|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 15:28:09 GMT -5
but the FACT remains a threat was made by someone close to erwin....that gives insight into the thinking of these politicians and their friends.
also my opinion is that someone is frank from his show......i KNOW frank reads this board from past experience and the person making that post had some legal background.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 15:31:20 GMT -5
Erwin isn't a snake. He is your typical hard core Christian politician who wishes to impose his morals and beliefs on the people of his state through legislative actions. But, you can't really blame him because the people of this state continue to mind-numbingly elect these over zealous jilljoys.
I once heard him say on his show once that he couldn't rightfully vote to allow gambling in this state because if Jesus were here, he wouldn't gamble. At least Jesus had the choice. Erwin doesn't even want to give you that.
Snake? no. Self righteous holy roller who feels he can direct your life better than you can? yes. Get him and those like him out of office, or Alabama will never catch up to the rest of the modern world. (I would've used the word "evolve", but I know few people believe in that here)
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 15:35:46 GMT -5
blondie, not freaked out in any way, actually very AMUSED by this.
hank and frank call themselves Christians, yet right HERE today an attempt was made to silence someone being critical of erwin.....an affront to the constitution, an affront to GOD since HE gave me freewill, and an affront to every citizen of this state.
we have been told we are allowed to have an opinion as long as hank erwin gets to OK it first!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 23, 2007 15:36:22 GMT -5
How did Erwin Supporter know your real name?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 15:40:48 GMT -5
i use my real name here first name and initial.....having been on the air LIVE at those radio stations MANY there know me on a personal level.
all frank had to do is ask lee davis who is billt from the message boards?
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 23, 2007 15:50:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 16:03:56 GMT -5
I certainly hope that isn't beer in those steins. We all know how the Erwin crowd feels about you being allowed to drink alcohol.
And billt, they call themselves Christians, because they are. And very good ones at that. Christians by their very nature work to silence those which can't be converted to their belief system.
You watch...someday soon a group of politicians will work together to shut down, or at least regulate on a political level, internet message boards, networking sites and public video sites such as Youtube. That group will come from the concervative Christian right. The same group that turned me away from the Republican party and towards Libertarianism.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 23, 2007 16:06:57 GMT -5
Not all Christians feel that way. Hell not even a majority, but the ones that do are very loud.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 16:12:52 GMT -5
Chris-
You're half right.
There certainly will be a push to censor- in the correct useage of the term- internet forums, blogs and the like.
But the push to do so will come from the LEFT, not the Right, and will fall under a broadened version of the Fairness Doctrine.
Trying to silence dissent is also almost exclusively the province of the Left- witness their position that there is no debate as to the realness of anthropogenic global warming (there is such a debate) and their position that only embryonic stem cells hold any promise of treating many diseases (when the fact is there is NO PROOF that is the case).
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 16:12:54 GMT -5
So, let me get this right....Hold on, let me put on my hat....How does one post from an Erwin supporter, turn into a Christian conspiracy? Christianity is very transparent as to what it encourages and discourages.
One should also note that Erwin is one vote out of many in the Legislature. If the whole State of Alabama votes in Christians, what sort of viewpoint is going to dominate?
There are 49 other States and Puerto Rico, that Americans in Alabama can move to at any time.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 16:24:20 GMT -5
I certainly hope that isn't beer in those steins. We all know how the Erwin crowd feels about you being allowed to drink alcohol. And billt, they call themselves Christians, because they are. And very good ones at that. Christians by their very nature work to silence those which can't be converted to their belief system. By their nature? A more Christian belief is that the nature of man is sinful, therefore perhaps you are right. -but only accidentally so- How did this supposed "nature" of Christians to "silence" those that can't be "converted" lead to the freedoms such as speech being ensconced in gov'ts of communities, states, and eventually a federal gov't of this nation, all of which being predominately comprised of Christians? You watch...someday soon a group of politicians will work together to shut down, or at least regulate on a political level, internet message boards, networking sites and public video sites such as Youtube. And if you had been paying attention, that has already occurred and it has not come from the "the conservative Christian right." It has come from the UN. It has come in the form of liberal friendly google giving up dissidents in communist China. And youtube does already carefully censor itself of conservative content. The same group that turned me away from the Republican party and towards Libertarianism. Tell us when you actually get there. I'm not yet convinced that you know the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 16:56:06 GMT -5
Google and Youtube (although I dissagree with it) do what they do for business reasons. That's why I said "regulate on a political level." That's forced by the state. Self regulation isn't.
I made a prediction about the future of the internet. You dissagree, and that's fine. Let's just sit back and see who is right. The idea of The Fairness Doctrine scares me as well and I know there is strong support coming from the left to limit speech in certain arenas, I don't deny that. But when it comes to legislating behavior...that push comes from the religious right. You can't deny this. And when all else is taken away from us and all we have is our thoughts and opinions spelled out in an internet forum. They will come after that next. A little 1984ish, I know. But I do believe we are being lead down this path.
