Good for WOOD-TV and WSXY-TV

Some of you may have seen portions of this hysterical and startlingly dishonest production (I doubt many could suffer through more than a few minutes of it) in which an assortment of god-soaked buzzard-people squawk and screech about being discriminated against merely for standing up for their version of what’s right, which in this case means shouting in public about the evils of homosexuality and essentially–no, literally–demanding it not be mentioned anytime, anywhere as something that is acceptable.
OneNewsNow, whose mailing list I for some reason wound up on, issued a release today complaining that this TV special is being “stifled.” Here’s the corresponding Web page.
The whole thing is a breathless and laughable crock, but here are some of the more ridiculous passages.

According to the website SilencingChristians.com, the majority of Americans get their information about the homosexual movement from Hollywood and the secular news media — outlets that deliver what AFA says is a message “tainted by pro-homosexual propaganda.” That is why the pro-family group produced the 14-episode Speechless series that initially aired on the INSP Network, and then put together a one-hour special based on the series.

Let’s assume showing gay couples doing their gay thing really did constitute “propaganda” by some definition, and that homosexuals were really mounting some sort of “movement” (a neat trick, given how high a fraction of them do not disclose their sexual orientation). Since when has this lumbering and anachronistic shitheap of an institution had a problem with propaganda? Okay, okay, I suppose that just because religions rely on propaganda for their very sustenance doesn’t mean they approve of it. It wouldn’t be the first internally contradictory thing about Christianity, or even the hundredth.

AFA is now buying prime-time slots on the nation’s television stations to present that special to provide factual, Christian-based information on the topic. But the pro-family group reports it has run up against blatant “silencing” of that message. “There’s a real threat to our First Amendment and free-speech rights because Christians are being shut down and shut out and shut up by the very people who say they champion freedom of speech,” asserts AFA president Tim Wildmon.

Who outside of the dupes who actually visit this site expecting trustworthy information can see the phrase “factual, Christian-based” without laughing? That’s like a “high-triglyceride starvation diet” or “drug-free anabolic steroid regimen.”
And here’s an idea for poor, beleaguered Timmy. First, have someone explain the First Amendment to you. Second, buy your own TV station and broadcast your worthless and often destructive ideas 24/7, and many godders station already do. If media outlets you happen to not own refuses to show your freakumentary no matter how much you offer them to do so, you have no recourse.
Let’s turn this around. How much dough would it take for Christian stations to start airing educational specials on evolution and the objective roots and history of Christianity? How much money would it take for megachurches to institute factual sex-ed programs and start advising people to consider having their daughters vaccinated against a sexually transmitted potential carcinogen?
And on the “homosexual agenda” thing: If this is what’s happening and it’s an effective campaign, why hasn’t the incidence of homosexuality shot up in recent years? If a conglomerate of liberals, the mass media, Hollywood, Satan, and others comprising the vast cabal aligned against that hideously persecuted U.S. minority consisting of Bible-believing Christians is really hammering away at the message that All Must Be Gay, they really need to focus their message better.
The overriding belief of shameless haters like Timmy Wildmon is that they can put the roaring of the masses to their advantage. They want to control everything through howling public sentiment and decide all matters by sheer plebiscite. This is why they always speak of actions like those of these TV stations as being inspired by “a few of the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered supporters out there” and warn that the stations “haven’t heard massively from our folks yet.”
My sincerest hope for outfits like the AFA–a group for which this anti-gay thing is literally an industry–and the people they employ is that they fail unconditionally and apocalyptically, and that anyone making money from their efforts either winds up in the cold streets with nothing or is forced to take a job that doesn’t involve preying on the collective stupidity of America by way of condemning behaviors allegedly frowned upon by a mentally challenged assclown.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by dean on February 13, 2009 - 8:41 pm

    There was a little blurb about this in the Kalamazoo paper today. Not much info – basically it read as though WOOD tv initially agreed to air it, then wanted to change the time of the airing, asked if that was okay, didn’t get any response from AFA, and so s**t-canned the show.
    There may be more to it than that, but our crappy little paper won’t have it for some time.

  2. #2 by Crudely Wrott on February 13, 2009 - 11:41 pm

    We think the privileged believers protest too much and they are taking it pretty hard.
    Is that so terrible?. It sure is in light of what they have lain at the feet of rational people. Such as being responsible for all of the afflictions of the twentieth century? I instinctively want to ignore them. But they cannot be ignored. They are too clever.
    One hopes that such buffoonery will be more frequently and widely acknowledged for what it most certainly is. Buffoonery. Or a woonado. Or a self motivated, spook powered flustercluck.
    I can’t help but think of doing so as good, honest work.

  3. #3 by Crudely Wrott on February 13, 2009 - 11:48 pm

    Hindsight says my last line is somewhat ambiguous, so I’ll try this:
    I can’t help but think that fostering a patient but firmly dismissive attitude with regard to religious claims would be good, honest work.

  4. #4 by Sam C on February 14, 2009 - 4:01 am

    In the UK we have a channel on satellite television called Edge Media or EMTV. They offer an outlet for “alternative” views, which turns out to be any bit of kookery, quackery, whackery or trickery. They have The Truth(tm) on UFOs, energy healing, 9/11, illuminati, everything from the top and bottom shelves of Krankz’R’Us. Their world is very quantum, oh yeah.
    But what cracks me up is how they portray themselves (apparently seriously) as fearlessly presenting suppressed viewpoints. These viewpoints have been suppressed for decades by our fiendishly evil government (the same one that changes every few years). This from a channel which is publicly broadcast on a major satellite system, free to anyone with a dish (I think) and apparently supported to a significant extent by government-financed advertising for various social programmes.
    There’s clearly a major disconnect in the anti-rational communities where they can scream about being suppressed or targeted when clearly they are free and ignored. This disconnect must be part of the same psychological mind-set (oh dear, that’s a tautology, isn’t it?) that gets people into these clubs.
    For those with it available, EMTV on Sky channel 200 is amusing to watch if you have an asbestos brain (so the stupid doesn’t burn your cerebral cortex), and they have occasional islets of sanity; I recently saw an interesting talk from TED by Murray Gell-Mann.

  5. #5 by blf on February 14, 2009 - 5:06 am

    … homosexuals were really mounting some sort of “movement” (a neat trick, given how high a fraction of them do not disclose their sexual orientation).

    Er, poor counter-argument here. An organised representation (often(?) self-appointed) of a minority can operate a “movement” and accomplish change; and if the majority is sufficiently distracted, disinterested, for dis-whatevered, the size of an effective (potentiality successful) organisation can by surprisingly small. So a mixture of brave individuals (i.e., those who do disclose their sexuality) plus sympathisers (e.g., non-gays who think discriminating against gays is batshite insane and wrong) can organise/constitute a “movement”. I presume the assorted attempts to obtain equality in marriage and benefits are examples of this organised representation effect?

  6. #6 by Kevin Beck on February 14, 2009 - 5:36 pm

    Of course I agree with you, blf, but I was writing with wingnuts’ parodic version of activism in mind, not a realistic one. If their manifest belief that gays are demanding “special rights” and trying to homosexualize the entire country had any basis in reality, we’d see this in people’s behavior.
    Christians seem unable to appreciate the fact that others do not frame the world as they do. To them, mass mobilization, proselytizing, clamoring for the government to back their twisted takes on morality and science, and disseminating shitloads of propaganda are all in a day’s work, so they fail to understand that not all groups of people share this ethos.

%d bloggers like this: