For the Cheno haters- Page 3

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 7:59pm

pab-I understand what both you and jrb (as well as midtown) are saying. It was not the best idea ever to appear on 700 club. It is a show for those at the EXTREME right of Christianity, but it is still for Christians. She went on the show not as a "known Broadway personality" but as a singer who NO ONE (despite Broadway fans) knows, who has a new CD with Christian music and who is trying to sell it.

ONCE AGAIN- I am not saying what she did was healthy for her fan-base, it obviously hurt it more than help it. But is this really a reason to be so upset. She went on the show ( a mistake) but did not talk about personal views (a plus).

And to whoever brought up the thing about Bush- SHE DID NOT PERFORM AT THE INAUGURATION. She was never scheduled to perform at the INAUGURATION but at an after party which (unless plans were changed) was supposed to be sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans. She ended up not going due to "personal reasons"

[bwaybaby891]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 11:25pm

Love KC. She just made an advertising decision to market to her target audience. Yes they hate gay people but she made a statement saying that she doesn't believe in that. Get over it.
And also I have Christian friends that go to church and have gay relatives or have no problem with gay people. You can still believe in God and promote gay rights or liberal topics. This board is for talking about Broadway, not religion. Go to the off topic board or better yet, don't say anything at all. We've established that people thought it was a stupid move, and maybe it was but it's not your choice to make. It was Kristen's. Get over it and move on.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 11:46pm

See, there's something really funny about all this. Here's some exit poll results from the 2004 elections- the breakdown of voting by religion.

Protestants: 59% Bush, 40% Kerry
Catholics: 52% Bush, 47% Kerry
Jews: 25% Bush, 74% Kerry
Other: 23% Bush, 74% Kerry, 1% Nader
None: 31% Bush, 67% Kerry, 1% Nader

Well, would you look at that. More than 40% of Gentiles voted for Kerry. But deep down inside, they're all actually conservative. Right, pab?

And by the way, 23% of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals voted for Bush. And doesn't that just bust a whole lot of simplistic thinking wide open?
Updated On: 4/10/05 at 11:46 PM

[ConvinceMe2]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 11:58pm

Gee, people never tire of discussing the exact same thing, do they?

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:01am

Okay, first of all, let me repeat the issue...just to make sure I am understanding the point. Some people are upset that KC went on the 700 Club, because the show vocalizes their feelings that homosexuality is wrong (not gay hate), but that is neither here nor there, the point being that she went on that show that was against right to choose partners, after associating herself with gay rights. Is this correct? I don't want to miss the point.

Assuming what I typed up there is the real issue, I want to first state that somebody who thinks homosexualtiy is wrong, is not someone who hates gays, just like someone who is pro-choice does not necessarily hate (at least I hope not) someone who is pro-life. Point being that anywhere there are social issues, there are opposing views. Just because one party opposes the other, does not mean they hate the other. Hate is a very strong word. I won't go into detail that just because Bush does not support gay rights, does not mean that he hates gays...keep in mind that I didn't hear Kerry being overly pro gay rights.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, I use my high school (gosh i'm old) memory of Lilith Fair as an example. Of course, I went to see Sarah McLachlan, but even more, I went to see Jennifer Knapp, and Kendall Payne who for those of you who are not familiar with them, are major Christian recording artists. At that time, I was a lot less tolerant, but even then, I don't remember getting my panties in a twist over the fact that they were performing at a pro gay, pro choice, pro democrat concert festival...even though at that time, those were all big no-no's in my book. I was there for the entertainment and I refused to be mad at they were on the type of concert tour that was opposite from traditional Christian beliefs.

Overall, I'm a little tired of hearing some people on this board voice their strong belief in promoting tolerance, and acceptance, but that tolerance does not seem to extend to anyone who believes differently from them. It's like, saying you must accept, tolerate, respect, and not judge people who are homosexual, pro choice, or, here recently of Muslim background, but do not accept, tolerate, respect, or be non-judgemental to those who don't agree with homosexuality, pro choice rights, or who think Muslim, or any other religion is not okay.

