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]
Please, Trent, stick to goss.
Denise, no :)
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 :)
“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.
This from a man who was in a movie called ‘Threesome’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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
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?
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.
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.
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)