Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GiovannaNicoletta
Usually the simplist explanation for something is the correct one. What, exactly, would motivate someone to spend time and money to follow a group of people around, film them, use cutting-edge and daring camera techninques to make them look as much like goobers as possible, interject little commetaries during the film about what the subjects in the film believe- all for the purpose of discrediting them?

Not having seen the movie in question, I can't attest as to whether it was a hit piece or not. At first blush it sounds more like a "stranger in a strange land" film than anything else.

Why, for example, has no one infiltrated a militant abortion group, or a militant Muslim group, or a militant homosexual group that brainstorms and seeks methods to legalize adult-child sex? Why is it always Christians who have to be ridiculed and discredited? Hmmmmm?

Not sure about the abortion group one, but I know that there have been movies made about the other two groups. Can't think of the names off the top of my head, but if you want to find them you can.

What the heck? Just watch Dateline, or 60 Minutes, they have stories about pedophiles and crazy Muslims at least once a year.

Because it is the Christians and the One they represent who are the threat. And the people who feel compelled to shut us up do so based on their own base, natural emotions: hatred, contempt, and yes, fear.

I think that it's a lot more complex than that. Evangelicals are a fairly powerful voting bloc that's all but absent from the major cities in the mid-west and the costal megapolisis. To us up in these parts, some of the things that Evangelicals do and say look and sound mighty strange. Jerry Falwell's moronic comments about 9/11 or Pat Robertson's... being crazy old Pat Robertson, for example.

Now I haven't seen the film, so I might very well be wrong, but I imagine that Alex Pelosi is coming at the subject of Evangelicals as the ultimate outsider. I at least understand and share some of your conservative values, she does not or at least does not agree with them. From that outsider's perspective you're going to look unusual and probably a little scary. The fact that her point of contact for part of the film was Ted Haggard didn't help things either, and probably justified (in her mind) some of the biases that she brought to the documentary.

20 posted on 01/27/2007 4:31:30 AM PST by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Zeroisanumber

I was with a group of "Pro Choicers" a few years ago and their comments chilled me to the bone. They spoke about being "overrun by the wrong kinds of people" without the slightest hint of remorse. "Who's going to pay for all these babies?" was a question that kept recurring.

I asked about the morality of dealing with poverty by preventing poor people from being born. They simply dismissed me as a kook. Then one other voice in the room added softly: "It's called genocide."

I'd like to see a documentary on the "Choice" movement that explores this aspect of their philosophy. I wonder what the MSM reaction would be.


22 posted on 01/27/2007 4:42:23 AM PST by joeystoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson