OK, now I know the "right" side of this country has gone completely off the deep end. A "Dr. James Dobson" of "Focus on the Family", actually stood up at one of the presidential inaugural events and solemnly intoned "Does anyone here know SpongeBob?"

Why, yes, Dr. Jim, the kids love him...

I guess the rabid folk have targeted SpongeBob as the latest "gay" cartoon character "promoting homo-SEX-yew-alitee among our youth". A video, entitled "We Are Family" stars SpongeBob and other cartoon characters. According to the video producers:

What is going on here????? It's Mr. Rodgers, fercryinoutloud!!!

First teletubbies (they are disturbing, but not for the reasons Falwell frothed about), now SpongeBob. Next thing you know, those righteous folk will be saying Bugs Bunny and Daffy are gay (after all, Bugs is a cross-dresser).

Salon
LA Times (Both sites require registration, but Salon allows you a free day pass, and LA Times registration is free.)

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?

Nice unwarranted blanket statement........I guess liberal=commie statements are fair game now, huh?

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?
Yes. I don't believe sexuality should be introduced via cartoons, period. It's up to parents to decide when is the appropriate time for their children.

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?
Yep, and there will be others to follow, to be sure. Both sides of the political spectrum have their loons, and their boogymen.

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?
I, as someone who considers himself on the 'right', think this is a colossal waste of oxygen. I watch Spongebob with my oldest daughter, and I've taken her to the movie (ugh). I don't see any instances of homoeroticism, I think he's hot for the sqirrel myself. But he's definetly not a masculine role model, if I had a son.

Notice "right" was in QUOTES? I'm not the one who coined the term "religious right".


No one said anything about introducing sexuality". I asked if it was unreasonable to PROJECT sexuality onto an inanimate, drawn character. It's like saying the color purple is gay. Please. Obviously, you have projected sexuality onto an inanimate cartoon character. It's a CARTOON, for crying out loud!

Maybe not, but you certainly won't waste an opportunity to use it.....and I'm guessing that the 'religious right' didn't coin that term for themselves either.........my bet is that it was inclusive, tolerant liberals.


Wow, talk about projecting........

Maybe you misread, or didn't read what I wrote. Let me reiterate...ahem...

I, as someone who considers himself on the 'right', think this is a colossal waste of oxygen. I watch Spongebob with my oldest daughter, and I've taken her to the movie (ugh). I don't see any instances of homoeroticism, I think he's hot for the squirrel myself.

I hardly think thats projection of any kind, but then again...I'm on the right so what would I know.

It is grossly unfair to blame the entire "right" or "conservative" population in the US for this idiotic statement. Again, it is the voiced opinion of a tiny minority of strident conservative activists which have been turned into a single giant voice because the media finds it ridiculous enough to be trumpeted for its tabloid value.

What really has these people up in arms (at least most of'em - some obviously are more worked up about Squarepants ) isn't the cartoon characters involved in the video - its the tolerance pledge that is associated with the program.

You can read at least one version of the story on the BBC without registering or subscribing: US Right Attacks Spongebob Video

Those stupid enough to lable Spongebob as "gay" will soon be condemning Fred Flintstone for wearing a dress, Yogi Bear for being too close with his best buddy ole pal Boo Boo, the Pink Panther who - by God! - was PINK, Scooby Doo's friend Fred who's effeminate ascot around his neck is a definite indicator, not to mention that there's simply no explaining H.R. Pufnstuf.

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Yes. Keith Olbermann played the entire SpongeBob video on countdown last night. There was nothing even vaguely sexual about the cartoon.

Is SpongeBob just the latest bogeyman in the religious fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

It is definitely another “bogeyman.” From Olbermann’s story we get a couple of important items. First, we do not know whether or not Dobson even saw the video, but he staff said he had been “briefed.” Second, the video was designed to teach that not all families are alike, but they are all based on love. Apparently there was only one mention of same sex families and that was in the teacher’s manual.

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?

I love the way Olbermann does the news. He is articulate and playful and this type story was tailor made for him. Olbermann had a few caustic remarks and rolled eyes along the ways. MSNBC has not posted the transcript from last night’s Countdown. When or if they do, I’ll post parts of it. I personally think Dobson wants to replace Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the category of ignorant and proud of it. Does the Genis book of World records have a designation for ignorance? If so, would someone please nominate “brother” Dobson?

I think the guys with the nets should be chasing Dobson down. If not, I’ll gladly volunteer for the job.

I have not seen the video and can't comment on its contents, while I would trust that anything created to be shown in schools would be appropriate.

However, the actual SpongeBob SquarePants show does have vague sexual innuendos, although they aren't all specifically homosexual. The two I can think of off the top of my head are from an episode called something like "Gary Takes a Bath" where SpongeBob picks up two bars of soap but warns Gary "don't drop em!" and later on he falls into a mud puddle and proclaims "I'm a diiirrrty boy!" In the movie Patrick has a "thing" for the Princess and SpongeBob also has a crush on his (female) boating-school teacher. (Yes, I have a young son)

I think it is ludicrous to assign a sexual identity to characters that never engage in sexual or romantic relationships. It requires using stereotypes of "gay" behavior and personalities to do so due to the complete lack of sexual behavior. These assumptions are inappropriate and unfair.

Furthermore, anyone who objects to the inclusion of sexual identity must therefore also object to the rest of the pledge. It also states that anyone making the pledge is respectful of others' beliefs that differ from their own, and that would include people who believe that all types of sexual identity are healthy. If it isn't acceptable to be respectful of gays because homosexuality is immoral, it would follow that it isn’t any more acceptable to be respectful of those who believe it is acceptable to be gay or respect gays.
.

