I know that children are influenced by what they see.*

Every parent has to address this.  Short of locking your child in a castle fully protected from outside influence, what ought one do?  For those parents who take umbrage to the issue of teaching tolerance to homosexuality, and who can't afford homeschooling or a private school, it is indeed a problem.

They address it by providing counterpoint at home and in church...and then their children will have to make the decision.

*Dobsons objection is really the same as many of yours, albeit for a different reason.  Simply dont use these characters outside of their own entertainment value.  * 

Why not?  Its been done before.  The entire concept of Sesame Street is to take cartoon (ish) characters, puppets, etc. and teach children.   Bugs Bunny stumped for the war in the 1940's. The issue, as you've pointed out, is _what_ is being taught, not how.

*Who has the right to tell me what my children have to learn, believe, or what attitudes I have to pass on to them?   Many parents teach their children things that I find objectionable / wrong.  Do I get to tell them how to raise their children?  Whose responsibility is it to raise a child?  * 

This presents a constant tension in a secular school setting, as we've seen with "creation science," posting of the Ten Commandments in school, and school prayer.  This has led to the rise of home schooling and the increase in Christian schools throughout the United States...but we must also note that integration influenced this as well.

The issue at hand here, however, is sexual identity and how one approaches it in a public school setting  If we do not teach tolerance of gays, do we then teach gay bashing?  Guilt tripping?  Mockery?  Shunning?  Slurs?   I know your answer to this will be "no."  But what do you propose we do?

If we teach the Christian precept of homosexuality being a "sin," then we violate the Exclusion Clause of the 1st Amendment.  Our only option is to treat it as a secular problem, refer to the growing body of scientific evidence regarding the issue, and move from there.  Distasteful for the Christian, perhaps, but the state's only option.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

Dobson, as far as can been seen from his website, is pretty reasonable. There's a good review of the "SpongeBob," movie there, for example--but this worry over the pamphlet!

It hasn't been mentioned, but also included in this viedo is Big Bird. And, it's being sponsored by the Disney Channel....

This kinda stuff pops up every so often...usually, it's somebody exaggerating, or focusing on some minor aspect, or being just plain hysteric.

Dobson has a point, as some posters on this thread do, about wanting to ensure that their kids learn what, and when, they want them to learn.

Problem is--it's too late. You can't help it any more, because of the way capitalism works. And it's not necessailty a bad thing, either...

More of a concern, to me, is the goofy set of ideas about the absolute innocence of kids. The review of the film, for example, makes a lot of SpongeBob et al butts...apparently a big source of humor in the movie. 

Oh well. At least they're not yelling at Judy Blume again. One still wonders, though, how they can possibly allow their kids to read the Old Testament, with these sorts of concerns...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dobson, as far as can been seen from his website, is pretty reasonable. There's a good review of the "SpongeBob," movie there, for example--but this worry over the pamphlet!
> 
> It hasn't been mentioned, but also included in this viedo is Big Bird. And, it's being sponsored by the Disney Channel....
> 
> ...


Uh...:erg:   I thought *those* people didn't read the Old Testament.  here it comes...


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 26, 2005)

For every so many gender identity- and sexual orientation-grounded individuals in the world (to include school, college, workplace, grocery store, bar, dojang, wherever) there are one or two individuals in crisis.  Parents will be parents and most of them wish to pound every peg they see into a round hole - especially if those "pegs" sprang forth from their loins. 

 However, for many of these "different" kids, the outside influence is ALL THEY HAVE - especially when they must cling to a pamphlet that tells them they are o-kay, that they're not alone, they're not an abomination or the devil's work, or confused or going to grow out if it.  Most these kids don't have friend one.  

 I suppose what I'm saying is that everybody deserves a dish of hope, a helping of understanding and more than just a little tolerance.  Especially on such a difficult and very personal part of one's identity and at such a very difficult period of growth.

 Our children are our hope - only hope - for the future.  There are much worse things we could be teaching them than tolerance, patience, humility and understanding.

 My .02.


----------



## JPR (Feb 4, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The issue at hand here, however, is sexual identity and how one approaches it in a public school setting If we do not teach tolerance of gays, do we then teach gay bashing? Guilt tripping? Mockery? Shunning? Slurs? I know your answer to this will be "no." But what do you propose we do?


