Jerry Springer and the godmob

[Munkey]

How is it PC gone mad? *confused*

The fact that we no longer have as much freedom of speech because of PC. e.g. "You can't say that! its not PC! quick, cut it out of the programme"

 

[Whipped]

I watched this on a whim last night and thought the first half was funny as fuck. I nearly pissed myself when the KKK started tap dancing!!!

I didn't find the second half as funny, but I didn't see anything that portrayed Christanity in a bad light. In fact by the end I'd say it was trying to pass along it's main message. "Be good to yourself and each other"

There was certainly no sign of sexual deviancey, unless you call the Jesus character admitting he was a little gay to be deviant.

Anyway, they put a disclaimer in before Act II so anyone that may have been affended and hadn't heard of the show had ample oppertunatity to turn it off right there.

 

[rynnor]

The deal with the lisence fee is the fact that the bbc said they would cancel it off the air if they got 500 complaints. They got ten times that amount and are still broadcasting it.

50,000 is less than 1% of the population - its actually a good thing for the godmob that this program didnt get cancelled due to a few complaints - If I found 500 atheists we could ban Songs of praise and all the other religious programming under this formula!

In a country of 60 million you cant be dictated to by a tiny minority else nothing would be on tv.

Down with censorship!

 

[Sharma]

Funny how the god fearing christians who abide by the ten commandments thought they were in the right by sending the BBC exec death threats.

Pure irony and hypocrisy to be quite frank.


I also found the fact that they hadn't even seen it and said "no but I heard..." and so forth, proves how much chinese whispers can affect people, all of them working on hearsay doesn't make for a good enough case for banning a show if you ask me.

 

[Turamber]

Death threats? Methinks somebody is being a little creative, or atheists are trying to get us a bad name

 

[Sharma]

Well, it's funny how they came pretty soon afer BBC execs private home information was posted on the christian voice website.

Most of the execs are now in hiding at a private address due to people leaving messages on their phone saying "air this and you will die".

 

[Turamber]

Thing is, no genuine Christian would say anything like that. Being a Christian is about who you are and what you do and acting like that is far from Christlike.

Can't see anything on the BBC news site about this, where is your information coming from?

 

[rynnor]

Thing is, no genuine Christian would say anything like that. Being a Christian is about who you are and what you do and acting like that is far from Christlike.

Can't see anything on the BBC news site about this, where is your information coming from?

There is a story on the bbc news frontpage that mentions threats to execs and that the information has been passed onto the police - its unlikely that they would tell the police that people had phoned em up saying they were going to burn their licenses eh...

Its a funny thing - I've lived in a 'christian' country all my life but I've never met a genuine christian... odd that.

 

[Turamber]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4159217.stm

No reference to death threats or the like here, or anywhere else I can see on the BBC news site.

 

[Sharma]

I guess the articles all over the newspaper front pages were make believe then, I must have dreamed it at work today.

 

[Chilly]

have none of you seen monkey dust? how ever offensive this jerry spinger bollocks is i doubt its a patch on the new series of moneky dust - where they changed the name of God to Dave, cos it was more friendly sounding.

 

[rynnor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4159217.stm

No reference to death threats or the like here, or anywhere else I can see on the BBC news site.

They seem to have dropped references to them in the latest article -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4154071.stm refers to the police being called in but refutes claims that execs are in hiding.

 

[Sharma]

have none of you seen monkey dust? how ever offensive this jerry spinger bollocks is i doubt its a patch on the new series of moneky dust - where they changed the name of God to Dave, cos it was more friendly sounding.

Monkey Dust made me roll on the floor laughing when I first saw it, first thing that came on was the "cottaging" bloke, oh dear.