Pilotgirlie you have shown great wisdom in not commenting on the video since you haven't seen it. One would only wish that Dobson, who'se staff says he has been "briefed" had wisdom equal to yours.

Someone once said that they would know what is obscene when they see it. Apparently Dobson knows what is offensive even without seeing it. Go figure.

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Yes, and I think it represents a kind of delusional illness in some way associated to seeing communists hanging around every corner. Now that commies aren't the fear factor, it's the gay agenda.

However, I also think Dobson knows exactly what he's doing to raise funds and gain power. He uses the illness to manipulate.

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

Sure. If you're using fear to leverage money and power, you have to continually create fear.

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?

Lame. Maybe it's about the guy that does the voice, Pee Wee whatshisname? You know, busted for spanking the old monkey in a porn theater?

Meanwhile, when something really horrible happens, the good Doctor is quiet, such as when an upcoming local Repub star (male) got busted for having sex with a 13-year-old girl -- statutory rape.

Why? No money or power in that one.

Although the entire Countdown transcript has not been posted, MSNBC has posted Olbermann’s “SpongeBob” story. It must have been pretty popular.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852828/

My thoughts exactly. The problem is that this is a whacko who was invited to speak at a presidential inaugural function, so he had a captive audience of hundreds? thousands, maybe? And if he was invited, does that mean he's part of the administration's inner circle (or even its outer inner circle)?

What perceptions did the listeners have after listening to this guy spew his paranoia? One can guess.


Heaven help us..........

EDITED TO ADD: You can view the entire video HERE, but be careful!! It might make you gay! Or, if you already are, maybe it'll make you straight?!
BTW, I watched and it is so not what Dobson is yammering about. Just about every cartoon character you can think of is in it (except Disney and WB).

I think it is ridiculous for anyone to look at a cartoon character and see some kind of sexual propaganda. My daughter watches spongebob all the time and I have never seen anything remotely sexual about spongebob.

Dobson and his group seem to be up in arms about the special video that was produced to teach about diversity etc. Haven't seen it so I can't comment.

I will say though that I have seen some stuff that I thought was objectionable on Nick. They did this one special hosted by Linda Ellerby and Rosie O'Donnell about how Families come in all different flavors or colors or some such thing. Anyway, it was about same sex parents raising kids. The two hosts sat around with a bunch of kids aged about 11 to 15 or so and talked about kids that had same sex parents. Anyway, what I found terrible and objectionable was that the only kids who questioned same sex parents were these bizarre kids who were talking about how homosexuality is against the bible and all this other stuff. If it had been a fair representation they would have had normal kids on there too that simply talked about how they maybe thought that kids should have both a mom and a dad etc. Instead the message was pretty clear-- if you had any kind of question about same sex parents it was because you were a bible thumping homophobe.

The Religious Right has gone overboard, once again, insinuating that a bunch of cartoons characters are in fact NOT trying to promote (what you think would be true Christian, let alone basically positive..) values that we wish would be more prevalent, but ARE in fact, trying to give your kids "the gay".

I was stunned at first, but now I find myself realizing that this is just another case of the Religious Right (and by that I mean the extremists) and Fallwell's House o' Hate dishing up another plate of BBQ'd religious hypocracy with a side of a steaming pile of crap. Why acknowledge that they're promoting "do unto others..." and "love thy neighbor" when you can pull a verse out of Leviticus and say they're "crossing a moral lne".

But to address the questions...

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Duh, it's a kids cartoon. Of course it is. Albeit I don't see a problem with a girl character kissin a boy character on the cheek or something, anything beyond that isn't necessary.

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

I wouldn't go as so far to say that, at least for longer than the fifteen minutes those kooks have been allotted.

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?

I could refer you to my post on Wertz's blog, but for the PG-13 crowd....pure foolishness...

1. Unreasonable? Probably, but it happens all the time, kids. Ever watch an episode when Bugs Bunny slips into drag and kisses Elmer Fudd? People have wondered if Bert and Ernie are "life partners" over on Sesame Street. And isn't there something about Velma of Scooby-Doo that just kind of gives you an Ellen DeGeneris vibe?

And don't get me started about Peppermint Patty and Marcie in Peanuts or Archie's buddy Jughead. Talk about your queer eye for the straight guy!

And how do Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and the rest of the Bible-thumbers not go ballistic about The Flintstones having a "gay old time?"

As for other suspects:

http://www.rainbownetwork.com/Fun/detail.a...20&nChannel=Fun

2. All kidding aside, I do get a funny vibe from Spongebob and Patrick, his pink starfish pal walking around in his underoos. In a Wall Street Journal interview, SpongeBob's creator denied the accusations of the toon being a closet case.

SpongeBob may be "kind of special", but he was not designed to be a gay character, his creator Stephen Hillenburg told the Wall Street Journal.

The gay community likes the show because it has a tolerant attitude, Mr Hillenburg said.

"Everybody is different, and the show embraces that. The character SpongeBob is an oddball. He's kind of weird, but he's kind of special," he said.

"I always think of them as being somewhat asexual."

The Teletubbies have kind of faded in popularity, so Dobson is just indicating his hipness by going after SpongeBob. Personally, I think you've got to be some kind of nut to waste all that time and energy trying to catch a cartoon in a compromising moment, but obviously Dobson thinks it's time well spent.

3. What do I think? It's a silly and pointless waste of time, but it got us talking about it, so what do I know?

If you find these groups offense your gut instinct may be to form your own group and start condemning cartoons that support beliefs in christianity. After all, everything is fair game. Why not do the same at try to put the kabosh on Davey and Golaith?

But of course, logic would prevail because you would realize that these people feed on publicity. So to ignore them is the way to squash them.

