Concerned Oklahomas gather to protest the airing of Cosmos, citing the show’s agenda is ‘clearly anti-Christian and biased against creationist values.’ Citizens have threatened to vote to ‘secdee’ [sic] from the United States during the 2014 gubernatorial and ballot issue election if Cosmos is not formally removed from all Oklahoma based television networks.
*snip*
Several weeks ago, citizens accused Tyson of using his Cosmos program to forward other agendas, not limited to a ‘homogay’ agenda, wizardry/haroldry, astrology and other vehemently anti-Christian teachings.
*snip*
Cosmos is a dangerous television program with strong ties to the Satanic Ra occult. The show veils itself under the guise of ‘inspiration science’, but unveils its wolf teeth every time Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouts anti-Creationist rhetoric that possesses the minds of Oklahoma’s children.
*snip*
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
On a starry night in a field gules, Neil DeGrasse Tyson hovers above the Earth and teaches the words of Ra to all who will listen. Neil Tyson is a harold of Ra, poisoning the minds of the innocent with all sorts of ancient Egyptian curses and brainwashing. Look at the icons on the vest of Tyson and we can see the makings of Wiccan occultism.
Just can't make this stuff up. A lot more at the link.
I didn't really watch the show intently. Was some anti christian remarks or are these peeps just totally flippin?
Danny Faulknerdid complain about Creationists not getting equal airtime on Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. Many Christians believe the entire show is completely 'anti-christian'.
Danny Faulknerdid complain about Creationists not getting equal airtime on Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. Many Christians believe the entire show is completely 'anti-christian'.
Just can't make this stuff up. A lot more at the link.
Actually, turns out you can make this stuff up...
1) I lived in Oklahoma for 15 years and I've never heard of Saddlebridge Township, OK. Neither has Google, BTW. If you Google it Google will suggest "Saddle Bridge" with still no Oklahoma results, if you insist on "Saddlbridge" the only results are references to this article just from different sources.
2) I can't find anything in their "about" section that states they're a satirical organization however, clicking to the link to the Author, Haywood Bynum III's other articles you DO get such gripping stories as: "Heartbleed Blood Moon, Is This Armageddon for our Sins?" "Barack Obama Caught Grabbing Badunky Dunk In Public" "Facebook Prayers Help Local Doctors Cure Desperate Father of Gay" (Should be noted that the picture of the Doctor in the article is of Matt Smith, AKA the 11th Doctor Who...)
And who could pass up the gripping "Local Cat Traumatized After Watching Owners ‘Do It’" . . . . Satire... apparently you have to explain to to people. Or... worded another way (from an Awesome book series):
Wizard's First Rule: "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
Pardon me for saying so but it seems you have a preconceived notion about either Christians or Okies (or both). It would appear that this article fit that preconceived notion so well that you were willing to believe it without doing the slightest bit of researched. If I am wrong I certainly apologize but as a Christian and an Okie I feel a little hurt that anyone would be so willing to believe this without even doing something as simple as a Google search first...
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 04-15-2014).]
Pardon me for saying so but it seems you have a preconceived notion about either Christians or Okies (or both).
I spent 40 years of my life as a natural-born Okie, and I have been a moderate Christian longer than that, so I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. The satire of the "article" in question is pretty much on the mark. As I alluded to earlier, there is a long tradition among some religious conservatives in Oklahoma of embracing rather goofy and extreme (IMO) propositions. It was a faction of good Christian citizens in the town of Rush Springs, for example, who enacted a law banning the "sinful" practice of teenagers and adults dancing within the town limits ... an episode forever enshrined in the semi-documentary musical (and movie) Footloose ... until it was overturned by the courts.
It was conservative Christian Oklahoma County district attorney Curtis Harris who in the mid 1960s famously tried to extradite Hugh Hefner to Oklahoma to face charges of distributing pornography, in the form of Playboy magazine, in violation of Oklahoma law. Harris was responsible for perhaps my favorite ironic quote of all time: "A person cannot look at that material without becoming a pervert! ... I know, because I've seen it myself!" Harris also held regular invitation-only "viewings" of such "material" seized by county sheriff's deputies ... which he insisted be stored in his personal office rather than in the county evidence vault ... for the benefit of local social-conservative clergy and like-minded anti-smut crusaders.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-25-2014).]
In response to the people the original poster's article pointed out: There is not a Picard-Riker-Facepalm-PNG large enough to repel idiocy of that magnitude. u.u;
Oi. Freaking. Vey.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 04-15-2014).]
1) I lived in Oklahoma for 15 years and I've never heard of Saddlebridge Township, OK. Neither has Google, BTW. If you Google it Google will suggest "Saddle Bridge" with still no Oklahoma results, if you insist on "Saddlbridge" the only results are references to this article just from different sources.
2) I can't find anything in their "about" section that states they're a satirical organization however, clicking to the link to the Author, Haywood Bynum III's other articles you DO get such gripping stories as: "Heartbleed Blood Moon, Is This Armageddon for our Sins?" "Barack Obama Caught Grabbing Badunky Dunk In Public" "Facebook Prayers Help Local Doctors Cure Desperate Father of Gay" (Should be noted that the picture of the Doctor in the article is of Matt Smith, AKA the 11th Doctor Who...)
