Bob & Bob

January 17, 2005

Isn't the choice as clear as heaven or hell?

[]http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbthreads/attachments/151996-bob%26bob.jpg[/]

January 17, 2005

But, but, but...Bob, a fruit (yes, a tomato is a fruit) lives in a kitchen with sponges; and Bob, a sponge, lives in a fruit.

Somehow, the choice is a bit confusing still.

January 17, 2005

A tomato is not a fruit, Chrys. A tomato is a nightshade.

January 17, 2005

Since we're on the topic of tomatos, has anyone here heard that tomatos are injected with some kind of swine derivative? This rumor has been circulating at the potluck table, and I'm kind of grossed out by tomatoes right now.

(Okay. Tomatoes are nightshades; Bob, a nightshade, lives in a kitchen with sponges; Bob, a sponge, spends his nights in shady places... )

January 18, 2005

Sponge Bob is such a terrible curse to our society. I would really like to hear Mrs. Gray's take on it. Sponge Bob has nudity, vulgarity, violence and sexual perversion. From teh reviews I have read, the plots of the stories aren't even good. Sponge Bob teaches children nothing good.

Bob the tomato, on the other hand, is everything Sponge Bob isn't. Bob looks to the Bible for answers, teaches children to be obidient, couragous, sharing, kind, compassionate and forgiving.

Can there be any greater contrast within our society than these two cartoons. It is like compare the whore and the virgin.

January 18, 2005

Fear of a spongy planet...

January 19, 2005

Quote:

...Can there be any greater contrast within our society than these two cartoons...

Oh my, I think we have sunk to a new low... really scratching the bottom of the barrel for things to whine and fuss about... Wake up! They are cartoons after all!

I can think of many items of greater contrast within our society than these two cartoons. Comparing Spongebob Squarepants to a whore and Bob the Tomato to a virgin seems more than a little extreme, don't ya think! Having viewed a great deal of both, I can't say your comparison is really that valid.

Sponge Bob has nudity, vulgarity, violence and sexual perversion?!?! Yeah right... Are you really worried about a brief exposure to a naked cartoon square yellow sponge's bottom? Or the naked bottom of his duffus friend, the big pink cartoon starfish Patrick?! Vulgarity, violence and sexual perversions?!?!

Come on now! surely you aren't serious, Spongeshane Grumpypants...

Tom

January 19, 2005

Mr. Wetmore,

Nothing wrong with Shane's post. It is a light-hearted way of looking at the things that go on in our society--especially at the way our media is used in society.

I'd rather have my children watching Bob, The Tomato than SpongeBob SquarePants anyday!

If we mind our p's and q's when we're young, perhaps we'll be better equipped to mind our pints and quarts when we're old.

January 19, 2005

Quote:

It is a light-hearted way of looking at the things that go on in our society--

"light-hearted"....Well, knowing Shane, I don't think the phrase "light hearted" does justice...nor even comes close to his meaning...Perhaps, Christine, you might clarify it with him and ask if he conciders his question a serious or a light hearted attempt to find the ills of our society....

January 20, 2005

I stand in the judgement light of Brother Neil.

My post was obviously light-hearted but of course, as with all good humor, it actuallty makes a point we can learn from. The most violent programing on TV today are cartoons. I think we do err if we shrug them off as harmless.

It doesn't bother anyone when Sponge Bob asks his "girlfriend" if she wants to see his underwear? Think that would fly at the playground if your child copies the behavior?

January 20, 2005

I stand corrected. I took it as a light-hearted way of looking at things. My mistake.

January 20, 2005

Bob or Bob, which would we prefer the kids watch?

Well this made me think about it, for sure. When it comes to meaningles fluff, Spongebob is pure nonsense. Funny but dumb. When you are looking for some meaningful lesson to be conveyed through fun, Bob the Tomato takes the award. (but personally, I prefer Larry)

My 9 year old thought about it a minute and said she prefers Veggie-tales over Sponge-Bob.

Whew. I'm glad.

January 21, 2005

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Move over, Tinky Winky, there's a new twinkle-toed villain on the scene. Even if he's only two-dimensional.

