Christian Voice Rides Again (more Christian Bashing)

[Marco Biagi]

They did this to the board of the Crawford Arts Centre as well. With evangelists like that, who needs atheists?

From the Scotsman:

[snipped]

BBC executives had to be given special security protection after a string of phone threats to their homes. Christian Voice, an evangelical website, published executives’ telephone numbers and addresses.

Among those thought to have been guarded are Roly Keating, the controller of BBC2, Jana Bennett, the director of television, Alan Yentob, BBC1’s creative director and Lorraine Heggessey, the BBC1 controller. The details were removed from the website on Friday after intervention by BBC lawyers.

Christian Voice yesterday said it may sue the BBC for blasphemy.

[Rob Hearn]

You can sue for blasphemy? I wonder if my little sister could have sued me when I told her Santa doesn't exist.

[Haunted]

Any reason why?

[Rob Hearn]

Yes

[Haunted]

That was to the orignal post

[Rob Hearn]

Oh, sorry

[Haunted]

Quite alright

[Midget]

Yeah, Marco, what exactly are the Christians so pissed of about?

[KayBee]

[s]Midget wrote on 11:55, 10th Jan 2005:
Yeah, Marco, what exactly are the Christians so pissed of about?


I understand they are protesting about the screening of Jerry Springer The Opera.

I guess the portrayal of Jesus as a homosexual nappy-wearer and Mary as a teenage mother "raped" by God offended them - can't imagine why.....

Surely if you are likely to be offended by something you choose not to watch it. That's why God gave us free will.


JMHO

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I imagine that most of them haven't watched it (considering 40,000 complaints were received before it was even aired) but they're frothing at the mouth of the very idea.

[Smith]

The free will also gives them the power to protest about it.

[Midget]

In a constructive and civilised way, not by being imbeciles.

w.w.j.d????????????????????

[KayBee]

[s]Smith wrote on 12:20, 10th Jan 2005:
The free will also gives them the power to protest about it.


Absolutely. I don't dispute their right to protest at all, however to compromise the personal safety of BBC exectutives or the board of the Crawford Arts Centre is not a responsible way to behave.

Similarly animal right's activists have the right to protest agains animal experimentation but letter bombs to the homes of scientists is not acceptable either.

[hr]
"I never travel without my diary. One should have always have someting sensational to read on the train."

OSCAR WILDE

[Mr Comedy]

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.

The arguments given by the BBC were a little bit flimsy.

"We want to get more people into opera"
Then show a proper opera, not this. If you want to engage people with the arts, then show something that is actually recognised as being a masterpiece instead of a headline grabber.

"Not all people are offended by it"
Yes, but quite a lot of people are. In fact, more than have ever been offended by any other form of television. So it stands to reason that there is a precedent not to show it.

I can see why people protest at it, and I understand why a lot of people are upset. However, violence and threats are no means to accomplish things, and flies in the face of what the Bible teaches. If one wants to protest, then do so. But violence is never the way to accomplish it.

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 09:30, 10th Jan 2005:
You can sue for blasphemy? I wonder if my little sister could have sued me when I told her Santa doesn't exist.


Out of interest, why's that blasphemous?

[hr]
I got my BBC

[LonelyPilgrim]

It wouldn't be. The only Christian group that *might* take issue with a denial of Santa Claus is the Catholic Church, and that's really stretching the limits of plausibility, since they would have to consider the refutation of Santa Clause to be a refutation of St. Nicholas... the saint. Not the jolly fat man in a red suit.

In fact, some of the wacky fundamentalist and pentacostal churches consider belief in Santa Claus a folly, or at worst a sin, so they would be quite happy that he is being denied...

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

[Blondie515]

To be honest i only caught the end of it on TV but rite before it got particularly blasphemous they put a disclaimer warning that the views about to be expressed could be found upsetting to some viewers etc. if your a catholic who gets offended u can just turn it off!!! im catholic but it really doesnt bother me everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it. What diff does it make? its not fair to victimise the BBC folk for it particularly as it involves their families

[niall]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 14:04, 10th Jan 2005:
"Not all people are offended by it"
Yes, but quite a lot of people are. In fact, more than have ever been offended by any other form of television. So it stands to reason that there is a precedent not to show it.




it does seem that christianity is the religion to bash.. if it had used muslim (or budhist,etc) gods, etc it would've been a public outcry and wouldn't have been aired

[flarewearer]

dare i start an Islam bashing thread? Fairs fair, if I bash christianity I should really bash Islam, and perhaps Buddhism at the same time.

[hr]..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Niall - that really says more about the lie of multiculturism than the actual problems of freedom of speech.

I can't wait until I can casually insult muslims, jews, hindus, sikhs etc. etc. without being thought of a racist.