Focus on the Family likes watching bad TV.

October 11, 2001 8:18 AM

Focus on the Family likes watching bad TV. Recently they have been howling about a cheesy CBS werewolf show, Wolf Lake. As Focus tells it the show is dripping with titillating lycanthrope partial nudity and guilty of promoting kooky Native American spiritualism.

"They had nudity - or partial nudity, at least - within the first twenty minutes," and, "There is an effort to put spiritualism on par with mainstream religion."

Granted, CBS’ Wolf Lake is no FOX’s Werewolf - but Focus on the Family doesn’t stop with lycanthropes. They also have problems with other occult-glam fare like Buffy, Angel and Charmed.

Is Focus right? Are these shows damaging to the viewer? Should we just say no to hot werewolf sex? Or should these nutty right-wingers just flip the channel?
posted by wfrgms (27 comments total)

So, ya think anyone's going to say, "Yes, wfrgms, I think Buffy the vampire slayer is bad for society."
posted by Doug at 8:23 AM on October 11, 2001

"Yes, wfrgms, I think Buffy the vampire slayer is bad for society."




Or more to the point, having well written, smart, shows such as Buffy on the air will mean the end of soceity on Tuesday nights (at least in US) since people will have to stay in to watch.

nH
posted by niteHawk at 8:34 AM on October 11, 2001

[From the article]: "There is an effort to put spiritualism on par with mainstream religion," Barber said.

OH MY GOD FUDGE! A fate more horrible cannot be contemplated.

What a dumb thing to say.
posted by Skot at 8:45 AM on October 11, 2001

Oh, wow, deja vu. MetaTalk, anyone?
posted by moss at 8:46 AM on October 11, 2001

"There is an effort to put spiritualism on par with mainstream religion." - FotF

Duh. The two are one & the same -- belief in the supernatural. Might as well believe in Nessie, Bigfoot, etc. Oh, wait...there's at least *some* evidence that Bigfoot actually exists, if only as a hoax.
posted by davidmsc at 8:52 AM on October 11, 2001

it's like a randomly generated front page post generator result:

'It's really interesting to see how this fits into current events. What would you recommend for a chronic case of censoring werewolves? Do you think that we should even be discussing this? Do you think that censoring werewolves will ever be featured in a movie?'

now this is definately a double post, baby.
posted by asok at 8:56 AM on October 11, 2001

I think I saw some shaky amateur photography of Jesus lumbering through the Wisconsin woods one day, though there are rumors that it was only a bigfoot in a Jesus suit.

"look! you can see the zipper!"
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:57 AM on October 11, 2001

"There is an effort to put spiritualism on par with mainstream religion"

If "Buffy" were only "on par" with mainstream religion, nobody would watch it. From what I hear, it's better.
posted by kindall at 8:57 AM on October 11, 2001

here is a link to further amuse the non-kneejerk (phrase of the moment) censors amongst us.

the darker side of 'cat's and dogs'. yes, the kids ani-movie.
posted by asok at 9:04 AM on October 11, 2001

This article is from a Christian organization, written for other Christians (see quotes below). No wonder most of you disagree with the things written in it, since most of you are not Christians... Context, context, context...

Bill Johnson, with the American Decency Association, warned Christians to beware.

"This has got to be a wake-up call to Christian families to take the steps of guarding the hearts of their selves and their children," Johnson said.


This stuff is written by Christians, for Christians, so Christian parents can be aware of what is coming into there homes via the television. Simple as that. What's the big deal?
posted by internal at 9:15 AM on October 11, 2001

Chill. There's no censorship here. You want Christians to "just change the channel"? Well, this is how parents find out what channels to change.

Does FotF like Buffy? No. Do you respect FotF? Presumably, many of you don't. So what's the big deal? Oh.
posted by gd779 at 9:18 AM on October 11, 2001

internal and gd779 are basically saying that this site and its contents are aimed at christians

you know, preaching to the choir kind of thing

so in answer to wfrgms' question, "Are these shows damaging to the viewers?":

yes, they are damaging to christian viewers

non-christians need not worry, they're immune
posted by yesster at 9:55 AM on October 11, 2001

This has got to be a wake-up call to Christian families to take the steps of guarding the hearts of their selves and their children," Johnson said.

Yeah, so basically the response of the rest of the world who appreciate these shows: Kill your television.

Damn, how many times do these boycott happy people need to be told "If you don't like or approve of it, turn it off."
posted by themikeb at 10:17 AM on October 11, 2001

... been howling about a cheesy CBS werewolf show, Wolf Lake.

Ermmm ... actually, it's pretty well done. Clever and stylish within its genre. Might have been better had they gone with the original concept, and it is most probably doomed -- but glibly dismissing it as "cheesy" tells me all I need to know about the calibre of your opinions.
posted by RavinDave at 10:30 AM on October 11, 2001

Damn, how many times do these boycott happy people need to be told "If you don't like or approve of it, turn it off."

