|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
In your world, I and people like me would be executed for expressing illegal beliefs.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I can't imagine why you would be executed, or anyone else for that matter. Who are 'people like you'? And how is it possible for a belief to be illegal?
How to be executed in the 21st century for blasphemy
R
[ 09. January 2005, 17:27: Message edited by: Rex Monday ]
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
First of all, what Rex said, it's pretty much exactly what you're proposing (although maybe you'd just want people who do indulge in freedom of expression merely jailed, rather than executed, I don't know).
Second, though, there really isn't any degree between total freedom and total control. Anything that is not total freedom IS total control. Freedom means I can express any belief I so choose. If you remove even so much as one option from that selection, there is no freedom. Freedom really is all or nothing.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Callan
You wrote: quote:
Apropos of Dickens, in his novel Little Dorrit, we are introduced to the character of Mrs Clenham. Mrs Clenham is an austere and fanatical Calvinist whose proud rectitude is purchased at the expense of any kind of love for her neighbour. Dickens gives us a glimpse into the psyche of a deeply flawed woman whose view of the divine as a malevolent tyrant is some kind of character flaw. This is the sort of thing that Orthodox postulants are supposed to read.
Do you really suppose we read Dickens in order to look for character flaws? How cheap.
Anyone interested in discovering the real reason behind the Orthodox admiration for Dickens can look here.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
RM, I'm aware of the naughtiness in Nigeria and the Sudan as well. Erin did say 'in your world' and those countries are not my world.
It may have been hinted, of course, that I would like to have a world similar to Nigeria where apparently it is possible to think illegally.
Come to think of it, now you have nudged my poor memory, there was a country where there was some silly talk of making beliefs illegal. A bit embarrassing to think back on it now, I suppose, so better not mention it. No-one was executed, though.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Freedom really is all or nothing.
Sorry to double-post.
Well, there may be something in that, I grant you. But I don't see how everyone can have total freedom without clashing with others'.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I can only surmise from your posts on this thread that the "clash of freedoms" you are alluding to are the freedom of expression and the freedom not to be offended. Otherwise, there are no competing tensions. Is this what you mean?
Also, nice try with the House UnAmerican Activities thing, but I think it was a particularly disgusting period in US history and I am thankful that it's no longer around. If it were, or if I'd been older than four years old when it was ended, I'd have been protesting it with every fiber of my being.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Re the clash of freedoms stuff, yes that is what I mean for the sake of argument. In the evnt of a clash, who has the greater right, the offendor or the offendee?
You would have loved the eighties over here. We had a super episode when spokespeople for the Republican Movement in Northern Ireland were prohibited from having their voices heard on television, although it was permissable to broadcast the vision. This resulted in the hilarious spectacle of interviews with said representatives being dubbed with the voices of actors. The lip-synching wasn't bad and the accents fairly accurate.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
In the evnt of a clash, who has the greater right, the offendor or the offendee?
The offendee is free to feel offended. Being offended is something one chooses to do. Your choice. Therefore your responsibility.
Where this business of people's "right" to be protected from every unpleasant thing in life comes from, I cannot imagine. Blows my mind. I knew Earth Shoes and peasant skirts were just the thin edge of the wedge.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dwynwen
Shipmate
# 3900
|
Posted
I am very surprised at how many people posting on this thread have conjured up reasons, incomprehensible to my mind, to justify this Opera.
I am mystified that such profanity and decadant behaviour can be considered as creative art form. I call it extremely bad taste but you are free to think otherwise.
No, I did not watch it. I didn't need to, I refuse to subject myself to such banality. I chose instead to go to bed with a good book - The Bible. I am reading the Apocrypha at present and, guess what, the first words I set eyes on were "My people are beyond correction". 2 Es 1:8. The Lord's messenger speaking to Ezra in his first vision and later giving him hope in the glory to come, namely the good Shepherd and Saviour. He came and is still with us. Why do we treat Him with contempt. No, I don't suppose He minds but that is no excuse.
The Chapter goes on - emptiness for the empty, fullness for the full, estrangement for the estranged, torment for those who hate God-fearing men etc. Salutory words indeed.
As for freedom, we should value what is valuable and protect what is precious -"If we had a few precious stones; would you add to their number by putting common lead and clay among them?" 2Es7:52.
Many use precious freedom to trample on the rest of us who are faithful Christians calling it freedom of expression. That is their prerogative and it serves to strengthen us in our commitment to Christ. We will not complain.