Just as the Rev. Jerry Falwell once feared that the Teletubbies' purple Tinky would turn the toddler set into a Romper Room of little Liberaces, so are right-wing Christian groups now mobilizing behind Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, to take down the wildly popular children's cartoon character, SpongeBob.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dobson asked guests at a black-tie dinner in Washington on Tuesday for members of Congress and Bush supporters. According to the report by the New York Times, Dobson went on to say that SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appears alongside other children's television icons like Barney and Jimmy Neutron. The makers of the video, Dobson said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

That's some scary-sounding indoctrination, indeed. Apparently Dobson and company are a little confused, though, about the product's inception. From the Times:

"The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit 'We Are Family,' said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site. Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called 'We Are Family,' which supports gay youth."

A spokesman for Focus on the Family, Paul Batura, responded to the Times that it's "a classic bait and switch," and that the video is "an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">-- from Salon.com

So, 'sexual perversion', eh?

January 21, 2005

One is funny and the other is not...

1: Are you ready, kids?

2: Aye aye captain!

1: I can't hear you!

2: AYE AYE CAPTAIN!

1: Ooooh.... Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?

2: Spongebob Squarepants!

1: Absorbant and yellow and porous is he!

2: Spongebob Squarepants!

1: If nautical nonsense be something you wish, then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

1,2: Spongebob Squarepants! Spongebob Squarepants! Spongeb-o-o-o-o-b Squarepants!

I wouldn't worry about the sponge too much as a metaphor for all that is wrong in society - South Park would be a much better fit for that.

January 21, 2005

Cartoons just don't have the same sense of humour that they used to...

Anyone remember those politically incorrect ones that portrayed blacks as Aunt Jemimas or like Al Jolson singing "Mammie"

And- they were so violent, even back then. I mean, Wile E. Coyote just never won and got mangled and flattened and dropped from an infinite number of cliffs. All the superheroes used violence to clean up those nasty characters, from Popeye onwards

I shudder to really THINK about what we once accepted, and yet I don't know if I turned out adapting that mindset. Quite the opposite

They were just so funny...

January 22, 2005

Yes, Sister Gail, I agree that the devil has been using cartoons for quite sometime. Some may just now be waking up to it but my mother never let us watch any of those super hero cartoons or anything with guns. She wouldn't even let us watch Gilligan's Island when there was headhunters on it. I think my mama was right to be concerned about cartoons and television.

Dr. Dobson is taking a big risk by taking on Sponge Bob. I hope it pays off. Dr. Dobson is not viewed as Pat Robertson but more like Billy Grahm. By taking on filthy, violent cartoons he risks being labeled a fanatic (like Noah was). As a fanatic he would obvioulsy have less influence. I hope we all pray for this godly man and do not minimize the pure, unadulterated wickedness coming out of Hollywood.

January 22, 2005

Roadrunner

My favorite..

Beep Beep!!

January 22, 2005

Does anyone know of any children that have become violent due to the RoadRunner? I doubt it.

However if we want to start talking about Teenage Muntant Ninga Turtle, Pokeman, Power Rangers or even some of our super heros like Batman and Spiderman, we need to take a serious pause. By beholding we become transformed. I think I would rather have Bob the Tomato transform my kids Spongebob Squarepants.

January 22, 2005

Well, I dunno...I mean, SpongeBob wears pants! Bob the Tomato runs around naked!

January 22, 2005

Thinking back on my childhood and imaginitive years, I can say that me and my friends never acted out anything we saw on TV. Be it cartoons or otherwise. We did view our bicycles as horses until we got our riding lessons.LOL And when playing with the brothers of our girlfriends we played "army". I think we called it that only because we were digging holes and building forts. Plus we were inventing our own ways of attempting to harm ourselves (jumping off the garage roof for whatever insane reason we had, rolling down the middle of the street inside a cardboard refridgerator box; again, no idea why) that we weren't getting from TV. So why didnt the TV of my childhood have the influence over us that it does over todays kids?

January 22, 2005

That's an easy one: because you were out playing...not inside watching television 5 hours a day!

January 22, 2005

Happy little SpongeBob too gay for US conservatives

January 21, 2005

On the heels of electoral victories to bar same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asked guests on Tuesday at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies.

