Time: Sat Jul 26 09:06:43 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14131;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:05:18 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15919;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:03:40 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:03:05 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Keyes, July 22, Segments 1 and 2 (fwd)

>The Alan Keyes Show
>July 22, 1997
>Hour 1: Segment 1 & 2
>Segment 1
>What's the good news today?
>In its first comprehensive review of persecution
>of Christian groups around the world, the United
>States Government sharply criticizes China for
>suppressing religious worship, and urges President
>Boris N. Yeltzin of Russia to veto legislation
>restricting religious freedom there.  That's a
>report out from the State Department.
>Now, I cite it as good news because I often tell
>you that on this program I celebrate truth-telling
>wherever it occurs.  So if the State Department
>decides that it's gonna tell the truth about
>China's suppression of religious freedom, then I'm
>happy to see that happening.
>There is, of course, a kind of cloud with this
>silver lining though, isn't there?  Because here
>you have the State Department coming out and
>saying, "Ah, you guys are misbehaving; you are
>suppressing religion; this is terrible."  And
>while they "tutt-tutt" over there at the State
>Department, what have we done to give any weight
>to our words of concern?  Well, we've passed Most
>Favored Nation status for China.  We've made it
>clear to the Communist despots that however much
>the State Department and others may shoot of their
>mouths, America isn't really serious about this.
>And we don't really care.  And we're not going to
>take any steps that will affect anything or damage
>anybody in response to our concerns over human
>So at one and the same time it is good new, that
>they're at least willing to say something; I think
>it's pretty bad news that it takes place in the
>context of policy decisions that have already made
>it quite clear that our concerns are not going to
>be translated into any effective results.
>Now, we'll see.  It's possible that all the
>"tutt-tutting" and etc. will in and of itself have
>a wonderful effect.  But I doubt it, myself.
>Another subject.  This isn't exactly along the
>lines of good news, just along the lines of the
>uses of language.  A new leader has been elected,
>a presiding bishop, for the Episcopal Church.
>Now, this is a fellow who, when you look at his
>background, is aligned with all of the sort of
>leftist, liberal views that you can find,
>including sanctioning gay sexuality and things of
>this kind.  He helped prepare the defense in the
>heresy trial of retired bishop Walter Ryder, who
>ordained a homosexual priest.  He was among the 71
>bishops who signed a "koinonia"(sp?) statement in
>1994, which affirms that God creates
>heterosexuality and homosexuality.  He is, by any
>definition of the term, an ultra-liberal bishop.
>How do you think he's identified in the press?
>What do you think that the New York Times referred
>to him as, and so forth and so on?  I'll bet you
>can guess.  "Moderate Bishop Elected"  That's what
>they call him.  I wonder what it is that makes
>somebody like this, with these extreme left-wing
>views, "moderate"?  And if you have even one - say
>you're pro-life - that automatically makes you
>"ultra-right-wing" in the eyes of the media.  See
>how they use language?
>So you'll excuse me if I use language correctly,
>and I will say that it looks as if an extremely
>liberal, ultra-liberal extremist has been elected
>as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.
>And to call things by their right name, this
>ultra-left-wing, pro-homosexual bishop is taking
>over as presiding bishop, and will become the
>voice within the international councils that
>represents the Episcopal Church.  Now, you know, a
>struggle is going on within the Episcopal Church;
>it's not as if one side has won out over the other
>completely.  But this suggests that they're going
>to be moving further into the extremist camp.  And
>that's that.
>But it would be nice -- wouldn't it? -- if
>somebody in the media would discover truth in
>Along those lines, it will come as no shock to
>anybody who knows anything about Harvard these
>days that gay and lesbian couples are now
>permitted to hold "commitment" or "blessing"
>ceremonies in Harvard University's Memorial
>Chapel.  Some of you know that one of the stains
>upon my background is that I have not one but two
>degrees from Harvard University.  It wasn't quite
>as bad then as it is now.  It is a place today
>where I'm afraid I would not be able to recommend
>to my children that they go, and if they did, I'd
>sure want to make sure that they were girded with
>the adamantine armor of God before they went in.
>Because that place is a recruiting ground for
>corruption and difficulty.
>Now we're going to talk about a couple of things
>this morning that get us back a little bit into
>the world of the Disney boycott.  You do remember,
>don't you, that a boycott is going on of Walt
>Disney?  Now, we wouldn't want to suggest, would
>we, that the fact that Hercules is having a pretty
>dismal performance at the box office has anything
>to do with the boycott.  Actually, on this show,
>we might want to suggest it.  Nobody else in the
>world is suggesting it.  As a matter of fact,
>people are bending over backwards to try not to
>notice it, I think, in the mainstream:  "Oh,
>Hercules not doing very well; can't have anything
>to do with that boycott, though, no, not at all.
>So why don't we just assume that it doesn't, while
>we assume that it does."
>New controversy is emerging about Disney, as if to
>give point to the truth that we've tried to convey
>on the program here that the boycott is not about
>some narrow issue.  The liars in the Degenerate
>Propaganda Media have been consistently trying to
>portray the boycott as if it's just about whether
>you extend health benefits to homosexual couples.
>That is, of course, a lie; that is not the main or
>only issue involved.  But as if to give point to
>this lie, a new series is coming out.  It's going
>to be on Disney-owned ABC TV, and it's a drama
>called "Nothing Sacred," and apparently it lives
>up to its name because it is a drama about a
>parish priest that seems to be a reprise of a lot
>of the themes of the Disney movie "Priest," which
>of course was a wholesale assault on Catholic
>Now it says in this article:  "Father Ray, the
>show's main character, is heterosexual."  I find
>it kind of strange that one would be arguing about
>whether priests were heterosexual or homosexual,
>since in point of fact, you and I both know,
>priests are not supposed to be sexually active;
>this is true, I believe.  But hey, you get into
>the world of Disney and ABC, and as the title of
>the show suggests, there is nothing sacred.  And
>they say "the show is about a priest who lives on
>the edge, finds faith on the edge of doubt."  Now
>this, of course, is going to be their excuse for
>having a priest who doesn't believe in anything
>that the Church is supposed to believe in.
>Probably, given that I am boycotting Disney and
>all its assorted products, I won't bother to look
>at this thing.  But the track record, and what I
>have read about it thus far, do not give me any
>grounds to believe that this is going to be
>anything but a series aimed at projecting what has
>become the kind of standard view that Hollywood
>has of things religious.  The standard for judging
>them is set up as a secular standard.  The worldly
>standard of political correctness and relevance
>and so on - that is the true test - and then you
>write scripts and have characters that are judged
>in light of those standards.  The standards of
>faith, the biblical standards and the biblical
>heritage:  they have nothing to do with what these
>people produce.
>So I think this is a further evidence that Disney
>is gonna move forward, spitting in the face of
>decent people.  And I hope that this will be
>further incentive for the Catholic clerics and
>hierarchy, to add their weight and voice to that
>of the Southern Baptists in calling for a
>wholesale boycott of Walt Disney by everybody.  I
>think that that would be a tremendous outcome, if
>it indeed came about.  But we shall see.
>I take this in some sense, though, as good news,
>because it continues to keep before us,
>percolating quite effectively, the true issue with
>respect to Walt Disney:  the fact that it has
>become the company that, though it claims to be
>identified with wholesome family values, is in the
>vanguard of the assault on all things religious in
>Hour 1: Segment 2
>To give you a sense of what Disney plans to do
>with this show:  "The show is set in a decaying
>urban parish in a rapidly gentrifying
>neighborhood.  Its pilot depicts a parish staff of
>several priests, a buxom blond nun clad in jeans,
>an sweatshirt and a cross necklace.  During a
>staff meeting she pushes for God to be referred to
>as Mother: 'I thought we had agreed to get rid the
>sexist language for God,' she says, 'I'm so tired
>of having God called Father.'"
>Ughh.  How could somebody, anybody, pretend to be
>a Christian and then object to calling God
>"Father"?  Is it not the case that Christ calls
>God "Father"?  And so she's not criticizing some
>church or other; she's criticizing Christ
>Himself:  "Christ, how dare you call God
>"Father"?  I object to this, and I immediately
>require that you stop this sexist language, or
>we'll crucify you!"
>"Father Ray" -- I go on here with the description
>from the article -- "who is dressed in an
>oversized sweater and jeans, but no clerical
>collar, is studying St. Thomas' Summa Theologica,
>one of the classics of Western culture.  'I don't
>even know if God exists,' he says."  Now, the
>description here makes it sound like he is trying
>to pretend that that notion that God does not
>exist, or that you question the existence of God,
>is somewhere in St. Thomas; which, of course, is a
>But apparently what this show will be about is
>presenting a lot of the trendy, left-wing garbage
>as if it were somehow based upon an understanding
>of Scripture, Church heritage, something like
>this.  Take, for example, the following:  "During
>a sermon, Father Ray holds up a New Testament,
>stating that 'all of the 20th century hot-button
>issues, such as abortion, contraception,
>promiscuity and homosexuality, are not in here.  I
>was not ordained to be a sexual traffic cop.'"