   It has taken me a sometime to reply because I think the question you asked is pivotal to how we can function as a society with so many different back grounds and value sets.  Here goes my attempt at an answer.

     Schools really must team with the parents to educate children.  I have found, in my experiences of helping to found, merge and run a private school, that not only are you trying to educate the children but you are often in the position of educating parents.  You can provide leadership and guide the school in a certain way, but you really need to work with the parents to be successful.  That requires communicating to them often and explaining to them the challenge that you are trying to overcome. 

     If the school is going to teach tolerance, then it should do so with no outside group sponsorship.  I know it makes it harder for the school, because a canned tolerance program from the XYZ foundation is easy to get and use, but it may come with baggage that can cause a storm.  

     The school should teach principles, not particulars.  What principle(s)?  A couple of them come to mind.  First, it is unacceptable to call names, slur, physically intimidate, or harass anyone for any reason.  Second, everyone has intrinsic value regardless of his or her differences.  Third, you can tolerate with out agreeing on the rightness/morality of something.  Fourth and final, look for what is common instead of pointing out what is different.  Think about this for a second.  This whole discussion came up because of sexual orientation and the stresses faced by having that lifestyle, but it really isnt limited to that.  What harassment does a child face if they remain a virgin throughout school?  Or what about the child whose parents will not allow them to watch certain movies that everybody has seen?  Or the child that has a diet that is far different from the norm?  Or the child that goes through puberty earlier or later than the majority?  In these situations, and thousands of others, children face the labeling, name-calling, peer pressure that comes from being different.     

     It is very difficult to tolerate things that you think are wrong.  It is also very difficult to oppose an idea or an action, without demonizing the person doing the action.  However, these are skills we all need to develop and teach our children.

   JPR


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 11, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> Schools really must team with the parents to educate children.  I have found, in my experiences of helping to found, merge and run a private school, that not only are you trying to educate the children but you are often in the position of educating parents.  You can provide leadership and guide the school in a certain way, but you really need to work with the parents to be successful.  That requires communicating to them often and explaining to them the challenge that you are trying to overcome.




I couldn't agree more that parents and teachers ought to work together in educating a child. 

It would be interesting if you could compare your experiences with those of a parent active in the PTA in your local public schools.  It might be an illuminating experience for both of you.

I'm now teaching martial arts to a group of low income kids at a local elementary (4th and 5th graders).  57 percent of the children in the school live in poverty.  In my class I have three children who are learning disabled (one of whom is emotionally handicapped) and two with ADHD.  Two are black, two are hispanic, and I have two immigrants from Europe...an Italian and an Albanian.  I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these children are being abused at home.  

In your private school setting do you have comparable demographics?  How many are poor and on scholarship?  How many are facing the challenges these kids face?

My point:  The parents of these children are largely uninvolved in their lives.  If I get scholarships for these kids at the "Y" for their future martial arts training (which I will...I run that program too) I know the kids won't likely show up.  Mom and Dad won't bring them.  Mom and Dad often don't come to PTA meetings.  Mom and Dad probably aren't too active in their children's education either, and likely find "better things" to do than sit down with their children to help them with their homework for that evening.

JPR, parent involvement is a great idea in developing a program for tolerance...but the world of education isn't monolithic and I suspect a private school such as yours has distinct advantages over the one I've mentioned.  The very fact that the parents have brought the child to your school and paid for their education shows a level of concern...and financial ability to support that concern...often not found in the public schools.

And, per your suggestion, ought we educate these deficient and destitute parents I've listed?  Provided we can get them in to the school, I suppose we could.  I know the adminstrators at this school are trying.  But there's the rub--getting an apathetic parent or as is often the case, a frustrated and hapless caretaking grandparent--to come in and partake of the educational process.

And again, to the topic of teaching tolerance...

If tolerance of Gays is taught throughout the public schools, those with religious stances against homosexuality have a recourse to deal with it: _The pulpit._  In church they can educate their children as to the evils of the homosexual lifestyle and how it can lead to perdition.  They will not, and have not, faced restriction from the government in this regard.  Whether with vitriol or compassion, ministers can preach to their congregations and forcefully drive home their respective message. 

