• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News

ted chittenden said:
Most of the objections to the LGBT community come from the religious right which use the writings of Paul (I believe it's in Romans) and the Old Testament books of Levitticus and Deuteronomy to justify their discrimination.
Click to expand...
By "religious right" (a term I have never heard before) do you mean more traditional churches like Baptists, Lutherans or Presbyterians? Or evangelistic sects like those in the style of Joel Osteen? Or do you mean the most traditional Christians, the Catholics?

In any case, a religion is not a political party.

A belief, as unfounded as it may be, is not discrimination per se. For example, as obsolete and wrong as it might be, the caste system in India is a cultural "belief" and is the truth to them
 
kevtronics said:
If you think of trans women as "men", then you are not so kindly accepting of them as you think.
Click to expand...
I am among the majority of Americans who believe that gender is determined at birth according to the factory equipment. That does not mean the we can't accept the way a person feels and acts.
kevtronics said:
And "some of my best friends are (insert name of marginalized group)" is the oldest excuse in the book.
Click to expand...
And it is valid when determining if a person accepts gays as individuals, just as they may accept people of other races or cultures. As such, it is not an excuse but a sign of acceptance.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
The act of discrimination regardless of what it’s based on is discrimination.
Click to expand...
That may be in the eye of the beholder. But the basis of my stance here is that what some call "discrimination" may be, to others, a valid and sound belief.
AbrahamJSimpson said:
And being in a traditional Presbyterian church, we are not remotely the religious right. All are fully welcomed and embraced.
Click to expand...
I did not say that Presbyterians were such. I was using Presbyterians as well as several others I listed as possibly being considered "conservative" per the pseudo definition of Mr Chittendon.

And that is why I asked him what he meant by "conservative religions".

(My parents and their families were multi-generational Presbyterians)
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
No. What’s valid is action. Saying you have gay friends, for example, while trying to deny them the same full rights a straight person has is not acceptance.
Click to expand...
I never said I denied gays the same full rights of citizens. You are misinterpreting my statement.
 
davideduardo said:
That may be in the eye of the beholder. But the basis of my stance here is that what some call "discrimination" may be, to others, a valid and sound belief.

I did not say that Presbyterians were such. I was using Presbyterians as well as several others I listed as possibly being considered "conservative" per the pseudo definition of Mr Chittendon.

And that is why I asked him what he meant by "conservative religions".

(My parents and their families were multi-generational Presbyterians)
Click to expand...
davideduardo said:
That may be in the eye of the beholder. But the basis of my stance here is that what some call "discrimination" may be, to others, a valid and sound belief.
Click to expand...
Discrimination is an action. Believe whatever religion you want. Believe in none. That is not a valid reason to try to deny them equal rights.
It’s just as invalid when it comes to the LGBTQIA+ community as it is when it’s racial, ethnic or gender based.
davideduardo said:
I did not say that Presbyterians were such. I was using Presbyterians as well as several others I listed as possibly being considered "conservative" per the pseudo definition of Mr Chittendon.
Click to expand...
Pseudo definition? Please. The idea that “religious right” is some little-used concept is laughable. It’s been in common use for decades.
davideduardo said:
And that is why I asked him what he meant by "conservative religions".
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. That’s hardly a great secret.
 
davideduardo said:
By "religious right" (a term I have never heard before) do you mean more traditional churches like Baptists, Lutherans or Presbyterians? Or evangelistic sects like those in the style of Joel Osteen? Or do you mean the most traditional Christians, the Catholics?

In any case, a religion is not a political party.

A belief, as unfounded as it may be, is not discrimination per se. For example, as obsolete and wrong as it might be, the caste system in India is a cultural "belief" and is the truth to them
Click to expand...

Wow! I've been asleep for the past few hours and look what a hornet's nest I've stirred up! By "religious right," (a term I've often read and heard from journalists discussing the groups involved) I'm primarily refering to the white evangelistical sects of Protestantism+some very conservative Protestant (think southern Baptists) and Roman Catholic (the religion in which I was raised, by the way) congregations. These groups (mostly) view the Bible as being literally true, and, as of late, some of them, particularly evangelistical groups fronted by Joel Osteen (and others) view the U.S. as being inspired and created by God and therefore it must follow the rules endorsed by the Bible.

In terms of legality, Abraham J. Simpson's take is (mostly) correct though it is under attack by the religious right as I have defined above. Just because you believe you have a valid and just reason against discriminating another person doesn't mean you have the right to actually put that belief into practice in public spaces (and sometimes in private spaces as well). Though the U.S. Supreme Court has been whittling away at minority rights for some time now (a big decision is coming later this year on the Voting Rights Act), for now, discrimination against minority populations remains (mostly) against U.S. law.

One personal note as we are veering far away from the topic of radio and the media here. As a blind person, I have been discriminated against, including at Loyola Marymount University's college radio station, KXLU, back in the early 1980s. (I've written about that incident elsewhere on this site.) I can tell you from personal experience that discriminating against someone because of who or what they are, especially if it's something that person can't change (like skin color or lack of vision) is *very hurtful to the victims of said discrimination.

Okay. I'll post no more on this.
 
michael hagerty said:
The only way to have not heard that term in the last 40 years would be to only consume information from right-wing news sources.
Click to expand...
I admit I haven't kept up with this thread and will have to go back and see how it got to this point, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this point.

Not necessarily because I think everyone on the religious right is so deep in an information silo that they think they're all apolitical, but rather that they're quite the opposite...espousing explicitly "conservative" "Christian" values in their politics. As you well know, the overt political influence of more conservative Christians in US politics arguably gained the most steam during the Reagan years and (IMO) really took off when the GOP rebranded themselves as the "Party of Family Values" in contrast to Bill Clinton's...um...peccadilloes. It continued throughout the 90s to the point where some conservative Christians (politicians and faith leaders) suggested deep-cleaning the Oval Office after Clinton left to "remove the stain of infidelity" from the most important room in the White House.
 
Deus Ex Machiato said:
Not necessarily because I think everyone on the religious right is so deep in an information silo that they think they're all apolitical, but rather that they're quite the opposite...espousing explicitly "conservative" "Christian" values in their politics.
Click to expand...

That was what I gathered from Gabby Barrett, who was part of the TPUSA show last week. She sees religion and politics as being intertwined.

They feel they need to be active politically in order to preserve their faith.
 
TheBigA said:
That was what I gathered from Gabby Barrett, who was part of the TPUSA show last week. She sees religion and politics as being intertwined.
Click to expand...
And I've long felt (at the risk of further derailing this whole mess) that - if one believes that the conservative position as being aligned with "what the Founding Fathers wanted"- then intertwining religion and politics is a big no-no. One of my favorite quotes on this topic comes from a sermon delivered on July 4th of 1802 by the Rev. John Leland, a leader of the Virginia Baptists and a friend of both Madison and Jefferson and who was instrumental in getting a religious liberty clause in the 1st Amendment, who said:

"Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it."
 
Last edited:
Deus Ex Machiato said:
I admit I haven't kept up with this thread and will have to go back and see how it got to this point, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this point.

Not necessarily because I think everyone on the religious right is so deep in an information silo that they think they're all apolitical, but rather that they're quite the opposite...espousing explicitly "conservative" "Christian" values in their politics. As you well know, the overt political influence of more conservative Christians in US politics arguably gained the most steam during the Reagan years and (IMO) really took off when the GOP rebranded themselves as the "Party of Family Values" in contrast to Bill Clinton's...um...peccadilloes. It continued throughout the 90s to the point where some conservative Christians (politicians and faith leaders) suggested deep-cleaning the Oval Office after Clinton left to "remove the stain of infidelity" from the most important room in the White House.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing necessarily, but you haven’t explained how anyone could not have heard the term “religious right” in 40 years.
 
Deus Ex Machiato said:
I admit I haven't kept up with this thread and will have to go back and see how it got to this point, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this point.

Not necessarily because I think everyone on the religious right is so deep in an information silo that they think they're all apolitical, but rather that they're quite the opposite...espousing explicitly "conservative" "Christian" values in their politics. As you well know, the overt political influence of more conservative Christians in US politics arguably gained the most steam during the Reagan years and (IMO) really took off when the GOP rebranded themselves as the "Party of Family Values" in contrast to Bill Clinton's...um...peccadilloes. It continued throughout the 90s to the point where some conservative Christians (politicians and faith leaders) suggested deep-cleaning the Oval Office after Clinton left to "remove the stain of infidelity" from the most important room in the White House.
Click to expand...
The thing that bothers me most about that group of people is they can have these cynical, nihilistic views about what's going on in the country and world, and opposes any effort to help the problem which seems to be some corners of the internet. But the problem the religious right has is they think the exact same way, except they try to cloak their insincerity in "earnestness" and after a long day of trying to fighting against trans people, gun control, Palestinians, economic reform, and countless other things, they throw on a Lauren Daigle record because of how "sincere" they are. If it wasn't for that, their belief system, while nihilistic, would at least be consistent. But that throws them into a whole new level of incongruity.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Discrimination is an action. Believe whatever religion you want. Believe in none. That is not a valid reason to try to deny them equal rights.
Click to expand...
Again, an old and perhaps overused rebuttal is that your rights end when they hit me in the nose.
AbrahamJSimpson said:
It’s just as invalid when it comes to the LGBTQIA+ community as it is when it’s racial, ethnic or gender based.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on whether pushing perceived "rights" (a subject of its own) extends above the rights perceived or actually held by others.
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Pseudo definition? Please. The idea that “religious right” is some little-used concept is laughable. It’s been in common use for decades.
Click to expand...
But it is as vague a term as I can imagine because, without the contest of specific issues, it is meaningless. Some today say that all religious people are "the religious right" because they think that believing in a God is not a valid concept.
michael hagerty said:
The only way to have not heard that term in the last 40 years would be to only consume information from right-wing news sources.

I know you’re not stupid. I would have bet you weren’t ignorant.

Click to expand...
There is not an equivalent term in Spanish for "Religious Right". That is why I am not familiar with it... I reject it because it is totally vague, anyway.
 
michael hagerty said:
Not disagreeing necessarily, but you haven’t explained how anyone could not have heard the term “religious right” in 40 years.
Click to expand...
There is no direct translation into Spanish and 90% of my life since 1963 has been speaking that language.

Whatever its "lifespan" has been, its not a term I could define anyway. What is the difference between being "religious" and being "religious right"? Where is the dividing line? Is it based on abortion, a belief in life at conception, the Ten Commandments as a literal guide, the meaning of marriage... to name just a few things that could or could not define that term.

This is just like lumping all "progressives" together when some are more motivated by one subject than other possible ones. Examples of subjects would be the environment, abortion, racial issues, immigration, distribution of wealth, criminal punishment, and more. (These separate issue that motivate different people differently may explain why, nearly 2 decades ago, the attempt at a progressive radio network failed.)
 
ted chittenden said:
One personal note as we are veering far away from the topic of radio and the media here. As a blind person, I have been discriminated against, including at Loyola Marymount University's college radio station, KXLU, back in the early 1980s. (I've written about that incident elsewhere on this site.) I can tell you from personal experience that discriminating against someone because of who or what they are, especially if it's something that person can't change (like skin color or lack of vision) is *very hurtful to the victims of said discrimination.
Click to expand...
I can relate to this entirely, as, being a white gringo trying to do radio in Ecuador was a horrible experience where I was called out for being "too white" and "not from here" and "not understanding us" and similar things. At government offices, I'd be intentionally kicked to the "end of the line" or have my papers lost. And so on.

You have shown here considerable intelligence and language skills, even if we may disagree on some topics. You seem to have overcome many obstacles.

In my case, when my first station that went 8 months with less than $US 50 in monthly revenue got its first ratings and was #1, suddenly I was a genius. When I did the first all salsa station in Puerto Rico, I got the same reaction of "stupid gringo"... until we got nearly half the audience in a 30 station market. In Argentina, many on the staff thought my ideas were laughable and they did so publicly; then we got our first book and the leading newspaper with a circulation of 1.2 million said, "it took a foreigner to show us that we Argentines love our home grown rock music."

In both our cases, it seems that we had to prove that we were skilled and, thus, any perceived differences were immaterial.
 
1770879621509.png
Yet the response in this thread alone confirm that nobody really knows precisely what the "religious right" really means. Each poster has reacted based on their own beliefs and concepts, and that confirms that the term is about as meaningless as could be imagined.
 
davideduardo said:
View attachment 11422
Yet the response in this thread alone confirm that nobody really knows precisely what the "religious right" really means. Each poster has reacted based on their own beliefs and concepts, and that confirms that the term is about as meaningless as could be imagined.
Click to expand...
It means someone who essentially sees the Republican Party being a "vehicle" to carry out their beliefs, and the party and their beliefs are enmeshed.
 


Back
Top Bottom