In many circles, SpongeBob needs no introduction. He is popular among children as well as adults who watch him cavorting under the sea on the Nickelodeon cartoon program that bears his name. In addition, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy.

Now, Dr Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video", in which he appeared alongside other children's television characters. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of schools this northern spring to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity".

The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit We Are Family and led the group Chic, says Dr Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the September 11 attacks to create a music video featuring 100 well-known cartoon characters dancing to his song to teach children about multiculturalism.

Nothing in the video or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity.

Rodgers suggested that Dr Dobson might have been confused because of an unrelated website belonging to another group called We Are Family. That site is owned by a South Carolina group aimed at supporting gay youth.

The New York Times

January 22, 2005

Truth vs. love in the church

Kyle Williams

Posted: January 22, 2005

The New York Times reported this week on the unusual enthusiasm of American evangelicals in their support of this week's presidential inauguration. With the trend of Christian elements taking a larger role politics, the most prominent part is the evangelical support of this administration. However, behind the battlefront of evangelical politics, Christians are dealing with the gut-wrenching tension between homosexuals and churches.

America's Lutheran Church is making headlines for what people are calling a "victory" on the part of homosexual activist groups. Last week, a church task force ruled that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America shouldn't change its policy against ordaining homosexual clergy but that it shouldn't stop churches that break the rule. The task force added, "Those who feel conscience-bound to call people [as pastors] in committed same-sex unions should refrain from making the call a media event either as an act of defiance or with the presumption of being prophetic."

This reminds me of the United Church of Christ television ad that caused a lot of controversy last month in its rejection by some of the major television networks. The 30-second ad portrayed a church picking and choosing who would be allowed inside, with the message below, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." This, of course, is coming from the same denomination that allows openly gay clergy.

Many say such an acceptance or leniency toward homosexuals is simply the propaganda and action of some sort of liberal conspiracy, but that cynicism causes us to completely skip over the root of this controversy. And it's this controversy that is literally ripping our churches apart, as some walk down our church aisles, never to return again.

It seems obvious to me that the efforts of the Lutheran Church and the United Church of Christ are aimed at guiding their congregations to what is right. Call it naiveté, if you will, but it's quite possible that at the heart of controversy and struggle, we're facing this difficult question: In a moment of tension between liberal and conservative communities of society, what is Christ-like? When it comes to the moral issues of homosexuality, the struggle almost seems to turn into that of love vs. truth, and I think that's where we've gone wrong.

Please forgive me for these generalizations, used only to prove a point: We see on one side the most morally conservative areas of society that are strictly founded in the fundamental truths of right and wrong, but their adherents' obsession with politics and the collective society make them come across as belligerent to anyone with differing viewpoints. Then on the other side, we see people who care about social justice but their understanding of what is right and what is wrong seems to be careless – I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "God is love – that's all the theology I need."

Knowing truth is not salvation. We know this by simply looking at redemptive history – God's quest to know humanity in a personal way. Simultaneously, one cannot know God without accepting basic truths. Thus, where one side gets it right in caring for the broken down and the marginalized members of society, another side gets it right that knowing truth is the gateway to a relational God.

What does this all mean when you shine it upon the tension between homosexuals and our churches? I think it means this: We know what God expects of us. It's ridiculous for church leadership to approve of homosexual behavior. However, the extreme tension that exists between church leadership and homosexuals on a national level is off base. To put homosexual behavior on a pedestal above every other sin is at best self-righteous. Look around and you'll see we all display symptoms of the same disease. We give lip service to this idea, but church politics shows a different reality in action.

Perhaps this is most illustrated in the latest fundamentalist witch hunt. This time, it's SpongeBob SquarePants. The cartoon character appears with Winnie the Pooh and others in a video supporting "tolerance" that's being sent to public schools. In the middle of what appears to be a media campaign against this video, James Dobson was quoted as saying, "Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity' within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary but it crosses a moral line."

Admittedly, I haven't seen the video, and it's true that the government's social programming is out of line. Yet, such reaction not only appears ridiculous, but over the top. Moreover, as this latest event comes in a long line of conservative assaults on culture icons, the over-arching vibe is not that of love and truth, but self-righteousness and conceit.

January 23, 2005

Queer Eye for the Straight Cartoon Guy

by Jill Rachel Jacobs

Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

The world is in turmoil. War, terrorism and the recent tsunami that knocked the world off its axis have not only permeated the news, but left many of us in a state of perpetual devastation. And of course, let’s not forget Jen and Brad. Indeed, these are tough times.

That’s why the timing of the latest gay hysteria alert from the religious right is all the more confusing. This time they’re going after Spongebob Squarepants. And this time they’ve gone too far.

This whole unfortunate incident is really disturbing. Not only because of these tumultuous times we live in, but because it’s also stirred up some old wounds from a few years back when Jerry Falwell outted poor Tinkie Winkie. Yeah, Tinkie may have carried a magic bag that could easily be mistaken for a purse, and he may have also had a triangle glued to his head, but does that make him gay? I don’t think so.

The latest brewing homophobic crisis du jour brought to you exclusively from the religious right stems from Christian Conservative groups who are up in arms over a new music video that is due to be sent to 61,000 schools in March. The “We Are Family Foundation” produced the video that stars Spongebob, Barney and a host of other popular animated figures designed to promote tolerance and diversity.

At a pre-inauguration black-tie dinner in Washington earlier this week, James Dobson, head of the group, Focus On The Family mocked Spongebob and his cartoon sidekick, Patrick, who are often seen holding hands. Apparently, Spongebob is also suspect because he enjoys watching the imaginary, ``Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy.”

I don’t get it. Why should Spongebob’s viewing choices be an issue here? I watch Will and Grace all the time. Does that make me someone with intimacy issues who only likes to spend time with men who are unavailable? OK. Maybe that’s the not best example, but I think I make my point.

Anyone privy to some of my more colorful dating experiences would agree that I may not possess the most well-developed gaydar, but I doubt very strongly that Spongebob Squarepants is gay. Take a look at him. The guy has a square head, only a few teeth, and no fashion sense whatsoever. How many guys do you know who prefer Tom Cruise over Penelope Cruz would be scene in public walking around practically toothless wearing the same outfit everyday?

If anything, I suspect that Mr. Squarepants may be more of a misunderstood misfit asexual type if we are now forced to label our animated stars. I mean, give the guy a break. He lives in a pineapple under the sea. Does that make him gay? I just thought he was a little on the eccentric side and I kind of liked that about him. If we were all the same, wouldn’t the world be kind of boring?

And this isn’t the first time that question of Spongebob’s sexual preferences have made the headlines. In 2002, he was "outted” after the media reported that the TV show and its merchandise was popular with gays.

I guess even the imaginations of animators are not exempt from the vagaries that run rampant during these McCarthesque times we currently reside in.

Maybe those nice fellows from Queer Eye could take time out from their busy schedules and work their magic on Spongebob and other questionable cartoon characters that have ruffled the fragile homophobic feathers of those who stand in judgment of diverse lifestyle choices.

This latest scandal reminds me of that old WWII adage:

First they came for Tinkie Winkie and I did not speak out because I was not a Teletubby. Then they came for Barney and I did not speak out because I was not a happy go lucky, carefree overweight purple reptilian children’s show star.

Then they came for Spongebob Squarepants and this time I didn’t keep my mouth shut because someone has to speak up for defenseless outted animated characters everywhere that are not programmed to protect themselves against the malevolent assault often waged by the fearful and uninformed.

No, Spongebob isn’t gay, but his next door neighbor Squidward…

Jill Rachel Jacobs is a New York based writer and humorist whose recent publishing credits include The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Toronto Star, The Independent, The International Herald Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Daily News, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, National Public Radio and CBS Sunday Morning.

January 23, 2005

So from all these secular news posts, should one gather that you think it foolish to stand up against the wicked entertainment industry?

Sign In

Bob & Bob

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

cricket

Nicodema

cricket

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Tom Wetmore

cricket

Neil D

Dr. Shane

cricket

Rosie

Bravus

Anthony!

Gail

Dr. Shane

Guest

Dr. Shane

cricket

Amelia

cricket

Amelia

Amelia

Amelia

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity