Here is the AFA's reason for wanting the Book of Danial canceled. (Thank you Virgina, for pointing that out!) Text has been taken directly from their e-mail efforts:
"NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis. Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual. The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series. Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright. Next, please forward this to your family and friends today! Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families. "
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The AFA - The American Fascist Association?
NBC has decided to cancel its controversial new show, Book of Daniel after only a few short weeks on the air. The reason for the cancellation was due to low ratings; however, a conservative Christian group, The AFA, didn't want anybody to see even a single episode, and they were in fact successful in arm-twisting several affiliates of NBC to never air the show at all. Moreover, you don't ever have to see the program to be offended by it; the AFA will send you a handy e-mail to let you know what you should be offended by. So what say you dear reader? Is this an example of democracy at work? Should a rouge group that strictly adheres to a single ideology make dictatorship-like decisions for the "good" of the nation?
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Judge Dread?
The Judicial branch of the government is probably the least, and most misunderstood branch of the government, and with good cause. There’s not a whole lot said about the Judicial branch in the Constitution. (Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary branch has the shortest explanation.) The Judiciary branch is also one of the most controversial, possibly having an unbalanced amount of power. No ruling of the court has ever been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. So, in short, The Supreme Court has historically always had the last word.*
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)