 

[OblongChicken]

How is it PC gone mad? *confused*

As I said in my post above I quite agree that the programme should be shown, but the people who dislike the programme - after all it's contents have been in many newspapers and internet articles - have the right to complain about it being shown. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

I think you're missing a subtle distinction here. The Christian groups complaining about it aren't simply saying "it's a bit crap, and you shouldn't really take the piss out of Jesus", they're saying that it shouldn't be broadcast. This isn't about their freedom of speech, this is about whether they're justified in trying to do this. No one's saying they can't criticise it as much as they like.

If this programme had portrayed Hindu god's, or Allah or any of the other gods of religious minorities as sexual deviants, the PC brigade would have been up in arms. But it's acceptable, for some reason, to deride Christianity. Partly this is because the religion itself is founded on principles of non-confrontation, but also because people have some strange idea that Christians are a majority religion.

I'm not sure how well other people have articulated a response to this, but the fact is that in this society Christianity is different to other religions in how they're perceived. This is just a cultural thing; Christianity is woven into the fabric of the dominant culture, even if it isn't that influential anymore. What's more, it's the dominant culture 'blaspheming' against the dominant religion. You can be sure that this would be entirely different if it was a Sikh or Muslim who wrote the play. It's okay for fags to refer to themselves 'fags', as South Park pointed out. If a Christian wanted to write a play about how stupid atheists are, and how we're all going to burn in hell come the reckoning, i wouldn't try and stop them. I'd probably express my disgust, mind, though i doubt i'd even bother going to all the effort of letting the BBC know.
Personally, i think 'blasphemy' is a dark ages concept and i'm astonished that people would take it seriously, and that goes for blasphemy against all religions. I was all for the play that offended the Sikhs going ahead. But, in the name of societal harmony, you'd have to be a tad bloody minded and disingenuous to say that taking the piss out of a sensitive social minority's religion is a-okay. I agree to it in principle, but probably not in practice.

But in our increasingly secular society Christians are a minority religion too. Equal treatment with other religions is not too much to ask for, and I can understand why people are venting about this.

But it's entirely not the same. Minority religions are fairly analogous to each other, but Christianity is most certainly NOT. It's white British culture taking the piss out of nominally white British religion. Christians may not be very happy about it, but it's dishonest to say it's the same as taking the piss out of other religions.

Another factor which enters the equation for the complainers is that they have paid for this programme with their licence money. When people have, in any small percentage, contributed to the cost of something being made they feel they have a right to have their say.

As someone else made a similar remark, i hate Eastenders but i'm not going to try to stop them from broadcasting it (and yes, it does offend my tastes and sensibilities). If someone asks me, i'll say it's utter product of diseased cock, and, under the right conditions, i might even write into the BBC and tell them that. But i'd never (seriously) demand that they stop airing it. The point is, you're confusing criticising something with trying to get it banned. And i disagree most vociferously with the camp that tried to stop the BBC from airing it.

 

[maxi]

christ, wij makes a point.

As politically correct as this sounds they know the christians aint going to grab ak's and go to the bbc headquarters. I *know* there arent many extremists in islam, but there are some that make the bbc programmers scared.

Yikes this is a scary-assed comment. Christian Fundamentalists have other and better ways of threatening and scaring the general public. These should be obvious to you.

 

[Brynn]

Coming on forums and saying you are all going to hell?

I would rather that than have an ak forced up my bum

 

[tris-]

instead of taking the BBC to court, shouldnt the christians be forgiving them for doing wrong? i thought thats what christians did oh well, money for the church i suppose...
i was listening to radio 1 yesterday and they were asking people what they thought. 70% of people didnt find it offencive (including the religious types). there were a lot of christians/catholics who said the whole thing was very funny. it was mainly the new age and born again hobo's that said it was offencive.

 

[`mongoose]

lo all

watched the first half and not much of the second half - not a big opera nut tbh.

Some of it was very funny and alot of it hit close to the bone but I think the bbc were right to show it.