Peace to all.
Dwynwen
Posts: 149 | From: Manchester | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
I watched it - thought I probably couldn't really have an opinion on something I didn't know about!
******************************************************
This is my initial impression
-all entirely IMHO, and probably totally different to your own impressions!
******************************************************
I was quite pleased to see a friend from college in one of the leads (Dwight in 'show' scene, god in 'dream/hell' scene) - which was nice to see his career going along nicely. He's young too, for a singer getting solo work (only 24 or something, I think)
_______________________________________________________
I thought the music had some very good moments, and that the performances were excellent - slick, sharp & musical - didn't feel that there was a weak-link in the cast/chorus. The orchestra were a tight band, which produced some excellent playing (xylophone solo passage during one of the tap-danceing scenes, possibly the KKK one) and there was some imaginative & snappy writing - alongside good use of parodical or derivative material. It's a catchy, bold, brightly coloured score - far better than the usual west-end musicals' fare.
___________________________________________________
I thought the first half was an amusingly observed musicalisation of the "Jerry Springer Show". Yes, there was a high swear-word-count, but from the couple of JS-shows I've seen, there's more bleep than conversation anyway! I tend to find that the impact of that just washes over me afer a while - it gets to be just repeated sounds, like scat-singing.
It showed the way that JS exploits people as they open their hearts on TV, telling those close to them intimate secrets, feelings, leanings or actions at the same time as broadcasting them to the nation as a whole. It showed how people's reaction to these revelations,to the revealer and to the person-being-revealed-to becomes entertainment to the crowd, despite maybe being deeply felt reactions. The crowd are not just titilated; they sit in judgement - a mob-mentality-ridden condemnatory mass boo-ing, chanting "loser" or gesticulating at the protagonists, or at one in particular who has emerged as the day's 'bad-guy'.
Springer is portrayed as riding on this adulation - feeding it, feeding on it, and honing it.
Several characters enter with a dolce bel-canto type motif (cropping up in the orchestra at other times too) with the words;
quote:
this is my Je-rry Spring-er mo-ment
These characters later on (at the beginning of the dream/hell setting of Act II) tell Jerry that their lives are summed up in the phrase;
quote:
eat, excrete, and watch TV
The length, breadth & height of their ambition is to be on TV - and Jerry Springer is a hit show, so they'd get maximum exposure. The way they look forward to being on it is sad, pathetic and even tragic in a small, intimate way. They think it'll improve their life - the show is presented in that way in their eyes - but actually both host & audience stir the situation
quote:
but we've been following you with the JerryCam...
or
quote:
but you've got ANOTHER thing to tell...
Questions designed both to bait the show's 'guests' and to whip up the audience's anticipation and bile.
The JS character never fully engages with the others - alone of all the cast (apart from a security guard who's only got a couple of words, and appears to join in with the chorus at times) does not sing. He's not involved in their lives - he just reads his cards and considers his career.
His fans don't notice this - they think he's intimately interested in them - as some of his team do. JS's warm-up-man, who features as the devil in Act II, sings a mini-aria about how Jerry has redeemed him - given him purpose, direction, a job, self-respect... It is he, when Jerry fires him with no thought or concern at all,who causes JS to be shot at the end of Act I.
____________________________________________________
It is the shooting that provides the context for Act II - the more controversial section of the work, especially among the Christian community.
Springer has passed out, and is having some sort of hallucinatory Near-(or Pre)-death-experience. He finds himself in a hell populated by those who were on his show - warm-up-man becomes satan (the guy in the role plays it excellently actually).
He asks each o them how they fared after the show - making small talk rather than being interested. All had become depressed, been dumped, been beaten, or even been killed in the direct aftermath of their show appearence.
The man who wanted to be a baby, and whose deviant fantasy is;
quote:
to go poopy in my pants
emerges as the first guest (after satan, that is) - introduced as Jesus of Nazareth. Springer is forced to run a show in hell, with the theme that the devil wants Jesus/God to apologise to him for kicking him out of Heaven, and to re-instate him.
