Free Speech in America, DOA
|(Remnant News Watch September 30, 2009)|
|REMNANT COLUMNIST, New York|
Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on "OLTL" for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.
"I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline," she said. "And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to."
According to the New York Daily News (July 10, 2009), One Life To Live was taping a scene in which Patricia Mauceri’s character, Carlotta Vega, mistakenly comes to believe that her son is a homosexual. As written, Carlotta’s reaction is “very accepting and even amused, citing his love of art and fondness for going shirtless as signs she should have recognized.” However, Mauceri (who had portrayed Carlotta Vega for 14 years) objected, saying a Latina mother would not be so accepting. She rewrote the scenes to more realistically convey Carlotta’s troubled reaction and submitted them to the show’s executives, who replied, “That's not the story we're telling."
When Mauceri refused to play the scene as originally written, the show brought in another actress to take over the role of Carlotta Vega.
Comment: Patricia Mauceri’s main complaint about the scene was the veracity of her character’s reaction. A mother is supposed to be “amused,” even jocular, at the prospect of her son being a homosexual? Even a group as radically pro-homosexual as PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) has stated that, “For most parents, this [discovering that their child is homosexual] can be a very difficult experience.” Yet, the honchos at ABC, ignoring the input of an actress who has played the character for 14 years, decided instead that a giddy, fawning acceptance should substitute for genuine parental concern.
So what else is new? In the past twenty years, television programs have given rise to a new “stock” character: the befuddled heterosexual who starts out questioning the “gay” agenda, only to be catechized by the other characters on the show into the usual repentant, fawning acceptance.
We are in the midst of an interesting phenomenon today, one that would have had our fathers and grandfathers shaking their heads in disbelief. People are losing their jobs – i.e., are being “punished” – for questioning the radical “gay” agenda. The instances are piling up:
· In 2004, Richard Peterson was fired from Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his desk. Peterson posted the verses in response to the company displaying posters featuring homosexual employees, accompanied by the slogan, "Diversity is Our Strength."
The verses posted by Peterson did not appear “out of the blue.” They were a response to a deliberately inflammatory poster foisted upon its employees by Hewlett-Packard. “Diversity is Our Strength," eh? There are probably a goodly number of Hewlett-Packard employees who are either Catholic or Protestant, many more so than who are homosexual. Do you think the company would have allowed a poster featuring employees sitting in a church?
· In 2005, J. Matt Barber, a manager in Allstate’s Corporate Security Division, was fired because he had written an article, which was posted online, criticizing homosexual “marriage.” As a Web commentator, Barber’s articles had appeared at TheConservativeVoice.com, MensNewsDaily.com and other sites. When summoned to a meeting with human resource officials, Barber was told, “Here at Allstate we have a very diverse community."
Mr. Barber wrote his article at home and did not reference his job at Allstate. All he did was exercise his right to comment publicly on a newsworthy topic. Apparently, Mr. Barber (whose views represent that of the majority of Americans) has no place in Allstate’s “very diverse community.” No wonder, for Allstate has supported such homosexual activist groups as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund. Allstate regards such groups as “organizations that are related to tolerance, diversity and inclusion.”
In fact, Allstate was so “tolerant” and compassionate that they fired Mr. Barber two weeks after his wife delivered their third child. With the wife still recovering from C-section surgery, their medical insurance and means of support were suddenly gone – all in the name of “tolerance.”
· In 2008, Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, was dismissed after writing an editorial for the Toledo Free Press that questioned whether homosexuality should be considered as a civil rights issue. She wrote: “As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims’. Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman …. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.”
Dixon was fired because her values “do not accord” with the University of Toledo.”
No “Bible-thumping” here. Dixon’s concern is a legal one. And, she also dares to deny the “gay-gene” theory, and states her opinion that the homosexual lifestyle is not a predetermined fact. Opinions? Debate? Differing views? These “do not accord” with a university setting? Would anyone have cared if she had written an article criticizing the Church’s teachings on contraception?
These are merely a few examples, and they do not represent those individuals who, while not fired, are victimized for their beliefs by employers, such as British Constable Graham Cogman of the Norfolk Police. In 2005, Cogman was subjected to disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days’ pay for sending e-mails to officers quoting Bible verses about homosexuality. Did Constable Cogman simply wake-up one morning and decide to bother his fellow officers? Hardly. He sent out his e-mails in response to a circular e-mail sent to officers encouraging them to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during “Gay History Month.” Pink ribbons on police uniforms! Why not just add matching parasols and let the criminals collapse with laughter?
And recall the case of Carrie Prejean, who lost her “Miss California USA 2009” title after defending traditional marriage during the “Miss USA 2009 Pageant.” Prejean was railroaded with a question put to her by hysterical homosexual blogger and pageant judge, Perez Hilton, who lost no time in starting an online smear campaign against Prejean. A homosexual beauty pageant judge? You may as well hire a person with no tongue to judge a cooking contest.
“Thought-Crimes” were once the province of science-fiction writers. The idea that an individual could be punished for holding an opinion is anathema to free men and women, yet it is a harsh reality today. College professors are being penalized for disagreeing with the establishment regarding the theory of evolution. Medical personnel are being persecuted for refusing to participate in abortions. Those who question the prevailing wisdom about “global warming” are anathematized by the media. In Germany and Austria, a person can go to jail for questioning the historical particulars of the Holocaust.
Fines? Persecution? Imprisonment? For holding an opinion? Since when has this become a desired course of action in the so-called “free world?” Each day Catholics are treated to the “opinions” of those who despise the Church with all their might. Again and again we are treated to fits of anti-Church hysteria passed off as “scholarship.” The people who propagate such thinly veiled venom are not hounded and reviled, like your average global-warming or Holocaust “denier,” or your opponent of “gay marriage.” No, instead they are cited as “experts.”
Older Remnant readers can sometimes do little more than sit back and raise a toast to days gone by – days that were far from perfect, yet sane in many particulars, at least. But what will Catholic youth face down the road? What manner of sci-fi nightmare will they come to recognize as “daily life?” It all puts the Chartres Pilgrimage into bold relief. The only hope for tomorrow are Catholic youth who will stand firm and refuse to “call evil good, and good evil … put darkness for light, and light for darkness … put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. (Is. 5:20)” They may not realize it as such, but they are already in training for the only battle that really counts in the end.
ALSO IN THIS WEEK'S REMNANT...
“Basic Instinct” Screenwriter Planning
- Fragment of World’s Oldest Bible Found in Greek Monastery
Want More News?
Subscribe to The Remnant! For more information, please click here