Rush Limbaugh (or, rather, his voice) will be "appearing" on an episode of Seth MacFarlane’s culturally corrosive "cartoon show," Family Guy, sometime next year.
If Family Guy were the harmless entertainment everyone seems to think it to be, I wouldn’t be writing about it. The show is anything but, however, recycling every cherished liberal anti-Christian smear it can find an occasion for. The show, while still in production (God knows why), is also in syndication; thus, our totally clueless (or consciously irreverent, or both) local station broadcasts this excremental effluvium during the supper hour, thus potentially and thoughtlessly exposing young children to every unfiltered obscenity conjured up by the so-called "writing staff" under MacFarlane’s close supervision. (And, please, don’t give me the "That’s what the channel selector’s for" argument; only the terminally naive don’t know how things go in real life.)
So Family Guy is aimed at "adults" (that is, people who have yet to grow up and develop a moral sense). Historically, most cartoons have had grown-ups as their intended audience, and nothing wrong with that, but this show and its appalling twin American Dad have been relentless in attacking Middle America. There must be some big special interest money behind these projects to keep them on the air; I can’t explain otherwise how they can persistently assault the shared values of three out of every four Americans and remain in production.
A typical ho-hum, morality-free reaction to Limbaugh and Karl Rove’s upcoming "appearance" on Family Guy comes from this weblogger:
[I]t’s actually a pretty good show, a little vulgar at times and they tend to make fun of Christianity quite a bit. But overall a pretty entertaining show; Stewie is great …. Those of you worried about Rush and Rove allowing themselves to be seen in a bad light, don’t worry, they’re smarter than that; plus they’re capitalists, it’s just a job.
"[T]hey tend to make fun of Christianity quite a bit" — indeed, Family Guy is consistently and explicitly anti-Christian at all times. For Limbaugh to lend his support to MacFarlane’s project in any way indicates which direction Limbaugh’s moral compass is pointing. If Limbaugh sees no wrong in it, you have to wonder just how morally reliable his pronouncements on other topics may be.
"[T]hey’re capitalists, it’s just a job" — which just goes to show the shortcomings of any system that puts money before morals (i.e., a species of idolatry).
Since he’s an inveterate golfer, my guess is Limbaugh will get a new set of clubs with his paycheck. Stewie would probably approve.
(See also this article.)
~~~~~~~~~~~
—Mike Gray
With respect to ‘Top Secret!’, I had to refrain from discussing too many of the film’s set-piece sight gags to avoid spoiling it for anyone who hasn’t seen it.
The sequence with the mine and the submarine has to be one of the most elaborate—and successful—visual gags in film history.
Glad to have cleared that up!
I guess that if he does have an agenda, then it is lost on me as I have never really sat down and watched them all and tried to discover to see if there was a trend- call me ignorant in the best possible sense, but I guess if it really makes me laugh I don’t go much deeper than that.
There is a lot of evidence to show that yes indeed, a lot of producers of modern entertainment are more likely to be athiests or non believers, but I’m an optimist you could say. I don’t tend to see the worst in people but the best, and lets face it, these days we could use a lot more civility and a lot less name calling and rancor. I did not mention either Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Rove because I consider them to be the worst purveyors of rancor out there.
By the way, I have thoroughly enjoyed ‘Top Secret!’ in my collection for years now, both on VHS and now DVD. You failed to mention what I consider to be the funniest part of the movie, which is the train station- part one with the bag of dog biscuits and the shot, and part two with the platform pulling away from the train. Classic!
D. Larocque — Thank you for your clarifying remarks. They are greatly appreciated.
I enjoy “mindless entertainment” as much as anybody else—heck, I sometimes PRODUCE it myself (and also see my favorable review of a sometimes unnecessarily crude but nevertheless highly enjoyable film, TOP SECRET!):
http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2009/09/top_secretan_amiable_spy_film.html#more
FAMILY GUY, however, is clearly NOT meant as mere entertainment but satire—yet in this, as I said previously, it is a failure. In the context of the show’s unremitting ridicule of Christianity, it fails to meet the very definition of satire:
1. a literary work holding up human vices and foibles to ridicule or scorn 2. trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
(By way of coincidence, “sarcasm” literally means “to cut flesh.”)