Hey themikeb, are the Christians allowed to write about it also? Is that OK with you? Or should they just go in their corner and be quiet? Would that make you feel better? BTW, there is nothing in the article about boycotts.
posted by internal at 10:32 AM on October 11, 2001

wow, i know of some christians who watch it but seem to be able to distinguish between the show as fiction and their religion (fictitious or not, your choice).
posted by tolkhan at 10:55 AM on October 11, 2001

Matter of opinion on Wolf Lake as a show.

I thought it was badly done. I expected it to be quite interesting from the promos I saw, so I tuned in. Seemed like a conglomeration of the Wolfen, the Howling, all those. Loud music And the occasional naked ass and thrown in for good measure. But then, I just saw the 1st episode. Ravindave, did it get better?

I kind of noticed after not watching any series on TV for about 2 years that I just can't get interested in any of them anymore. I used to be a huge X Files fan, but when I stopped watching it, I found I didn't really care what happened to Mulder & Scully.

Of course, all these things are just opinions. I'm sure some people love this show. Some people hated Twin Peaks. I dug it.

Dat's life.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:09 AM on October 11, 2001

jeez my grammar is getting ridiculous.

should be:

"......occasional naked ass thrown in"

I don't know what it is, but anytime I type "naked ass" I just get all hot and bothered and can't type rite.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:10 AM on October 11, 2001

All I can say is, once you've screwed a werewolf, you'll never go back.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2001

I missed a show with hot werewolf sex?

Dammit...
posted by CrayDrygu at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2001

internal

we all know boycotts are the tool of the Christian right. There may be no mention in the article, but in practice, that is the next step.
I agree with everyone's right to speak their minds. I just don't think it's right for those with strong opinions to enforce those on others.

The basic idea of a boycott based on tv content is to squeeze off ad revenue until the network pulls the show. That to me is censorship.

Sure, express your opinions, but when they infringe on my rights to choose what I watch, or the rights of artists to create tv programming, or sculpture, or literature, that is wrong.
By suggesting changing the channel, I'm just trying to say there's a better option for people who don't agree with something than to piss off people who may happen to like it.
posted by themikeb at 1:04 PM on October 11, 2001

I just don't think it's right for those with strong opinions to enforce those on others.

I'm sorry, I must be confused. If I understand you, you're saying that by choosing to buy brand X over brand Y, I've somehow violated you're rights? You're saying that you had a right to force me to buy from Y regardless of their business practices?

when they infringe on my rights to choose what I watch, or the rights of artists to create tv programming

Artists have the right to create, but nobody has to pay them for it. And you have the right to buy hot werewolf XXX videos if you want to, but you can't infringe on my rights by forcing me to subsidize those videos.
posted by gd779 at 1:35 PM on October 11, 2001

It'd woulda have been nice, if in describing the TV shows, they had gotten the plot right. The Buffy one, at least, gave an inaccurate account of the set-up.

Nit-picky, but hey. Whatever. Get the synopsis right before you harp on a show, IMO.
posted by Windigo at 2:12 PM on October 11, 2001

There is an effort to put spiritualism on par with mainstream religion

I thought that tax-exempt status is what drew the line of distinction.
posted by ethmar at 2:14 PM on October 11, 2001

we all know boycotts are the tool of the Christian right.[snip]The basic idea of a boycott based on tv content is to squeeze off ad revenue until the network pulls the show. That to me is censorship.

Not to be redundant from the last thread about this exact same organisation making the exact same kinds of statements to the exact same audience for the exact same reason -- if you want to demonise the anyone for boycotting as a means of imposing censorship, please be sure to heap the necessary aspersions on the hardly Christian and hardly right-wing groups whose boycotts and pressure on broadcasters and advertisers forced the television shows of Laura Schlessinger and Rush Limbaugh off of stations, into middle of the night timeslots and finally into complete cancellation. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

And believe me that if every single FotF viewer/listener/contributor didn't watch Charmed, Buffy, Wolf Lake, Sabrina the Teenaged Witch and so on and so forth, the damage done would be next to none -- because they aren't the target audience for those shows, and they were never watching them from the beginning. Pointing out the unbiblical themes in these shows to evangelical Christians isn't going to result in a spate of channels being changed, it will merely reinforce decisions already made not to tune in at all.
posted by Dreama at 2:47 PM on October 11, 2001

Certainl FotF has the right to call a boycott or the Southern Baptists boycott Disney and can do so with or without my blessing.

On the other hand, when they make an argument that one of the reasons they do so is because the show portrays non-Christian spiritualities in a positive light, or because Disney programming portrays homosexuality in a positive light, then they are open to criticism for their motives.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:18 PM on October 11, 2001

Dreama
I'll agree with you on spreading around outrage at boycotts to all sides of the political spectrum.
I do the same thing with people who's ideas I don't necessarily agree with as I'm suggesting to FotF.

Change the channel.
posted by themikeb at 5:00 PM on October 11, 2001