Stephen Baldwin Believes ‘Gossip Girl’ Is Bad For Your Soul
Stephen Baldwin, who you may or may not know has converted into some manic crusader for religious morality, was on hand to speak at the Values Voter Summit in Washington DC yesterday in order to rail against the immoral values that he believes are promoted by the TV series Gossip Girl. Stephen, with GG ad posters in hand, spoke at the conservative summit of his outrage at Hollywood’s use of provocative images to lure audiences … here are a few pics:
I mean, I’m all for his right to have an opinion on matters like this, just like I can have my opinion … but it does worry me that conservative groups like this tend to rally together in order to work out an agenda that seeks to limit the free speech and expression of others … whether it be in the arts, in film or in television. I suspect, since Gossip Girl is based on a series of books, these conservative-minded people would also like to curtail books that promote, what they believe are, immoral values as well … which is kinda a short step away from book burning, in my opinion. I post my thoughts on this only because, as I said, it really worries me that social conservatives work so hard to curtail freedoms in this country. Just because they believe something is “immoral” or “sinful” then it should be taken away from other grown adults who might have a different viewpoint or may enjoy what they consider wrong. I would be much more comfortable if these folks got together to complain to one another and seek support in their beliefs in one another — and that was that. Make no mistake, these folks want to curtail the availability of things that they find “immoral” and I vehemently oppose their efforts. It’s scary, y’all … ever stop to think what other things these people might find “immoral” enough that they would like to take away from you? Things on the internet perhaps?
[Photo credit: Splash News]
Tags: 'Gossip Girl', Stephen Baldwin, Values Voter Summit
RSS
Feedburner
September 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
this is why the republican party drives me absolutely bananas. They say they want small government, but WTF could possibly be small government about dictating to people what they can and cannot do (gay marriage, abortion, minor drug laws, etc)?
September 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I absolutely love that show!! And if those people are so appalled by it, then maybe they should just not watch it. That goes for everyone, if something is shown that you don’t agree with, thats fine…but no one forces you to watch it.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Conservatives are so narrow-minded it just blows me away.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I am a conservative, but I am for gay marriage, am opposed to censorship, etc. All conservatives are not the gay-bashing idiots that you might think we are. I am all for free speech, just as I am for free speech when it comes to talk radio (which many liberals are trying to mandate gives equal time to both conservatives and liberals.) I do think you should respect HIS freedom of speech and not call him a “manic crusader for religious mortality.” Can’t you disagree with someone without resorting to attacking them personally, and simply disagree with them on the issues? I think this country would be much better off if people could keep it to the issues (and yes, Obama AND McCain are both equally guilty!)
September 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
This is the thing with conservatives that just pushes my button.. They always push their beliefs on everyone else who isn’t on their side. It is THE most bigoted thing IN THE WORLD, and it disgusts me to no end.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Can we not agree that both sides push their beliefs on others? And that both are wrong to do so? I can’t tell you how many celebrities I’ve heard telling me to vote for Obama! It is their right to do that, and I’ve never thought of it as bigoted, but I have also never taken it to heart, as it is my RIGHT to do so.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
If social conservatives just advocated their position, that would be totally fine. The problem is that they actively work toward enacting legislation that would take away your choices. Someone who urges you to vote Obama can’t make you. These folks would like to enact laws that would hinder your ability to choose. There is a huge difference.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I completely agree with Trent on this.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
[...] Source:Stephen solon Believes ‘<b>Gossip</b> Girl’ Is Bad For Your Soul Author: Time: Saturday, September 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm Category: Gossip Comments: You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RSS: You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Navigation: « <B>GALLERY</B> OPERATIONS MANAGER, FRITH STREET <B>GALLERY</B>, LONDON BYłA W SZOKU: NA <B>NASZEJ KLASIE</B> SZUKALI DOMU DLA JEJ CóRKI » ARTICLEURL [...]
September 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sorry but obama and all “celebrities” who endorse him do that same. Justify it to yourself how you will but all political agendas are the same no matter what side they are on. They want to force their beliefs on you and when they get into power they are able to. Thinking otherwise shows you are really a narrowminded person who is completely uneducated about politics and how they work. They are all the done the same no matter who the candidate.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Okay, look. I’m all for freedom of speech and expression, but I’m ALSO all about protecting my seven year old daughter. She doesn’t need to see those ads. So many TV ads that run all day long for late night shows are incredibly racy- let’s not even mention the billboards and window displays we walk past all day every day. I can keep my daughter from watching innapropriate shows, visiting websites she shouldn’t, and wearing clothes too old for her, but unless I blindfold her, I can’t keep her from adult images in her everyday life. Trent, I know you don’t have children- but think of how much of this you would be comfortable with Zakiya seeing. Innocence is a beautiful thing, and I’d like my daughter to stay a child as long as she can.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Oh fucking hell, it’s a fun TV show which you and set and watch while eating chocolate. I’ve never thought to myself “ooh I should screw people over… and generally screw people” after watching it. It’s a guilty pleasure :P
Honestly, you see just as bad if not worse off Miley Cyrus’ cell phone.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I agree with Trent in that they don’t just “advocate,” they push to change legislation. Prime example of their bigotry: pushing to overturn Roe v. Wade.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I’m a Libertarian so I think everybody should back off of telling me what to watch or read or ingest. But come on…isn’t this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. What about PETA shoving their agenda down our throats. And the liberals screaming for freedom of choice as long as that choice isn’t to own a firearm, or require immigrants to come here legally, or allow me to send my child to the school of my choice (vouchers),…there’s just a load of hypocrisy on both sides.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
How can Stephen Baldwin take the moral high ground when he starred in a film called ‘Sex Monster’”? It had the atrocious tag line: “What would happen if your wife said yes to a menage-a-trois. . . and loved it!” Judging from the films he’s starred in over the years, he’s a sexist hypocrite.
I personally find the amount of violence on American TV these days much more shocking than teenage sex.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I’m not sure how Gossip Girl is any more immoral than Bristol Palin parading around 17, unmarried and pregnant… Clearly she was having some hot and steamy, unprotected sex in high school and that’s okay with the GOP because she’s keeping the baby. But, Gossip Girl is more offensive? If you want your TV shows to set an example, try starting with your own family and political party. It appears to me that Gossip Girl is a pretty accurate representation of high school… at least Bristol Palin’s high school. Hypocrisy at its finest.
And seriously…it’s a cold day in hell when the Baldwins can pass judgement on anyone or anything.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Ugh, of course this got around to Bristol Palin. Many people were having sex at 17 years old, but most of us were fortunate enough not to get pregnant! How can you claim she was having unprotected sex? Condoms break, and birth control pills have a 99% success rate (only when you take them correctly, which I guarantee you many women do not.) Unlike a silly TV show, this is real life, and scrutinizing a young girl who is struggling with the reality of a difficult choice she made is not fair. Argue the issues, but let’s not attack someone’s family, especially their children who never asked for their parents to get into politics.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
[...] It’s Trent, Bitch! wrote an interesting post today on Stephen Baldwin Believes ‘Gossip Girl’ Is Bad For Your Soul. Here’s a quick excerpt: [...]
September 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
umm… isn’t he the guy on “dirty sexy money” who plays a politician that is having an affair with a transgender woman?!?
September 13th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Whatever, it’s a stupid show anyway.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’d be interested in seeing what Chelsea suggests people do in order to shield their children from “inappropriate ads”… it’s not necessarily for you to decide what’s appropriate for everyone else based on what you think is (in)appropriate for your daughter. It’s one thing to say that “you’re for free speech and freedom of expression” and entirely a contradiction to allude to the idea of support of censorship.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
isn’t that why he was at the Values Voter Summit? He didn’t come knocking at your door.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
These people try so hard to be patriotic, but can’t they see that rallying against 1st Amendment rights is one of the most unpatriotic acts in America?
September 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don’t want to take away anyone’s right to view what they like but I agree with the comment above from Chelsea about protecting my children. The ads are far too suggestive for a young audience and that is where I have the right to draw the line. I am not going to fight against the airing of the show, but I can complain about the ads being on TV because I can’t protect my young audience when I don’t know what commercials they will see. I think that the majority of “conservative” thinkers are on the same page…we aren’t trying to censor everyone else but we are trying to establish a safety net for little ones. And Mr. Baldwin has the right to voice his opinion, right? If he wants to speak out against something, then he should. Just as you spoke out against him just now. That is freedom of speech. Aren’t we grateful for it?
September 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Thank you, CJ.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
ok really? did anyone actually read the post? trent was NOT saying there was anything wrong with stephen baldwin EXPRESSING his opinion. he just feels that it is wrong for the social conservatives to try and ENACT LAWS keeping other people from having an opinion different than theirs. it is an entirely different thing to express your opinion than to take someone else’s right to freedom of expression away.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
im not down with religious and moral judgements but i do agree that gossip girl, 90210, the hills, etc, send horrible messages to young girls about how to get attention and love.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Is he like for real?
September 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Yes Jessica, but what many of us here are trying to say is that BOTH sides have an agenda that they try to get across by enacting laws. Just like many liberals trying to get equal time for on talk radio, thereby taking someone else’s right to freedom of expression away by limiting the number of conservatives who can be on air (without regard to the ratings, as conservatives dominate in that arena on talk radio.) Or many liberals who are trying to ENACT LAWS to take my right to bear arms away. Both sides have an agenda, and both sides try to enact laws that express their point of view. It is not purely a conservative idea, and that is what we are trying to say.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
If Palin becomes president - and let’s face it, McCain’s chances of croaking during his first 4 years are greater than any president in history - censorship could be in our future.
She is a fundamentalist that doesn’t believe in evolution and wants creationism taught in schools. She has expressed the idea of possibly banning books in the library (altho she denies it). She is more conservative on abortion than the Catholic Church - even the Church allows abortion in cases of incest and rape.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
baldwin… what a hypocrite… he starred in raunchy sex films before and now this?
the issues in GG happens in real life whether you like it or not.
but you cant tell everyone in the whole world what and what not to do!!
this is why politics is dirty and one of the most unpleasant topics to talk about!
and erin, you have your own opinions we all get it,
we do to. but unlike you, i prefer not to shove it in other peoples throats by explaining too much and replying on each of their reply.
so save your breath. or rather your finger muscles from typing. let it go.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Trent said…”Just because they believe something is “immoral” or “sinful” then it should be taken away from other grown adults who might have a different viewpoint or may enjoy what they consider wrong. I would be much more comfortable if these folks got together to complain to one another and seek support in their beliefs in one another — and that was that. Make no mistake, these folks want to curtail the availability of things that they find “immoral” and I vehemently oppose their efforts.”
I am a conservative like some of the others have posted. Why does that automatically make me an idiot. Think about it? Liberals would rather we just keep our mouths shut and let them rule the world. Trent, you’re wrong & it makes me mad that you would say ” these folks want to curtail the availability of things that they find immoral..” No, so not true. But can’t we take a stand for what we believe in. Why do you get the right to stand up for what you believe in but I don’t get to because I’m a conservative. I don’t want to burn books or take certain shows off the air. Get real. But I do agree with Baldwin that the advertisement that says OMFG! was way over the line. I can handle it but I don’t think a show that is geared toward teens should be using that to advertise. But guess what? I’m just standing up for what I believe in.
The other thing you said is that you wish we would get together and voice our opinions to each other and let that be that. Think about how ridiculous that is. You want us to stay in the closet about our beliefs…so they don’t bother anyone that doesn’t believe the same way. I’m not asking you or anyone else to believe the way I do. I’m not trying to change your lifestyle or what you read, write or watch. But I do have a voice and can use it just like anyone else can.
I don’t get why you are allowed to stand up for something you believe in but because we believe differently you want us to keep quiet and if we do speak out we are dangerous. Not anymore then you are. You have your beliefs and I respect that. You keep your voice for whatever you believe in but I plan on doing the same.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I believe in free speech so totally believe Mr. Baldwin has a right to make his point heard and others to agree. Personally I don’t. And the first thing I thought about was…do you think he is okay with his brother’s show Dirty Sexy Money? If we are talking values and all, I think he should have problems with that one too.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Are there not better causes out there? And does this mean you’ll abandon the only kind of character you can play — an evil scumbag — in upcoming film and TV?
If you like Pink is the New Blog, you’ll also like http://www.FUNNYCELEBRITY.blogspot.com
September 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
wasn’t this jerk in a movie with lara flynn boyle where he has a threesome at the end with another man?? that was some raunchy stuff who is he to talk
September 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm
American people, please… Be clever.
It’s just too bad.
The “American dream” is becoming an American Nightmare. For real.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm
I’m a very worried european citizen. I’m not even american!
But if this crazybitch wins, she will be given the NUCLEAR CODES for F***sake!!!
This is serious…
September 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Those are the scariest fucking pictures of Stephen Baldwin that I have EVER seen! haha wtf
September 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
i dont get it shows like gossip girl have been around for years. melrose place, any soap operas, OC, One Tree Hill the list goes on why attack just one show. and its a Baldwin doing this thats jus wrong considering his brothers are in shows/ movies that show sexual content. one thing i never understood about the US is the narrow minded view about sex, they say its such a free country but so much censorship.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
VIDEO -
http://nlsngrc.blogspot.com/2008/09/stephen-baldwin-goes-apeshit-on-gossip.html
September 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
PLEASE! It’s time to get over it. No one ever said that show was gonna be a show about being good. The books are like that too..i mean yes, the showed is strayed away from the books, but come on now. Get over it. So there is making out, no clothes, and lots of sex…get over it =)
September 13th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I agree. The way that the republican party adresses issues is highly based on their moral standpoints and religious views, things which differ among actual people. I am not a christian, and I find it startling that these people seek to eliminate things that are concidered ‘wrong’ by their religion, when this would force christian views onto the whole of the American public, something that is against the original point of the U.S. anyway. It seriously frustrates me that people think it’s okay to force their beliefs throughout the whole community just to keep their families from it. Forget banning a T.V. show, try monitoring what your children watch instead!!! The government’s responsibility is not to babysit your children. If there was something on T.V. when I was young my parents disliked, they didn’t run and complain to the state for showing it, they changed the chanel. How hard is that? Seriously.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
btw, Emily up there with her rant on Palin’s daughter is acting just as bad as the republican party. God.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I’m all for people expressing their opinion, but I think people in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones. I happen to know Stephen has a few skeletons in his closet and I’m not talking about movies he’s been in.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
There is a BIG difference between advocating your controversial opinion and restricting the rights of other’s viewpoint through law and policy.
I can see a ’sex and violence’ free zone of tv channels created by market pressure (hello conservatives, isn’t this supposed to be your influencing tool of choice?), but not at the expense of others who want access to that at the same time.
Sarah Palin went to her town’s librarian at least twice to find out how to ban books in a U.S. library. She was rebuffed by another strong woman. Palin seeks to censor viewpoints, not disagree. Sounds like the actions of leaders in several countries we want to create democracy in, doesn’t it?
Don’t want your kids to read Gulliver’s Travels (yep, a banned book) or porn or the Communist Manifesto, then censor your kid’s actions as you see fit — that’s your job and freedom.
Censorship minded folks like Sarah don’t believe in the gifts God gave us, including our hearts, minds and personal judgment. They believe they are God by extension and their holy mission to deliver God’s rightful action. That’s deranged thinking (My view = God’s view) and dangerous to peace and prosperity. Just talk to those in communities in the U.S. with censorshipped libraries, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran - do we want our leaders deciding what we should have access to, think and feel and believe in too?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Its amusing how a couple of extreme conservatives represent the whole party.
I think that there should definetly be freedom of speech and in the case disagree with Baldwin. But it amazes me how many comments seem to think that because Baldwin has some very strong opinions these are the same opinions that the whole party has.
