Christian Voice Rides Again (more Christian Bashing)

[munchingfoo]

It is really stupid, if a christian who would be offended watched that program they need help. There was over one hour of build up documentaries showing exactly what was in it. The people complaining need help.

The people making threats to producers should read John chapter one and realise that they are now going to hell.

[exnihilo]

It is a fair point, though. Why is it okay to attack the deeply held views of one group of people and not another? The mere fact of the warning is not enough, or should it be perfectly okay for me to do this...



WARNING : IF EASILY OFFENDED BY JOKES ABOUT JEWS, DO NOT READ THE REST OF THIS POST.



What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? Pizzas don't scream when you put them in the oven.

Is that all right?

[Happy-Go-Lucky]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 14:04, 10th Jan 2005:
I think that the way this differs in the view of Christian Voice is that their money funds the liscence fee. If this was on ITV or Channel 4, then there wouldn't be the same kind of furore. As the BBC is answerable to the public, they ought to be able to justify why they felt that it needed to be shown.

On the other hand, isn't the point of the BBC to provide a national service, showing unbiased programs and opinions so as to provide the public with the whole picture? Forbidding one program because it may offend another is surely a type of sensorship. There can be religious programs which insist on the existence and truth of whatever they believe in, but in the end it is still just their opinion. Therefore to ban another group's opinion from airing time is hypocritical and discriminatiory. As a public service, the BBC has to provide the thoughts from all sides of life.

Anyway. I also find it somewhat daft that these Christians are getting so wound up about the jerry Springer thing. The portayal of the Jesus and Mary are so rediculously over the top, I can't believe that these Christians are really taking it seriously. It is clearly just utter ludicrousy, whether you are watching it as an ethiest, or a believer. To take it as a serious insult is merely highlighting the sad fact that they actually give it some sort of credit. A more gracious way of getting round it would be to simply shrug their shoulders and acknowledge it as nonsense. Showing how offended they are has simply given the show more clout.

[Miz Manda]

I can't stand people like these who go beyond protest and endanger peoples lives. As much as I can understand the license fee thing I don't really see the point in protesting about it, in the long run all it probably accomplished was encouraging more people to watch it to see what the fuss was about. They also further contributed to the whole "oh ignore them it's just those loony Christians" thing. As for it being offensive to those with Christian beliefs, they could always just choose not to watch it (which is what I did).

[LonelyPilgrim]

Read in the paper today that both the Sikh community and the Islamic community in Britain are supportive of the Christian outcry over this... I believe a Muslim representative commented that "It seems as though there is an effort to attack all persons of faith..." that's paraphrased, can't remember exactly.

As far as this show goes... I didn't see it, but I don't imagine I would be offended. I'm a pretty difficult person to offend with theatre, or televison or any such. However, I do worry that this was aired by the BBC. The BBC is a public broadcasting station, and hense, this material, which from what I've heard IS offensive, is therefore getting a de facto stamp of approval from what is supposed to be a democratic and representative government. Christian citizens of the UK have a right to be upset that this aired on the BBC and not on a private station.

A responsible government does not seek to offend, explicitly, implicitly, or tacitly, it's own citizens. So yes I'm shocked, not by the content of the actual show, but by the conduct of the BBC.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[echo]

I thought what we were bashing is intolerance?

Christian bashing is like hunting cows with a high power telescopic sighted rifle. Easy but lacking in any challenge.

Does anyone have the right to stop me watching Jerry Springer the opera (rather than studying etc)?

I dont want to live in a society that hands over a content filter to religion of any stripe.

Apart from getting down on my knees, most of my life pleasures are against one or all religions' rules.



[hr]
Manchester, so much to answer for

[exnihilo]

Is this not a confusion of the issues? You say you're against intolerance and yet you think it is okay for the BBC to broadcast something which makes a complete mockery of a large group's beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

Certainly violent protest about it is wrong, but if people were genuinely upset or offended by it then they have an absolute right to say so and to have their view respected.

[Cain]

that reminds me of a Matthew Parris editorial in the times years ago (it was relevant to my dissertation, i cut it out and read it many times) saying that the British people did not believe in democracy.

"Should there be free speech?"

"Certainly. But not in cases of..." and then a list of issues as varied as the church, celebrities, the monarchy, national security, paedophilia etc are wheeled out.

Exnihilio's above comment has me stuck. I DO believe in tolerance and maintaining a social equilibrium of not fighting with each other, rather than having everything as fair game. I DO also believe in the right of art to ask probing questions and to evaluate or criticise believes that people hold.

more on this once i've worked it out for myself.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[exnihilo]

Tricky isn't it? I'm not sure where I stand. I think on the whole I prefer that we should have our freedom of speech even if occasionally that offends people. But then, I also think that most people are hyper-sensitive imbeciles who get offended far too easily.

[LonelyPilgrim]

I'm all for freedom of speech for the citizens and private groups of a country. However, the government, and it's agents, should exercise the greatest of restraint on what they say and allow to be said in their name.

That's not to say that a government must always be PC, but there is a time and place to risk offending people, such as when national security is at stake, or there are deep social issues to be addressed. Somehow I don't think the airing of Jerry Springer:The Opera qualifies as either justification.

