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) <snip> > >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 >rights. > >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 >language? > >------- > >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 >clerics. > >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 >America. > > >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 >lie. > >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 >difference. > > > > > > ======================================================================== 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