Talk:Anita Bryant

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --Crackertalk 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Moved by her Christian faith[edit]

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as Jesus said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... Boethius 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--Aschlafly 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. Boethius 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who is misled feels misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --BenjaminS 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --Ed Poor 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. Murray 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Folks, opposing special legal rights group is not "hate" and does not mean one supports discrimination against that group.--Aschlafly 21:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, opposing equal rights is hate.-AmesGyo! 01:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one am doubtful Bryant was motivated by any benevolent urge to "soul-save" when she was campaigning against homosexuality. One need only look at her own words:

- "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children." - "I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother, I must protect my children from their evil influence."

To me, it seems as though Bryant was more concerned about "protecting" children than saving anyone's soul. And for that matter, I think this article is a little heavy on the "gays-and-liberal-media-ruined-her-career" rhetoric. I think there also needs to be a discussion of how even fellow Christians abandoned Bryant when she became divorced. That lack of support was just as vital to her fall from grace as the gay rights movement she unintentionally helped revive.--Hektor 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The divorce of parents does far more harm to children than whether or not two gals get hitched somewhere. Teresita 09:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Since this page is locked, can someone please add Women (the category) to it? Thanks.--Hsmom 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hatred is bad[edit]

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-AmesGyo! 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa." Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. -- Crackertalk 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-AmesGyo! 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--PalMDtalk 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the video has a date, no?--Aschlafly 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - Factcheck 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Homosexual Agenda is a fairly recent event, of which I believe it is fair to say that Bryant was an early opponent. I remember reading that she was also a segregationist - I would research this more but the article is currently locked so I won't be able to add anything until this changes. Is there any way a lock can be imposed only for non-registered users? ATB 21:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Gee, I don't know. Think maybe she was a member of the KKK? Really, that's ridiculous to try to smear someone because you disagree with her position on the homosexual agenda.--Aschlafly 21:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I quite agree with her position on the homosexual agenda, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments in any other fashion. I was simply mentioning that it might be notable - especially on this socially conservative encyclopedia - to make note of her pro-white positions. Some preliminary research garnered a 70s article which stated that "in her interpretation of the Bible, Jews, Moslems, Pygmies and Eskimos are going to hell." This isn't Wikipedia; we can say what we want. ATB 23:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Natural Consequences of Free Speech on the Free Market[edit]

When the Dixie Chicks - up to that point fairly popular country singers - foolishly angered one of their largest fan bases by criticizing President Bush, they were summarily "fired" by many people. It is perfectly all right for anyone to refuse to continue giving money to an entertainer who, for whatever reason, no longer entertains them.

So when a perfectly legal - and perfectly justified - boycott was called "censorship" by those who thought Natalie Maines and crew were being treated unfairly, I found the situation quite laughable.

In contrast to the Chicks' refusal to play by the rules of the entertainment market (please the fans), other singers and entertainers who may have controversial political views have remained silent. Others have even gained commercial success by mirroring the views of their target audience (for instance, Toby Keith). The Dixie Chicks suffered the natural consequences of Natalie's big mouth, and have no one but themselves to blame for failing to recognize demographic facts about their fan base.

In the case of Anita Bryant, we similarly saw a fairly popular singer take on a view that is and was by all accounts controversial. She has, however, no right to my money, or your money, unless you or I are satisfied with her product. So she spoke her mind, and was then predictably lambasted by the media and many sectors of the public. She had every right to do so, and it was certainly very rude of protesters to violate her person by assault via pie. But she has no right to any success, or money, unless she pleases those who will give it to her. Her only real complaint could be that a company that pulls sponsorship might be making a bad business decision: but so what? It is theirs to make, and who is she to criticize the autonomous decision of a company that must answer to the public's economic decisions? If a sponsor predicts that the controversy will hurt sales, why ought they not respond by distancing themselves from it? Their duties are to their shareholders, not to Ms. Bryant or her political/religious/moral views.