Goodness knows, HUMAN vices and foibles are fair game for Macfarlane or anybody else, and he has the freedom to attack them as much as he wishes. However, simply because someone CAN do a thing doesn’t necessarily mean he SHOULD do that thing (e.g., I’m free to sing out loud, but if you ask my friends they’ll tell you I shouldn’t do it). Macfarlane CAN assault Christianity as much as he wants—it’s his constitutionally protected right and I would never dream of depriving him of it—but in doing so he abuses the privileges permitted the true satirist. As I said, his so-called “satire” fails in its implicit social obligation to offer correctives—he tears down but never tries to rebuild. What he’s doing is FAR from “mindless comedy.”
If you return to the definitions above, you will note that satire aims at HUMAN vices and failures and makes no reference to God. Only a person who can take perverse delight in transmuting the truth and love which characterize Christianity into “vices and foibles” would perpetrate atrocities like FAMILY GUY and AMERICAN DAD and attempt to foist them on the rest of us as mere entertainment. Macfarlane has an anti-Christian agenda, and it’s nasty. For him, Jesus Christ is evil, his followers are evil, the faith of his followers is evil, and no good can come from any of it. How Macfarlane would correct this “problem” he never ventures to tell us.
(Parenthetically, I would add that scripture warns God is not mocked and that in the last days good would be widely regarded as evil. If you don’t accept the authority of scripture, feel free to disregard that last sentence. Yes, I realize Macfarlane doesn’t believe in God, but the feeling is NOT mutual.)
Now, I watched this sack of offal for three months straight—twice daily in syndicated showings and once a week on network—just to be sure I understood what I was seeing. After all that punishment, I am more than a little motivated to follow your advice and employ “a part called the hand” to change the channel to—I hope—something worthwhile.
I don’t want there to be any confusion- if I seemed to infer that you were lacking in wisdom or an ability to reason, then I apologize, for I didn’t mean it that way.
Family Guy isn’t supposed to be taken seriously was the point- that is why it is entertainment; nothing more. Not all entertainment has to have any redeeming value to it, and sometimes we all need a break from our serious, regimented, logical world and a dive into mindless comedy- well, at least most of us anyway. Sure it can be vulgar and mean sometimes, but not enough to make me stop watching as of now.
As a society, if we cannot laugh at ourselves, then we will lose our humanity, and turn into slaves to work and to the challenges of everyday life. Exempting religion from being used as comedic material cannot be justified in a free society, and that is just the way it is in the United States. We are not a theocracy such as Iran, or a rigid state such as Indonesia, but our whole way of life has been built on freedom of speech. We cannot take a step backwards into the darkness and deny this freedom.
The shared Judeo-Christian values you have spoken of are varied and cannot be rounded up and roped into one pen. The point I was trying to make is that you cannot generalize and assume that Family Guy is trying to assault “Middle America” when the term is very vague in meaning. I have seen the show lampoon Roman Catholicism a couple of times with the episodes of Peter’s father, but I never once associated them with “Middle America”. I saw them as his father more devoted to his work and to the Pope rather than his own son, not as an attack on a certain group.
When I asked for comments, I wasn’t trying to say you didn’t watch it that much- I just wanted more insight from others who had watched it on a regular basis, that is all. Once again, I did not mean to leave that impression.
Do I believe in God and Jesus Christ? Of course, I am Eastern Orthodox. Do I believe that our society has gotten worse and needs to act better towards each other? Yes indeed. However, I am against trying to stifle creative voices just because some may be offended- there is a part called the hand, and it is more than capable of changing a channel, or turning off a television or radio, or guiding others to different pursuits. It is not the responsibility of others to be nannies- we must take charge of our own lives.
First: I WRITE parody and satire myself, so I am not as naive as you seem to assume.
