The Disney Channel only advertises its own programs.
What adverts on the cartoon network?
I haven’t seen any, and that’s the channel most frequently on in my household.
Have I been deaf and blind to their siren songs?
Captain Amazing, although he was mistaken on Disney Channel’s commercial programming, his point was that the commercials he speaks of are generally put on networks aimed at young viewers. I’ve seen them mostly during programming blocks that are specifically aimed at children on networks with other themes. The only exception to this is the commercials during Adult Swim, from my experience watching television.
It must depend on the market, because I’ve never seen ads for Christian music on kids stations like Nickelodeon. I hardly ever see ads for Christian music at all, actually.
Besides, what’s wrong with the ads?
I think it may be a local carrier here in orlando Fl. My problem is that they are ONLY on those channels. I wouldn’t care if it was on any old station, but it seems to be rather deliberately aimed at a young audience. FYI it IS on disney channel here. once again, could be a local thing though.
There’s no big deal about telling people to worship in the privacy of wherever. Feel free to do so in fact. After all the ideas behind freedom of association, press, and expression applies to you as well as the religious.
Marc
I don’t understand why you would ask why the First Amendment is a big deal?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The government is not supposed to do anything regarding religion.
If you agree (like me) that people shouldn’t have any problems following the 1st Amendment, then it should be no big deal then to remove all religious and deity references from oaths of office, money, courthouses, etc.
And my stance is that the people who raise such a fuss (like the Judge Moore supporters) should NOT do so in the first place. They should say, “Oh. Say. Judge Moore was wrong to put that monument in the courthouse. There shouldn’t be any religious stuff in there. Hey, Judge, you can put that nice monument in your church or your yard. Here let us help.”
Sure, my personal view is keep your religion to yourself and your fellow church members. Have a ball. But don’t say a damn thing when “In God We Trust” is removed from coins. Tolerate it.
And I will kindly tolerate those who set up their soapboxes anywhere in america (except in or on a govermental institution) and preach, wail, babble, or sing. (Damn you 700 Club! You’re off the hook!)
I don’t really have a lot of respect for those openly hostile to religion. It is to me just as disrespectful of people’s feelings as those who would proselytize without knowing or caring what your beliefs are.
I’m going to post this link, because it closely ties in with my own thoughts on how religion should be handled in the public sphere.
I doubt anybody is going to turn Christian just by hearing a song on TV. Even if they do, though, it is their right to do so.
In my mind public displays of religion are on about the same level as public displays of sex, only the religion is much more likely to harm somebody.
That said, I am forced to tollerate idiots shouting, saliva flying, at people while waiving their books in a threatening manner because a free trader or a communist has the same right. But government should be absolutely neutral as to religion. No “charming” little antique sayings that mention dieties. No prayers before sessions. No religious icons decorating our courthouses or public parks.
That is not what government is for, that is what churches are for. You want to do that stuff, go to church. You want to pay your taxes, go to city hall. Don’t get the two confused.
Anybody, ANYBODY! who tries to put their icons on public property is doing it for one reason. They want their religion to look like it has universal acceptance. They want to promote their point of view as the “official” one. Otherwise why do it? A vast majority of land in most cities is privately owned. Put your religion there. Keep it off my government.
From the article posted by Mr. Moto:
"The answer is not to banish religious symbols from the public square. The answer–the pro-peace position if you will–is to fill the public square with the signs and symbols of faith. It is not to banish them from the schools, it is to teach them in the schools.
…
The answer is not to banish belief but to bring it in and explain it in loving terms to our hungry-minded children. This will truly teach them appreciation and diversity and respect and regard for others. We, their parents, are limiting them and harming them by hiding the things of faith, or forcing them underground. They deserve light."
The author goes on to tell about Brooklyn and the diversity of religious buildings around there.
I totally agree with the author (Peggy Noonan), but my argument is about a single religion’s representation on governmental documents, buildings, oaths, etc.
Sure, teach kids all about ALL religions. That’s great. I totally encourage that because it is the best way to PREVENT fundamentalist error (worshipping symbols instead of meanings).*
And I wouldn’t mind every single different religious institution all up and down my street.
I am talking about government. (Perhaps I should’ve phrased the title of this thread instead as “Remove religion from everything government.”)
*A great book about this idea is Other People’s Myths by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty. That learning about other people’s religions enriches your own.
If I had a little more time, I get you a cite. It shouldn’t be hard to come by.
But I wanted to submit that it is fairly common and public knowledge that The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon’s church. Krokodil hasn’t uncovered any secret information or anything like that.