Was gonna write one of those war and peace posts but tbh, its not worth it. Intolerance is the root of all evil imo. Whether it be intolerence of beliefs, race, orientation, language - whatever. I might not agree with alot of islamic beliefs (fuck knows I like a drink, and life without bacon would be hell!) but I'd vote for them to have the right to practice them, and I would hope that the same is true of most people in the UK atm.

M

 

[maxi]

Coming on forums and saying you are all going to hell?

I would rather that than have an ak forced up my bum

Um. No. Creating a culture of fear whereby the public is forced into thinking that The Fundamentalist Muslim Threat is far larger than it actually is. The Christian Nuts are the ones that planted the seed, and even Muslims in this country are feeding off it to fuel their hate. Your original comment is bullshit, and dangerous.

 

[Wij]

As someone else made a similar remark, i hate Eastenders but i'm not going to try to stop them from broadcasting it (and yes, it does offend my tastes and sensibilities). If someone asks me, i'll say it's utter product of diseased cock, and, under the right conditions, i might even write into the BBC and tell them that. But i'd never (seriously) demand that they stop airing it. The point is, you're confusing criticising something with trying to get it banned. And i disagree most vociferously with the camp that tried to stop the BBC from airing it.

Spot on imo

 

[Turamber]

Um. No. Creating a culture of fear whereby the public is forced into thinking that The Fundamentalist Muslim Threat is far larger than it actually is. The Christian Nuts are the ones that planted the seed, and even Muslims in this country are feeding off it to fuel their hate. Your original comment is bullshit, and dangerous.

What a load of bollocks. It's politicians that plant and water that seed, for their own reasons.

 

[Brynn]

Um. No. Creating a culture of fear whereby the public is forced into thinking that The Fundamentalist Muslim Threat is far larger than it actually is. The Christian Nuts are the ones that planted the seed, and even Muslims in this country are feeding off it to fuel their hate. Your original comment is bullshit, and dangerous.

It was bloody bush that planted that seed and is watering it with the blood of young kids. (heh you like that? i was feeling quite creative)

Bush only claims to be a christian just to get a crapton of votes

 

[maxi]

It was bloody bush that planted that seed and is watering it with the blood of young kids. (heh you like that? i was feeling quite creative)

Bush only claims to be a christian just to get a crapton of votes

Sorry i don't think it's that simple. I have thought about this before, and came to the conclusion he IS a Christian Fundamentalist Nut and he will also justify anything he does in this way. I had a good read of some sites and books about a year ago, and my HDD has died since then but I'll do some more looking over the next few days and post the links.

I'm not slagging Christians here, although my view on Religion is veering toward the negative, at the moment Idon't know nearly enough about it to dismiss religion totally.

 

[maxi]

Only got a couple of links, but you can look deeper into it if you so wish

first theres this:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12112_1.html

then theres this scary shit:

http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html?pg=1

Then there's his actions whilst in office, his attempts to plaster Science books with "evolution is just a theory" type shizzle.

There are quite a few exampels of him trying to merge state with church as much as possible.

He may use religion to exploit the some of the more right wing christians in the US, but you just have to look at Clinton to see it isn't the best way to get votes, his two landslide victories didn't arise from a belief that he is acting upon the word of God. Bush could of gotten MORE votes if he wasn't a Fanatic. Perhaps.

 

[Stazbumpa]

What a load of bollocks. It's politicians that plant and water that seed, for their own reasons.

I was under the impression that suicide bombers and gunmen have created the public view of what all muslims must be like. I don't remember any politician telling me that they're all blood thirsty murderers who kill for their god.

My point is that joe public thinks what he thinks about muslims because of the media reporting what some of these people are capable of. That isnt the media's fault though, they're just doing their job.
Don't think the western press is government controlled either tbh.

 

[maxi]

Rubbish. A poll reported most of America thought Saddam was directly involved with 9/11. The US Govt/Fox news/MSNBC/msot of the big 'news' network(very strong Right wing connections) did very little to tidy this up. And thats just the tip of the iceberg. Te way the general public percieves Muslims/Christians/Iraq is no accident.