>So, they're gonna have a show depicting a priest
>who holds up the New Testament and says 'all this
>stuff that they say about sexual restraint, and
>that they claim condemns promiscuity and abortion
>and homosexuality and contraception:  it's not in
>here.'  Essentially, a television show that is
>going to take the anti-Christian and anti-Biblical
>and anti-Scriptural understanding of the
>ideological left, put it in the mouth of a
>depicted priest, and present it as if it were
>somehow correct.  Do you understand what kind of
>propaganda this is?  The extent of the propaganda
>that's here, aimed, of course, at gullible
>viewers, particularly, probably, young people, a
>lot of whom may or may not know better, in
>presenting lying depictions that because of the
>nature of the individuals presented:  "Oh, these
>are supposedly priests and religious people; this
>must have authority."  And don't tell me that
>there aren't gullible minds out there, that soak
>up this kind of thing as if it were truth.
>So you have a priest basically saying what?
>"Well, I don't even know if God exists.  I'm a
>religious man; I do know if God exists.  All this
>stuff about restraining your passions and so forth
>and so on -- hey, it doesn't have anything to do
>with the Scriptures."  Disney, Walt Disney, owns
>ABC.  ABC is going to be producing this series.  I
>think that the boycott of Disney may be coming
>just in the nick of time.  Since it is obvious
>that the assault that Walt Disney plans  -- on the
>traditional morality, on religious faith, and on
>institutions that represent it -- the assault that
>they plan and in the vanguard of which they have
>been acting for some time, is going to be cresting
>quite soon.  And we'd better wake up and do
>something about it.  Don't you think?
>It seems to me that the news of this new series
>gives further point to the need for a boycott of
>Walt Disney and all things associated therewith,
>and ought to be a strong argument that across all
>lines of faith and belief, Christians should be
>gathering themselves together to oppose a company
>that is setting itself up now as the
>corrupter-in-chief of America's morals.  I think
>this is the height of historic irony, but there it
>is.  The Disney Corporation, corrupter-in-chief of
>the morality needed to raise decent children, and
>leading the assault against all things religious
>in the United States.  I think it's very sad.  So
>I again would give my cheering approbation to the
>folks at the Southern Baptist Convention, who have
>moved forward, I think, just in time to try to do
>something about what I think is a major campaign.
>Don't tell me that all these things are coming
>together as accidents, that you should see the
>development at Disney of these tendencies, that
>you should see them financing movies, first of
>all, like "Priest," then moving into the
>television area, then using their platform in the
>television area to basically promote this kind of
>an assault on religious faith, and to do it in a
>way that is aimed, I believe, at trying to
>miseducate -- that is what propaganda does, of
>course -- to miseducate the public, so that by the
>time they get done with something like this -- I'm
>sure with all of the ways in which scriptwriters
>operate they'll be able to have some really deep
>and emotional scripts, that draw people in so they
>can sucker-punch them with these lies.
>And in the process they will not, in this case,
>just be caricaturing religious people; they'll be
>taking truth and they will substitute for it a
>vicious lie, that they present under the guise of
>this supposedly authoritative situation.  And I
>think that that's  exactly how skillful corrupters
>work.  They try to dress themselves up in the
>clothing of truth-tellers, so that they can get
>away with their insidious lies.  And that is what
>Walt Disney is about.  It's about putting a
>pleasant face on the lie; it's about making it
>more seductive.  And the fact that they have taken
>over an institution like Disney, that had a name
>so completely and thoroughly associated with
>wholesome family values, that makes this assault
>all the more insidious.
>So I thought I would call that to your attention:
>new developments coming through all the time.  And
>for those who claim that the boycott is having no
>effect, I think it would be good to keep in mind:
>they brought out Hercules with all this fanfare;
>they have had all of their efforts to promote it
>in every possible way; and yet it appears that it
>is not doing well at the box office.  Now,
>naturally, none of the Degenerate Propaganda Media
>types are going to draw any connection between
>this dismal performance and the boycott, but I
>think that people of decent conscience ought to
>take heart.  You can make, you are making, a

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail