kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/07/85)
In article <669@decwrl.UUCP> blickstein@eludom.DEC (Dave Blickstein) writes: > >I don't think that Atheism falls under the "Occult" catagory, but then again, >Falwell has been quoted as saying that Atheism is the work of the devil. But >if they labelled atheistic tunes as "occult" would be hard to prove that they >weren't using the christian definition of occult and that, of course, is biased >against all non-christian religions. > >So here's the rub. I propose that the choice of the word "occult" is >religiously biased towards christianity. As proof of this I offer that songs >involving satanism will get a label, whereas songs involving christianity will >not. I think that is unfair. In my opinion the ratings must not judge one >religion as better than another, and satanism is just another religion. The >definition is loose enough that it could be applied to religions like Arab >religions, indian religions and even judaism. > >So I propose that they change the label to "Contains a religious bias". That of >course means that gospel and general "Christian music" has to get a label just >like everything else. I wonder how the PMRC and Falwell would react to their >proposal being turned on them like this. After all, I'm jewish, and maybe I >don't want my kids listening to that heretic christian stuff! > >Of course, I'd rather see no labels at all.... > > Dave Blickstein > >(UUCP) {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-orphan!blickstein > >(ARPA) BLICKSTEIN%ORPHAN.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA From what I have heard the PMRC is only concerned with Rock music. Thus Gospel music, being distinct from rock, is not covered by their proposals. Neither is country music - which can get as low from a morals standpoint as rock almost any day of the week. The only way to implement that type of legislation would be to require a rating on all recorded matter of any type. It would have to include audio recordings, video recordings (tape and disc), and even printed matter, such as books and magazines. Once this sort of labeling gives government lackeys and bureaucrats the power to stamp seals of approval or disapproval on any type of published matter, what will be next? The Reagan administration, in his first term, had a Canadian made film about nuclear war and disarmament labeled as subversive. This allowed the government to take the names of anyone that went to a screening of the film. Reagan could do this since the film was imported and the American right of free speech is only guarenteed to U.S. citizens. The type of legislation being proposed could very well lead to this type of labeling and name-taking for books, records, films, and magazines produced in the U.S. I don't want to sound like an extremist. But I do fear this type of censorship structure being set up in the US. I fear that in times when people are not thinking quite clearly, such power could/would be used for McCarthy style ______-hunts (fill in the blank with some group of people you don't like, such as commies, liberals, John Birchers, or KKK, then fill in the name of an organization you belong to that someone else might not like, such as liberal, John Birch Society, religious organization, etc.).