It could (and probably will) be argued that portraying Jesus like this is a comment on a commercialist society's grasping of Christmas, but rejecting the rest of the Gospel, leaving Jesus the Man out and wanting only Jesus the baby. The portrayal of Christ as;
quote:
a bit gay
is a bit pointless really - it contributes nothing (IMHO, remember) to the play's arguement (if there is one and I'm not utterly bonkers, which is possible, maybe probable ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
It is also obviously offensive, although it's so ridiculous that I, personally, found it rather impossible to think of the buffoon bubbling in a diaper as portraying / standing for the Sovereign Lord I know as Jesus!
JS protests at the cards he's been given;
quote:
I can't read this, who wrote this s***?
but he's 'persuaded' by the threat that he will be;
quote:
****** up the ass with barbed wire
if he doesn't.
The next guest called in is Mary;
quote:
Jesus's teenage mom
This, to me, is the single most offensive incident in the whole show. Mary is played by a cold, over-religious puritanical character from the show, whose daughter wanted to be a stripper, and who tells her daughter she wishes she was dead, implying the daughter is the product of rape. Her first 4 words upon her entry are;
quote:
Raped by an angel, raped by God
which I found totally blasphemous, and can find few adjectives strong enough to describe the revulsion that caused a wave of orge to rise in my throat at that. She makes little contribution to the arguement (although maybe I was just too shocked to notice), and 'god' is called in next
(played by Ben, who's a lovely bloke and a very good singer by the way )
"God's" aria is on the theme that;
quote:
it's not easy, being me
and he's portrayed as a self-pitying, petty little man. Maybe this is meant to reflect JS's own self-image - he's all-powerful, but it's not always easy, and playing God is too much for one little human.
Like the portrayal of Jesus in this hallucination sequence, it's such a ridiculously small little portrait that I can't begin to equate it with the great "I Am", God of Israel, Creator of the Universe.
it's offensive as an image, but in context it's just a clumsily wielded illustration of a point - I reckon that different pictures could be found to make the same point in a better way!
JS's dream ends and he finds himself back on the show - but not allowed to shuffle off of the mortal coil until he's done
quote:
the final thought
segment - the audience still hang on his every word - but they want their own interest fed rather than to look after Springer's own life - they prefer instant satisfaction to a long-term continuation of their show.
____________________________________________________
****************************************************
relativistic morality
instant gratification
normalising of deviancy
exploitation of people
judgement of others
preying on ill-considered ambition
deification of television
cheapening of sex & fidelity
celebration of celebrities as icons
mob mentality
immunising society to previous taboos (language)
...are all raised in Jerry Springer the Opera.
__________________________________________________
It wasn't as offensive as I was expecting, viewed in context, I'm still not sure that the BBC was wise to broadcast it - especially as its charter is up for renewal this year, and it probably doesn't want to cultivate 40000-odd enemies.
I also think that "The Voice" magazine's reaction was irresponsible & naive (posting of individuals' details on website), and deeply flawed. Their demonstration probably encouraged more people to watch the programme than otherwise would have.
I heard Joel ????? [name?] from Evangelical Alliance on Radio 4 this morning, giving a balanced view - pointing out that the BBC's concessions to viewers (putting up warnings about religious potentially offensive material as well as their standard swearing warnings) had been discussed, and that there would be a discussion / debate on it & issues raised. He accepted that there were offensive things in it - he made no concession to them - but he was reluctant to call for censorship in a free society.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Come to think of it, now you have nudged my poor memory, there was a country where there was some silly talk of making beliefs illegal. A bit embarrassing to think back on it now, I suppose, so better not mention it. No-one was executed, though.
Maybe it is the lessons we learned from ventures such as the HUAC that makes Americans really paranoid about censorship. At some point it becomes less about what you might think you are protecting, and more about what you might be turning yourself into.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miffy
Ship's elephant
# 1438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
Going back to one of Adeodatus' posts re the empty theatre seats; our daughter saw the production last Summer - not through choice strictly speaking - they were on a standby ticket and Jerry was the only show offered to them. I'm sure she mentioned it wasn't that well supported. I'd check with her if it wasn't that she's on hols atm and out of phone contact. I'd be interested to know what she thought of it.
I'm disinclined to watch the programme myself. However, as always with so called 'forbidden fruit' I suspect our 14 year old son and cronies will want to tune in. So I may just join him in order to add the voice of sanity to the proceedings. (And who knows; he'll likely then decide he doesn't want to watch after all!)
Whichever way, looks as if the media will win out. (Memories of numerous 'banned' items...'Je T'aime,' 'My ding a ling,' etc).
