Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arrowman · 06-27-2002, 04:45 PM

On the issue about Fox News coverage, and in particular giving out the judge's phone number:

- In Australia we have a body called the Australian Broadcasting Authority (?or somesuch) which has an oversight role over the media. Any person may make a complaint to this body when they believe a member of the media has breached the Code of Conduct (which says all sorts of good things about fairness and accuracy in reporting, respecting privacy etc). And the body can issue rulings, require retractions and apologies etc. In extreme cases I believe it can revoke a licence.

It's pretty much a toothless tiger and it rarely acts as strongly as it should (similarly to the Ronaldo thing in the World Cup, it is more likely to issue a handslap fine for an outrageous offence, than suspend the player

) but it's there.

Do you have a similar setup in the US - is there a body to which a concerted complaint could be made about the way Fox News gave out this man's phone number?

uhcord · 06-27-2002, 04:53 PM

27.82% - Lol

Edit: hahahahahahah 30.16%! Err, I'll shut up now

Naw, don't think we have anything like that here Arrowman. You would think Fox would be smart enough to know not to give a persons personal phone number out on cable T.V. *sigh*

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: vonmeth ]

Reverend Mykeru · 06-27-2002, 05:06 PM

Jarlaxle

Quote:

]What does that phrase "one nation under God" mean anyway?

Imagine God. Now imagine the missionary position...

Well my fellow heathens, I was watching something on Fox (oh, excuse me, "faux") channel that made the whole thing clear to me. Some bozer was filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor and the first segment dealt with "THe Pledge" issue, the second with a muslim woman who did not want her face exposed for her driver's license photo.

The first segment has the surrogate O'Reilly, a Ms. Khan from People for the Separation of Church and State and some right-wing human weasel. Ms. Khan explained quite simply that the ruling was about not complelling children who may not be monotheists to either protest or participate in the pledge. The Surrogate O'Reilly and the weasel were having none of it, asking "what harm" it would do to have the kid recite the pledge anyway , what harm could it do to force their religious beliefs on children. The Surrogate O'Reilly loved using phrases like "the tail wagging the dog" and "tyranny of the majority" which, I guess, reflects the frustration of powerful Christians when they are temporarily thwarted in forcing their views on other people, even if these people are children.

Right: Get the fact that the Surrogate O'Reilly was, in this segment, a champion of religion.

In the next segment the Surrogate O'Reilly was appalled that this muslim woman could have the gall not to want her face photographed due to her (haw haw) religious convictions.

That sums it up: If you want a summary capsule of right-wing Christian thinking it is this: "Their religion, their way". All their rhetoric about freedom of religion applies only to their religion.

Fuck 'em. Honestly folks, if we don't stand up and make ourselves heard they will silence us forever.

Do it now.

Bill · 06-27-2002, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atheist121:
BTW, I can't wait to see how The Onion handles this one.

Well, we have this past Onion story for guidance: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3803/judge_orders_god.html" target="_blank">Judge Orders God To Break Up Into Smaller Deities</a> on anti-trust grounds.

== Bill

06-27-2002, 05:09 PM

Here's what the Senate chaplain said in this morning's prayer:

Quote:

"We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state, but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state," Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie said in Thursday's morning prayer.

The Senate floor and partly filled visitors galleries were hushed as Ogilvie proclaimed, "We are one Senate, united under you, to lead a nation that is free to say confidently, 'In God we trust."

What a crock!!!

Bill · 06-27-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
In an earlier message, I stated that only 4.35% of people voting on my local station's poll about the pledge supported the ruling. So I asked people to stop and vote if they got the chance. I voted, and it's a tad over 20% now.

When I voted at MSNBC, a quarter-million votes had been cast, and we had 21% support. Not surprisingly, the Fox News poll was at 10% favoring our side.

== Bill

Chuck · 06-27-2002, 05:16 PM

Just thought I'd mention that WFMY2's poll now reveals that the Piedmont triad community is 51% in favor of removing "under God" and 49% opposed.

I expect the news tonight to talk about some "polling irregularities..." :-P

I'll be taping it.

Berenger Sauniere · 06-27-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jarlaxle:
What does that phrase "one nation under God" mean anyway?

"One Nation Under God" is a slogan for a Theocracy and nothing else. The only remedy from this situation is the complete and utter destruction of Christianity. Believe me, that will come in due time.

uhcord · 06-27-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Just thought I'd mention that WFMY2's poll now reveals that the Piedmont triad community is 51% in favor of removing "under God" and 49% opposed.
I expect the news tonight to talk about some "polling irregularities..." :-P

I'll be taping it.

The poll has "expired"

One of the last sane · 06-27-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

What does that phrase "one nation under God" mean anyway?

I never thought of it this way before, but maybe it means that if you're not under God, you needn't consider yourself part of the nation?

06-27-2002, 04:53 PM	#422
uhcord Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,158	27.82% - Lol Edit: hahahahahahah 30.16%! Err, I'll shut up now Naw, don't think we have anything like that here Arrowman. You would think Fox would be smart enough to know not to give a persons personal phone number out on cable T.V. sigh [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: vonmeth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2002, 04:45 PM	#421
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	On the issue about Fox News coverage, and in particular giving out the judge's phone number: - In Australia we have a body called the Australian Broadcasting Authority (?or somesuch) which has an oversight role over the media. Any person may make a complaint to this body when they believe a member of the media has breached the Code of Conduct (which says all sorts of good things about fairness and accuracy in reporting, respecting privacy etc). And the body can issue rulings, require retractions and apologies etc. In extreme cases I believe it can revoke a licence. It's pretty much a toothless tiger and it rarely acts as strongly as it should (similarly to the Ronaldo thing in the World Cup, it is more likely to issue a handslap fine for an outrageous offence, than suspend the player ) but it's there. Do you have a similar setup in the US - is there a body to which a concerted complaint could be made about the way Fox News gave out this man's phone number?

06-27-2002, 05:16 PM	#427
Chuck Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: gone Posts: 3,953	Just thought I'd mention that WFMY2's poll now reveals that the Piedmont triad community is 51% in favor of removing "under God" and 49% opposed. I expect the news tonight to talk about some "polling irregularities..." :-P I'll be taping it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.