As far as people being too easily offended, I agree. However, when someone sets out to intentionally mock your beliefs, or your sex, or sexual orientation, or race, or economic plight then it is justified to become offended. From what I've heard about this show, it intends to mock, for the shock value. I find that tasteless, and I have a hard time crediting the notion that any 'art' that seeks to make it's point by putting people down and mocking them and what they believe in a heavy-handed shock and awe manner could possibly have a message that outweighs it's tastlessness.

Satire is a fine art, mockery and shock is not.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[JAK]

[s]Cain wrote on 17:51, 10th Jan 2005:
that reminds me of a Matthew Parris editorial in the times years ago (it was relevant to my dissertation, i cut it out and read it many times) saying that the British people did not believe in democracy.

"Should there be free speech?"

[i]"Certainly. But not in cases of..." and then a list of issues as varied as the church, celebrities, the monarchy, national security, paedophilia etc are wheeled out.

Exnihilio's above comment has me stuck. I DO believe in tolerance and maintaining a social equilibrium of not fighting with each other, rather than having everything as fair game. I DO also believe in the right of art to ask probing questions and to evaluate or criticise believes that people hold.

more on this once i've worked it out for myself.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise
[/i]

Out of interest, not having seen this, or heard it would be broadcast till today, what questions does it ask? What evaluations does it make? What criticisms, that aren't just insults for shock value, were included? If there aren't any, then surely you should say it shouldn't have been broadcast: you can't let the right of art to question be exploited as a right to outrage for it's own sake.

[hr]
I got my BBC

[Midget]

LonelyPilgrim

... Satire is a fine art, mockery and shock is not.

Utter bollocks, (or rather totally irrelevant).

Surely by your reasoning there wouldn't be anything on television at all. TV has never been about fine art apart from one program every blue moon. Jerry Springer was far closer to fine art than most of the utter shite that is on the box.

If you want to discuss the aesthetic value of TV, well.

[Cain]

[s]JAK wrote on 18:16, 10th Jan 2005:

Out of interest, not having seen this, or heard it would be broadcast till today, what questions does it ask? What evaluations does it make? What criticisms, that aren't just insults for shock value, were included? If there aren't any, then surely you should say it shouldn't have been broadcast: you can't let the right of art to question be exploited as a right to outrage for it's own sake.


i haven't seen this either, so i'm hesitant to comment on the programme itself because i'll end up like one of those pitiful clergymen who attacked Life of Brian for the sake of it.

It sounds like from the criteria that exnihilio and i worked out, this programme, if it doesn't actually make any points but rather just uses christianity for a cheap joke counts as offensive and shouldn't be shown.

my point was a more general one concerning the way that religion is sacrosanct and can't be tackled in a less than reverent manner. Monty Python's Life of Brian and Kevin Smith's Dogma are two films that were lambasted for discussing the nature of christian religion in a way that the established church disagreed with. They were however making valid, well thought out points. Things like this i support. Cheap and lazy points like the ones that seem to have been made in Springer (and again, i haven't seen it and i hate talking as if i know something about it.) i don't support.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[JAK]

Can I reopen my previous question to anyone who's seen it: what actual points does it make against/about Christianity?

[hr]I got my BBC

[Rob Hearn]

Well, however upsetting it is to some people, the makers of Springer had every right to make it, and the BBC had every right to show it. Those likely to be offended ought just to ignore the production. There's no point in getting ruffled because the writers know exactly what their rights are, and, I would assume, are delighted by the prospect of offending christians, as I am myself. Free speech is what is really sacrosanct, and thankfully, that's now the intuition of the majority, which is why the risible blasphemy action won't get anywhere (I presume). Blasphemy, by the way, is a meaningless thing to accuse an atheist of committing, since an atheist doesn't actually believe in what he's supposed to be blaspheming against.

Historically - and, hell, presently - most or all of the major religious organisations have been repressive. I see things like Springer as a kind of backlash; it's like the children of an abusive father throwing eggs and mooning at his cell when they know he's safely behind bars. Power to them.

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 19:24, 10th Jan 2005:
Free speech is what is really sacrosanct, and thankfully, that's now the intuition of the majority, which is why the risible blasphemy action won't get anywhere (I presume).


I wouldn't say that free speech is sacrosanct now: anyone using racist or homophobic language would probably not be allowed to broadcast it.

[hr]
I got my BBC

[exnihilo]

That you should be 'delighted' at the prospect of offending anyone is lamentable - that's really all I have to say on this.

[Rob Hearn]

Good point Jak, although I'd contend, incidentally, that the church uses homophobic language untrammelled when it claims that sex between two men is sinful.

Well exnihilo, you're entitled to regard my delight at the thought of offending religious people as lamentable. It is naughty, but that's the way I'm made.

[JAK]

Are you saying you enjoy deliberately offending Christians on this board?

[hr]I got my BBC

[Rob Hearn]

Well, have I offended any religious people, aside from by saying that the thought of christians being offended gives me pleasure? If so, in which particular? I don't necessarily enjoy offending people myself, but I'm happy to see others do it.