It's Official: Christian Conservatives Flooding FCC With Complaints...

Last year at Wal-Mart I bought a case of beer without being carded (I am 21, btw), but when I went to buy a dvd of a movie that was rated R (Fargo for those who care) I did get carded to make sure I was over 17. What I learned here is that Wal-Mart would rather I be able to buy alcohol than to be exposed to violence.

Anyway, if you don't like what you are watching, change the channel. These people bitch about a movie that shows the closest thing to what war is like, but do they allow their children to watch other shows that are responsible for the decline of Western Civilization (mainly reality shows on Fox)?

 

After reading that complaint from the AFA, I have a better idea of why their complaint is so preposterous. While they took serious umbrage at the 20 "s's" and 12 "f's" during the program, no mention was made of the gratuitous violence: the limbs being blown off, soldiers stumbling around in a daze missing vital parts, open wounds, dead bodies floating in the water. I'm a new parent (7 months) so I haven't had to begin censoring what my daughter watches on TV, we just don't let her watch it.

But, there is a clear hypocrisy here, displayed by the AFA and demonstrates a deeper pathology that is prevalent among evangelical Christians today, that would be an intolerance for filth, vulgarity and sexual innuendo while suprisingly accepting violence, death and gore. It is evident not only in their complaint to the FCC, but in the most popular Christian fiction, the bestselling "Left Behind" series. While any vulgarity or sexual innuendo is predictibly absent from the "Left Behind" series, there are graphic depictions of the violent deaths of the unbelievers (and persecuted Christians) as the prophecies of Revelation are interpretted and fulfilled by the authors LaHaye and Jenkins.

It is a troubling double standard (and troubling for me as a Christian) that words that their kids probably hear every day on the playground are greater cause for distress than violent depictions of dismemberment and death as seen in "Saving Private Ryan". As a kid, those visual images stay with you far longer and haunt your mind much more than a couple of "f" bombs. I would want to protect my children from both, why don't they?

Why not take issue with ABC for the violence as well? Most likely because the AFA simply hasn't taken issue in the past with movies that have shown violence while editing profanity and sex.

 

Great point.

 

Exactly... Violence is widely accepted and tolerated by Christians...

 

Without it Jesus would have grown to old age and drawn workers comp for accidentally hitting his hand with a hammer while on a job. Where's the religion in that?

 

I took your "rest of society" comment to mean, most people don't have a problem with it, so those of us in the minority should suck it up.

And I then drew a contrast to your view on other issues.

 

Two can play this game.

If you're that concerned about hearing the almighty F word, watch it on HBO or rent the movie.

 

I agree that they need to see and witness historical information, but not gore and obscenity. By your assessment, school should also show porn, since kids will be exposed to that as well! Where does it end? What moral lesson is advanced by not condemning obscenity and violence?

I might ask, whatever happened to traditional moral standards and obscenity restriction from public airwaves! Using the movie SPR is a bad example, but I think you know what the FCC is trying to restrict here; the gratutitious sex, obcenity, and violence that broadcasters throw out there to push the envelope is what is trying to be restricted from public airwaves... unfortunately SPR has elements of obscenity and violence that make it a candidate for restriction...

As far as changing channel, the FCC has a mandate to keep the airwaves clean and simply urging parents to "change the channel" does not offer a suitable alternative... I might counter with why can't such shows be put on cable? What is your objection to keeping the public airwaves (radio + television) clean?

IntheNet

 

My kids are 4 1/2 and 2, so in my specific case, my concern would be, what if I was flipping through the channels and they heard the F bomb.

But when my kids are older, I'm not going to parent them the same way. You have to give your kids some freedom.

My big problem is pretty much the same as it is with gay marriage. Are there no limits, none at all, to what lefty-libs would allow on things that make it harder to raise children? It sure as hell seems so.

Well, you guys take that kind of absolutist position, and not only is it (IMHO) wrong, you're going to lose.

It's like we've totally lost (right AND left) the ability to empathize with anyone else, lost all ability to compromise. Some of you pointing at the mote in BushCo's eye need to take a look at the log in your own.

 

"It's just a flesh wound."

 

I'm not sure you got my point - this was a special occassion, where there was plenty of warning about the content. Is it that much work to turn off the TV for 1 night out of 366?

 

No, what I meant by the 'rest of society' signature was that everyone would be better off it parents would parent more.

 

Actually, in a way, I agree with both you and Superdave. I don't personally object to any of the nudity or violence on TV, and I definitely think that parents have gotten too lazy with regard to monitoring what their kids consume, as I mentioned above. Parents need to be vigilant more than ABC needs to restrict content.