Both democrats and republicans have the crazies, and we need to accept that these people are not the voice of the majority. Nor can we believe everything we read about the candidates because everyone is bias and will slant facts everyway.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Cami, for someone so concerned with our freedom of speech you sure seem upset with Americans who exercise it, well, at least those that don’t hold your same viewpoints. Isn’t that just as narrow-minded as the “conservative Christian bigots” you’ve portrayed? Did it ever occur to you that Christianity is just a part of these people’s lives? As a Christian I can say that it affects every aspect of your life, even your politics.
I agree that it should be on an individual basis, protecting our own children and such, and it isn’t the government’s job to babysit, but realistically can we run in and turn the channel every time our child is watching television and a commercial pops up with a steamy sex scene? I know from experience all to well how much more difficult it is nowadays to avoid our children from seeing such things. This kind of advertising was few and far between while we were growing up Cami, but look at television nowadays. It is hard to find any channel that doesn’t depict sex anymore. Our children are becoming more and more desensitized at an earlier age. Girls I babysit who are 8 and 10 years old know rap songs about prostitutes, murder and drugs, things I had never known about at that age. Is it wrong that we should want them to remain innocent during their childhood years? It’s not the shows themselves that people like Stephen Baldwin are trying to get off the air, it’s the advertising that reaches a far wider audience, including young children, that should have some standards of decency. What I think is scary is that no one thinks that this is wrong, they instead bash those who wish to “censor” or “limit free speech” by protecting innocents from this garbage. Shouldn’t the real question be why Christians seem to be the only ones concerned?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
But just because you are offended and you want to determine what your family watches doesn’t mean you should be able to impart those beliefs on other people. People who have no children shouldn’t be penalized because it’s too hard for a parent to monitor what their children watches. Christian morality cannot be allowed to govern our nation, which is exactly why our government was founded on the separation between church and state. Conservatives can lobby, can boycott — have many options available to them which I wholly support. Once they start getting into legislating their morality, then I have a huge problem.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Isnt he the one that was one of the main characters in Threesome?? One of the first provocative shows I saw as a teenager.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
How are those without children being penalized? What are they missing but a few ads? They’re not asking for the show to be pulled, just to clean up ads that those with children should not have to see. And no, Christian morality should not govern the nation, but shouldn’t some morality govern it? There seems to be a disturbing lack of morality in this nation, and it doesn’t have to do a 360 and become Christian, but shouldn’t a nation have some moral standards? I agree fully with seperation between church and state - because the state will eventually corrupt the church as proven through the history of thousands of years. But just because the church should not be involved in the state, doesn’t mean that the members of the church should not be able to try and push through legislation that voices their opinions and moral beliefs. Everyone else in the nation with their own religious and non-religious beliefs attempts to do the same, why should Christians be the exemption?
September 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
i believe that as long as you know what is right and what is wrong and strongly convicted in it, what can these shows do bad for your soul? i’m a christian and i thoroughly enjoy watching GG its like, my most looked-forward to hour in the week. but does it mean i let it affect my spirituality and soul? No! it is just something fun and for me to laugh at.
just like how a few years back, the da vinci code was a big hooha all throughout and campaigns were everywhere to ban the movie and some even say it’ll take down christianity. but hey, a few years after, what has it truly affect and changed? the truth is, nothing.
and as for the parents concerned about their children, come on, this is a broken down world we live in. sex, lust, money, fame is EVERYWHERE. even if you shield your child from all these ads, they’ll still see the reality of this world when they are in high school etc. its just the real world we are living in.
so why not teach them the right values etc, and let them know what is right or wrong, rather than avoiding these things altogether. it doesnt help for them.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Denise, I am not singling out Christianity, any religious group that seeks to legislate their moral beliefs is wrong in my eyes. Why is it that instead of pushing legislation, you can’t just turn off the TV or be more vigilant in policing what your children watch? Yes, it’s more of a burden on you to be more proactive but that is what comes from having and raising children. Saying “they’re not trying to remove the show, just the ads” is how it begins … a slippery slope is a slippery slope. You seem to believe that your morality is the the “some” morality that should govern it. Morality cannot be determined for all people, which is why it should be left up to the individual. Enacting laws that take that choice away is the most anti-American thing I can think of.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Why should people have to keep the tv in case an inappropriate ad airs on tv? Parents can be vigilant and not let their kids watch gossip girl, but they don’t know when the inappropriate ads will air and cannot always block them.
As much as freedom of speech and choices is great we have to have someone make some moral judgement for us. It sounds harsh in words, it is why we have ratings boards for tv and movies, in fact the whole justice system is based on morals someone has to decide what actions are good and bad aka morality.
Morality has nothing to do with religion, I’m an athiest yet view myself as a moral person with moral beliefs. Lets leave religion out of it.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Stephen Baldwin coming out against Hollywood’s use of this kind of marketing is laughable at best and utterly hypocritical at worst! Check out his IMDB resume folks . . . the man has been in some movies that leave this position in question! Amazing how he has “flip-flopped” isn’t it?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000286/
September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I absolutely do not agree that we need “someone” to decide morality for us — hell no! The justice system is based on laws, judges sometimes use their morality to interpret those laws … which is why it’s important to vote for a President who will select judges with the ability to adjudicate lawfully not morally. A conservative President is not likely to do that.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“Because of the very common usage of the “separation of church and state phrase,” most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.
The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.”
source- http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Just so we’re clear on that.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/misc/first_amendment.html
And a straight up legal website for you as well.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I agree that in the end it is truly left to the individual to decide, from what their children watch to their own morality. I know we each have our own moral compass, but wasn’t our nation also founded upon a broader, more general one as well? When did setting standards for what is right and wrong become an infringement upon our civil liberties, our freedoms? I’m not saying that my own personal ideas of morality should govern by any means, or even that of Christians or atheists. I’m saying the American government has always had some moral standard, and we have forever seen attempts from both sides, liberal and conservative, to loosen or tighten that moral boundary. In the recent decades we have seen liberal thought saturate our morality as a nation and naturally we are experiencing a conservative reaction to that swing to the left. And while Christians and other religious interest groups may spearhead such efforts, isn’t it their right as Americans to do so? In my eyes, yes America is a symbol of freedom, freedom of speech and choice, yet it is also a beacon of democracy. To get involved in the workings of American government, express your opinions, and vote to put through legislation, whether influenced by religion or any other factor, is what it truly means to be American to me. I do think that religious legislation is tricky, I personally believe that religion should be separate for its own good. I can’t speak for other religions, but Christianity was forever called out to be different, unique, and separate from the empire lest it be tainted. But what few understand is that Christianity is not just a way of thinking but it’s a way of life, it’s a relationship. It’s not something that is involved in certain parts of our lives and stands on the wayside for others, it is a constant. To ask us to keep our religious beliefs out of our politics is impossible. It is our right as Americans to stand for legislation that coincides with our beliefs just as everyone else in this nation has the same right as well.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Absolutely agree, which is the crux of this whole election. Of course you have the right to advocate your position as do I … and in November we’ll decide which way we want to go next.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Here is what I have to say, If you don’t like the show, then don’t watch it! no one is putting a gun to your head to watch it!
September 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Please, Trent, stick to goss.
September 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Denise, no :)
September 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
This is the first blog I’ve seen political type comments on where people actually respect the opinions of others (well, for the most part) and aren’t name calling - for that, Trent, I give you credit for having such a classy fan base :)
September 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“it’s important to vote for a President who will select judges with the ability to adjudicate lawfully not morally”
The law is based on morals. You cannot seperate the two. Someone at some point has decided what is right and what is wrong. Killing is bad, rape is bad etc. You might view it as a legal issue but its not. We view those that murder as morally wrong. Its an extreme example yes, but it it naive to think that morals have never had, nor should in the future have on our justice system.
And a pro democrat example which people here may like better. Roe vs Wade which I agree with. The whole concept of it is based on morals, whether the idea of abortions is morally good or bad. Whether it equates to murder or not is all about where you morality lies.