And who could pass up the gripping "Local Cat Traumatized After Watching Owners ‘Do It’" . . . . Satire... apparently you have to explain to to people. Or... worded another way (from an Awesome book series):
Wizard's First Rule: "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
Pardon me for saying so but it seems you have a preconceived notion about either Christians or Okies (or both). It would appear that this article fit that preconceived notion so well that you were willing to believe it without doing the slightest bit of researched. If I am wrong I certainly apologize but as a Christian and an Okie I feel a little hurt that anyone would be so willing to believe this without even doing something as simple as a Google search first...
I didn't look at the stories in the sidebar, but I did scroll to the bottom and didn't see anything about satire so I took the website as a a legit local Topeka news source. If it isn't, I'll amend the OP to state as much.
My personal favorite rule is #6: "The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason." I read the whole series, and with the exception of the (Chainfire/Phantom/Confessor) final trilogy, I loved it when I read it. Looking back on it now, I'm not sure if it remains in my personal top 10 book series' list, but that's a discussion for a different thread.
You are correct, I do have a preconceived notion about some(not all) religious types. I've never had any real interaction with native Okies beyond this web forum, so I am unable to make an informed decision about them, but I suspect they are like most people, some good, some bad. Some 'down and dirty on myself: I am an agnostic that comes from a very conservative, fundamentalist Christian background(Kinda takes the 'pre-' out of preconceived). With only 1 or 2 exceptions, my father believes what the article says and insinuates, high level sciences are detracting the youth away from God and into a life of Godless "truth seeking"(His quotes, not mine). If he doesn't understand how it works, it's a "gift from God", and to try and explain the inner workings of the universe in a scientific manner is borderline blasphemy and tempting fate. That's not to say he's entirely old fashioned. He loves technology and understands a great deal about it, but he has no patience for astrophysics and quantum physics and trying to explain the universe beyond 'God created it'. I have no problems believing there are people that would make such statements and potentially take such actions.
I spent 40 years of my life as a natural-born Okie, and I have been a moderate Christian longer than that, so I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. The satire of the "article" in question is pretty much on the mark. As I alluded to earlier, there is a long tradition among some religious conservatives in Oklahoma of embracing rather goofy and extreme (IMO) propositions. It was a faction of good Christian citizens in the town of Rush Springs, for example, who enacted a law banning the "sinful" practice of teenagers and adults dancing within the town limits ... an episode forever enshrined in the semi-documentary musical (and movie) Footloose ... until it was overturned by the courts.
It was conservative Christian Oklahoma County district attorney Curtis Harris who in the mid 1960s famously tried to extradite Hugh Hefner to Oklahoma to face charges that he was responsible for distributing pornography, in the form of Playboy magazine, in violation of Oklahoma law. Harris was responsible for perhaps my favorite ironic quote of all time: "A person cannot look at that material without becoming a pervert! ... I know, because I've seen it myself!" Harris also held regular invitation-only "viewings" of such "material" seized by county sheriff's deputies ... which he insisted be stored in his personal office rather than in the county evidence vault ... for the benefit of local social-conservative clergy and like-minded anti-smut crusaders.
Smut? I haven't heard that term since Rowan and Martin
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Wonder why "anti- islam" shows dont make it to TV programs? Maybe... oh never mind.
Do you perceive the new edition of Cosmos, as narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, as antithetical to Christianity?
If you do not so perceive (stilted language, I admit, but I don't want to leave anything to chance here), then it seems that your comment (above) is a non sequitur that is profoundly incongruent with the way that this discussion has evolved, starting from the OP. Your comment begs the question of why you would contrast your perception of a favorable or nonjudgmental treatment of Islam on TV with the treatment of Christianity, in a discussion that centers on the new Cosmos series, if you do not perceive Cosmos as having an anti-Christianity slant or bias. Are you comparing apples with apples, and somehow coming up with a difference?
If, OTOH, you do perceive Cosmos as anti-Christianity, then I do not understand your reasoning, because of the opacity of the position that you are staking out for yourself: Your trajectory is opaque (i.e., impenetrable to any external analysis), and therefore barren of the realistic prospect of logically articulated and persuasive third party affirmation from a statistically significant subset of this forum's roster of regular participants. And why is that? It is because you are not giving any reason(s) for why or how you perceive the new Cosmos TV series as antithetical to Christianity.
Are you trying to create a vexation (by your statement) to the body politic..? That would be distressing.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-15-2014).]
While that sounds like something my fellow Okies would do, I have to admit that I have never heard of this community...or this so called harold. For that matter, what IS a Harold? Is that like a herald?
Do you perceive the new edition of Cosmos, as narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, as antithetical to Christianity?