The problem with FAMILY GUY’s so-called satire is that it fails as satire. Instead of saying “Here’s what’s wrong, why it’s wrong, and how it can be corrected,” FAMILY GUY simply attacks, offering no rationale for its criticisms and no corrective action. Hence, I regard it as corrosive and not socially or artistically redeeming, regardless of its target.
Second: If you seriously want an answer to your question, I know of no families that have a talking dog and a baby as loquacious as Thurston Howell the Third.
Third: It might surprise you to learn that there are people who regard Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind and not a valid object of ridicule. Since you can summon no objection to FAMILY GUY’s scripters when “they poke fun at Christianity,” I must conclude that you do not share that viewpoint.
Fourth: In using the admittedly vague term “Middle America,” I am attempting to encompass the shared Judeo-Christian values of America’s citizenry at large, even if their belief systems differ in the details. This is the common culture that has developed here over the past two centuries or so, something of which you seem to be ignorant. It can be called “The American Culture,” which by no coincidence is the name of this weblog.
Fifth: To answer your last question as to “[w]here are those who have actually watched the show on a regular basis?”, here am I. Your erroneous assumption seems to be that I am among those who “have seen one or two shows.”
In conclusion: While I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to your comments, I must say they assume facts not in evidence, ignore history, attempt to defend the indefensible, and don’t even address the article’s original premise which was not the TV show itself but the dubious appearance of a well-known radio personality on it.
This is my first time here, as I happened to stumble upon it. After reading your article, I have a couple of points to make:
First, Family Guy is a cartoon built upon parody and satire, not something that could be taken seriously. How many families do you know that has a talking dog and a talking baby? Not any that I know of, which makes it even more unbelievable to think that it is meant for serious statements on society. It is the silliness and the inclusion of culture from our past that really entertains, to be sure.
Second, comedy of this sort is not nearly as programming that pretends to be unbiased and balanced, presenting topics in a serious manner while getting anything but unbiased or balanced. With Family Guy, you get what you expect, and so why is it a surprise that they poke fun at Christianity, or other topics for that manner? The more serious a topic is, the more likely it is to be made fun of. I personally would save all of your indignance for network programming that regularly distorts religions, i.e. Fox News or MSNBC.
In conclusion, ‘Middle America’ is an extremely general term to use- what exactly does it mean, anyways? Do the values and mores of Nebraska or Kansas necessarily match those of say Illinois or Wisconsin? Of course not! I have absolutely no idea where you have gotten this agenda from, but from all of the shows I have seen (which is at least 30 I’d say), I cannot see where you are going with your argument.
Where are those who have actually watched the show on a regular basis? I would be curious to see the reaction of those who have watched rather than those who have not or only have seen one or two shows.
Salvage — Thanks for your insights. You have given us all much to ponder.
…
Let me see if I understand this. You are just now questioning the “moral compass” of a thrice divorced drug addict who while unmarried took Viagra with him on vacation?
Really? Rush doing a voice over in a cartoon is what makes you go “hmmm?”
As for “That’s what the channel selector’s for” argument; only the terminally naive don’t know how things go in real life.)”
Well Dad of the Year if your house is so slack and your authority so weak that your kids will do whatever the heck they like then may I suggest that you get rid of your TV? Oh I’m sorry, that would be you would have to sacrifice something to protect your children from such “corrosive” “anti-Christian” “unfiltered obscenity”. It’s funny how people like you want everyone else to sacrifice for your sake. Rather communist of you don’t you think?
>There must be some big special interest money behind these projects to keep them on the air;
They’re called “advertisers” and “sponsors” they pay to keep them on the air because then people watch ads for their products. Do you really not understand that TV shows only stay on the air if people watch them? So if Family Guy is on TV that means people like it and if you don’t like it don’t watch it but the majority of us do like it.
It’s rather democratic, small wonder you don’t like it Pinko.
If you’re afraid that Peter mocking Jesus is going to cause your disobedient children to go insane if they catch a glimpse then get rid of your TV. It’s very simple to remove and you can live without one, live better in fact.