But I also think a lot of us can agree that the problem is not that television sometimes includes bad language, nudity, or violence so much that the content on television is increasingly focused on the most dehumanizing and debasing material they can find. I like "South Park" as much as the next guy, but the problem is that shows of that ilk have completely pushed more intelligent and, yes, more humane and thoughtful work off the air, to the point where it can only be found on HBO. I can deal with occasional violence, but I'm finding it harder and harder to accept the number of programs that consider the humiliation of their subjects to be entertaining. Is it really necessary for FOX to air a reality show in which contestants are debased at the behest of a fake "boss"? Or for NBC to give us Playboy playmates eating maggots on "Fear Factor"? What in the hell happened to "All in the Family"? There is a world of difference between shocking and provocative, but the networks have decided to ignore this. Both sell, but "shocking" is cheaper and easier to make. Why pay a writer, let alone a good writer? Any idiot could come up with "Am I Hot Or Not?," and it would sell just as much ad time.

As much as I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was a crap movie--and it really was a crap movie--at least it wasn't devoid of good intentions. It tries to tell a story, first and foremost, and while the violence and language might shock some people, the purpose of the violence and language is not strictly to shock them. It isn't trying to appeal to our basest instincts, or to make us feel better by showing us a supermodel getting her face pushed into a pile of dogshit. It is not, in other words, "Fear Factor."

The financee and I rarely watch TV at all anymore--one or two junk shows, a soccer game or two, and maybe something on PBS or HBO. Our time is much better spent reading, or working out, or walking our dog, or renting a movie, or doing a crossword. Those are activities that make me more humane, and I feel better about doing them because they actually make me better. Furthermore, I enjoy them more.

 

He's not saying "you should see this because it's historical and you'll eventually see it." What Dante was going for was more along the lines of "this is a pretty accurate picture of what war is like." It is the violence and gore that sends the message.

I fully agree. I have, on many an occasion, said "how can they get away with this stuff on network television?" My view is this: either restrict language and content more, or let it go (see: european broadcasting). If you try to walk that middle ground mexed missages get sent. That being said, parents should not be let off the hook.

 

I think I woke up and ended up in the Bizarro Politics and Current Events Forum...

Wow, take a week or two off, and Superdave is almost agreeing with ITN.

Seriously, though, parenting tends to mellow you out. Things that were cool and permissible are all of the sudden off-limits. I'm going to have to seriously guard my DVD collection, at least to keep their little hands off of Pulp Fiction, Fight Club and other gems I don't want my kids seeing too early...

 

First off, I'm not a parent, so I really don't have any experience short of babysitting as a teenager to speak of. Take this with grains of salt as you see fit. If I were placed in that situation I would explain to them that was a bad word that grown ups sometimes use, but children should not (yea, child psychology says that makes them want to say it). If they were to use it, then they're punished. When I first used the f-word in my middle school school years, my mother heard me. What happened? I got my mouth washed out with soap. I'll be damned if I said that word again within 6 months around anyone.

 

Oh please.

How hard is it to say "Johny, Mercedes - if I ever hear you use a bad word, you'll find out what soap tastes like, and I'm talking the industrial Borax brand, not Irish Spring. And after that, if I ever hear you say the word twice, I'll slap you so hard you look like Linda Blair in the exorcist".

 

Society has always had "standards" of human behavior... perhaps you missed "manners" classs in elementary school where you were taught to eat food with a fork and say "Yes Sir," or "No Sir" and "Please" and "Thank You". You also no doubt missed the class on ethics, where you were taught to return found wallets, not to steal, or not to tell falsehoods. Additionally, you also missed classes and home instruction on moral values, where teachers and parents focused lessons on restriction of profanity and sinfulness of sexual activity outside of marriage. I have no doubt you missed all of this; quite a misfit you must have been!

Local municipalities also have obscenity standards which you need to follow. Sometimes these standards are actually much tougher than the FCC guidelines.

For this reason, for society's misfits that missed all ethical and moral lessons, as well as basic manners, society has implemented a safety net, of sorts. It is called the Federal Communications Commission or FCC. This little agency monitors media (video and audio and publications) to assure that obscenity is not passed on and not being exposed to our nation. This will not address all of society's ills, but it will at least stop the spread of filth and assure that tax dollars are not being used to spread filth.

As far as free speech, say what you wish... then risk paying for it later. As far as moral values, accept the new reality of being brought into the fold of moral acceptability; your days of sinfulness and filth are over.

IntheNet

 

Seriously, when did parents stop teaching this?

Uh, this too.

 

Yeah, but that's child abuse. Look how you turned out.

Seriously, I cannot understand why parents these days rely on "timeouts". Maybe we'll have the best ice hockey team in 20 years, but I feel there is no substitute for

a) extended groundings
b) no tv, no phone, no radio, no computer
c) a tree in the yard with some nice supple branches
d) mouths that can tell the different brands of soap
e) the troll in the closet that eats bad children
f) my old favorite - the peas left on your plate from dinner for breakfast - until they get eaten.

Its unamerican to raise your kids otherwise.

 

Been there.

Done that.

Never got switched. My dad did reach for his belt once.

One brand was convincing enough.

 

Why are you arguing with me on a point I never made?

My point was that the outraged parents are acting like ABC pulled a fast one on them. No, we knew well in advance that ABC would be showing a violent, vulgar version of SPR, and that it would be a one night only event. They were basically telling viewers over and over again, "If you only turn off the TV on one night, make it Veteran's Day."

Yet some people still tuned in anyway and complained about it.