If you do not so perceive (stilted language, I admit, but I don't want to leave anything to chance here), then it seems that your comment (above) is a non sequitur that is profoundly incongruent with the way that this discussion has evolved, starting from the OP. Your comment begs the question of why you would contrast your perception of a favorable or nonjudgmental treatment of Islam on TV with the treatment of Christianity, in a discussion that centers on the new Cosmos series, if you do not perceive Cosmos as having an anti-Christianity slant or bias. Are you comparing apples with apples, and somehow coming up with a difference?
If, OTOH, you do perceive Cosmos as anti-Christianity, then I do not understand your reasoning, because of the opacity of the position that you are staking out for yourself: Your trajectory is opaque (i.e., impenetrable to any external analysis), and therefore barren of the realistic prospect of logically articulated and persuasive third party affirmation from a statistically significant subset of this forum's roster of regular participants. And why is that? It is because you are not giving any reason(s) for why or how you perceive the new Cosmos TV series as antithetical to Christianity.
Are you trying to create a vexation (by your statement) to the body politic..? That would be distressing.
Huh? I really tried to follow your train of thought. I know that I'm often guilty of posting "train of thought" threads so I'm not innocent.
Smut? I haven't heard that term since Rowan and Martin
Both incidents I cited occurred in the 1960s, so the time frame is about right. I think the word was chosen as a broad and vaguely dirty-sounding term for what today would probably be called "erotic art or literature" ... from lowbrow to highbrow ... basically anything with sexual content that someone, somewhere might find personally offensive.
The Urban Dictionary defines smut thus:
quote
1. Yummy erotic fiction or art.
2. A writing style that is sexually explicit and generally associated with females.
Basically pornography aimed towards women.
The difference between pornography and smut:
Pornography: Usually has very little plot line and is extremely sexually explicit. Mostly watched or 'read' for the pictures. Aimed towards men.
Smut: Highly developed stories with love lines and other things that appeal to women that also include alot of sexually explicit scenes. Can be in comic form, or in written form (as in romance books)
The Online Etymology Dictionary associates the modern word smut with the 16th century Middle High German words smotzen and schmutzen, both meaning "to make dirty." It may also be related to the Yiddish word "schmutz," meaning "a little dirt" or "dirty language."
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-15-2014).]
The story was posted on April 11. That's April fools (Apirl 1) Twice. Maybe the blogger was too busy genuflecting to check the date. This is too far out to be true even for Oklahoma. Although some wingnuts HAVE tried to get normal people to vote to 'secede' from the USA before. Strange that so many people believed this story, though. It just goes to show....... Something.
Originally posted by maryjane: He is trying once again to impress the board with his "command" of the language. I suspect he impressed only himself.
No, I wasn't trying to impress anyone on the forum (going back) in that way. I was trying to both counter and also ridicule that post from Rickady88GT, because I thought that what he said was ridiculous. But theBDub came up with an even better riposte to Rickady88GT's folly (here) than I did. First, Rickady88GT's appalling descent into momentary mindlessness:
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Wonder why "anti- islam" shows dont make it to TV programs? Maybe... oh never mind.
And now, theBDub's most excellent riposte:
Have you seen Cosmos? Because if you haven't... oh never mind.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-16-2014).]
I do not think that the new Cosmos TV series is in any way antithetical to Christianity.
Consider the formative event that started Christian history: The life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Would Neil deGrasse Tyson (Cosmos narrator) say that this never happened? I don't think so. I think he would say that if it did happen, then it happened in a way or through an agency that humans cannot comprehend using the laws and theories of natural science. He would say (IMO) that if it happened, it was supernatural.
Is that antithetical to Christianity? Perhaps it is antithetical to certain niche or boutique Christian "brands" within the larger genre of Christianity; i.e., Christian fundamentalists or New Testament literalists that believe that their Bible is a literal account of what has already happened and what is still going on in this world.
Modern Catholic doctrine, as authorized by recent Popes, has no fundamental conflict with the Darwinian theory of mankind's evolutionary origins from earlier species. They say that there is something supernatural, called a "human soul", that is created for each of us directly by the agency of God. But that is hardly any grounds for a major divide or conflict between Catholic doctrine and modern evolutionary biology. Of course, that's just Catholicism. I am not as well versed in how any of the other "leading brands" (of Christianity) regard the most widely accepted teachings of the modern natural sciences.
If the new Cosmos were antithetical to Christianity, then it would be equally antithetical to Islam and the Muslim way of worshipping a divine creator. But it's not. You only have to look at the respectful treatment of Sir Isaac Newton and other notable scientists with known Christian leanings (Sir Edmond Halley; Sir William Herschel) to appreciate how off base it would be to say that the new Cosmos is in any way antithetical to Christian beliefs.
I hope that all who are reading this will reference backwards, by exactly three posts, to see what I said just before. All hail to theBDub for his pithy commentary, as I was honored to recapitulate it. We are most definitely "not worthy".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-15-2014).]
If he wants to claim it's anti-Christian, then it is similarly anti-Islam.
Seems that I hit some kind of nerve with some people? I made no comment or claim about the show, I never even heard of it till this thread. My comment was very clear as it stands.