How bad a crime is, is a moral issue. Some crimes are worse than others, and the justice system decides how bad the crimes are and essentially ranks them by prison sentences. Morals can and never will be seperated from the legal, or govermental roles.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:39 am
This from a man who was in a movie called ‘Threesome’.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Everyone is attacking the Republican party like this is a the way all conservatives feel. We, like you Democrats, believe in Freedom of Speech, but I don’t think my 8 year old niece should be seeing commercials of two people having sex with the letters OMFG across the screen. Kids are curious and what are you supposed to tell her those letters mean? I love Gossip Girl, but I don’t think it should be advertised in that way and I don’t think it should come on before 9pm. Quit attacking the Republican party and bending the “rules” to fit your political agenda.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:03 am
To judge an entire party of people based on certain fundamentalists is flat out ignorant. Interestingly enough, being a Republican does not make you a homophobic, censorship supporting bigot.
Why is that so many liberals find the freedom of choice and speech so vital for everyone BUT Christians? The hypocrisy is astounding.
While I don’t agree with people like Stephen Baldwin’s methods; to say that limiting crude public displays (that children do not have the option of not seeing when it comes to billboards) is a slippery slope to total censorship is like saying legalizing abortion is a slippery slope to legalizing murder. I am finding it hard to understand how cleaning up what is put in the face of minors daily is ‘penalizing’ anyone?
I agree everyone has the right to view, read and watch whatever they would like to, in the privacy of their own home or by purchasing a ticket for example just as Christians must limit their worshipping to the privacy of their own churches/homes (keep it separate is all we hear). If in fact I am understanding correctly and Christians ’shoving’ their agendas down anyone’s throat is so anti-American then why should people have smut like the ads for these shows ’shoved down their throat’ by way of billboards/magazine ads? While I agree that everyone has the option to change the channel and not watch the show if we so choose, we unfortunately do not have the option to take down the billboard as we drive by with our 5 year old and shouldnt have to think that our 14 year old is being exposed to softcore pornographic images as they flip through Teen People.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Maggz, I get that you’re trying to make a point but you need to read and respond to what is actually being said in order to be taken seriously. My points were 1.) freedom of speech allows everyone to have their say … laws limiting speech (like fundamentalists want to do by banning things) is not free speech. Advocating your position on the issue is free speech and I fully support the right to do so. 2.) I did not say “shoving Christian agendas down anyone’s throats” was anti-American … pushing laws that impose those agendas on others is what I think is anti-American. If you carefully read was was written you’d know that you misunderstood what my points were therefore nullifying your angry reply.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I did read (some posts) as carefully as I typically read things of this nature and while I am not surprised that you ‘nullify my angry reply’ I am (somewhat) surprised that you are basically trying to insult me. My post was neither angry nor directed solely at you just so you know.
I don’t think I will come back to this site, as I used to believe that this was a place where intelligent conversation without insult was possible. The one thing I do hope is that you try to keep in mind that generalizing a group of people and everything they stand for by their party affiliation is ignorant and there is absolutely NO denying that you do it constantly. Not all Republicans are the same and its as simple as that.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I apologize if you are insulted by my reply, I was merely trying to clarify your mischaracterization of what was said. Be happy, be well :)
September 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hi Trent, am an avid reader of yours, and for the record, I find those gg posters clever. I can guess, by your word choice, you find Mr. Baldwin to be basically crazy and dangerous. Obviously you have your own point of view, and are welcome to it, but some of the things you’ve posted have struck me. You have a massive readership, and I thought you might want to consider them.
You say:
“any religious group that seeks to legislate their moral beliefs is wrong in my eyes.”
Ok. Wrong according to what? What standard are you appealing to exactly? Is it wrong only for you or wrong for everyone? If it’s only for you, only in ‘your eyes’, then you can, as you say, gather with people who agree with you, and commiserate, but you are in really in no position to get mad at anyone who believes differently. It would really only be your opinion, which we can take or leave.
And it almost seems like you believe this, because you say:
“Morality cannot be determined for all people, which is why it should be left up to the individual.”
But it doesn’t really seem as though you actually believe that. Not really. You believe Mr. Baldwin is actually wrong. Like, objectively wrong. Wrong, as in he SHOULDN’T be doing that, as in NO ONE should. This is the kicker, though, because if you take your own advice, you are left with no basis for condemning him. You are appealing to a standard of wrong & right after saying it is imaginary and subjective and changeable and you put it within quotation marks, because it really doesn’t exist.
