The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Soz - I read a couple of days ago that quite a few PBS stations plan to go ahead and air the episode.

I so wish this hadn't morphed into a "bigot" thread, though. Do we know for sure that was Ms. Spellings motive? That she's homophobic?

If the word Republican only denoted a method of sex, ...

... And I hope they keep pushing because Bush's ratings are already low and I'd love to see them go even lower. I can't wait to see that smug grin wiped off his silly face.

Lola wrote:

... And I hope they keep pushing because Bush's ratings are already low and I'd love to see them go even lower. I can't wait to see that smug grin wiped off his silly face.

Well he can't run for any more elections. Four more years & then it's off to Clintonville for him. Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi is a more attractive alternative? Interesting to observe the morphing of Hillary to a conservative-leaning centrist - doesn't appear that she calculates Bush & the Conservatives are losing their general appeal. Poor old Kerry is looking even worse after his defeat than did old Al whatshisname. I read yesterday that even Theresa has dropped the Kerry bit - back to Heinz for her.

I am intrigued by the maple syrup thing - kind of runny. Is it better than rasberrys and whipped cream?

Blatham, you and Soz both now have made examples where the theist is forcing opinions onto others. This isn't so.
bill
I used another instance of a scripture-based injunction to make the analogy closer to the original situation, not as a means to debase scripture-based values. Some will hold that such a religion/tradition value has special status. I don't think that is defensible, but was seeking to avoid that further argument. OK?
One such person complained that she felt like values that conflicted with her own were being pushed on her child via a public TV station. She probably felt this way because values that conflicted with her own were being pushed on her child via a public TV station.
Look at your verb there...'pushed'. The show merely filmed a family with two moms. There are many such families in American life, as you know. Does the mere portrayal of such a (real) family constitute 'pushing'? Or would a better word be 'acknowledging'? Is there some problem with 'acknowledging' such a family? I'll get back to that question in a second, because it seems key. The parallel would be to have that station suggest that homosexuality was wrong (in which case you guys would be losing your minds at the injustice.) That's not a parallel because it makes a value statement, which merely filming or including a reality does not.

Sozobe's insistence on lopping homosexuality with "blacks" is testament to how circular her argument is. The jury is in on racism. Obviously, it is still deliberating on homosexuality or this wouldn't be a topic at all. This enlightened insistence that the two are one in the same (bigotry), however compelling it may be, is still trampling on the LEGAL beliefs of bible thumpers.
You mistake analogy for circularity. Soz's analogy is appropriate. Much the same reaction did occur in a very recent period with portrayals of interracial marriage. In either case, some individuals believed such a family arrangement was wrong/immoral/unnatural/unAmerican. The defense you are making here ("the jury is still out") was made back then. So it is bigotry in both cases. That seems quite clear. We were "deliberating" back then too. Would you argue that those folks who felt that discrimination against interracial couples was bigoted AND ALSO a violation of the fundamental principles of equality of the Bill of Rights and constitution should have NOT pressed their case for equality? Do you argue they ought NOT to have said 'this is an instance of bigotry'?
Save your "bible's wrong" examples for someone who believes in God and the bible. I have no use for a bible myself and consider much of it to be imaginative fiction and foolish superstition. That gives me NO RIGHT whatsoever to deny others their right to believe what they will and raise their children accordingly.
As Soz replied, this isn't a matter of her or I policing BELIEF. It is a matter of extending the equality principle to a class of people - like interracial couples, or blacks, or women before sufferage - which the culture or portions of the culture have previously deemed unworthy of equality status.
Now, without burden shifting, tell me why the woman who complained to the station didn't have every right to do so?
Again, as Soz said, the right to complain isn't infringed, nor is there any intent by her or I to infringe that right. OK? However, it doesn't follow from this 'right to complain' that the complaint must then result in the complainer getting what she desires. Yes?

But now I'll go back to what seems the key issue...is there some problem with 'acknowledging' in a show for pre-schoolers that gay parents are part of our culture? Apparently, from Spelling's comments and actions, there is. Clearly, this administration, regardless of what is in any particular administration member's noggin, is throwing its support to that segment of the culture which holds homosexuality to be, in some manner unacceptable, certainly so as regards gay marriage/parenting. Agreed?