That's the way the free market works. Bryant may be right or wrong (I myself am disinclined to agree with many of her stated views), but she is merely an entertainer-turned-social-activist, like so many Hollywood stars. I'm not in the slightest concerned by what Madonna, or Anita Bryant, think about a very complicated moral question.--Philosophe 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

An interesting take....[edit]

I've been working on a paper for my class at Columbia College Chicago. The topic is Anita Bryant. Thus, I have been doing a good deal of research on her.

I find Conservapedia's coverage on Ms. Bryant to be extremely one-sided. It is interesting that many facts are left out. For example, the article on Anita Bryant and her Christian ways fails to mention her divorce, and the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars she currently owes former employees, the IRS, and local and state governments.

Her entire life seems to be dedicated to homophobia. This is a sad fact. She preached on issues she not only did not understand, but also had a very red-neck view of. The icing on the cake is the fact, also left out by Conservapedia, that Anita Bryant has a son who is gay. The poor woman is a joke (and no pun intended with "poor" in connections to her filing bankruptcy twice in two different states).

On a last note, take a moment to realize the fight for gay rights is real and in need of attention. The issue is just the same as civil rights issues of the past. Discrimination is wrong. It is that simple of an issue. People do not chose to be gay, just as people do not chose to be straight. Sexual orientation (gay, straight, or bi-sexual) is a natural occurrence. As far as gays having children, many views are unrealistic and wrong. The American Association of Pediatricians has released views having no concern with homosexuals raising children. Furthermore, the belief that homosexuals will only raise gay children is crazy. Straight, religious households give birth to gay children (just as Anita did).

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." - Coretta Scott King

I'm surprised, with all of the research you would have done for your paper, that you considered her opposition to forcing religious schools to accept gay teachers to be red-neck. In fact the information you present above seems more like a cursory search of sites that denigrate Anita Bryant instead of someone who may have actually read her books to get her views. Learn together 02:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Unlock Request[edit]

I'd like to categorize her under [[Category:Musicians]] and for the time being [[Category:Political people]]. I'd actually like her to be in some sort of political activist category, I note there is one that exists called Liberal Activists but I haven't seen a Conservative one. So if I could get an unlock or have a sysop do this, that would be great. --Colest 09:51, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

She should also have a Default Sort added. And I'd imagine there are problably some links to other articles of Conservapedia that could also be added. Learn together 17:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Tactics and views[edit]

Toning down one's tactics and taking a more mild approach to an issue is not the same as "renouncing" views. Your edit implied a 180 degree turn. --Ed Poor Talk 21:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Pro-homosexuality bias[edit]

This article is an attack on Anita Bryant, which assumes that homosexuality is neutral or benign and that Bryant supported "discrimination" against homosexuals.

One problem is that "discrimination" is not defined. In fact, it's too large an issue for this article alone to cover. The gay rights movement uses the "discrimination issue" as a wedge to gain special rights which adulterers, heterosexual fornicators, people who attempt suicide, drug addicts, school drop outs, et al., would never dream of having. They use the word discrimination as a kind of motto.

These advocates seek to imply (without ever giving particulars) that homosexuality is benign and that attempts to police it are evil. Laws against adultery are based on the Bible, so having an affair is justly made illegal, but nowadays only politicians are held to account for affairs (and even then, only if their spouse doesn't defend them!). --Ed Poor Talk 08:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Attempts to discredit[edit]

A common discrediting tactic is to claim that a prominent advocate has changed their views. This employs an appeal to authority in a paradoxical way. If they were a valid authority whose views should be trusted before, it would mean that they views were right. Renouncing their views would not change the validity of the views.

Contrariwise, if they are now a trustworthy authority, that means that they were wrong before and right now - thus however prominent an "authority" they were, it turns out that they were wrong before. If they were wrong, then they were not a valid authority, and suddenly "realizing" the truth makes them a follower, not an opinion leader.

Either way, it's nonsense. But that's how public opinion is often so easily led.

Here, we use authority figures to alert people to the truth. We expect readers to study the primary sources that we describe here. --Ed Poor Talk 08:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)