If then--after all this--a proportion of Christian children someday "come out" and confess to being homosexuals, the faithful most likely will (as they oft do now) blame the secular environment of the schools for the peril of those tender souls.  In doing so, however, they admit to an impotence of message.  The pulpit will have failed.

Still others might come to realize, by the forced reflection born of the love for their children, that homosexuality is not a learned behavior nor a choice.  

This sort of epiphany is heartbreakingly rare.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 11, 2005)

If schools really are supposed to teach, "principles, not particulars," can we please go back to the original Pledge of Allegiance, the one without the jingoistic language about America and without the childish demand that everybody worship the same God? Can we drop the demand for right-wing fundamentalist prayer forced down kids' throats? Can we teach science rather than primitive superstition in biology class, and stop perpetuating fantasies about American history? Can we quit fussing over Judy Blume's books for kids and adolescents? Can we stop with the propaganda for consumerism? 

Or hey, here's a wacky "liberal," idea. Could we maybe teach kids that people are generally to be respected, and violence against them is always wrong, even though they live very different kinds of lives? Or how 'bout teaching them that it's mean to call other people names, whatever the names are?

In other words, how 'bout we make a national pledge to follow the moral precepts of, say, Dr. Seuss? Shouldn't be THAT hard.

Thought not. Hell, we can't even get schools to quit selling the junk foods that contribute to juvenile diabetes and ADHD.... Why, if they did that, adults might have to pony up for what it would actually take to finance universally decent schools and communities.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 12, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In other words, how 'bout we make a national pledge to follow the moral precepts of, say, Dr. Seuss? Shouldn't be THAT hard.




Well, not the rhyme and meter anyway.

That actually would be a lot of fun to do...and if I weren't out the door in five minutes or so, I'd take up that challenge.

Got an idea for a shirt...

WWHD?

What Would Horton Do?

This referring of course to an elephant of impeccable morals and integrity.  I don't believe he's a Republican, either.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 14, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Still others might come to realize, by the forced reflection born of the love for their children, that homosexuality is not a learned behavior nor a choice.
> 
> This sort of epiphany is heartbreakingly rare.




February 14, 2005

*Keyes Daughter Out of the Closet*

Maya Marcel-Keyes, the 19-year-old daughter of conservative pundit Alan Keyes "will be making her first public appearance as a gay activist at a Valentine Day's rally in front of the Maryland State House" today, CBS News reports. 

Last summer her father, as an Senate candidate from Illinois, called Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter "a sinner" and said homosexuality was "selfish hedonism." 

Marcel-Keyes said "her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is gay." 



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 14, 2005)

Sad part is there are too many kids this happens too.  I think it makes others afraid to be honest with their family's cause for whatever reason, they can't financially or emotionally afford to be on their own yet.  

No kids deserves to be completely cut off from their family, nothing, real or percieved should stop you from loving your kids if nothing else.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Horton would never abandon a child, biological or otherwise, as Maisie found out. Apparently "conservatives," like Keyes--a nutcake anyway--can't live up to the morals of a children's book, let alone the Bible.

And these are the guys who keep lecturing the rest of us. Maybe we should start a thread on the curious moral records of the self-appointed moral guardians of America.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 21, 2005)

Read this in the NY Times this morning:

*<H2>At Least One Program Runs Toward Controversy*

[size=-1]*By ALESSANDRA STANLEY *[/size]






atty Bouvier, Marge's chain-smoking, "MacGyver"-loving sister, came out of the cartoon closet on last night's episode of "The Simpsons." The episode was preceded by a warning that because the show contained discussion of same-sex marriage, "parental discretion" was advised. 

Gay characters are not new to television, or to "The Simpsons," for that matter (Montgomery Burns's doting assistant, Waylon Smithers, collects Malibu Stacy dolls and vacations at men's singles resorts.) 

A few years ago, the coming out of a prime-time character would probably not have caused much of a stir. But in the current climate, with the issue of gay rights spiking in the public discourse, the episode stood out. What could have seemed like a sweeps month gimmick became instead an aptly satirical comment. 

The debate over same-sex marriages, and the way the conservative right inflated that debate into a wedge issue during the presidential campaign, is one factor. At the same time, growing fears about the possible spread of a rare strain of H.I.V. that is resistant to virtually all of the standard drugs has revived concern about unsafe sex among gays. 

