The evil doings of SpongeBob SquarePants and Focus on the Family

By GERRY WARNER
Staff Writer, Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Jan. 28/05
So it's come down to this, the downfall of Western Civilization will inevitably occur the day two men or two women can stand before a judge and legally say, "I do."
And that's not all. No less of a personage than Dr. James Dobson, head of the fundamentalist, pro-family and pro-Bush Focus on the Family group is thundering from the pulpit about a "pro-homosexual video" that's undermining family values in America the Beautiful. And what's this insidious piece of digital celluloid that threatens to rent asunder the peace and tranquillity of home and hearth? Why it's SpongeBob SquarePants, a TV cartoon about a fun-loving sponge that lives at the bottom of the sea with its pet snail Gary.
And you know what? This scurrilous pair have been known to hold hands and watch an imaginary TV show called "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy." Apparently gay men find this a riot, but you better wipe that silly grin off your face Mister because Dr. Dobson warns too much of this will cause hair to grow on your palms. And you might even be moved to sign a "Tolerance Pledge" that will cause you to embrace the homosexual life style, says the god-fearing preacher.
No so, says the cartoon's creator Nile Rodgers. The idea was to teach children about multiculturalism and cooperation, not coming out as a homosexual. "We believe this is the essential first step to loving thy neighbor." Gee, that sounds like it could have come straight from the Bible. As a matter of fact it sounds a lot like one of the Ten Commandments. But don't tell Dr. Dobson that. It might destroy his faith in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Or as Mark Barondeso, lawyer for the We Are Family Foundation says, anyone who believes the video promotes homosexuality "needs to visit their doctor and get their medication increased."
But lest you think this kind of looniness only occurs south of the border you might want to consider some of the statements of federal Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper. In an interview with reporters last week, Harper said "I don't want to get into the polygamy debate." Then he dove right into it. "I fear if we do this (same sex marriage), the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else." Has he never heard of Bountiful where polygamy thrives under the nose of the law? But Harper is being the ultimate political cynic here. He thinks he's found a wedge issue, one that could drive voters into his camp who would otherwise never think of voting Tory, if indeed, that's what Harper is. With the Liberals introducing a same-sex marriage bill when Parliament resumes next week, Harper sees fertile ground among the various fundamentalist religious groups regardless of their particular religious persuasion or political leanings. He also knows there's a lot of conservative ethnic groups in the land that are not big on gay marriage. Put the two together in a minority Parliament situation and "presto" you have the makings of a new right wing political coalition, one that Harper hopes could turn things upside down in Ottawa and elect an otherwise unelectable party. And he may just be right. It certainly worked for George Bush.
But as said before, there's a lot cynicism operating here. Harper only became leader of the newly-united Conservative Party by vanquishing the belligerent social-conservative sector of the party that went down in flames under the enlightened leadership of Stockwell Day. Now Harper has embraced the key issue closest to every social conservative's pure and unblemished heart, pathological opposition to same-sex marriage. Isn't it ironic. The same group of intolerant know-nothings that brought Day to power and destroyed the old Reform Party -- a party I had some respect for -- has now captured Stephen Harper, who with the image of an election victory dancing in his eyes, has now become a born-again opponent of same-sex marriage, and at the same time, though he doesn't like to admit it, an opponent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Harper is no fool and it's just possible that his policy, however cynical, might work. But the Conservative leader is also skating on very thin ice, because when push comes to shove, I think in general most Canadians support the Charter in which case Harper's strategy will fail.
My opinion, however little it's worth, is that by and large Canadians are a tolerant people who are willing to tolerate this new form of matrimonial union. If the government was forcing churches to marry gay couples against their religious beliefs it would be different. I don't think many Canadians would support that. But the government is doing nothing of the kind. Churches are not being compelled to marry homosexual couples. They can marry or not marry whomever they choose, just like the Catholic Church which refuses to marry divorced couples. This means there is no religious argument against the government's proposed legislation. Just the arguments that have been around from the dawn of time.
Hate, bigotry, intolerance and homophobia.
-- 30 --

Mother Nature as terrorist

by Sandra Albers, columnist Kimberley Daily Bulletin
Dec. 31, 2004
And so, as the year 2004 draws to a close, it turns out the real weapon of mass destruction was Mother Nature.
Before I proceed, I have to credit that first line to my wise teenage daughter, who made the comment as we watched the TV broadcasts and listened to the radio reports, about the devastating earthquake/tsunami in Southeast Asia. It seemed every time we turned on the television or radio, the number of estimated deaths had risen yet again.
Wednesday’s Kimberley Daily Bulletin and Cranbrook Daily Townsman were reporting a death toll of more than 60,000. As I write this column, later Wednesday night, CBC Radio is estimating that more than 83,000 are dead. By the time you read this column, the number will have changed again, and may well top 100,000 before the counting is done.
There is, however, one crucial difference when comparing Mother Nature to a weapon of mass destruction. Destructive, man-made weapons, to lesser and greater degrees, are generally aimed at specific targets – Jews or Christians, godless infidels or religious fundamentalists, gypsies or homosexuals, Irish Catholics or Irish Protestants, cowboys or Indians. . .the list, sadly, goes on and on.
Mother Nature, by contrast, does not discriminate.
When the quake, followed by massive tidal waves rolling across the Indian Ocean, began to decimate the populations of a dozen countries including Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand, Mother Nature showed how cruel, but non-discriminatory, she can be.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were babes in arms, or elderly folk entering their twilight years.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were male or female.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were heterosexual, homosexual, or some grey area in between.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were tourists or long-time inhabitants of the affected countries.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were rich or poor.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were geniuses or of sub-normal intelligence.
Mother Nature didn’t care if the victims were disabled or in the pink of health.
And Mother Nature didn’t care a whit about the colour of the victims’ skins.
And so, as we approach the year 2005, I wonder if there is a lesson to be learned from the seemingly senseless death of tens of thousands of human beings. It’s a depressing way to end the old year, and it’s also distressing to think of Mother Nature in terms of vengeful destruction rather than in terms of a benevolent source of bounty that sustains life.
There may be some obvious lessons to be learned, such as implementing better early warning systems and the like so that future natural disasters don’t take quite such a high toll. But I’m wondering if there isn’t a more far-reaching lesson we can take from all this horror.
Mother Nature doesn’t discriminate, but human beings do, too many times and in too many ways. Mother Nature doesn’t, of course, hate human beings, and Mother Nature isn’t, of course, deliberately vengeful. Nature is just nature, after all. Things happen, and sometimes human beings get in the way.
The lesson may be that life is fragile.
The lesson may be that life is to be cherished, for whatever time is allotted.
The lesson may be that human nature should take a cue from Mother Nature and learn that we’re all the same when we’re born and we’re all the same when we die. It’s the in-between times that we need to work on.
Hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, will always be part of the price of living on planet Earth. And they surely kill enough people.
Mother Nature doesn’t need our help in killing more.
Perhaps, in the end, the lesson is simple human kindness. We need it now, and we will need it more than ever in 2005.
To think that the loss of so many lives in one fell swoop doesn’t have to be entirely in vain may seem like a silly dream.
But I dream it anyway.
Happy New Year.
-- 30 --