This whole thing reminds of this audio tape you could order thru an 800 number where a southern minister would rail on modern music as "the devils music". Since it was free I ordered the tape and had a good laugh. One song he attacked was "Girls just want to have fun" to which he commented "this is just filthy". Uh, apparently he'd never even heard the song.

I'm for free speech. Let square pants do what he wants, let the hate-mongers say what they want. Just don't ban anything, even cartoons.

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?
No, its not unreasonable, unless you consider Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Donald and Daisy Duck, Bugs Bunny in drag, and other such completely asexual representations "projection." I've watched a lot of SpongeBob. Amusing, but the theme song is incredibly annoying.

However, in the interest of objective analysis, let us consider this odd creature known as SpongeBob.

His best friend Patrick is a complete pansie.
SpongeBob himself is an incredible drama queen. He makes Richard Simmons look like Al Gore fer cryin' out loud.

Now, in SpongeBob's defense, there does seem to be some promise in his relationship with Sandy Squirrel.

SpongeBob doesn't wear black muscle shirts.

Almost EVERYBODY in Bikini Bottom is a drama queen.

The upshot? SpongeBob's sexuality is undefined, which is not, repeat not, the same as ambiguous. (with due regards to SNL)

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs? No, l'affaire SpongeBob is the latest example of the loony Left and media getting an incredible workout. Jumping to conclusions, spinning like a top, distorting like a contortionist, lotsa exercise. At no point did Dobson or anybody else state, claim, or infer that SpongeBob is gay. Yet, DaffyGrl and Mustang here in this thread alone have attacked Dobson for making a claim that he didn't make.


What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob? Its not an attack on SpongeBob, it is a warning about a video that is part of an agenda that attacks heterosexuality. SpongeBob was simply pointed out because he is currently the hottest cartoon character out there, and as a result, the video will get a lot of attention from kids.

This is from the Teacher's Guide at the WAFF website:



Bill Cork looks deeper into l'affaire SpongeBob

Now, we all know that compulsory military service is "bad", compulsory indoctrination is "bad" (unless, of course, its "sensitivity training", but that's a topic for another day), in fact, pretty much anything that is compulsory is bad from the Left's perspective. And here WAFF is, casting heterosexuality as "compulsory." Gee, I wonder why Focus on the Family and the American Family Association might be a little wary of what WAFF is peddling..

I realize that its entirely too much to expect most driveling media yahoos to actually investigate any of this, when they'd much rather pile onto Dr. Dobson and FoF in a frenzy, but I had, for one brief moment, hoped for more intelligent behavior from the denizens of AD.

Silly me....

Laurel and Hardy share a bed on screen. Bugs Bunny on countless occasions drags up as a coy "pinup" lady to fool Porky Pig and the like and is whistled at. Plus similar instances in contemporary cartoons. Do we get moral outrage about that?

The projection is the key word. These people project undertones they think they see. And then campaign on it. Utterly silly.

Schooly

Schoolboy,

I suggest that you take a look at the teacher's guide for WAFF. Whether or not you agree with it is not my concern, merely whether or not you recognize that it is a pretty radical agenda. That is not projection, and as I've already noted, none of the purported villians in this matter have accused SpongeBob of being gay. The only projection that has occured is that of ACCUSING others of charging SpongeBob as gay. In short, hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry are being projected onto Dobson and FoF, and its being done in a kneejerk fashion without any examination of the issue. Based on my experience at AD, that's about par for the course.

Anybody with a shred of historical sense knows why they don't go ballistic. Only someone without such sense would wonder why.

Both of these are opinion pages, which is pretty much why we are hearing about this story. It's someone's opinion that FOF is "attacking Spongebob for being gay" and not a fact. That someone probably glanced at the Times at breakfast, saw an easy right-wing wacko saying something stupid, had 400 words to write, and whammo - easy opinion column for the day. I have no love for Dobson and his group, but if the news could perhaps report "news" we wouldn't be having this debate.
Here you can read analysis from "toonzone" which contrasts the "news" coverage of this dust-up. In the New York Times article, they inserted a sentence about Spongebob being a camp figure among gay men in the first few paragraphs. Since the rest of the "news" community basically paraphrase the Times, everyone in america heard the third generation of this story, which was what you wrote here. Of course, they were actually criticizing the video and the fact that "sexual tolerance" is one of the goals of those making the video. And they have a legitimate point. Kids are in school to learn. If someone would teach them to speak English and do math, maybe our kids would be learning. Rather than focusing on all of this PC nonsense in what is supposed to be class time. Put down the barney video and get out a phonics text!

As opposed to the Times coverage, read this news summary from Reuters. It only suggests that the characters are "being exploited" and not much else, mentioning Spongebob in passing only.


What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?
The FOF is not attacking Spongebob!!! They are trying to let people know that a group is producing "tolerance" videos with their favorite cartoon characters and playing them in public schools. Sure this video includes only a few same-sex references, but that's enough to set off Dr. Dobson, who thinks that his kids shouldn't learn about that stuff.

If this was a Jesus and friends video of course, the coverage would be different, but because it's some politically correct tripe, it's all "mean preacher hates Spongebob."

And, just to add fuel to the fire, if you click "waf.org" instead of "waff.org" you get the following "GLBT" organization. I'm sure that a few right-wing nut jobs clicked on this site and went off the deep end before the disclaimer went up...

I think SpongeBob and cartoons of its ilk aren't worth watching, but I haven't seen gay references in it.

Dr. James Dobson, who is as full of himself as the Reverend Jerry Falwell is, needs to chill out and perhaps get some gratification himself.

