BM,
How do you feel about Jewish people, such as Neil Diamond, making Christmas albums?
This is a slight twist on your original inciting, I mean, insightful and provoking, I mean, thought-provoking question.
I’m on evening shift today…
Recall madeleine ohare, the Atheist who first tried to enforce separation of church and state, by trying to remove GOD from our currency and our pledge, maybe back in the 60s…
Since I’m a religiophobe, you know how I feel about Athiests and other Theists… You all scare me.
and Phil: send me that awful CD by the Stereophonics, so I can hear it for myself.
Billy
Billy, I thought you were all about loving the Jesus?
Dave,
After Diamond did The Jazz Singer his membership in the Jewish persuasion was revoked. Do you remember the concert at the end with Olivier clapping like an aged doofus? I still have nightmares.
So, it’s actually okay for Diamond to do Christmas albums.
Seager: You’re doing a bit of a threadjack here, but Raphael won’t catch it. If you hear any hating here, I don’t mean it.
Of course, I don’t know where you got that idea. I haven’t said much (if anything) about Jesus.
You have the right to get over yourself.
If you live in America (or most places), you’re surrounded by religious people. Best to get used to it, or otherwise possibly suffer psychological damage. Nobody is making you buy, or listen to, any music you don’t choose.
Probably the easiest solution in the music department is to only buy music from atheist or non-religious artists. That’s not a guaranteed solution, but it should help a lot.
Or you can go the route of the guy here in the Sacramento area, who’s still trying to clear “God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and later will go to work on the money. Personally, I think he has a point, but based on what I’ve seen, the nation is not yet ready to separate “God” from government stuff.
You need to start somewhere.
Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of controversial threads, but here goes:
The warning stickers (“Parental Advisory”) are designed for the sole purpose of parents being able to expediently monitor what their children listen to. They are not for warnings against a person’s worldview, rather they warn parents as to how that worldview is expressed (profanity, obscenity, slurs, etc.). Consenting adults can and do ignore the warnings, because they are not the intended audience. Therefore your original question and analogy (warning stickers for foul language, why not warning stickers for religious content?) is rather off-base, and should instead be: “should people be warned against other peoples’ worldviews?” And the answer is, I think, a resounding no. Whatever happened to diversity, to being able to express one’s opinion in art, no less? Whatever happened to respect of people’s opinions/worldviews, and discussion of them? Shouldn’t we be enlightened postmodernists and be able to take people expressing their opinion without bigoted opposition? If an artist (making art, that which expresses his/her own human experience) can’t express him- or herself, who can?
This atheist would have to have a warning sticker on her son as he often comes home from school singing god songs. Oh the debates we have about religion! Obviously his teacher wins.
Cathy
Apparently only the Supreme Court… they write their opinions, which then become precedent or law.
I’m a bit miffed about these so-called warning stickers:
…what is this warning against?
If I sang a song about how I went to Dairy Queen, ordered a Blizzard, paid for it and ate it using a spoon, wouldn’t my lyrics be explicit?
The number one definition of explicit (according to the fine people at American Heritage) is
Why would parents be afraid of this? Aren’t their children hearing explicit lectures from their teachers at school? Last time I checked, this wasn’t a bad thing (in most cases)…
What next, shall we seal off the ear canals of all children at birth, and unseal them at age 18, when the become adult enough to hear everything that goes on in this world? There are waaaay too many limp-wristed people having their way in this country 
Yes, as much fun as it is to make fun of other people’s religions, BTMG, i’m not sure it’s the most effective, especially when you can’t count syllables. :-P.
And I’m sure you religiphobes have rights…I just don’t see why I don’t get my anti-heresy lables, since I clearly can’t find the lyrics before I buy an album, if I really would find it that offensive. You know, oddly enough, I know Christians who can listen to music with lyrics they don’t agree with. Silly intolerant people. I think you’re right, no one can say the word G-d anymore, since it clearly would scar you for life!
(This post is of course, not meant to insult you, merely to point things out)
Yes, that’s an excellent point, maestro, I think it’s a plot of poets who write solely things like that amazingly inexplicit poem Grasshopper…or maybe it’s (h)G(o)r§a§s(e)s®. I can never remember.
May The Force Be With You…
You are correct. I always loved Frank Zappa and Todd Rundgren who, along with me, were against Tipper Gore’s push to put “Explicit Lyrics” labels on records.
our money should have a warning printed on it about it’s religious message. HAH!
Seeing references to any god anywhere offends me. 
I find it offensive to be subjected to an obvious hoax and an epidemical generational scam.
I may be a simpleminded Taoist, but I’m not stupid. I don’t fall for obvious untruths.
Pick a side 'cause you’re arguing both at the moment.
That is exactly the point tho, once one style of expression is ‘warning stickered’, shouldn’t all styles be simmilarly labelled?
In my support for the Billy-Clause (we’re going to start a club any day now), I am most definately not trying to stop anyone from expressing anything. I’m just asking for an existing initiative (that came from the christers if i’m not entirely mistaken) to be taken to it’s logical conclusion or be exposed for the fraudulent, dogmatically hidden-agendaistic nonsense it is.
Well the existing initiative is not solely by the Christers (as you call them) you know. There are parents who have judeo-Christian morals and push for warnings against explicit content, parents who just don’t want their 11 year old kids listening to Eminem singing about killing his wife/girlfriend/mother/alpaca. Morals aren’t always linked solely to Christianity. For instance, Natural Law or appealing to a Higher Law is often thought believed by Christian legal scholars, but it is also believed by secular scholars who seek the betterment of mankind through generally beneficial morals.
A quick GOOGLE suggests I’m not entirely alone.
And there are people (or am I of lesser value because I have chosen not contribute to the world’s overpopulation problem?) who don’t.
There are people who choose to push for warnings against outdated superstition content.
What’s good for the goose…, right?
Gosh Dern christers…
Factually, the ‘Explicit Content’ label is the result of the work of the Parents Music Resource Center.
From an interesting read