So, I leave everyone with this, what is the difference between KC going on the 700 Club, a program that thinks homosexuality is wrong, and someone like Billy Graham going on Larry King Live to talk about a new book (which has happened)? Both are on the opposite political sides of the person who is interviewing them. Or consider Dixie Carter (I hope ya'll know who she is) who expresses her Christian beliefs and says on several interviews that she agreed to do the "liberal ranting" speeches of Julia Sugarbaker on Designing Women, only because the producers agreed to find as many ways possible to allow her character to sing. Several famous people have appeared on the show, like, Jim Caviezel, Kathie Lee Gifford, Mel Gibson, George Foreman, Stephen Baldwin, Chuck Norris, and John Tesh. Granted, I'm usure where some of these people fall as far as supporting gay rights, but I know some of them do, and regardless...they all appeared on the show too. I think it's just a means for them to speak openly about Christianity, not a means to "flip off" some of their fans.

Long post, but what can I say, I'm a speech/theatre/debate person, and therefore tend to be long winded. LOL

[pab]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:03am

Oh boy Plum, I just love your logic. So, the way that a person votes now decides how christian they are, how they act, or how tolerant they are toward other people? Interesting. Wow, I really learn something new every day. Maybe you should now research all the numbers in the states that have passed amendments banning gay marriage and fill us in on those as well.

[ConvinceMe2]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:09am

Well, just count me as one fag who doesn't give a sh*t what Chenoweth says, sings, or does!

[pab]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:11am

ConvinceMe2, the funny thing is, I don't either but that fact (which I’ve stated over and over) is apparently lost on some people.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:38am

I'm pointing out that it's hilariously simplistic to say that there's only "a few" liberal Christians. It's even more hilarious that you encourage me not to take people's Presidential votes as indications of their opinions when you're the one who's convinced that religion is just such an indicator. I'm just throwing your kind of "logic" back at you.

[pab]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:40am

ROTFLMAO!

[Broadway Style]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 12:57am

Hmm but really what is most intersting about Plum's statistics is the fact that the Jews(besides "other") had the largest percentile vote for Kerry and yet Bush and many of the people on the right are the ones who most staunchly support Israel??

[SomaFiend]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 1:16am

It might be the most interesting of Plum's statistics if this discussion was actually about Israel.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 1:27am

Chlydomnestra--were this merely a difference of political opinion, you would have a sound argument. But the fact IS that bigotry is bigotry--whether you hide behind the Bible or not. The 700 Club spreads awful lies about the gay community. No--they aren't nearly as bad as Fred Phelps and his ilk. But, they spread hateful lies about gays and lesbians. And the fact is--NO ONE WOULD ACCEPT THIS ABOUT PEOPLE OF COLOR. We don't accept that it's "ok" to spread racism. You wouldn't be having this argument if you equated prejudice against gays with prejudice against people of color. And THAT is the difference here.

Call me a hypocrite all you like, but hate is NOT an opinion that I will tolerate.

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:42am

Not for nothing, but who cares? Some of you folks seem to think you can make or break her career. You haven't and you won't. So really, what's the point? What's done is done, she has contractual obligation to sell the CD otherwise she won't be able to make new ones.
So she pissed you off, don't buy the CD. If you want to call BC/EFA and Windy City that she went on a bad tv show, so don't accept her help/charity? Oh please.

And as for whether or not you can have a Christian liberal. Of course you can, it's called not being labeled and thinking for yourself. Some of you should try it instead of jumping on whatever "cheno hater" bandwagon there is.

[Emmy1234]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:12am

I'm Christian. I don't have anything against people who are gay or lesbians. Neither does anyone in my family. My dad is currently studying to become a minister. We changed demoninations because our Oklahoma Methodist system does not support gay and lesbian worshipers. No one in my family is gay.

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 9:10am

JRB, let me first say how much I appreciate your articulation in the matter, and the fact that you are looking at the whole thing calmly and rationally, which I have to admit, I haven't always done.

And speaking for myself, and myself only, I am a Christian and I grew up in the south, in a Southern Baptist home. I now worship in a non-denominational church too. Of course, I can't change your feelings, and I wouldn't try to, nor would I try to interpret Miss Chenoweth's actions. That being said, I grew up watching the 700 Club, and for those raised in the buckle of the Bible belt, which you may or may not have been, the show is a staple in the community. It is hard to view the show as evil when you've grown up with it all your life. Granted, I don't agree with some of their view points, but I still can't say that they are bigoted, because the fact remains that it is a religious based show, and in that religion (some people overlook or interpret the passage differently obviously) they follow the Bible which states that homosexuality is wrong. And in all fairness, if you would say they are bigotted towards the homosexual community, you may as well extend that to the people who live and have sex together before marriage, people who are divorced, people who are cheating on spouses, people who have indescriminate sex, people who sodomize one another, people who practice beastiality, people who look at pornography, people who pay for sex, people who 'swing,' people that have orgy's, and a whole lot more of what the show deams as sexual sins. Now, homosexuality is what one might call the 'hot topic,' but I assure you, they are against all those other things as well. The religious based show, views some things as sin, and you will not change their mind, because in their beliefs, 'sin is sin.' There is no way to make it okay, and say it isn't a sin. I think where they falter is their stupidity in thinking that it is okay for them to assume the judgement that should be left to God Himself. It isn't up to them or any other person on the earth to pass the judgement of 'heaven' or 'hell.' That judgement is left only to God, in Christianity. Of course, saying all this doesn't necessarily make it okay, but they are valid beliefs, just as the Muslim belief says that if a person will not convert to Ala, they are to be killed (some Muslims overlook or interpret that passage differently too). You say that nobody would tolerate a show that disagrees with something so 'bigotted,' but some Christians feel they are in the same position of having to accept shows like 'Queer Eye for the strait guy.' I am of the opinion, if you don't like it, turn it off. As far as linking the whole thing to race, I speak from a completely different background, in that here in rural Tennessee, it is not at all out of place to here talk of the KKK, use of the word n****r,(which obviously, I don't agree with) flying the rebel flag, etc. A majority of the people I PERSONALLY KNOW (won't generalize) accept this as a part of the southern culture, and tell each other to get over it (not necessarily the KKK bit). But it's not uncommon to have black and white friends, call each other racially slurred names, even though a lot of people from the outside, would condemn that. Granted, a lot of that type thing is going out with the older generation, but it's still here.

And you know JRB, some people in the gay community, on some CNN show's, and many network television shows, aweful lies and untruths are spread about Southern Baptists and some other Christian denominations. It gets old, being the butt of jokes, and the example that some people use when they want to explain intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry. In my opinion, those same three things (intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry) are often used in the reverse by some gay communities and other (warning: generalization coming out) 'liberal' groups.

It goes back to, it's okay to promote tolerance for all people, so long as you believe the way I do. The whole thread, and this whole argument is a cunundrum, a catch 22 if you will. It will never be okay to promote hate (which I'm not sure has been the proven belief of the 700 club), in any way shape or form, but what then is hate? If it's disagreeing with someone's beliefs, then I guess there's a lot of hate out there.

My mother and I argue endlessly about the homosexual issue. She is still Southern Baptist and is against homosexuality. That being said, her 'Godson' (now that's an oxymoron:a southern baptist's godson lol) is gay, and she couldn't love him more. Does she disagree with his lifestyle, and when he asks her is it a sin, she says 'yes.' But often follows that by saying, 'so is premarital sex, having an affair, and other sexual sins, but it's not my ultimate judgement to make whether or not you or other sexual sinners go to heaven or hell.' Do I think my mother promotes hate, intolerance, bigotry, etc. NO! She simply is believing in her religious denominations interpretation of the Bible.

