Christian Talk Radio, or blah, contradictory blah

As many of my friends will tell you I spend alot of time listening to various brands of conservative talk radio. I used to be able to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but by his third blantant falshood, maybe his fourth I generally have to turn him off. Everything about his show and the Golden Microphone really sickens me. As impossible as it may seem, I can actually listen to Sean Hannity the whole way through. Not because he is more honest, he may, in fact be worse, but in his favor, he does have a better delivery. And he never called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. But still a total prick. Bill O'Reilly, at least twice as bad on his radio show, as he is on T.V. I'll click him off pretty quick. Michael Savage. This is one guy I think I might actually flatten should I ever meet him in the street. I tend to really pride myself on my debating skills, but his vitriol is so acidic and hateful I just don't think he would keep to the form of debate, so neither would I.
Pat Buchannan, and G.Gordon Liddy. Shockingly, I like these two guys. I don't aggree with anything either of them have to say. Not one damn thing, but they tend to be more jovial with guests of opposing view points, less inclined to give GOP packaged answers, and are typically kind of witty. I think Buckley Jr, falls into this catergory too. So of all the folks I just mentioned the last three would be the only three I would have over for coffee and spirited debate.

Now the other conservative talk radio is that of the fundementalist stripe. This is the arena of such giants, as Pat Robertson, Chuck Swindol, Focus on the Family, Michael Medved, just to name a few. Most of these stations tend to fill time between the big Christian shows with local personalities. For some reason I find it all fascinating, and a bit scary.
Okay alot scary.

One of the things I find so fascinating is the enthusiastic, errors of internal consistancy many of these spokespersons for Christ-their version-make.

Take today forinstance, I was listening to the local crazy-christian station, AM 1160, to the Scott Thomas Show. He had a guest, whose name I can't find on his web-site, who was the one of the creators of the evangelical tool, "Day of Truth." For those of you who don't know what the day of truth is, it is essentially the Christian fundementalist answer to GLTBQ community's "Day of Silence." So the gimic, is that the day following a "Day of Silence" Christian school groups will put on this "Day of Truth." They wear T-shirts that say- what else- "Day of Truth." So it is quite the affair. They will talk to people between classes about how nobody is born with sexual predilictions but learn them. And they will bring out people who have been "cured" of the desire. This of course flys in the face of quite a bit of biological and psychological research to the contrary. Furthermore interviews with these people who have been, allegedly relieved of desire for some same sex action prove to in fact still harbor said feelings, they are just utilizing will power to not act on them. Okay that is all I am going to say by way of rebuttal to that.

In fact I have no problem with a christian group making somekind of statement like this, and am in fact quite impressed that they chose to do it on the day following the "day of silence." This is really non-combative. If I had to hazard a guess as to why, it would be that the issue divides america fairly evenly. Maybe there are even more on the side of gay rights than not. This country gets fairly bizarre where the fundemental privacy of our sex lives is concerned. All I know is that, when polled, the majority of americans favor, civil unions, if not out right marriage and that is an encouraging sign.

So that wasn't my problem with what Scott Thomas and his guest were saying. What did bother me was that they were so incensed that the "day of Silence" was taken into the classrooms and this silence earned no consequence for those who remained silent. The woman, who runs a Christian Parents Watchdog outfit policing schools for any thing that might offend them or interfere with their childrens strict adherence to Bronze Age myths, was quite upset. Allow me to paraphrase
This is going on during classes! These kids aren't speaking! She said.
And they aren't recieving consequences. Scott added.
I know. She added.
Much shaking of heads.

Okay i can't know if they were shaking their heads.
To me though, there is really no difference in what these GLBTQ kids do, from what Fundementalist christians do when they demand their children be allowed to leave any biology class where evolution is being discussed, or any health class where-god forbid- some one mentions that penises sometimes go into vaginas and that many things of consequence can follow said action. Isn't this as disruptive? Should fundementalist kids be penalized for leaving, and making a statement by such an action. It is a political/religious statement. Scott and his guest were terribly rattled by the notion that their kids had to be exposed to something that is often referred to as the "homosexual agenda." Yet they are only too happy to push their particular Christian vision on others.

So I guess the position they were taking seemed awfully hypocritical.
What do you think? Am I off base?