Action needed now.

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
The FCC by saying it is not a "rule violation to say "f...." on public airways, they are saying it is ok for it to occur.

No they're not. They are two different things.

I just can't understand why some of you that call yourselves christians,

Only by the grace of God.

just don't get it and chose to "just let it go".

I get it I just don't think that hysteria is the best way to bring about change.

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you'd stop and look at this rationally, rather than the whole sackcloth and ashes thing.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I call myself a Christian because of the faith that I have in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I really don't appreciate the tone there.

I was told by Enda that I was unsaved because he didn't like the music I listen to. I really wouldn't worry about it. When people say things like this, it usually says much more about them than it does about you.

 

[Johnv]

I wouldn't worry about it either. It just proves that those who accuse you of not being a Christian simply don't believe in salvation by faith alone. To them, it's salvation by being in agreement with their views.

 

[Jailminister]

Mike Mc said:

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you'd stop and look at this rationally, rather than the whole sackcloth and ashes thing.

Number 1 I am looking at it rationally.

Number 2 God used ashes and sackcloth for a purpose, so I would not mock it.

Number 3 I guess your suggestion is to just keep your head in the sand.

Number 4 The rules are wrong and the rulings are wrong. If Bono can use that language and the FCC says that it is allowable, then what do you think that means. They are the one that ruled there is no violation, so it is is permissable.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
I hate to say it, but you are wrong Johnv and BB. When the FCC said that no rules were violated, what they did was say it is ok to use that word. This is not a hard read, so why do you not see it that way?

Quite simply, because the contention you continually make is inaccurate.
The FCC said that, in this particular case, they did not consider this to be a violation of the law. They did not condone Bono's statements, nor did they make any claim that the rule is to be changed. I challenged you to provide the proof to support your charge, and you have still not provided it.

Let's look at YOUR statement:

When the FCC said that no rules were violated, what they did was say it is ok to use that word.

That is not true, as I have already demonstrated. That is like saying that, if I say that your dog is not a terrier, then I undoubtedly said that it is a spaniel.

Personally, I think that the most bizarre aspect of this whole discussion is that Paul (a.k.a. Bono) is a self-professed Born-again Christian........

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Number 1 I am looking at it rationally.

No you're not, you're looking at it emotionally. Several people have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, using the very words of the FCC, but you've ignored them, instead preferring to read your own meaning into it.

Number 2 God used ashes and sackcloth for a purpose, so I would not mock it.

I don't mock it, I'm just pointing out the folly of this "lone voice in the wilderness" complex you have.

Number 3 I guess your suggestion is to just keep your head in the sand.

No, I'm suggesting that you use your head.

Number 4 The rules are wrong and the rulings are wrong. If Bono can use that language and the FCC says that it is allowable, then what do you think that means. They are the one that ruled there is no violation, so it is is permissable.[/QB]

Again, because he did not violate the rules surrounding the use of the word doesn't not mean that the other rules no longer apply.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
.........Several people have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, using the very words of the FCC, but you've ignored them, instead preferring to read your own meaning into it.
.......Again, because he did not violate the rules surrounding the use of the word doesn't not mean that the other rules no longer apply. [/QB]

Dear Mike and Baptist in Richmond,
I am having trouble understanding the fine distinctions you are trying to make.

Yes, it seems that Jailminister incorrectly thought that the rules had been completely changed.
However, the disturbing fact remains that such a word could be used now at all without "breaking the rules". Using the word at all in my opinion should be automatically breaking the rules. And I believe it would have been considered that way even several years ago. I would expect that, soon, there will be other times that it will be used without "breaking the rules".

We should not overreact, but neither should we
overlook and fail to speak out against decay in
society because some other opponents have perhaps misinterpreted a point. In my opinion, the basic point remains that the word was allowed at all. Which allowance is a new thing.

Karen

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Karen:
Dear Mike and Baptist in Richmond,
I am having trouble understanding the fine distinctions you are trying to make.

It's not a fine distinction. Under the FCC rules, a fleeting use of the word as an adjective is not punishable. This is most likely because (a) it just "slipped out" or (b) it's a live broadcast and censors did not catch it in time.

The use of the word in a pre-meditated fashion or when referring to the sex act is still very much verboten, no matter how loudly jailminister may cry otherwise.

We should not overreact, but neither should we overlook and fail to speak out against decay in society because some other opponents have perhaps misinterpreted a point.[/QB]

I agree but like I told jailminister, hysteria isn't the way to go about it.