Please clarify: What do you want a cite for?
If it’s the link between the Times and the Unification Church, just do a google search for “The Washington Times” “Sun Myung Moon” and you’ll get plenty of hits for this open secret. The Times’s first editor-in-chief resigned/was fired after publicly stating in 1985 that “The Times is a Moonie paper.” This was the cover story to the first issue of the short-lived Washington Weekly. Moon might even be on the Times’s masthead.
If it’s that membership in the Unification Church is necessary to advance within the Times organization, that’s been industry scuttlebut for years and I can’t cite anythng for it; but I know plenty of present and former employees of the paper who acknwledge this, and who told me that managers all have gold rings with multiple red stones, a Unification Church symbol. When I interviewed there in 1996, I spoke with three managers and all three did, in fact, sport these rings.
My boss worked at the Times. A close friend works there now, and tells me that every time the aging Reverend gets sick, the employees worry about their jobs.
Having said this, the Times is a decent paper in its hard news coverage (The edit page is a different matter). Their coverage of Black Washington puts the Post to shame on a daily basis, and it was a Times reporter who broke the story a few years back about the shady goings-on at the Marcus Garvey Charter School, whose questionable Afrocentric curriculum was run by violent felons of dubious academic qualifications.
I really wish the Times were a more serious player, if only because if DC is going to be a one-paper town, the Post doesn’t deserve to be that one paper.
I’ve seen Ouiji boards advertised during cartoons, so I’m not so sure about that. At any rate, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with preaching to children, though I may be in the minority with that view. Their parents/guardians can restrict the child’s access if they don’t want their child to hear about it.
I’m sorry if you’ve had bad experiences with Christians, BTW.
There is no way to justify the banning of religious speech by private individuals just because it is called “religious.”
I honestly don’t know what some of you are talking about because never once while watching The Family Guy on any network have I ever seen an advertisement for anything remotely religous. Maybe it varies by region, but I rarely recall seing anything religous advertised on any channel during any show excpet the all-religion channels, which I stay away from. Can you give an example of a commercial that offends you? Jesus loves you music every 15 minutes? I don’t know…I’ve honestly never run into this. The only religous commercials I see on TV really are runs that advertise for drug and alcohol counseling places with the Amazing Grace commericals…even that is debatable in my mind.
I also don't recall seeing many religous icons on public property either, except at churches and during the Christmas season. Maybe I am not paying attention or something. I don't feel overly advertised to by any religous group.For all of you, "never saw religious comercials on children’s programming, well first of all, have you ever heard of Veggie Tales? If not they are Christian propaganda dressed up as kids movies. I have seen commercials for these on most any channel that shows cartoons. I have also seen the Christian music commercial that another reader mentioned. I think that one is probably regional though, mostly because of its production quality. My guess is that if you don’t live somewhere with a lot of Bible thumpers then you won’t see the ad.
I think ‘propaganda’ is possibly a little strong; granted they are Christian products, but they typically only promote touchy-feely be nice to each other kind of ethics - unlike, say, Chick publications, which attempt to force a conversion.
I’m also a little confused as to how the separation of government and religion should impact on commercial advertising.
Certainly the government should not be actively promoting any particular religion, but the same could be said of commerical ties too - the government shouldn’t be trying to tell us to drink Pepsi instead of Coke, yet it is still OK for Coke and Pepsi to buy airtime on commercial television, in order to promote their products.
Isn’t it the same with religion? Shouldn’t religious organisations be permitted to buy commercial airtime to advertise their products? Like Coke and Pepsi, you’re not compelled to make a purchase.
Well, yes, and no. I don’t have a problem with the advertising in general. It’s a good way to try to get people interested in whatever faith the ad is peddling. I do think that like ads for adult stores, party lines, etc, they ought to be limited to either:
late night/ early morning.
regular network.
cable channels that are not aimed specifically at young viewers.
religious channels and networks.
possibly sunday mornings since so many channels have televised church services.
I whole heartedly agree that it’s the parent’s responsibility to monitor the child’s viewing; however it’s really impossible to expect a parent to hang about for the duration of entire programs to look out for rogue ads. I’m also blowing this particular one out of proportion, it’s not particularily insidious, except perhaps in it’s number and repitition. It really wouldn’t be so bad if other faiths could buy airtime as well. The access is there of course, but the religious right would be up in arms the first time a Buddhist temple perhaps began advertising during “Roly-Poly-Oly” that their kid was watching.