Do you see?
I’m certainly not necessarily saying he is right, or agreeing with everything he says, nor do I think you have to. Just thought you might want to double check the very foundation of your criticism. ;)
Have a great night!
Oh, and I just finished Breaking Dawn too! :D
September 16th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Steph, “legislate” is a key word in my argument. While I believe something is wrong “in my eyes” I still would not advocate laws that would prohibit those beliefs … my argument is that conservatives work toward enacting laws that take away choices from everyone to impose their moral beliefs on others. I can BELIEVE that someone is wrong just as THEY CAN BELIEVE I am wrong … but when it becomes unlawful to say or do certain things because it offends a conservative mindset, then I have a problem. Do you see what I’m saying and how what you claim I said is incorrect?
September 16th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Trent, well, happily we agree that ‘imposing’ specific moral beliefs over a people by ‘conservatives’ is not a good idea. Down with tyranny! This can be validly argued for or against. (For what it’s worth, I’m not even American, but if I were I would vote liberal.)
Let me try to restate this; the problem is not that you disagree with Baldwin’s philosophy, or disagree with conservative ideology, or that you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, or that I disagree with you on how things should be ‘legislated’.
Why should anything be ‘legislated’at all if you don’t believe anything is instrinsically right or wrong? The problem is that in one breath you say ‘nothing is instrinsically right or wrong’ and in another ‘imposing your morals on others is wrong’. If ‘wrongness’ is only something that legislators happen to ‘BELIEVE’ or ‘prefer’ (like I ‘prefer’ gingerale over cola) with no actual bearing on reality, then your or I or Baldwin are really under no compulsion to listen to them.
By all means, have a problem with it! I do! Disagree with Baldwin based on any sort of argument, but recognize that it is objective. You are appealing to an authority you believe actually exists. You cannot appeal with any sense of injustice to what you have just said is merely a figment of your own moral imagination.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Yes, I see your point … you make a good one. I just really bristle at the idea that religious conviction makes its way into legislation which, I feel, is totally unfair to those who don’t believe in those same religious beliefs. If we allow folks to outlaw the use of “OMFG” (for example) then where does it stop? I personally believe that legislators of the more liberal viewpoint are of the “live and let live” variety while I believe that conservatives are the more restrictive (ie. no same-sex marriage, no freedom to choose) based on their strict moral standards. It makes the most sense to me to go the more liberal way — which allows individuals to make up their own minds. Going the conservative way takes away that choice.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:57 am
WOW!!! This is so f****** up *lol* I read more than half of this discussion and I have to say, that´s typical american. This whole moral-standart thingy… That´s one of the moments I´m absolutly glad to live in germany. Does your country haven´t far more important problems than showing kisses on an add??? Isn´t kissing a bautyfuls thing? I have a three year old daughter and I don´t care if she sees people kissing each other 0.o Even if they look young. I also don´t care if she sees naked people or whatever. She´s pure anyway. Sexuality is part of what we are and as more we teach that to our children, the less they will have problems with that. Of course I mean sex in a loving way and no sicko stuff to clear that up!
A child shouldnt see how people are killed or stuff. THATS what I try to protect her from.
And the beauty standarts also worry me a lot! Don´t u see, that all ur american shows with perfectly make-up styled children (12yr olds n up) are MUCH MORE dangerous? I mean where does that lead to? My gosh, I don´t get it, I will NEVER EVER do!
Cencoreship should be taken in a whole other direction and Stephen Baldwin is a real a**hole. I saw a lot of him and as several ppl said, he has no right to judge.
Uw oh, I´d like to write a hole essay about whats more dangerous to a childs mind in ur country (and the world, it´s not like there aren´t a lot of probs in my country too), but these effing adds. GG is a nice show, u may like it or u don´t, but saying an ADD for this show is corrupting ones mind is just nonsense… Geez -.-°
Sorry if my grammar is not that good, as I mentioned, I´m from germany and don´t speak english so well.
Take care y´all,
Mona (26yrs)