Sigh. Son was out. When he got back in, he peeped into where I was watching it with Mr M, asked what it was, and went back out again.
As for me; I tried, really I tried. To be positive and broadminded about the show. And failed utterly. Yes, I had a few weak laughs, but in the main my main reaction wasn't shock, but sadness. I may be sliding down the slippery path to liberalism, but IMHO, there are lines you shouldn't cross, and they crossed them.
And no, I'm not going to justify my opinions. After all, freedom of speech and all that...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"I don't feel like smiling." "You're English dear; fake it!" (Colin Firth "Easy Virtue")
Growing Greenpatches
Posts: 4739 | From: The Kitchen | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe it is the lessons we learned from ventures such as the HUAC that makes Americans really paranoid about censorship. At some point it becomes less about what you might think you are protecting, and more about what you might be turning yourself into.
Absolutely spot-on, KA. Couldn't agree with you more. At the risk of being tedious by repeating a link from a recent post of mine on this thread, I offered this for comment in exactly the context of what you just said.
I do appreciate there is a difference across the Atlantic in the way we respectively view freedom of expression and censorship.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
The offendee is free to feel offended. Being offended is something one chooses to do. Your choice. Therefore your responsibility.
Where this business of people's "right" to be protected from every unpleasant thing in life comes from, I cannot imagine. Blows my mind. I knew Earth Shoes and peasant skirts were just the thin edge of the wedge.
Exactly, but lay off my Earth Shoes, kay?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Watched the show and enjoyed it mostly. Yes the entrance scene by the Mary character was blasphemous, no argument. Still can't support a censorious approach though.
BTW I may have misunderstood F. G. on this, Am I right it's the showing by the BBC that bothers you?. If so I think I agree, I think.
Erin is talking rubbish again, assuming that a limit on freedom is equal to the elimination of freedom.For example You are free to drive on the road subject to certain limits, this dose not limit your freedom, in fact it ensures your freedom to drive safely.
10 pages of this, ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) haven't we better things to do? Well you anyway, I haven't obviously
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Sure - Kids swear all the time. As for not being shocked by language - well if I say to students "Please don't say "fuck" in my class". That usually guarantees a shocked look. A responsible adult swearing shows swearing for what it is.
As for Jerry Springer:The Opera- I only saw the first few minutes - so I couldn't really comment on its value. It did not catch my interest. From what little I did see the swearing was gratuitous, the music nothing special, and the work symptomatic of the age. The descriptions I've read of Act 2 makes it seem like some Book of Job parody - nothing new there.
Regarding the real Jerry Springer now I have discussed that in class with students - but that's a different matter altogether.
I guess I must sound like a real prude.I just didn' any merit in it!
I didn't ask that the show be censored (I am never in favour of censorship). I did question its artistic worth and whether it was what public broadcasters should be spending our money on. It's true you could say that about a lot of things. The show was not in my taste and I didn't really watch it.
It does suprise me is so many Christians here seem to have enjoyed it!
Oh well ... one man's meat..., as they say
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Erin is talking rubbish again, assuming that a limit on freedom is equal to the elimination of freedom.
We are talking about freedom of expression here, not traffic regulations. Let's keep things simple and focused.
If you can limit someone else's speech on the grounds that it offends you, then someone else can limit your speech on the grounds that it offends them. Either expression is free, or it is not. It can't be free for some people and not for others.
Public broadcast must be open to all religious speech or to no religious speech. If it is open to some religious speech, but not others, then the state is engaging in censorship and discrimination.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Scott -
The Secular Soceity argues that there should be no religious broadcasting on TV.
It also argues that Jerry Springer: the Opera with its anti-religious messages should be broadcast.
They are saying something different from you (ISTM). They are saying that religion is not OK, but freedom of speech demands that anti-religion is fine.
Does nobody else here see the hypocrisy in that basic position?
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Offensive speech about religious (or anti-religious speech) in still religious speech. I am as opposed to the position you describe as I am to one that allows Christmas productions but not Jerry Springer.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
So far as the swearing goes, as referred to by Leo in his post of the last page; I, too, live and will always live in the real world, dealing with real people, some of whom, including myself, will swear - a number even to the extent of the show's participants.
It's one thing to accept it as a fact of life - it's another to like it because it's a fact of life. My own problem with them swearing was not that it offended me - it didn't - not that I thought it was particularly gratuitous, but because I don't like that level of obscenity. So, for me, it could easily have prevented me from appreciating some of the better points of the drama. (Strangely enough in a way that encountering the same thing in real life wouldn't do.) It certainly is not a case of 'oh, dearie me, what terrible words! Gosh, oh gee, in my pink powdered little haven of life's bliss I've never come across people saying cunt and fuck before!'
I also felt that swearing to the extent that was used by the show was counter-productive, because part of the audience's reaction seemed to be 'oh, how wonderfully naughty! She said 'fuckity-fuckity-fuck fuck out loud in front of people! We'd better show we get the joke and have a giggle!' But I'm prepared to accept that the use of the language is in itself, debateably, a valid commentary on both the Springer 'culture' and our reactions to it.
I think, Leo, you were generous in your assessment of the show. At times I certainly thought it would work through to the great moral climaxes and conlusions that you indicate you deduced. But I think that few people would be willing to work as hard as all that to find those kinds of serious revelations. Even if the writers had intended it. Good grief, not many people watch Shakespeare or Chekov, with the determination or expectation of receiving the kind of theological and philosophical reflection and refreshment you suggest you got from 'Jerry'!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Scot;
quote:
then the state is engaging in censorship and discrimination.
Yes it is, the state acts on our behalf and limits things. Some things are criminal, some things are dangerous, some things are wasteful. All things are not equal, discrimination is not just the better part of valour, it's necessary to function as a person or society.
Defining the limits, without limiting the definitions is the problem.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
We'll see if you stick to that position when it's your speech that is criminalized or suppressed.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's an even better shot at describing a polity consisting of Kings, Lords and Commons which was common in the period in which Aquinas wrote. It is wildly anachronistic to suggest that this was anything like representative democracy as it is currently understood.
You are conveniently ignoring: 1) The emphasised sentences in my quotes - which quite clearly state that the whole people should able to elect and be elected. 2) The fact that he's basing his politics on Aristotle, who as ancient Greek actually meant democracy when he said democracy. 3) The fact that Aquinas was a member of the Order of Preachers, which enjoyed an egalitarian, rotating leadership with group consensus decisions. It seems fairly obvious to me that he was ahead of his time, although I agree that he didn't predict the entire structure of modern democracies. Which would be asking the impossible, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This misses the point about what the separation of church and state is. Under a government where the church and state are separate, the fact that a church condemns someones opinions as heretical does not affect their ability to get a job or an education or to avoid prison or death.
You are not really asking for a separation of church and state here, you are asking for a comprehensive restriction of the powers of the church. That's a related but somewhat different game. Separation in the first instance just means that we are talking about two truly separated entities. You can have a secular judiciary and executive and a religious judiciary and executive co-existing, and both ruling over the lifes of people. In medieval times you had that, but you also often had mixed entities: a king would also be a religious leader, or a bishop would rule in the secular sphere (e.g., the bishop of Cologne was at times a great warlord...).
Now, the modern idea that "separation" means that the Church has no power over people in any other respect than the "internal" one (i.e., they can excommunicate...) is indeed not to be found in medieval times. The difference upon which the separation of church and state was resting back then was their respective goals: salvation of souls versus management of worldy affairs. Consequently, if someone was harming the salvation of souls it was held to be entirely reasonable to impose penalties on him, to throw him into prison or even to kill him - depending on the offense. Just as the state would be dealing with offenses against the worldly order.
Today's situation is really the result of a power struggle between the state and the church, which the church lost comprehensively in the end. It's not so much a separation, it's an elimination of the church's former powers over people. I agree St Thomas did not predict that. However, he insisted on a separation of organisational entities according to the separate goals of church and state.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
So with all these filters encouraging excellence, and plenty of other limits on my behaviour both cultural and legal, where's this universal Ockhamist Liberty Hall in which we live?
"Excellence" is only encouraged these days where it "pays off". People still work hard for money, power, or fame - of course. But how many people are sparing no efforts to become prudent [sorry, bad word nowadays - read: wise], just, courageous, temperate, faithful, hopeful, and charitable? Are we judging the "quality" of people on these virtues, or are we judging them on how rich, entertaining and popular they are? Whom do we call a "good man/woman" these days? To be called a "pillar of society" has become almost an insult, it suggests a conservative busybody. Instead we have "heroes", preferably ones in sport or perhaps a firefighter or two. It must be special, so as to be interesting, ordinary goodness is boring. Switch on the TV and tell me that there is no "freedom of indifference" in our society.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
So, er, how's it been lost? Are you saying it's been lost to Christianity in particular?