Curmudgeon told me that this all started when a preacher, who was with his grandson, had fallen asleep on the sofa in front of the television. When he woke up he was seeing SpongeBob upside down because his head was hanging over the edge of the sofa. He saw SpongeBob's nose and eyes and figured they looked like a penis and testicles. Then he got all up in arms and told his congregation about it.

As far as I am concerned, this amounts to hysteria. It is unfortunate that these people failed to get as "up in arms" when NO weapons of mass destruction were found after Bush preemptively invaded a country because he was certain they were there and they were such a "threat" to the United States. Forget the fact that over 100,000 Iraqis died as a result and U.S. troops are experiencing losses every day where the mission had supposedly been accomplished.

What the hell is going on with these people?

What I think about the attack?
Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and others use the pulpit for their own agenda, beliefs, goals, etc. I think that they hope to influence their faithful followers into more financial support of the moral majority leadership.
All the time that I was growing up a Baptist, I readily accepted the teachings of Jesus that involved tolerance and acceptance of those who were percieived to be unworthy, or unclean, by the local religious establishment. The Rabbis were good at excluding so many, while Jesus wanted to include them. Early on I became confused because the Sunday School teachers were saying one thing in the children's classes, while the preacher had a different message over the pulpit.
I suspect a lot of people have turned their backs, and their wallets, away from such as Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. But there are still so many who follow these false shepherds.
Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman?
If it works for them, I suppose so. But again, many will see through this idiocy and "fall away" from accepting the Moral Message of the 3 not-so-wise men whose names have been connected with this kind of thing. Only the truly brainwashed will remain loyal. Sadly, there are more than enough of those around to sustain the momentum of the moral majority.
Projecting sexuality?
I can only wonder what kind of dirt is lodged in the minds of those who are constantly looking for "evil". It is like taking offense when none is intended.
You just end up looking foolish. On the other hand, it seems to provide a good living for some.

I agree with you PE, in that it's hysteria, hype and a colossal waste of time. But how exactly does the war in Iraq have anything to do with Spongebob?????????
I can understand that some people are single issue demagogues, but insinuating that the hysteria is ridiculous because these people may or may not have been up in arms over the war in Iraq (as you blanket them with this statement), just brings up as strawman that has no place in this thread.............IMHO

Though it is interesting to see the spread of talking points and propaganda:

Somewhat similar to a reverend preaching to his flock....the righties get their undies in a twist over a fallacious sponge/gay issue, and the lefties do the same, but are somehow more holier than thou about it.

In your "humble opinion," DTOM, and I accept it as such, the religious people apparently should not be upset about the cost of lives, even though their God has taught that man was created in His image! Excuse me if I think otherwise, because I don't remember in Sunday School hearing that Jesus preached against homos, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was brought up more than a few times!


Yes, I do get my panties in a twist about non-fallacious issues. It doesn't indicate that *I* am holier than anybody; if that were the case I wouldn't have suggested that Dobson (or Falwell) needs to get some gratification. It does indicate that some of us remember the Ten Commandments, and that the actions of those "placed in authority" over us do not square with those Ten Commandments, and that's what these church celebrities should be concerned about!

So sue me.

Hmmmm.....not sure where I had said that....so I'm at a loss as to where you dreamed it up. I however, can differentiate the issues of a cartoon sponge and a war, two totally unrelated debate topics. It is apparent that you cannot. That's fine.......feel free to weave an imaginary thread between the two, if that will somehow get your point across........but why didn't you bring up the anti-spongebob crowds' stance on the price of gas, or human rights in China or Starbucks recent change regarding free trade coffee???


Yes I'm sure you do, my apologies.......but since you referenced the debunked Lancet article/left wing talking point......fallacious was the first thing that came to mind.

And that's why I attempted to put it in Casual Conversation, but it was closed by the mods as being a "serious debate". I found it hilarious that the latest bogeyman was a freakin' cartoon character. I wanted the conversation to be in that vein, but oh, well, that's how it goes.

The very silliness of a man standing in front of a bunch of congressman and other DC bigwigs complaining that an animated sponge was being used to "indoctrimate our children" is absolutely hysterical and surreal! The fact that he did it is not an opinion, it's what happened at a "Values Victory Dinner".

And, oh by the way, BoF posted a link to a non-opinion site back a few posts. And there are 948 articles on Google News...I'm sure many of them are "hard" news...if you can call the whole insanity "news".

Edited to add: I was mistaken about "Mr. Rogers"...it was the writer of the song "We are Family", Nile Rodgers, who is responsible for that "homosexuality-promoting" video.

With all due respect, Bikerdad, I would like to submit that your "analysis" is not particularly "objective". Your use of terms like "pansie [sic]", your resorting to stereotypes (the black muscle shirts), your reference to demonstrating that a character is straight as a "defense", and your characterization of a plea for tolerance as an "attack" on heterosexuality imply, to me, that your "analysis" is more than usually subjective.

Perhaps you meant your entire post as an extended joke, but some of us - say, those who have had friends beaten to death by the likes of Dobson - don't find bigotry, hatred, and intolerance all that amusing.

You question whether or not Dobson was implying that Mr. SquarePants is gay and, by extension, question those who feel that Dobson is a homophobe. Come on, Bikerdad, why do you think that Dobson opened his remarks by asking "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" There are a hundred characters involved in this video, why single out SpongeBob SquarePants? Since 2002, there have been reports that Mr. SquarePants is possibly meant to be gay. Do you think Dobson was unaware of this? Put yourself in his place: imagine for a just moment that you are homophobic. If you were about to condemn a video which preaches the Christian virtue of tolerance, would you not go for a character which was already "controversial"? In decrying a video which some even go so far as claiming is an "attack" on heterosexuality, would you not cite a character already linked to homosexuality? Were I a homophobic bigot, I know I would. It makes good rhetorical sense. To try to pretend that Mr. SquarePants was randomly chosen because - what? he's "hot"? - makes no sense.