Back to Christianity...part of being a good Christian is to spread the Word and work to convert. When that fails, I've found that the next steps are smiting and judging and then banning together to force change. Ask anyone else working in a public arena and you will find that the loudest voice of dissent comes from one specific group: Christians. When something is said or done that they do not agree with, they call for boycotts, for removal, for laws banning, etc.
Despite all the conspiracy theories popping up on this forum surrounding our sudden exit from The Source, I need not point very far to proove my point.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 17:06:52 GMT -5
a good place to insert my thoughts on "conspiracies"....it is clear the left wants to limit free speech(pc, thought crimes, banning certain words), it is also clear that the extreme right wants to limit free speech as well just for different reasons.
BOTH sides are working hard to take away YOUR right to speak freely, they clearly are NOT "conspiring" with each other BUT the reality is both extremes are working towards the same goal.
the POINT, it doesnt take a conspiracy for bad things to happen to our fundamental freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 17:14:55 GMT -5
"The idea of The Fairness Doctrine scares me as well and I know there is strong support coming from the left to limit speech in certain arenas, I don't deny that."
The ONLY support for this is coming from the Left, they are the authors of it.
"But when it comes to legislating behavior...that push comes from the religious right. You can't deny this."
But when it comes to judicating behaviour....that push comes form the Left. You can't deny that.
"When that fails, I've found that the next steps are smiting and judging and then banning together to force change."
Smiting? Why haven't I read about all these killings on the news? Judging doesn't force change alone, the person being judged has a 50% part in it. How does banning together force change? It can only be done by votes and the banning together of Christians amounts to preaching to the choir.
We are still awaiting for this email or evidence to be produced from you that showed the root cause for TAM's demise. Will you be able to release this and if so, what time frame are we talking?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 17:19:22 GMT -5
a good place to insert my thoughts on "conspiracies"....it is clear the left wants to limit free speech(pc, thought crimes, banning certain words), it is also clear that the extreme right wants to limit free speech as well just for different reasons. BOTH sides are working hard to take away YOUR right to speak freely, they clearly are NOT "conspiring" with each other BUT the reality is both extremes are working towards the same goal. the POINT, it doesnt take a conspiracy for bad things to happen to our fundamental freedoms. I would love to view any evidence of the Right trying to limit free speech. Political Correctness is the invention of the Left.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 17:49:51 GMT -5
Censorship, on the political level, governed by the FCC has been molded by the religious right. How does banning together force change? I don't really know the science behind it, but I know it works. Here's a good example of the Christian Coalition not minding their own business: www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=315 "Congress needs to give the FCC even greater weapons to go against out-of-control broadcasters such as CBS." And this isn't even referring to Nipplegate. God forbid! This from Mediaweek August 8, 2005: The Federal Communications Commission has hired as an advisor an anti-pornography activist and former lobbyist for groups that push for Christian precepts in public policy. The move may herald a reinvigorated campaign against broadcast indecency and bring renewed pressure on cable to reconsider its racy offerings. They are talking about current FCC Chariman Kevin Martin. This guy wants to extend governing powers into PAY CABLE such as HBO and Showtime. This is regulation OUT OF CONTROL thanks to this far out religious rightist. But wait..there's more. From Freepress, December 2006: Broadcasting & Cable earlier this year reported that complaints to the FCC numbered 1,798 in January, but jumped to 138,527 in February. Why? B&C discovered “at least 134,000 complaints” in January and February were “driven by a campaign against NBC drama ‘Las Vegas”’ spearheaded by a single organization: the American Family Association, the powerful religious group. What’s driving the FCC’s censorious crusade? An extreme, faith-based view of governing that’s being championed by underqualified FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. (Who is a longtime friend of Bush/Cheney and, had this not been the case, never would've had this job to begin with.) So can banning together force change? "Religious and conservative groups campaigned for the elevation of Mr. Martin [and] have succeeded in establishing a new 'litmus' test for the FCC chair -- someone who will be at the forefront of monitoring programming," Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told the Los Angeles Times. I'd like to think, yes.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 18:02:24 GMT -5
"Censorship, on the political level, governed by the FCC has been molded by the religious right."
So you are all for no regulation of what is shown in the media? If not, by what basis do you use to determine what is bad, none alone, too bad, to be aired on tv, radio or put in print?
If you are for no regulation, how would you go about getting that done without "banning together" with like minded people?