Well, I would say Western societies are leading the way - and since they come from a Christian past, in some sense this is a failure of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I couldn't answer that earlier, as I hadn't seen it! But yes, it exhibited excellence in various departments - the music, the players, and in some ways the book. Groundbreaking - probably not.
Well, let's hope it was excellent enough to compensate for the lack of respect and courtesy to Christianity it (apparently) showed. On rare occasions it is clearly necessary to go against "goodness" in order to make a valuable (i.e., good) point. However, going against "goodness" should not be the point itself and just entertainment alone is not enough value. I cannot judge except through what I read, hence I cannot comment further.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
But now we have Mozart *and* Brittney! Who loses?
No, we don't have "Mozart" - we still have his historical music available today, but we do not (seem to) have a similar genius writing modern music now.
And just when I'm getting bogged down in details, here's a wonderful statement which shows just how much people have Ockham in their minds:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Second, though, there really isn't any degree between total freedom and total control. Anything that is not total freedom IS total control. Freedom means I can express any belief I so choose. If you remove even so much as one option from that selection, there is no freedom. Freedom really is all or nothing.
Or this gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine :
The offendee is free to feel offended. Being offended is something one chooses to do. Your choice. Therefore your responsibility.
I could not possibly match the precision of these statements. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Agreed.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Marinka,
Who?
Oops, sorry ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[...]But how many people are sparing no efforts to become prudent [sorry, bad word nowadays - read: wise], just, courageous, temperate, faithful, hopeful, and charitable? [...]
I'll raise my hand...but only because you left out "humble".
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I would like to see freedom of speech limited not to spare my or other offense, but to spare real harm done to society. For instance, incitement racial violence should not be illegal. But that's a tangent to the thread.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
mdijon - I agree completely with your last statement. However I doubt if any of our American friends will. This is one of those enormous cultural divides which no one seems able to cross. What seems civilised and obvious to us seems like a police state to them. (Please - I am NOT saying America is uncivilised, and would appreciate it if no one used the "Britain is a police state" line in return. I'm just trying to highlight a difference of perception that has com up many times before, and will doubtless come up many times again. It's my own personal nomination for "Topic worthy of Dead Horses".)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The difference upon which the separation of church and state was resting back then was their respective goals: salvation of souls versus management of worldy affairs. Consequently, if someone was harming the salvation of souls it was held to be entirely reasonable to impose penalties on him, to throw him into prison or even to kill him - depending on the offense. Just as the state would be dealing with offenses against the worldly order.
Thank God we don't have such a situation today.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Quote by Ken
A few people - and it is only a few - started whinging about it.
My immediate reaction?
"How dare they try to stop me seeing this play?"
Why would you, if you are a Christian want to see a show That insults and mocks our lord and Saviour
I didn't particularly. It had hardly ever crossed my mind. Though I have met some people who saw it and liked it.
But when people started telling us that we couldn't see it I had the perfectly normal human reaction of wanting to do the opposite of what I was being ordered to do.
I didn't watch it, mainly because I don't have decent TV reception. So I went to the pub instead and listened to some crap karaoke while reading the Economist. Of such thrills are metropolitan Saturday nights made.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
RM, I'm aware of the naughtiness in Nigeria and the Sudan as well. Erin did say 'in your world' and those countries are not my world.
They bloody well are in my world.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
Imagine if all the people protesting about Jerry Springer: The Opera protested about something really obscene, like child slavery, unfair trade laws, third world debt, imprisonment without trial, torture, <insert your favourite cause here>.
Not long ago a mostly Christian campaign about debt relief for poor countries got a million signatures on apetiution and something like 400,000 marching on a demo in London.
This week no-one mentioned the Jerry Springer opera in our church, but a large proportion of the mostly conservative evangelical, and mostly black, congregation signed two petitions - one responding to the Prime Minister's speech about poverty and corruption in Africa, the other as part of a campaign against the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
And most of the Christians in this country probably are far more concerned about such issues than about this anti-BBC campaign - which is pitched directly, whatever Cosmo says, and despite Fr. Gregory being suckered in to it, at the non-Christian fossil-Christianised remnants of social churchgoing deferential Toryism, GK Chesterton's fossil imprint of a place where Christianity once was.