Unlike you, I have never seen SpongeBob SquarePants (and can't vouch for how "hot" he might be ), but I have read about the purported "sexual orientation" of this cartoon sponge off and on for two years. Dobson and Co. don't have to accuse this character of being gay - their ilk presumes that he's already been so characterized and uses this presumption to underline their idiotic claim that this video somehow promotes homosexuality or attacks heterosexuality.

Yes, it is unreasonable to project a sexual orientation onto cartoon characters when there is no evidence to back it up. Yes, SpongeBob is yet another fundamentalist boogeyman. And Dobson's attack on this character and this video are absurd, pointless, counter-productive - and par for the course.

I hear you

However, as one of these conspricacy theorists I say that the "hard" news is often completely biased due to the opinions of the reporter. My broader point was that the initial news story should have been focused on the video, which "used" cartoon characters to make its point, not the characters themselves. Spongebob is definitely a bit of a camp gay character, and some reporters no doubt know this and it skewed their coverage a bit. And I truly believe that some righteous right-wingers clicked the wrong website, fanning the flames with the GLBT group at waf.org.

But "if" someone were going to indoctrinate your kids into some belief that you disagreed with, who better than a cartoon character? It's not so far-fetched, when we remember that Mickey Mouse was used for propaganda purposes in WWII. Just a thought.

Updated to add:

Wertz, I agree that much of what groups like Dobson's do is counter-productive, but could we perhaps talk about what complicates the issue and prevents intelligent debate just a bit. Dobson "and his ilk" haven't characterized Spongebob as gay, the gay community has embraced him themselves. Even the NY Times reported this accurately in their first article on this.

Spongebob is a cult icon in the gay community. He just is. Here is a write-up from December, 2002 from OutSmart magazine.

I have a spongebob hat and a gay friend has teased me about it before. Along with cartoon super-hero themes, this is just harmless fun and no one outside the "in the know" gay community would probably ever notice it. But when they do, it kind of freaks out fundamentalist types.

Things like using a kids cartoon character as a fashion statement offer a lot of easy ammo to the "homophobes" out there. I don't know what the answer is, but embracing children's cartoons as gay-friendly doesn't make it any easier to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it does complicate things, when there is a group out there that firmly believes that gays "want to indocrinate our children" or whatever.

I believe it is correct that this video (as opposed to Spongebob on its own) is an attempt to indoctrinate schoolchildren to be tolerant of diversity. But obviously, The fundamentalist right is not opposed to indoctrinating children - they are merely opposed to this particular indoctrination.

Of course, I would rather have my children "indoctrinated" with a message of acceptance and tolerance than many other examples I can think of.

What is D.A.R.E. but indoctrination? What is Church, for that matter?

We indoctrinate our high school kids with a whitewashed story of our nation's history. We indoctrinate our kids with the inherently cruel and unsound "reality" of Hayekian (to coin a phrase, perhaps) economics. We allow television to indoctrinate our kids into thinking that consumerism and medication are natural states of being.

It's just a bit disingenious to decry this indoctrination, which is in reality very positive, while ignoring the very many negative ways we greedily influence our children.

To me the question isn't whether this is indoctrination or not; the question is, why is this sort of indoctrination negative (or conversely, why is it positive)?

I am using the word "indoctrinate" a bit flippantly. We are all indoctrinated every day in so many ways, most of which we are unaware; the word is practically meaningless in a world where we are constantly spoonfed propaganda of all types.

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

I remember first coming across this idea in the early 90s when there was frothing at the mouth over Ernie and Bert. For me it was "What the??" I'm a liberal person with a healthy attitude towards sex, and it had never occured to me to consider these puppets I'd grown up watching as sexual.

When it happened again over the Teletubbies, it only served to convince me that the probelm is definitely with those religious folks. It goes to show how the suppression of natural drives like sexuality in fundamentalists warps the brian. They must project these warped thoughts on to puppets and cartoon characters.

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs? Yup. Not likely to be the last, either.

First I just want to say that I am astounded at the level of hateful rhetoric leveled at the religious right in some of the posts in this thread. It spans the spectrum-- from attempting to paint Dobson as a bufoon by mischaracterizing what he said to grouping him with murdering bigots: "Perhaps you meant your entire post as an extended joke, but some of us - say, those who have had friends beaten to death by the likes of Dobson - don't find bigotry, hatred, and intolerance all that amusing." (Wertz)

I agree with Quarkhead's point that the real question involves the indoctrination being presented through the video (not the character of spongebob) and whether it is negative or positive:



I think that issue is well worth looking at. A teaching guide on the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF) website is interesting to consider and was quoted by bikerdad. I am not sure if it is specifically to be used in conjunction with the video but clearly it represents the views of the WAFF, the organization responsible for distributing the video at issue. It states as a goal in the classroom:

"Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Analyze and discuss the effects these forces exert in students' lives."

Here's how they define those terms:
Definitions
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.

Compulsory heterosexuality: Thee assumption that women are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence.
They then urge the students to critique "your religious milieu" in light of these definitions.
James Dobson and Don Wildmon are right. This video is a trap, and its producers do intend to undermine traditional values--and religious teachings in particular.


Two points:

As to the definition of homophobia-- clearly, the Dobson crowd is going to object to their children being taught that "homophobia" means thoughts, feelings or actions based on a judgment of gay men and lesbian. Dobson and his followers believe in the bible which does pass judgment on homosexuality. I can see why they might object.