Lash and Fox have argued that the fundamental problem here is introduction of sexuality at a young age. But their arguments for this view aren't coherent as pages and pages previous have demonstrated. Many other situations portrayed are as likely, or more likely, to evoke the same curiosity in young children (if they are even capable of making such a cognitive leap at 3 or 5). But we have to note that this argument IS NOT the one Spellings made. She said that the portrayal of the 'lifestyle' was inappropriate causing people to be offended.

What she means (I'll assume she is sincere, as opposed to merely placating a voter base, who DO mean the following) is precisely what people meant earlier in protesting portrayals of interracial marriage...we don't want to encourage it or have any more of it in the community...we don't want kids thinking it is normal or ok. We disapprove of it and we'd prefer that our kids disapprove of it as well.

Of course, they have the right to hold that view. And they have the right to act politically so as to forward the view. But let's not disguise or minimize that it all matches the definition of 'bigotry' quite exactly. And let's understand there is another problem too.

About a year ago, I had as my signature, a simple little quote from constitutional scholar Ronald Dworkin that said (slight paraphrase possible here)... "to allow something is not the same as promoting it." That's an important difference, in the context of your constitution and bill of rights. To allow - legally, under your constitution - that members of the Church of Martian Satanists may meet and worship as they see fit, is not to encourage growth in that church. It is to grant it the protections afforded all, such that equality is guaranteed. To pass laws against, or to legally differentiate this group is to act contrary to constitutional principle.

If you wish to continue to argue that I and others here are 'enforcing' our values upon others, then you must hold that the same sort of 'enforcement' applies wherever the constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty trump local custom and values which are not aligned with those constitutional guarantees...ie blacks getting the vote, etc.

Oh and one last thing! :-) I really am not in the least concerned with offending people if I think the cause is just. If a bible-thumper back then had tried to get an iterracial family off the air, I'd happily offend them... because I'd think they were wrong. Same here.

If everyone took care not to offend people with prejudices, we wouldn't ever get anywhere.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, and nationalism.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". Jews are understandably intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether. Both reactions can be classified as forms of cognitive dissonance.

Racism seems to have been rather thoroughly eradicated from the church. Homosexuality remains in limbo. Until such time as the churches adapt to homosexuality as they have racism, I'll continue to consider it out of line, for you to label all those who oppose homosexuality, bigots.

I admire the certainty of your conviction but that is no measure of accuracy. Your desire to enlighten the ignorant masses is no different the Christians, the Muslims or anyone else's. To maintain a happy medium, none of your messages should be subliminally sent to preschoolers.

Now, I realize you're certain your opinion is right, but which motivated theist isn't? Convincing me the church suffers from some mindless bigotry, hell, you had me at hello… but that doesn't change the fact they're well within their rights to disagree.

Thus far, it appears to be a majority of Americans who disagree with your take, and right or wrong in your opinion or mine, that is the bottom line.

Postcards from Buster is a new PBS children's series from WGBH, Cookie Jar Entertainment and Marc Brown Studios. It is an innovative blend of animation and live action starring Arthur's best friend, Buster. Buster's dad, a pilot, is flying Los Viajeros, a rock group, on a North American tour and he's invited Buster to come along. Buster's mom has given him a video camera so he can record his new friendships and discoveries and send "video postcards" back to his pals in Elwood City.


Designed to delight and intrigue young audiences, Postcards from Buster has two key educational goals: to build awareness and appreciation of the many cultures in America and to support the language learning of children in the process of acquiring English.


In each episode, Buster travels to a new location and meets new kids and families. The kids invite Buster (and us, the viewers) into their lives, sharing their enthusiasms, experiences, and family cultures. These children reflect the many different voices and faces of young Americans today. Many of them are bilingual and/or bicultural.


Buster is a curious and open learner, always ready for fun and adventure. As he meets new people and explores new places, he models the language young English learners need in order to find their way around, make new friends, learn more about other people's lives, interests, and cultures, and share information about themselves.


Each episode features key vocabulary and sentence structures in a natural, authentic way. Key language is introduced in the opening song and then woven throughout the animation and live action segments.