Point is all that sounds like a personal problem to me, why you telling us?
Oh and Karl Rove? Helped launch a war for WMD that never were that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and him.
In a cartoon you don’t like.
That’s what bugs you about him.
Fascinating the way your rank your moral outrage.
I definitely agree with Mike Gray on the horribleness of Family Guy, which is a wretched show in both aesthetic terms and in the ideas it suggests. For Rush to appear on the show seems rather dubious, but if he can do some good by doing so, I’ll be happy.
As much as I dislike the show, however, I see nothing dishonorable in it. It may prove to be a case of bad judgment, but it’s hardly treason to the Church. It’s treason to common sense and decency, though.
Finally, I doubt that Limbaugh will harm his credibility by appearing on the show; his decades-long track record can’t be overthrown by an event of this sort.
Mike, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about Rush and his motives, and it certainly hasn’t undercut his moral authority with me and I’m sure practically all his listeners. As for his egotism and arrogance it’s all schtick, and very good schtick at that. I believe he is a genuinely humble man. As for his faith, he affirms and defends it quite often. But I couldn’t agree more about ‘Family Guy’ and left-liberal culture.
Until I was forced to give up satellite TV last June, I had never viewed ‘Family Guy’ either, Mike.
Now, I avidly support the 1st Amendment and would never call for MacFarlane to be censored by the government; to me, the only valid control is SELF-control. MacFarlane, however, seems to be getting literally tens of millions of dollars from SOMEONE to take his revenge on Middle America and consequently has no incentive to exercise self-restraint.
I also understand satire (criticism to correct social evils), but what MacFarlane does isn’t satire. Christians are evil, he says; why, he doesn’t say. Thus, there’s no intent to improve, only to condemn. Christian culture is just bad, that’s all, and fair game for ridicule. (It would be worthless to speculate that he may have been molested by a priest or minister as a youth to explain his antipathy to Christianity — but there has been a lot of that going around.)
“The audience is likely made up of people who agree with the views the show espouses.” — Agreed, but I still don’t see how such a relatively small group could sustain a program so out of sync with the majority’s outlook. I would welcome any explanation you might offer.
“He [Limbaugh] no more affirms or approves of Seth MacFarlane’s worldview than Buckley did of Hugh Hefner’s.” — I would hope that to be true, but as I suggest in the article, the fact that he lends any support to a project by a militantly anti-Christian (not merely an atheist) ideologue casts doubt on that assessment.
“I believe he [Limbaugh] is a fundamentally decent man.” — I have listened to his radio show for only a couple of months and find myself in agreement with him much (but not all) of the time; however, I do find his egotism and arrogance a bit off-putting. (Parenthetically, if I have read the Bible correctly, “fundamentally decent” people have no guarantee of heaven.)
By doing MacFarlane’s show, I believe Limbaugh has undercut his own moral authority. I know this may sound like hyperbole, but I think ‘Family Guy’ articulates everything that’s characteristic of — and wrong with — the Left-liberal component of the American culture. In this stupid little cartoon you can experience first-hand the decadence that pervades postmodern America, in which there literally is nothing sacred.
Mike, I think your assessment of Rush is off the mark. I’ve never seen ‘Family Guy’, don’t want to and never will, save maybe the episode Rush is in. But how many Christian conservative types do you think watch the show? I’m sure not many. The audience is likely made up of people who agree with the views the show espouses.
So my take is that Rush, not unlike Bill Buckley writing for ‘Playboy’, knows that he has an opportunity to reach an audience that would never listen to his show. Who knows, he may attract an open mind or two because of doing it. He no more affirms or approves of the Seth MacFarlane’s worldview than Buckley did of Hugh Hefner’s.
I’ve been listening to Rush consistently for 20 years now, and I believe he is a fundamentally decent man. He doesn’t need whatever piddling money he got for doing the show. I don’t know if it was the right thing to do to go on the show, but I tend to trust his motives and his judgment.