Second, take a look at the definition of that odd term "compulsory heterosexuality". What on earth is that supposed to mean. It is reminiscent of the old feminist rhetoric of the 70s. Whatever this term means-- it is not good as it
among other things -- "leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power" . . and it leads to the "power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge". What on earth does this mean. I am not at all sure that we can assume that this is a good message to indoctrinate into our children.

[QUOTE]I guess the rabid folk have targeted SpongeBob ... - Daffygrl [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I think the guys with the nets should be chasing Dobson down. If not, I’ll gladly volunteer for the job. - BoF[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Yes, and I think it represents a kind of delusional illness in some way associated to seeing communists hanging around every corner. -AuthorMusician[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The problem is that this is a whacko who was invited to speak at a presidential - Daffygrl [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I wouldn't go as so far to say that, at least for longer than the fifteen minutes those kooks have been allotted. - Titus[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Personally, I think you've got to be some kind of nut to waste all that time and energy trying to catch a cartoon in a compromising moment, but obviously Dobson thinks it's time well spent. - Nighttimer[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I'm for free speech. Let square pants do what he wants, let the hate-mongers say what they want. Just don't ban anything, even cartoons. - Tim-Mello[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]That someone probably glanced at the Times at breakfast, saw an easy right-wing wacko saying something stupid, had 400 words to write, and whammo - easy opinion column for the day.

I'm sure that a few right-wing nut jobs clicked on this site and went off the deep end before the disclaimer went up...
- Carlitoswhey[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Dr. James Dobson, who is as full of himself as the Reverend Jerry Falwell is, needs to chill out and perhaps get some gratification himself. -Paladin Elspeth[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I suspect a lot of people have turned their backs, and their wallets, away from such as Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. But there are still so many who follow these false shepherds.

Only the truly brainwashed will remain loyal.

I can only wonder what kind of dirt is lodged in the minds of those who are constantly looking for "evil". - Bill55AZ[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]With all due respect, Bikerdad, I would like to submit that your "analysis" is not particularly "objective". Your use of terms like "pansie [sic]", your resorting to stereotypes (the black muscle shirts), your reference to demonstrating that a character is straight as a "defense", and your characterization of a plea for tolerance as an "attack" on heterosexuality imply, to me, that your "analysis" is more than usually subjective. - Wertz [/QUOTE]

Given the stereotyping that has already gone on in this thread, which I've conveniently quoted above, your sudden dismissal of it is remarkably hollow. But hey, don't take my word for it that Patrick is a pansie, sissie, wimp, etc. Just read Nighttimer's post. As you probably know, NT and I don't exactly share the same Ask 100 children who have watched SpongeBob if Patrick is a sissy, and 95+ will say "yes."

[QUOTE]There are a hundred characters involved in this video, why single out SpongeBob SquarePants?[/QUOTE] Gee, maybe because he's the hottest (as in most popular) cartoon character out there right now? Nah, that couldn't be it...

Who's claiming that the video is an attack on heterosexuality? Not I. I'm saying that it is part of an agenda that is attacking it. If you think that the concept of "compulsory heterosexuality" isn't an attack ...

If there's one thing I'm certain of it is my sense of history, Bikerdad, but it appears that an appreciation of sarcasm is not among the strengths of the defenders of Dr. Dobson.

How about reading comprehension. Though you invoke my post to support your remark that the cartoon charter Patrick is a "pansie" (your word, not mine), the only thing I said was that Patrick gave me a "funny vibe." That isn't exactly the same thing as saying he probably flies a rainbow flag on his front porch.

Regarding "any examination of the issue" I visited the Focus on the Family website and here is an excerpt explaining Dr. Dobson interest in the whole SpongeBob imbroglio: "...Dr Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth."

http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family....p?p_faqid=17669

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Doc Dobson is trying to stop SpongeBob from being exploited by a pro-gay organization. Hooray for him.

What I also found interesting was a article that appars on CitizenLink, the political arm of Focus on the Family entitled: "The Unhappy Truth of Being Gay."

As believers, we are called to love the homosexual -- and we should treat gays and lesbians with respect and dignity. We should also ask God to give us compassionate hearts for those who are struggling with homosexuality. But I also believe God would have us stand up against the very real evil that is represented by the gay activist movement. As I mentioned, gay activist organizations regularly engage in deception, manipulation and strong-arm tactics to achieve their political goals.

Scripture tells us that Satan is the great deceiver and the father of all lies. I believe that Satan uses the gay activist movement to further his goals here on Earth. Satan would love nothing more than to destroy the traditional family. And if our government redefines marriage to include same-sex relationships, I am certain Satan would be just delighted. So, I think, as believers we always have to differentiate between that homosexual individual -- whom God loves so dearly and who is made in His image -- and the gay activist movement, which I believe is a tool of Satan.

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0032908.cfm

or from an article entitled, "Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda"

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn't one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That's one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don't want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept "monogamy without fidelity." In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, "I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together."

One homosexual activist said, "We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose."

Another activist said: "We need to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits. Once granted, (we need to) redefine the institution of marriage completely (and) debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action that gay men and lesbians can undertake, is to transform the notion of family entirely."

They don't just want marriage. They want to destroy marriage — and the family — as we know it.

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0027070.cfm

For all your rhetoric Bikerdad that "hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry" are being directed toward Dobson and Focus on the Family, in my view you're trying to claim victim status for the wrong side. Nice try though.

This entire farce about SpongeBob Squarepants is just a distraction from the larger issue which is nothing more than right-wing Christians fighting the advancement of gay rights. There is nothing new in the least about this.

Scratch a little bit deeper past the religious posturing and what you find is homophobia in its ugliest and rawest form. It's part of the right-wing spin to peddle homophobia under the banner of religious expression, but it's still homophobia all the same. Accusing Dobson of wallowing in hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry isn't defamation of character. It's the definition of his character.