 

[Jailminister]

Mike and BB, I guess if your pastor ever preaches on sin that he does it in "hysteria". You guys just don't want to get it. Just keep on ignoring things and things will just keep getting worst. The FCC(as I have said very clearly several times) ruled that no rule was violated, so what will keep other programs from using the word and any other similar words in the future knowing that they have clearance now from the FCC to use them?

PS I never claimed that you or anyone else was not saved. Just as one of you said Bono claims to be a christian yet he speech betrays him. You are know by your doings.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Mike and BB, I guess if your pastor ever preaches on sin that he does it in "hysteria". You guys just don't want to get it. Just keep on ignoring things and things will just keep getting worst. The FCC(as I have said very clearly several times) ruled that no rule was violated, so what will keep other programs from using the word and any other similar words in the future knowing that they have clearance now from the FCC to use them?

PS I never claimed that you or anyone else was not saved. Just as one of you said Bono claims to be a christian yet he speech betrays him. You are know by your doings.

OK.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Karen:
Dear Mike and Baptist in Richmond,
I am having trouble understanding the fine distinctions you are trying to make.

Dear Karen:

The "distinction" I am trying to make is the simple fact that the allegations in the link provided by Jailminister are INACCURATE. That is all: I have not covert agenda.

Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to follow the link provided in the first post, then read the entire FCC document. You will see that the accusations by the website are NOT TRUE. Moreover, I have asked Jailminister to provide the evidence to support this on two seperate occasions, and as of the time of this post, he has failed to do so.

However, the disturbing fact remains that such a word could be used now at all without "breaking the rules". Using the word at all in my opinion should be automatically breaking the rules. And I believe it would have been considered that way even several years ago. I would expect that, soon, there will be other times that it will be used without "breaking the rules".

I would not disagree with you. HOWEVER, I am a firm believer in the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees free speech without condition. It can be vulgar, blasphemous, idiotic, religious, hilarious, <insert your own modifier here>. That is the true beauty of our Constitution. I would fight censorship of any kind, regardless if I believed in the validity of the message. If I hear a word I consider to be vulgar, then I TURN THE CHANNEL.
That is the best way to get their attention......

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Mike and BB, I guess if your pastor ever preaches on sin that he does it in "hysteria". You guys just don't want to get it. Just keep on ignoring things and things will just keep getting worst.[sic] The FCC(as I have said very clearly several times) ruled that no rule was violated, so what will keep other programs from using the word and any other similar words in the future knowing that they have clearance now from the FCC to use them?

<YAWN>
This is not even challenging......

On two seperate occasions I have challenged you to provide the evidence that the FCC ruling gave them "clearance" (to usurp your term) to use the word in question. As of the time I am typing this, you have failed to do so.

Now, for a third time: please provide the evidence in the FCC ruling that gives "clearance" to use the word. Until you do that, every post you generate simply proves who "just [doesn't] want to get it.

By the way, regarding your contumely concerning my Pastor preaching on sin: My Pastor always provides the Scripture to support his teaching. He doesn't simply make some outrageous claim, and expect me to just sit there and take his word for it.

PS I never claimed that you or anyone else was not saved. Just as one of you said Bono claims to be a christian yet he [sic] speech betrays him. You are know [sic] by your doings.

Wait a minute, let me check: NOPE, I am not on the FCC board. I guess that this wasn't my ruling, or my "doing."

 

[Jailminister]

BB you are getting boring. I have already posted the information. If you are interested go back and reread the postings.

The whole point of this thread was to get people moblize to fight this ruling. Just don't do anything and maybe society will just get better. Head in the sand is where a lot of people are these days.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
[QB] BB you are getting boring. I have already posted the information. If you are interested go back and reread the postings.

The whole point of this thread was to get people moblize to fight this ruling. Just don't do anything and maybe society will just get better. Head in the sand is where a lot of people are these days.

.............and yet you still have not proven your claims.................

 

[Jailminister]

New alert on this issue:



A few days ago we asked you to email the FCC regarding their decision to allow the “F” word on TV and radio. The FCC responded by blocking your emails.

After AFA called the FCC to complain, they stopped. For the thousands who were unable to get through, we encourage you to take action now and email your letter.

Here are the details of the issue. . .

The Federal Communications Commission has approved the use of the "F" word for use on any TV show or radio program, ANYTIME DAY OR NIGHT!