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 23, 2007 18:09:19 GMT -5
Martin is a political appointee which will obviously mean he has interests similar to his appointer, FCC recent round of fines was in response to the Janet Jackson thing, an overreaction, but a reaction nonetheless. Broadcasters know the indecency lines and when they blur them they pay, game over. Neither side has a monopoly on controlling the airwaves. (Imus, Stern, Fairness Doctrine)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 18:21:53 GMT -5
Yes. I am for NO regulation on the government level of the media.
YOU regulate at YOUR home. I'll regulate at MINE.
If a nipple happens to slip out here and there, I promise you, it isn't the end of the world. Your 3 year old won't even recognize the problem with it. That is, until you frantic religious rightists jump up and down screaming, all the while seaching your 'Frequent Call List' to find the number to the FCC to file the complaint.
Let's review my main point that was questioned: If they can't convert everyone to their way of thinking, Christians will ban together to enact change of some sort to rid the world of the things they find morally wrong. Be it by fine, by boycott, by firing, by legislative action, ect.
I still stand by this.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 18:39:37 GMT -5
A nipple one day and hardcore sex the next. If that would become reality, would you still be in favor of no regulations? I for one do not have a problem of regulating what media comes in at my home, however, I would not agree with no regulation of media in the public sphere, billboards for example. I have never called the FCC in my life. The issue with the nipple is due to the fact that it was during a media event where it would not be reasonable for parents to think they would have to restrict. If there was a disclaimer that a woman's breast would be shown during the half time game, then parents would then be able to have a reasonable choice in the matter as to whether they want their kids to view the half time enterntainment or not.
"Let's review my main point that was questioned:"
Your main point wasn't disagreed with, what I disagree with is that you don't think it is correct to do that. At least, that is how I read your comments.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 18:48:44 GMT -5
I don't have time to pull in all the required quotes, but I can still get my meaning across...
I think phinehas got me to pondering something this weekend, and it was all for the good. Before, I had made no discernable distinction between being a Christian and being "born again" ("saved", "redeemed", etc.). The latter is essentially a one-time choice that results in eternal life. The former is more about a lifestyle and it stems from that choice. They do go hand-in-hand, but Christianity is a way of life. Before that I had just labeled people as spiritually mature or immature if they proclaimed Christianity.
Anyway, that aside, I can now debate Christianity ;D. I will not debate what it takes to gain eternal life though -- I believe what I believe and I can tell others that but won't look down upon them if they don't believe the same. So...
Its pretty well known that this country was founded upon Christian principles. So if these founding fathers, who were mostly practicing Christians, made provision in our Constitution for the freedom of religion, what does that say about Christianity? That we recognize that God created man with free will and that as an extension of this ideal, all men should have the free will to choose whom and how they worship. Or choose not to worship at all.
Therefore it is an affront to say that Christians will force their beliefs on someone. After all, the choice to accept the gift of God is just that -- a choice. Can I force you to accept this?
But I see where you're coming from. There are those out there who think they know what's best when it comes to your moral life. I'm here to tell you that I'm not one of those people. I know many, many people who feel that same way. Just as in any avenue of life, do not stereotype people groups -- in this case, Christians -- based on a few extreme examples.
Is it right that the recent "Day of Silence" was allowed to take place in 5000 public schools? In some ways, is that not "forcing" students to pay attention to the gay agenda? If students are in a school which is "honoring" the "Day of Silence" and they decide to not remain silent, will they be seen as intolerant, hateful, and viscous or just merely exercising their rights? I don't particularly have an issue with it, but I'd like to see more of the same equality afforded to Christian groups. Yet I guess I understand the "separation of Church and State" too.
Judging by the posts made by Chris Hobbs on this issue -- which can easily be construed as "anti-Christian" -- one can see why they may indeed not have been a fit for a Crawford station. I'm not saying I agree with it because I think differing viewpoints make the world go 'round, but it would make you guys the only "anti-Christian" show in the line-up.
I know this post is long already, but don't misconstrue this post. I believe in everyone's freedom to their own opinion. I know each and every one of us grew up under different circumstances. I was not raised in a Christian home and up until I was 19, did not really even care if God was real or not. What I do know is everyone has their own right to believe what they may, and they are only wrong if they can be proven so, because guess what? The Muslim believes he is right, the Buddhist does the same, as does the atheist. I can only control what I believe and raise my children within that same belief set.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 18:55:44 GMT -5
Let's review my main point that was questioned: If they can't convert everyone to their way of thinking, Christians will ban together to enact change of some sort to rid the world of the things they find morally wrong. Be it by fine, by boycott, by firing, by legislative action, ect. I still stand by this. You may consider leaving boycott out of this. The others are more regulatory in nature, but a boycott is just a concerted effort to get a certain group to quit using, viewing, etc. a certain product or service. If any certain group decides to boycott is is definitely a choice made by those who participate. While you were on the air, if I really despised your show (which I didn't -- I was beginning to like it and they pulled the plug!) I could call for a boycott. Those who believed as I did could join in, but it would in no way equate to someone firing you, fining you, or making your show illegal. So boycotting would be akin to many like minded individuals all deciding not to listen to your show. Which, may end up in you getting fired, but it may not.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 18:57:22 GMT -5
"Anyway, that aside, I can now debate Christianity . I will not debate what it takes to gain eternal life though -- I believe what I believe and I can tell others that but won't look down upon them if they don't believe the same. So..."
I think the problem you are going to run into is that the same reason why you don't want to debate the issue of what it takes to gain eternal life, will apply to most of the other debates in relation to Christianity.
Just be prepared to modify your expectations and the motivation itself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 18:58:56 GMT -5
Judging by the posts made by Chris Hobbs on this issue -- which can easily be construed as "anti-Christian" -- one can see why they may indeed not have been a fit for a Crawford station. I'm not saying I agree with it because I think differing viewpoints make the world go 'round, but it would make you guys the only "anti-Christian" show in the line-up. AH HA! This is what I've been saying for two weeks. We WERE seen as too unChristian for Crawford and the complaints poured in. Funny thing is, though, 101.1 IS A SECULAR TALK STATION. Therefore, the complaints were unfounded. King Crawford, however, without EVER hearing a single minute of the program, made his decision based on those complaints.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 19:08:40 GMT -5
Judging by the posts made by Chris Hobbs on this issue -- which can easily be construed as "anti-Christian" -- one can see why they may indeed not have been a fit for a Crawford station. I'm not saying I agree with it because I think differing viewpoints make the world go 'round, but it would make you guys the only "anti-Christian" show in the line-up. AH HA! This is what I've been saying for two weeks. We WERE seen as too unChristian for Crawford and the complaints poured in. Funny thing is, though, 101.1 IS A SECULAR TALK STATION. Therefore, the complaints were unfounded. King Crawford, however, without EVER hearing a single minute of the program, made his decision based on those complaints. Hey, just so you know, this Christian wouldn't call in and complain. If I want to listen to Christian only I can listen to another station. But has anyone noticed that they rarely ever played the "God and Country Station" while TAM was on the air? In fact, I had thought they stopped it altogether, but it is back on again. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 19:14:57 GMT -5
and the complaints are in fact "forcing one's beliefs on others" by definition.....that is trying to control what other people CAN hear on the radio....the gambling laws same thing.....ALL laws based on religion are forcing ONE set of beliefs on everyone else. that people CANT seem to grasp this is frightening...person A says i dont want YOU to be allowed to gamble, i want to control what cable TV shows in YOUR home, i want to be able to take the public microhpone and make others listen to my prayer, but i would never try to force my beliefs on you... ?? say what? ? those actions are using the force of government to make others live by YOUR beliefs clearly UNconstitutional and NOT the intent of the founding fathers.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 19:15:02 GMT -5
Chris,
I woudn't go so far to say you guys were anti-Christian. I could possibly see agnostic if I squinted and turned my head, but like I had stated before, the other main shows were just as devoid of a Christian slant as yours. Heck, I would even go so far to say that your show had more of a Christian slant as a whole than Murphy's show.
Kurt and Burt are not that far from the secular tree as well. The only overt show that displayed a Christian viewpoint on the discussions was the Erwin show.
So, in my opinion, it's not the reason or at the very least a big part of the reason.
Were you guys actually told what the reason was? I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 19:17:56 GMT -5
billt
What does that have to do with TAM being off the air? I don't recall any legislation occuring in Montgomery that caused this.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 19:32:37 GMT -5
And billt, they call themselves Christians, because they are. And very good ones at that. Christians by their very nature work to silence those which can't be converted to their belief system.This is the statement that lept out at me as being "anti-Christian". I tend to put things in quotes when they are not really serious but could be seen by others as serious. And maybe there really are a few who would call themselves Christians who would do that, but by this they are really not Christian at all. As I stated elsewhere, Christianity can be simply defined as "Christ like" and unless someone can show me some proof, Christ never "worked to silence those which can't be converted". Actually, that is just what the Jews did to Christ, so he was a victim of this, not the other way around. The closest Jesus ever came to "silencing" someone is when he kicked the money changers and people selling sacrifices out of the temple. Hey, don't we all reserve to right to assert the rules in our own house?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 20:03:35 GMT -5
But doesn't 101.1 call themselves "A God And Country" station?
I understand the context in which you make the secular claim or at least I think I do- 101.1 doesn't broadcast explicitly Christian/religious programming such as worship service or the like.
But I'd also say that your case isn't easily made to a casual listener to the station when they hear the "God and country" tagline.
P.S.- was it just me or did they cease using that tagline for a time a month or so back?
|
|