Nile Rodgers, the man behind We Are Family Foundation, has said in the news that the only part of WAFF that had any sexual reference was the "tolerance pledge". One of the things on The We Are Family Foundation website is teacher lesson plans. The lesson plans contain subjects such as:

- Help students examine assumptions about the "natural order" in gender relationships.
- Write the first sentence in a description of the term "lesbian"
- Specify the characteristics that learners think define a person as homosexual.
- Talking About Being "Out"
- Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation
- Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality

This and other material was removed from the WAFF website when this controversy started. You can see the electronic papertrail with Google. For example, doing a Google search:

site:www.wearefamilyfoundation.org "section i"

Using the Google "cached" link will show you Section I of the lession plan. It links you to PDFs that have also been removed.

And there is more material.

The WAFF video is innocent and cute. My question is what does WAFF stand for. Obviously they took a position on LGBT and have chosen to hide it.

Rzebro-- you are absolutely right. The video may be innocent enough, but the teaching plan certainly is not! The definitions that they provide for homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality are downright scary. They are quoted in full in prior posts. I also think it is AWFUL the way the Dr. Dobson was painted by the media as some fool saying Sponge bob is gay. I heard him interviewed and he was very clear that his position was against the agenda and teaching notes of the WAFF that distributes the video. He said he had never been so misquoted in his life. THAT is scary, how the media can just take off on something and twist it.

From what I can tell, I agree with you, hayleyanne. This looks like the kind of irresponsible, sensationalistic "journalism" that benefits noone.

This is the kind of thing that undermines truly responsible journalism and gives credence to the mistrust and claims of liberal bias in the press that we hear about so often.

Yes, yes, so terrible how the liberal media pushes its agenda into government. That's why we have a liberal President and Congress.



I won't argue that Doc Dobson lost credibility with his way of bringing up the subject, but what does lose it for him is his pattern of foot-in-mouth disease. Also his manipulation of politics. So let's say the sponge dude isn't gay, but it's that darn gay rights agenda we gotta watch out for because they're out to mess up the nuclear family.

Okay, isn't the nuclear family already messed up? Didn't the nuclear family arise from the ashes of the extended family? Haven't we experienced rapid movement from an agrarian to industrial to information economy over a few hundred years?

And now Dobson wants to pin it all on the gay rights agenda?

Maybe he isn't ill, just lacking in gray matter. I look at all this and see scapegoating to the max, plus disturbing trends in denial. That anti-gay and monied interests tend to walk unabashedly hand-in-hand might give a clue as to what is really going on.

Be afraid, very afraid, of the gay agenda. Just don't look at any other agenda that has been, is, and will continue to tear families apart. You know, things like shipping jobs overseas, importing workers, starting wars . . . those things have no effect. But tolerating homosexuality? That will certainly be our downfall.

Not amoral profit reaping.

I think the best response to all this came from Keith Olbermann himself. He makes a good point; Dobson was looking for publicity, he got it, and now he’s whining about it and blaming the bogeyman (insert spooky echo here) “the l-i-b-e-r-a-l m-e-d-i-a”. So, what does “poor” Mr. Dobson do? Why, he rounds up his frothing-at-the-mouth, presumably hetero, onward Christian soldiers to spam Olbermann. Very mature.


Priceless!

You misunderstand. I don't think the mainstream media is particularly liberal, but because of the way they mishandled this "story" now anti-liberal types can use this as an example of how they are constantly victimized by the "liberal" media. I don't give a **** about Dobson's posturing or his sense of victimhood. I just don't like to see the press distort ANY story (and supply Dobson with anti-"liberal press" ammo to boot).

Did Olberman misreport the whole sponge bob incident? If he did, he ought to have apologized instead of taking the opportunity to make further fun of Dobson and those who support him.

Again, IF Olberman got the story wrong, he ought to correct it. It is pretty shoddy for him not to. The point is that the media should be called on the carpet when they misreport stories -- whether their reporting favors liberal or conservative view points. But some people can never ever admit they got it wrong I guess.

That is why I really like Joe Scarborough. He really calls it as he sees it. He is conservative but does not hesitate to criticize republicans. Ex. He was the first to say on MSNBC that Bush flubbed the first debate. In any case, it is not surprising that Scarborough (same cable station as Olberman MSNBC) was the one to actually interview Dobson and SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I have lost alot of respect for Olberman.

Hayleyanne,

I really don’t like Joe Scarborough. His interview with James Dobson was pretty much a whitewash. Scarborough’s questions were not designed to determine truth, but to get across Dobson’s message. Where were the steel knife questions that someone like Tim Russert asks? In other words, one isn’t doing an interview when he or she, like Scarborough, goes in knowing the answers he wants and those he is likely to get. In fact, It seemed more like a rehearsed and orchestrated production than an interview.

Scarborough Country is as close to pure propaganda as we’re likely to get and as far from objective journalism as we can get.

Although I quoted mostly Scarborough, to indicate the nature of the “interview” I did one quote from Dobson. Isn’t it a crying shame that anyone would be out to promote tolerance and recognition of a diversity that already exists.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895270/

From Monday night’s Countdown



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895217/

From Tuesday night’s Coundown



It these letters are any indication, then certainly the semi-illiterate set is squarely lined up with Dobson against Olbermann.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6901788/

For Bof:

Bof, that is what bothers me. The portrayal of those who support Scarborough as semi-illiterate. I have watched Olberman's Countdown and know that his "schtick" is to report the hot topics with some humor. And that is fine. Sometimes I enjoy watching it. The problem is that he used that humor in a mean way to portray as ignorant --those who sided with Dobson. I know that Dobson has alot of the extreme religious right wingers that follow him, but not everyone who was outraged about the mischaracterization of what he said belong to that group. Olberman's presentation was meant to portray Dobson's supporters as right wing religious whackos. That is just not fair.