The FCC said the word can be used whenever desired, as long as it is used as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation, such as an insult. They said it cannot be used in sexual situations!
Some, including some Senators, are saying that the FCC has not made such a ruling. Evidently, they have not read the FCC order. Please take a moment and read it for yourself, especially paragraph five.
However, Congressman Chip Pickering has sent a stern rebuke to the FCC stating that he is "outraged and extremely disappointed" with the latest decisions by the bureau.

What this means for your family. . .

In the near future, when you are watching a sit-com on TV, or news, or any drama or movie-ANY PROGRAM-you will hear the “F” word. Hollywood is rejoicing!


Soon, when you are driving your kids to school you will be listening to a song which makes extensive use of the word. Shock jocks such as Howard Stern are now free to use any language, no matter how vile and repugnant, on their radio shows. And use it they will.


No longer will movies shown on TV have to be edited because of language.
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER NOW!
And please forward this letter to your email list asking them to get involved.

If you are able, please help underwrite the cost of this campaign with your generous donation.

If it isn't stopped now, in a few months the FCC will rule that the “F” word is acceptable in sexual situations. Little by little, the FCC is on the road to allow hardcore pornography on radio and TV!

Thank you.

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

+++++++++++++

You are receiving this e-mail because you took action on an AFA-related petition or action alert in the past. In keeping with our privacy policy, American Family Association may periodically contact you about issues of concern to the family. Information you share with AFA will never be sold, rented, or given to any third party. Protecting your privacy is of utmost importance to us!

If you do not wish to receive further e-mail communications from us, click to unsubscribe.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Here are the details of the issue. . .

The Federal Communications Commission has approved the use of the "F" word for use on any TV show or radio program, ANYTIME DAY OR NIGHT!

Here we go again...........

One more time, this is NOT TRUE. The ruling does not give approval. I have asked you to provide the statements that support this charge. Anybody who has read paragraph 5 knows that this is not an approval to use the word "anytime day or night."

 

[Jailminister]

BB, I have provided the proof, you are just not wanting to know the truth. Just ignore my posting and let those of us who care about standing against wickedness do so while you just criticize us.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
BB, I have provided the proof, you are just not wanting to know the truth. Just ignore my posting and let those of us who care about standing against wickedness do so while you just criticize us.

You have proven absolutely nothing, and none of your posts support your claims.
Simply stating something in repetition does not lend credence to your point.

I have asked you several times to support the claim you have made several times now, and your response is to either repeat the claim, or maintain that you provided the proof. Neither response provides validity.

The FCC said that in this particular case, they did not feel that the use of the expletive warranted any action. They did not say, directly or otherwise, that they condone the use of the expletive. I have made this point, and I utilized the actual text to support my claim. I challenge you to do the same: PROVE YOUR CONTENTIONS. If the proof is so apparent, then why do you neglect to cite it?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
BB, I have provided the proof…

Nope. You have just repeated the FCC ruling which does NOT state what you allege it to state. You seem to see only what you want to see instead of what is really there. For instance, you have been responding to “Baptist in Richmond” for a number of posts yet apparently you think you’ve been responding to me – Baptist Believer (a.k.a. “BB”). I do not say this to be insulting, but to make the point that you seem to be a careless reader.

you are just not wanting to know the truth.

That’s a very harsh allegation against someone who is so concerned about truth that they want to make sure that you are accurately reporting what the FCC actually said, not the AFA alleges it said.

Just ignore my posting…

Can’t do it. Those of us who are believers are compelled to stand for truth – even if that means going against a well-intentioned, but false, crusade.

The AFA is promoting falsehood (even if they somehow don’t realize it) because they are misrepresenting what the FCC actually said. They are only reinforcing the popular stereotype that Christians are dull-witted by urging their followers to besiege the FCC with complaints that are based on a complete misunderstanding of the FCC’s decision.

…and let those of us who care about standing against wickedness do so while you just criticize us.

If the AFA tells untruths, I am required to stand against that wickedness. If you are a follower of Jesus, you should have nothing to do with dishonesty and untruth.

 

[rsr]

The AFA is promoting falsehood (even if they somehow don’t realize it) because they are misrepresenting what the FCC actually said. They are only reinforcing the popular stereotype that Christians are dull-witted by urging their followers to besiege the FCC with complaints that are based on a complete misunderstanding of the FCC’s decision.

Why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a golden opportunity for raising money and riling the faithful?