And cartoons are suddenly at the epicenter of the dispute. Conservative Christian groups are increasingly bold about attacking children's programming for pro-homosexual messages. After the new education secretary, Margaret Spellings, recently warned PBS that she had "very serious concerns" about an episode in "Postcards from Buster," in which a real little girl in Vermont introduces the cartoon bunny Buster Baxter to her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, PBS pulled the episode. Last month, Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, complained that the creators of SpongeBob SquarePants had allowed the character to be used in a "pro-homosexual" music video made for schoolchildren.

Some gay groups may have been relieved to see that in a secretly taped conversation with Doug Wead, a former aide to George H. W. Bush, the current President Bush said that despite his opposition to gay marriage, he did not want the Republican Party to campaign against homosexuality. But he also expressed concern that his reluctance to bash gays might alienate Christian conservatives. He certainly appears to have minced his words when talking to evangelical leaders. On the tapes, some of which were played for The New York Times, Mr. Bush explained to Mr. Wead that he told a Texas minister, James Robison: "I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?" 

Patty decided to wed her girlfriend, Veronica, after the town of Springfield legalized gay marriage to boost tourism and Homer Simpson became an ordained minister over the Internet to marry gay couples for cash. 

The creators of "The Simpsons" had kept the identity of the gay character a secret, but the surprise was not so much who turned out to be gay (Patty's sensibilities were well established) but how the show would make fun of the issue. The writers chose to tweak every stakeholder in the debate, from evangelical preachers on the right to retailers and advertisers who champion gays as much for their "disposable income" as their civil rights. 

The town even created its own theme song, sung to the tune of Harry Belafonte's "Banana Boat Song," "Gay-o, it's O.K.-o, Tie the knot and spend all your dough."

The show also lampooned lesbian stereotypes - women who love construction workers' gear and golf. In a flashback to Marge and Patty's different girlhoods, the teenage Marge pasted a poster of David Cassidy over her bed; Patty picked Miss Hathaway of "The Beverly Hillbillies." 

"The Simpsons" also took a dig at its own network, Fox, by having Homer call Fox and get a recording that asks callers for reality show proposals with the motto, "Your half-baked ideas are all we've got."

The episode was not the funniest in "Simpsons" history, but it was a tonic at a moment when television seems increasingly humorless and tame - fearful of advertiser boycotts by the religious right and fines from the Federal Communications Commission.

</H2>*and...*

*'Simpsons' Animates Gay Nuptials, and a Debate*

[size=-1]*By SHARON WAXMAN *[/size]






OS ANGELES, Feb. 20 - In the ongoing culture wars over whether gays should have the right to marry, an animated question reared its head on Sunday prime-time television: as goes "The Simpsons," does the nation go, too? 

In an episode titled "There's Something About Marrying," a longtime character on Fox's 15-year hit - it was Marge Simpson's sister Patty Bouvier, a closely held secret until the 8 p.m. broadcast - came out of the closet while Homer Simpson conducted dozens of same-sex weddings after small-town Springfield legalized the unions in a bid to increase tourism. As television's longest-running situation comedy, "The Simpsons" is no stranger to hot-button social, religious and political issues, mocking wardrobe malfunctions, Hollywood liberals and born-again Christians, among other targets. 

But when a show as mainstream and popular as this takes on one of the most divisive issues in American society, it is certain to attract attention. Bookmakers in the United States and England were taking bets as to which character would be revealed as homosexual, and whether there would be a kiss - a nod, perhaps, to the popular programming gimmick of having lesbian characters lock lips during sweeps periods like the current one. 

But mostly, television experts, fans and advocates for gay marriage ruminated over the larger significance of the moment. 

"The issue was mainstream to some degree, but now that they've deigned it worthy of the show it is interwoven into the fabric of popular culture," said Ray Richmond, a television columnist for The Hollywood Reporter and co-editor of the anthology "The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family." 

He added, " 'The Simpsons' bestows upon something a pop culture status it never had before, simply by virtue of being ripe for a joke." 

(BetUS.com posted odds on the kiss at 7 to 5, and laid odds on Patty as the favorite to come out of the closet.) 

Not unexpectedly, culture warriors were swift to weigh in, both for and against the cartoon's treatment of the issue. 