The problem as I see it, with that WAFF organization is that it is extreme. The teaching points that were offered to go with the video had definitions of the terms : homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality that were way over on the other side of the spectrum from Dobson-- in the realm of leftist whacko. So, essentially this whole spongebob nonsense was two extreme groups butting heads. And the national media took the bait and mischaracterized what Dobson said in the first place. As RobertB points out, the media gave all the more ammunition to the Right to charge that the media has a left wing bias.

As far as your comments go on Scarborough-- I know that he is definitely conservative and makes no bones about it. But what I like about him is that he is not afraid to call it as he sees it and depart from the party line. When I watched the first presidential debate, he was on the panel with Chris Matthews and others. Scarborough was the first to say that Bush had bombed. I respect him for that. I also know that he departs from most conservatives and has said that he has no problem with gay marriage. I just like the guy.

hayleyanne

You obviously didn’t read my statement accurately. I didn’t say anything about Scarborough’s supporters being semi-illiterate, it was in reference to the Dobson’s supporters who can’t seem to put two words together in any logical order.

Further, Scarborough only acknowledged what everyone already knew in saying that Bush bombed in the first debate. His breaks with Republicans have usually been about their unwillingness to curb rising deficits.

I watch Scarborough nearly every night. As I've said before, it's a relatively painless away to get my capsulized daily dose of right-wing nonsense. That way I don't have to waste a lot of time listening to Rush, Hannity or some other lesser "lights" to find out what bug is currently infecting the rightward circuit.

In the end, most of the media outlets demonstrated they learned their trade from the Dan Rather school of journalism and they got away with it.

Let me just add to the extreme part of We Are Family Foundation.

The "Kids" section of the We Are Family Foundation website leads the "5 years old and up" into tolerance.org, which has questionable material. The "10 years old and up" also leads kids into alternet.org which has pornographic material such as:

* Masturbate Online! - In the "we're not sure we're part of the United States" Bay Area, we like to enjoy a little masturbation with our free speech - www.masturbate-a-thon.com

* You Sexy Animal, You - Bestiality is back, and its hotter than ever, now that famed bioethicist Peter Singer has taken up "the love that dare not bark its name."

* The World's Weirdest Sex Machines - What do you get when you cross a bicycle rim, three pairs of used women's shoes, and a metal chain gear? Why, the best masturbation device available in 1920s Germany, of course. Such curious inventions dot the landscape of the little-known history of sexual machinery.

Then some of these articles have links to other sites. For example, once you're on www.masturbate-a-thon.com just image what links you will find.

Personally, my issue with the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF) homosexual message (and the same for all LGBT organizations), is that it is only half the story of homosexuality. The other half is the ex-gay movement - people who leave the homosexual lifestyle.

Unfortunately what LGBT groups say about ex-gays and ex-gay support organizations is that they are sick, sad, shameful, dangerous, lies, propaganda, and myths. There are flesh-and-blood people who can declare they are ex-gay and they are called "myths"? Where is the validation of individuals? Where is the elimination of hate-speech? Where is the acceptance of diversity? Where is tolerance?

The WAFF web site has a number of links to tolerance.org. There is only one article on tolerance.org about ex-gays and it uses the same hate-speech as noted above.

I find the response from the "tolerance" torch-bearers to be disingenuous. The LGBT organizations do not walk-the-walk when it comes to ex-gays.

I don't think we can never have a full and honest discussion about homosexuality until ex-gays are in the equation.

I must admit I was a bit intrigued by this as I frequently visit AlterNet and did not remember coming across any pornographic material. I browsed all of the current articles for about half an hour and couldn't find a single one of the items you mentioned. Finally, I did an internal search on the word "masturbation" and, yes, came across one article on the Center for Sex and Culture from early last year that does, indeed, included a link to the masturbate-a-thon site.

If that's what you had to go through to turn this up, rzebro, you might as well suggest that any site with a search engine - including this one - is inappropriate for young people. God knows what words they might enter and what they might find. An innocent school child perusing America's Debate might even come across your link to the masturbate-a-thon site! While we're at it, be'd best ban Google and every other search engine on the web. Hell, while we're at it, why not just ban the internet altogether.

The AlterNet article in question, for what it's worth, was not pornographic.

You remind me of nothing so much as the anecdote about Samuel Johnson following the publication of his dictionary. Two ladies complimented Dr. Johnson for apparently omitting naughty words from his lexicon. "What, my dears!" Johnson exclaimed. "Then you have been looking for them?"

I was unable to find anything at Tolerance.org that was "questionable", but then I didn't have the time that you seem to have to seek it out. Despite the best efforts of those who would like to keep everyone ignorant of everything they personaly dislike, nothing is going to stop people from looking - yourself, it would seem, included.

I can't, by the way, image what links one might find once were one to visit www.masturbate-a-thon.com, but my imagination may be more limited than yours.


Um, by the other "half" of the story, I believe you mean the other 0.0001% of the story. Your argument is like suggesting that we shouldn't discuss the gene for red hair without taking into account that "half" of all readheads who are so ashamed of their hair color that they persistently dye it black.

I will not comment on those poor souls who are so tortured by societal pressure that they even feel the need to deny something so intimate as their inborn sexual orientation lest I be labeled "intolerant". But to drag them into a debate about diversity as though they were in any way representative of an entire group - or even "half" of that group - is disingenuous in the extreme.

Sure, those "sick, sad" individuals who think of themselves as "ex-gay" should be treated with tolerance. May I presume that you are saying the same about the other 99.9999% of the gay population, rzebro?