 

[maxi]

bah what i mean to say is that it isn't as simple as the govt being in control. in the UK we're quite lucky to have reasonably impartial news networks. Although the way the Iraq war was reported in other countries in Europe is very different to the way we saw it here(where wwere the pictures of the dead iraqi civilians?* whos keeping count?*). The US isn't so lucky, and liek i say it's not so much as control of the press, more so that the big news networks have thheir own agenda beyond 'news' (money, power the usual) and these often match up with the agenda of political parties(specifically Republican). It's in FOXs interests to report the news as pro-bush as possibly(and you wouldn't believe how bad it can get)




*http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

*http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9446/early_online_publication

 

[Stazbumpa]

The US media is nowhere near as impartial as ours, that I can agree on. However, it must be said that the practices of religious groups as a whole count towards the way they are percieved, rather than the way that the media/government chooses to portray them.

Example: The Taliban take over Afghanistan and ban TV, radio, etc, force all women to wear those ridiculous burqha's (sp?) and then carry out public executions for stuff like "alleged" adultery (video of woman shot in head with AK in a footy stadium).

This the extreme of Islam, we all know this, but thats not the point. It's unpalatable actions carried out in the name of Islam, whether Islam wants it to be or not. Therefore, you have a certain perception of what an Islamic regime is like.
The only way for this perception to not occur is for it NOT to be reported by the media.

Christian regimes have commited atrocities throughout history, but then we had something called the Reformation and Henry VIII who helped to separate church from state. My point is that nearly all Islamic regimes are effectively in the dark ages with regard to modus operandi and outlook.
This cannot be good.

As for the links, the last one didnt work, and the first one doesn't bother me because I couldn't care less to be quite frank. The Iraqi's deserve a chance for democracy and freedom just like anyone else on this planet, but in order to do this people must die. Thats just the way it is, we had to endure the same thing, its just ours happened several hundred years ago.

 

[maxi]

As for the links, the last one didnt work, and the first one doesn't bother me because I couldn't care less to be quite frank. The Iraqi's deserve a chance for democracy and freedom just like anyone else on this planet, but in order to do this people must die. Thats just the way it is, we had to endure the same thing, its just ours happened several hundred years ago.

You couldn't care less but you think they 'deserve' democracy? That's crazy, and a little confusing. And i'm so bored of explaining the rest. (the idea of imposed democracy being a contradiction in terms, the current stae of iraq with many people unable to vote etc, the brewing civil war as a result of the 'liberation' and the rumoured 100,000 innocent iraqi deaths because some think they deserved it...deserved the democracy they got....the fact that the US will scoot as soon as they can after this bullshit election, stand up the next Saddam Hussein and as long as you're nice to us then we'll sell you arms but get out before we decide you need liberating again)

and see: Afhganistan what a great state the US left that country in eh.

*edit* and hahaha i forgot to mention the original premise of the war.... To find george bushs fountain pen. probably left it in iran.

 

[Stazbumpa]

How many died in the English Civil War?

Result = start of democracy.

Also lead to separation of church and state, which can only be a good thing. And what are the Iraqi rebels fighting for? Not freedom is it. Maybe my statement that I couldnt give a shit was a bit harsh, probably would've been better to say I'm sick to death of people using the numbers of dead Iraqi's as a reason for us not to be there.

If we hadn't of gone in, then Saddam would still have been killing people; because we went in, religious wankers are killing Iraqi's (and some of us).

Option 2 means that we can try to solve the killing situation by making Iraq a democracy and rubbing out the aforementioned religious wankers.
Democracy = more stability, therefore:

Option 1 = death with no end in sight
Option 2 = death, but a chance of a better country.

Unless, of course, your saying that these people don't deserve freedom and should be kept in check by a mad dictator who can kill who he likes with impunity, in which case I say we should ignore all mad dictators around the world and let them get on with it.

Not happening to us, is it?