Oh boy!!! My English professor has got me goin. The 'theme' for learning 'rhetoric' in english class is The Myth of the American Family, or something like that. Most of the book is 'liberal' shit about how the 'perfect family' is a falsehood designed by certain people with a certain agenda.

One of our assignments was to discuss some of this propaganda on a website the school uses called Desire to Learn. The chemistry professor is using it, and he loves to crack on the title. Anyway, along with the 'family' topic, there is an 'open thread' topic for whatever is on my mind. I spouted about the SpongeBob shit that made it into the news. There is a video going around, which will be aired on tv, with characters aimed at the elementary school crowd, that promotes... how do they put it? I have to look it up again.... tolerance and diversity, that's it. Here is what I posted....

So, I'm reading in the news today about how some criticize this spongebob video. (kinda, sorta goes along with the whole family thing, kinda) I haven't seen it, but supposedly it promotes alternative lifestyles. It has also been suggested in some of the articles I read that the alternative lifestyle community has taken a liking to the little porous sea-creature. This of course doesn't sit well with some. There is this, along with the uproar about changing the constitution to specifically define marriage, that got me thinking. Those that denounce the alternative lifestyle are the same ones that tout the 'freedom' and 'liberty' that, along with other concepts, defines the American ideal. What gets me is that these people don't seem to grasp that you can't have it both ways. In a society such as we have, there is no way in hell you can keep people of the same gender from living together, and engaging in their preference of sexual activity. It 'threatens' the American family, that is the main theme, yet how can something possibly be done about it without infringing on those same liberties that we have all come to enjoy so much......

My whole point being that of the last sentence, they just can't have it both ways. This country is based in part on 'freedom from religious persecution', but has come to mean persecution in general, religious or otherwise. Nobody will argue that, but the 'christian right' want to persecute all those that don't share their views, in an effort to bring about 'conservative' values. It just won't work. You just can't tout freedom, while at the same time practicing oppression of ANY kind.

So, the instructor responded. I don't think anyone else is interested in the least, most students I've found are only there for the credits so they can land a good paycheck. Anyway, he talked about it some more, because I said it wasn't necessarily relevant, meaning I was just using the forum to rant. He says it's very relevant, and pointed to a website called American Family Association Journal, because they are denouncing the video. There are other links on that website, and I just had to check the shit out. Shit it is, there is even one of those little fishes on the website, the ones you see all over cars that christians use to identify themselves. There was a link to an article written by the founder of the 'Journal'. Here's some of the things he says...

Those who cry "censorship" the loudest are the biggest censors in the business. It?s okay to teach the theory of evolution in our schools, but we must censor the theory of intelligent design. The intellectuals tell us that evolution is fact, and intelligent design is a fantasy. Those who say it is dangerous to mix faith and politics never hesitate to mix their faith (secularism) with politics. Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, says President Bush "ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq." Ms. Dowd, our view is that he deposed a dictator in Iraq so that we no longer have to fear that dictator using WMD in America. Sheryl Mccarthy of Newsday accuses Bush of "pandering to people?s fear, petty interests and prejudices" against homosexuals. Ms. Mccarthy thinks we should approve homosexual marriage because she does. I would remind Ms. Mccarthy there is a difference between pandering and appealing. A candidate who supports marriage being only between one man and one woman appeals to us. Sidney Blumenthal, writing in Salon, claims that the new Senate majority is "more theocratic than Republican." Could it be that perhaps the Senate minority is more secular than Democratic?

First off, I had to look up secularism. I've seen the word before, but I'm lazy and don't research words of which the meaning I am ignorant of all the time. It says " The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education." So, he is saying that our interpretation of the constitution that church and state should be separate is a religion. I'm not the smartest trash in the trailer park, but that just plain don't make sense to me. He still touts that we went into Iraq because of the 'evil' threatening the US, and that not teaching the creation bullshit is censorship. He is correct to a certain degree. They should both be taught in schools, but it should also be emphasized that they are both 'theories', and teaching the basis of those theories would allow students to decide for themselves. This, of course, is not what the christian right wants to do, they would rather push their propaganda as fact and be done with it. I don't hear anyone complaining about electricity being taught as fact, when it is all based on theory because we still can't see the little electrons that the theory is based on.

The AFAJournal.org site also uses the SpongeBob thing to denounce the ADL, saying it is using the video to advocate homosexuality. HUH?! I looked, there is nothing on that website that promotes anything close to homosexuality. Granted, I didn't have time to delve into every nook and cranny on the website, but it's all about promoting tolerance toward the Jewish community, not sexual orientation. Hmmm, looks to me like a sideways attempt to defame the Jews....