Back at you now...watch the tennis ball fly across the court by way of a beautifully rendered back-hand by chlydomnestra. Although, I still think this is a catch 22 that will never be solved. LOL

[Imchristine4real]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 9:17am

Way to go, Chlydomnestra! Very good

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 1:33pm

All I have time to say at the moment is that

1. I'm a Texan with a religious background--so I know ALL about what you have said firsthand

2. I do not engage in discrimination against anyone's religion

3. but I know that at one time people used religion to defend slavery, segregation, and banning interracial marriage. And those people have every right to believe that. But--no laws should be based on these beliefs. And, I think progressive thinking people like those of us on this board would not support those beliefs.

4. Pat Robertson doesn't harp on gays and lesbians merely for his religious beliefs--he does it because it is a fear tactic. And fear tactics raise money and support. I would check out Mel White's stunning autobiography, STRANGER AT THE GATE, which goes into great detail about this.

5. I am not in any way a "Cheno hater".

[Plum]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 2:01pm

Wow, Broadway Style. It looks people let more than one issue or demographic affiliation determine their voting. Who knew? Crazy multi-issue voters. My vast plan to stereotype every American citizen is thwarted once again.

And by the way, supporters and detractors of Israel come from all parts of the political spectrum. They just have different reasons for what they believe.

-Plum, Israeli-born Jewish Kerry voter who hates labels

[LouW95]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:21pm

If Kristin had used another vehicle to promote her album, she would not have alienated so many fans. This was a bad career move, for a Bway based actor, by any standards. She did not need to go to Robertson's camp for a fast, cheap plug.
Updated On: 4/11/05 at 05:21 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:28pm

I guess my main comment is "You are what you surround yourself with". By going on the 700 club, Chenoweth is essentially, affiliating herself with that organization. If she is a "liberal christian" as she says she is, she wouldn't put herself beside a group of people that are the quintessential landmark for conservative christian groups. I don't have a problem with Chenoweth being Christian, I have a problem with the hypocricy of some of the things she is doing. If she doesn't want to be labled a conservative christian, then stop affiliating yourself with organizations that clearly don't abide by your morals. The whole thing is reall sketchy to me, how she is willing to forgo her beliefs and her fanbase, in favor of a larger section of people who are likely to buy her album-the conservative christians, oddly enough, the group she says she isn't part of.
Updated On: 4/11/05 at 05:28 PM

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 6:56pm

Well, obviously Bush had an opportunity to support gay marriage, and didn't, but he did not write the law. The law was written long ago that marriage is between a man and a woman. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...until this law is ammended, which Bush made no such move to do and niether did Kerry, legislation cannot make new laws concerning marriage.

I know you aren't a Cheno hater Jacob, I get that, but some people are. I think I will read the Mel White book, just because I like to hear different viewpoints. Please don't think me a defender of the 700 Club, because I am saying this stuff, because I don't believe all the things they believe in.

I still fall on the side that although some will choose to boycott KC based on this one appearance, I don't think it is all that big of a deal. And some (not all) boycotters are saying she isolates them by going on that show, but another group of those boycotters are using it as an excuse, rather than just saying a predominantly Christian based CD isolates them. Give me a few more examples of an all Christian talk show that she could market it to, and I'll become a little more upset. But those shows are non existent and since the majority of her fans are in theatre, some of which don't give a flip for Christian music, she wants to get the CD out to those who do love Christian music, and one of the few ways to achieve that is by doing Christian based concerts and programs (ie Women of Faith, The 700 Club). I think it was a way for her to promote her CD to the audience that would most respond to it, but don't necessarily know who she is. It's not a bad thing. Maybe there's some really "conservative" "right-wing" Christian out there, who heard her CD and in listening to it, became a fan...then did more research on her and maybe that person is a little more enlightened for it.

