« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A St. Valentines Day Kiss-Off to Christians: Censorship of Christians Continues

By: Steve Foley (Diary)  |  February 14th, 2009 at 12:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

TV Stations Ban ‘Speechless…Silencing the Christians’

Two TV stations, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH, have banned a television special showing how the media is silencing Christians. The stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of our TV special “Speechless…Silencing the Christians.”

It’s not a myth, nor is it paranoid delusion, the fact of the matter is that Judaeo–Christian religions have been under assault in this country for years and the constant barrage of bashing and censorship isn’t likely to subside anytime soon.

A perfect and recent example of this is the misplaced backlash of the Prop 8 vote in California. In fact, beside a couple of 30 second local news clip coverage, Bill O’Reilly was the only mainstream media figure to cover the story of radical gay groups attack on Christians! This type of institutional censorship and covert defamation is all to prevalent in our news stations and our greater society these days.

Other examples include the horrific way the media and angry scared liberals attacked Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Barack Obama’s Bitter clingers remarks and YouTube’s removal of the Obama Abortion Video “Obama: WRONG Change for Children.”

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar instances across this country and indeed around the world which leads me to the latest example of censorship perpetrated by two TV stations in Grand Rapids, MI and Columbus, OH who, after being paid for the time to air the television special ‘Speechless…Silencing the Christians’ were pressured into pulling the show and refusing to air it!

Two TV stations, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH, have banned a television special showing how the media is silencing Christians. The stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of our TV special “Speechless…Silencing the Christians.” The one-hour TV special was scheduled to be shown on the stations, but the stations yanked the program after agreeing to run it. AFA was paying for the time.

You can watch the one-hour banned program here.

You can order a DVD of the one-hour TV special “Speechless…Silencing the Christians” and show it in your church. See for yourself and let your church members see the AFA special that the stations banned!

Or, order all 14 of the original 22-minute episodes of “Speechless…Silencing the Christians” with a discussion guide, and show them in your church.

Oddly enough, the TV special shows how the media censors Christians, which is exactly what these two stations did

They said the program was “controversial.” The stations do not consider showing two lesbians or two homosexuals kissing or getting into bed with each other controversial. The stations do not consider all the profanity they air controversial. They regularly show network programs advocating the homosexual agenda, but those programs are not considered controversial. However, a special showing of Christians being silenced is controversial!

The manager of the Columbus station told AFA the station would not air the program because telling the truth about homosexuality did not represent “positive Christianity.” Are we moving to a time in the near future when local pastors whose services are broadcast will be banned because their sermons call the practice of homosexuality a sin?

Please, forward this critical message to your family and friends today!

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?

Sincerely, Don

Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

I’m, by no stretch of the imagination, a religious activist but the reverse bigotry, hatred, and rage toward Judaeo–Christian religions, manifesting itself in the form of physical attack and censorship is every bit as sick and disgusting as any form of subversion and needs to be exposed and dealt with before it gets any more entrenched and ingrained in our society. Liberals are working hard to make this type of hatred and censorship the norm — Don’t let them! Stand up for the 1st amendment! Funny that these same people only seem to respect freedom of speech when it suites them, their needs, or their cause?

For video episodes of “Speechless…Silencing the Christians” Click Here

Cross-Posted from The Minority Report

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • redneck_hippie

    this.

    And I am very far from a religious activist, not having attended church regularly for any length of time in my life. That being said, the attacks on freedom of speech must end. Now.

  • pilgrim

    This kind of thing happens when the Marxist left has power. Here is an example of censorship in Cuba from the interview Tavis Smiley had with Carlos Moore:

    Tavis: So tell me more, then – I’m just trying to hit key part s of the story here and they can read the rest in the book. But how do you then do this dance, as it were, with Fidel Castro? I’m still on this point. You see him as an authentic social reformer, but he’s letting you down on this particular issue. How do you dance with Castro?

    Moore: Because I still had faith in him. Remember, Castro was larger than life to us. We had faith in this leader, and we felt that the fact that he had confronted imperialism, confronted the United States, and had had the courage to do what he did, because Castro’s a very courageous man. He’s a nationalist, he’s an anti-imperialist, and he’s a man who is committed to social reform. There is no question about this.

    Castro’s not a segregationist. So we felt that Castro had – could understand that the policies that he was enacting, if he – we could explain to him that this policies wouldn’t work, that they were wrong – for instance, he banned all Black organizations in Cuba. He called them racist organizations.

    There were 526 organizations in Cuba; he banned them. He started banning all of Black organizations, which had come out of slavery, and he started attacking the Black religions, African religions. He said they were primitive.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    But since we’re talking a private company, presumably that company can choose to air whatever it wishes. I suppose it also has the right to lie about its reasons, and it doesn’t have be consistent in its reasoning as to what it airs and what it doesn’t.