"It's saying to those who demonize homosexuality, or what they call the homosexual agenda, anything from 'Lighten up' to 'Get out of town,' " said Marty Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communication and host of a media show on the talk radio network Air America. "It sounds as though they're saying that what the religious right calls 'the homosexualist agenda,' as if it were creeping Satanism, is: these people are your neighbors in the Springfield that is America."

Indeed, in some ways the Simpsons' fictional hometown, Springfield, has become a surrogate for mainstream, small-town America, with Homer its bumbling working-class hero. The closest parallel may well be the endearing though intolerant Archie Bunker, who became a symbol of working-class America in the 1970's show "All in the Family." 

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, criticized "The Simpsons" for addressing the issue of gay marriage, though he cautioned that he had not seen the episode. A parental advisory preceded the broadcast. 

"At a time when the public mood is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, any show that promotes gay marriage is deliberately bucking the public mood," he said. 

"I'd rather them not do it at all," he added. "You've got a show watched by millions of children. Do children need to have gay marriage thrust in their faces as an issue? Why can't we just entertain them?" 

The show's writers could not be reached for comment, and Fox declined to comment. 

Since debuting in 1989, "The Simpsons" has commonly skewered the most sensitive topics of social, religious, political and cultural debate. The culture, in turn, has returned the favor. "The Simpsons" has been featured in at least one university philosophy course, in which Homer was used as a tool to understand Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche, and in a mathematical course to explore topics like calculus and Riemannian geometry. 

The show, now in its 16th season, still garners strong ratings, while reruns of episodes from past years are broadcast continually on Fox. It has become a billion-dollar franchise for the network, spawning lucrative DVD packages, books and consumer merchandise.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Feb 21, 2005)

We live in a free country.  The first amendment provides freedom of expression to conservative radio talk show hosts, cartoon writers and homosexuals alike.  It also protects parents of children in public schools, private schools and home schools.  (It also protects gay activists and gay-bashers, KKK members and Nazis, minorities and religious extremists.)

Majority rules in this country. Right and wrong are determined by the values of the citizens of this country. Today, murder is wrong, socially unacceptable.  In the future, assisted suicide may be legal.  Years from now, it may be legal to kill the newborn, elderly and infirmed...seriously.  All it would take is for the majority vote (or 2/3 in the case of some constitutional changes).

In a diverse country, a "melting pot", so to speak, we must have tolerance. 
Can't we find a way to respect each other's differing beliefs, and still accept, like (and possibly even love) others? 

I teach my children values and I also teach them to respect others and their values. There are lots of things that society says is "okay" that I will not do nor allow my children to do.  But I try not to look down on others because we have different values, and I hope that people treat me with the same respect.

"Treat others the way you want to be treated."  That does not say, "Treat others they way they treat you."  It says to treat others the way YOU WANT to be treated.

One final thought: those that respectfully hold the view that homosexual behavior is unacceptable deserve the same respect that homosexuals deserve.

Hurray for freedom of expression!

One for all and all for one.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 21, 2005)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that this is an inaccurate statement of how rights in this country are grounded--which isn't in a vote of any kind, but in the notion that we have, "certain inalienable rights," (rights that cannot be taken away by human beings because they were not given by human beings) and that these rights cannot be voted away even by a 100% majority.

In other words, no vote that erased, say, free speech rights could possibly be Constitutional. And fortunately, there's no legal tradition of going back and trying to wipe out the first ten Amendments--rather, the legal tradition is one of expanding such rights as the right to free speech.

Incidentally, the fact is also that we have an independent judiciary (especially the Supreme Court) precisely to protect these inalienable rights, held by the Constitution to be impervious to the occasional, short-term stupidity of voters.


----------



## Ray (Feb 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm afraid that this is an inaccurate statement of how rights in this country are grounded--which isn't in a vote of any kind, but in the notion that we have, "certain inalienable rights," (rights that cannot be taken away by human beings because they were not given by human beings) and that these rights cannot be voted away even by a 100% majority.


You're right in what you say and I agree wholeheartely.  But in practice those inalienable rights do get comprised and it's up to us (all of us) to make sure we don't them be taken away.

Anyway, I think we can learn a lot from this whole fiasco.  Look at how this kind of stuff just bounces off Bob.  He seems to take it all in stride and keep on going.  It's almost as though he were an invertibrate (and I don't mean that in an offensive way).


----------