As far as slavery, segregation, and stuff...to me, those were different times and in doing research, people did use religion to "defend" it or make excuses for maintaining it, but look further and you will find that there is no Biblical basis for those prejudices. Religion back then was an easy way to justify the things we now know are wrong and it was the token answer for everything, but there are no verses in the Bible that encouraged man to enslave or segregate anybody. One might skew it and refer to the story of the tower of Babel, but even then, God seperated the speech of people, but it was never stated that this was to be the standard for people, and furthermore, it goes back to what was God's specific judgement. The people had no power in judgement for sin back then, just as people today do not have the right to pass judgement. My personal belief is that only God can judge. At some point, I guess people decided to play God, and started saying that slavery was okay, and black people weren't right and other such heinous remarks, all of which have no Biblical basis. Man simply got full of himself, and with that being said, maybe they still are. It's not okay for government to legislate who can and cannot marry, but at present, the law that was passed decades ago defining marriage, has not yet been ammended.
Many Christians use the expression "love the person, hate the sin" and I tend to fall in that group. I am very familiar with my own sins and hate them just as much as I hate the sin of other people, it's just that a lot of Christians, perhaps the 700 Club too, have a difficult time stopping at the "hate the sin" part, and want to go on further to judgement, which of course is not their place.
Good stuff Jacob! A general question to leave you with now, kind of a brain teaser.
If we don't base laws on personal beliefs, where do they come from, and could it not be said that "murder is a crime, punishable by death" is based on religion that more than likely pre-dates Christ? Almost every law is based on someones belief, and beliefs are usually based on some sort of religious background, or lack there of in an atheists case. How do we as a government and society decide which laws to keep, that are "right" and which laws to ammend, which are "wrong?" I mean really, couldn't I sit here and argue that nobody should legislate that a sociopath can't kill, because that's simply how they were made and they can't help it? Let's ammend the law and say murder is a crime, only if committed by someone who is not a sociopath. Far out there, I know, and not too comparable to the marriage law, but I'm just trying to ask, who decides what's right and wrong, what are the consequences, and if we throw out laws, based on the idea that they may bias a certain group or population, what then are we left with to govern the people?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:37pm

Here is the HUGE difference: gay marriage doesn't deny ANYONE their civil rights or consent. Murder does. Stealing does. Rape does. Child abuse does. Discriminating against a person's religion or race does. Banning gay marriage does. THAT is the difference.

And, yes, people DID try to use the Bible to support their racism against people of color. I do not recall which verses they used--I will allow someone who knows more about that to go into detail. I do recall it's existing--and not the tower of Babel.
Regardless, of what book people use to base their religion, you can not justify discrimination by your religious text or beliefs/interpretations of said text. Not everyone agrees that the modern translations of the Bible are correct. There is great room for doubt that the Bible discusses homosexuality at all. Read WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY for more on this concept.

The overall point is--WHY is being gay a problem? Don't just believe that something is wrong because you are TOLD to. Know WHY. And, there is no rational reason to believe that two men or two women in a loving relationship is anything but moral.

But--fine if you don't agree. YOUR (rhetorical "your") belief about homosexuality doesn't mean anything on the government level. Just as your belief about people of color or people of another religion does not matter. It's not your business and not your place to deny a group of people their equal civil rights.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:46pm

Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate:

First of all, marriage isn't a right. Strange but true- there's no mention of marriage anywhere in the Constitution, so it's left up to the states. What is a right is equal protection, and I think that that clause, and possibly due process, will the ways in which gays will eventually get equal treatment. But for now, I don't think homosexuality is even a suspect classification, so there isn't much of a legal leg to stand on for such things.

And the Biblical "justification" for slavery, if I recall correctly, was something along the lines of saying that blacks were the sons of Cain and therefore cursed until the Apocalypse.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:58pm

ok--blah blah blah this whole marriage isn't a right. Marriage guarantees over a 1000 rights. Marriage is clearly something people take for granted. It may not be OFFICIALLY a right--but it is a right. It's something every heterosexual American can partake of.

Yes, you are correct that should gays and lesbians be added to the national list of what can not be discriminated against. Then, there would be the appropriate domino effect of equal civil rights.

Updated On: 4/11/05 at 07:58 PM