    And the fact that this was done in response to a pressure group just invites other groups to bully the media into suppressing unpopular views, which is the brownshirts’ road to tyranny.

    The answer would seem to rest in publicizing this event as broadly as possible, hopefully raising public consciousness and embarrassing the station so that they don’t repreat this craven behavior.

  • Steve Foley

    I agree with this

    The answer would seem to rest in publicizing this event as broadly as possible, hopefully raising public consciousness and embarrassing the station so that they don?t repreat this craven behavior.

  • AceInTX

    I’ve encountered it at every turn…take almost any spam brogram on program aimed at blocking web sites that are problematic to children and change the settings for “controversial speech”, “extremist content”, or any variation of same to the highest level possible to block these categories…once you’ve done that…try visiting any of the main stream christian ministries once you’ve changed the sttings…you’ll be stunned what is considered “extremist or controversial speech from most filtering software…and it’s been that way for decades!

  • exitsfunnel

    (1) The stations are private entities so obviously this has nothing to do with the first amendment. That’s the kind of argument I’d expect to see at DailyKos.

    (2) I’d have a lot more sympathy (read: any at all) for the general argument presented if activist christian groups weren’t boycotting a different product or company every other day.

    -exits

  • redneck_hippie

    constitutional issues with the station’s right to select programming.

    I would be even more chagrined had nobody ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine.

    The FD was what was foremost in my mind, so excuse me for confusing the two.

  • Steve Foley

    you should use it!

    The only 1st amendment argument I made was to the broader issue and if you want to justify this type of behavior by pointing to other bad actors that’s your right. Just don’t expect me to to take you seriously!

  • AceInTX

    Of course they’re private corporations and of course they have a right to air whatever they want…but the hypocrisy of saying you won’t air content because it is “controversial” to one side of an arguement while openly and routinely airing content that is considered “controversial” to the other side and claiming it isn’t “controversial” is ridiculous on it’s face.

    What’s really cute and subversive about this however, is that those who support such obvious censorship of ideas and speech are the very people who are screaming for a “Fairness Doctrine” to provide “Balance” to speech which they are working overtime to ban and supress from the public market! Their argument is that since the public owns the airwaves the government has an obligation to ensure equal representation of all views….but of course they’ll still use the same standards that are being used now to regulate whats on the air by banning “controversial”, (read Christian) speech while openly airing and promoting non controversial, (read anti Christian and Gay promoting), speech.

  • exitsfunnel

    Your diary consisted of a lengthy piece of borrowed text which detailed the situation with the two television stations and a very brief addendum authored by yourself which included this:

    “Liberals are working hard to make this type of hatred and censorship the norm ? Don?t let them! Stand up for the 1st amendment!”

    If in fact you weren’t trying to conflate the situation described in your diary with the first amendment, then I would humbly suggest that you author your diaries a bit more carefully.

    -exits

  • 1SGinTN

    Mr. Foley, after reading the diary again, I find that I allowed emotion to overcome common sense in my initial reaction. The use of the terms “banned” and “censorship” is incorrect. Only government can ban or censor, commercial entities make marketing decisions. The public’s choice in viewership and advertisers’ choice in ad placement will illustrate if the two stations in question made a wise or unwise marketing decision. A free market allows the liberty to succeed or fail based on the ability to meet the needs and desires of the public.

    Rather than succumb to the same false reasoning as advocates of the Fairness Doctrine, we should leave the stations to their desires and let the market take its course. What solution do you advocate to rectify this situation? I have confidence that the market will provide an outlet in the broadcast area for those who want to see the canceled program.

    Make no mistake, I am disgusted by the actions of the two stations and by the culture that has brought this about. If anything, it serves as yet another useful illustration of the tactics our adversaries use in the culture war. Although I am less in favor of the way the facts are presented after reflection; I do not retract my recommendation for the diary, because I think it important to highlight what these two stations have chosen to do.

  • Steve Foley

    You’re simply a buffoon. that you don’t realize it only exacerbates the problem!

  • Praying

    moral character and decency in this country. The left assails us for our “intolerance” and yet who is showing more intolerance here – I think it is the station that refused to a program that in fact represents the views of the majority of Americans. I am sick and tired of the media telling me that I must accept homosexuality, promiscuity, censorship of conservative views and traditions, forbidding of any public display of religion, and the like. It has been said that without Religion and Morality, our constitution will not stand. I’m afraid we are starting to see evidence of that. Bleah.

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    what’s going on?

  • Herodotus

    What the heck has happened to Columbus, OH?

  • Alitheia

    Is all pro-Gay speech inherently anti-Christian?

  • Brian Hibbert

    No.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    It wouldn’t matter to Him at all.

  • Rod_Patrick

    As conservative, I also really don’t care whether a person is gay or not. It’s not my position to judge anyone.