The whole issue isn't that important. The opera - whatever its artistic merits, I still haven't seen it - is at least partly, if not largely, nothing but a few mildly lefty intellectuals from London trying to take the piss out of US TV in what they probably think of as an ironic manner.
And the real irony (as they are, I am sure, aware) is that the original Jerry Springer show was at least partly a few mildly lefty intellectual (originally from London) trying to take the piss out of US TV, or at any rate its audiences. But he got rich underestimating the taste of the American public.
Oh, and the equivalent of the Sikh protest would have been if irate TV executives had threatened to burn down the studio.
From what is described here it isn't an attack on Christianity, it is an attack on TV celebrity culturem using our society's fossilised half-memories of Christian symbols as part of the ammunition.
And that is exactly the sort of thing that should be on publicly funded TV. Self-satisfied universally popular shows will get shown on commercial TV anyway.
[ 10. January 2005, 11:14: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cartwheel
Apprentice
# 5149
|
Posted
Rex Monday
Thanks for your explanation - it made sense. It's not a perspective I'd heard before but I can now see where the writers were coming from.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Go on, Talitha, tell me it would make a difference.
It couldn't make less of a difference than the protests to the BBC did. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
OK, sorry, it was a bit of a tangent. I just thought that some people should work on their priorities, and divert their righteous indignation towards some of the things that are really wrong in the world. But that's probably another thread.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Talitha quote:
I just thought that some people should work on their priorities, and divert their righteous indignation towards some of the things that are really wrong in the world.
The logical end of this line of argument is that this world is the only reality and that the spiritual world (i.e. eternal life, the Kingdom of God) can and should be ignored - a view entirely logical for an atheist, but surely not a Christian? Should we not love God as well as our neighbour?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Old Hundredth
Shipmate
# 112
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
Unfortunately, the God slot is in the BBC's original remit, so unoriginal rubbish which shows Christianity in a poor light is half-heartedly broadcast in the form of "Songs of Praise" and other such programs. (Personally - they are the best advertisement against Christianity - well, that and the RE taught in most schools - speaking as an RE teacher!). If it was removed it would not be missed by me....................................
However, as a license fee payer I do not think this is appropriate use of the license fee money.If someone really wants to hear two hours of trite profanities in musical form they can take a trip down to the National and see it at there own expense! (I guess some people could say the same about Songs of Praise - if they really wanted to hear old fashioned hymn singing they could go to Church).
Tangent alert!
I can't resist taking up this point about SOP. I do go to Church (nearly every week), and I enjoy SOP precisely because I don't hear old fashioned hymn singing there, so I like to get my fix of traditional hymnody courtesy of Auntie Beeb.
I feel that it would be wrong to start doing the rounds of all the local churches in search of traditional organ-led hymn sandwiches, as I appreciate that the Church is something bigger than whether its music appeals to my aesthetic sensibilities (and of course knowing my luck, as soon as I joined a church, it would no doubt jump on the bandwagon of happy-clappy praise bands which I had tried to escape from).
So actually SOP fills a void for some people (and let's not forget the housebound community, many of whom are older and more traditional in their tastes anyway).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate....
--------------------
If I'm not in the Chapel, I'll be in the bar (Reno Sweeney, 'Anything Goes')
Posts: 976 | From: The land of the barm cake | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I remember the ancient grafito on a stone wall dating from year zonk of a man with a donkey's head on a cross and the words underneath 'Alexander (or whoever) worships his God'. Religious satire is sometimes extremely offensive. It depends on which side of the fence you sit. I'm more concerned with the fact that a half dozen religious traditions feel themselves able to threaten their critics into silence through threats of mob violence than I am with the fact that we no longer have either the will or the clout to do the same.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
It really bothers me that FG so easily fits an inquisitor's chair for himself. The attitude "This material offends me, therefore you won't be allowed to see it" is the same attitude of "You offend me, therefore you won't be allowed."
I'm going to give the writers behind JStO the benefit of the doubt, here:
=============
"Your speech offends me."
Too bad.
"Your speech offends my heart-felt feelings of devotion toward God."
Too bad.
"Your speech offends my feelings about niggers and fags and broads and dykes and honkies and micks and Commies and kikes and slopes and spics and dicks and limeys and Yanks and rag heads."
Waaaay too bad.
"Your speech offends my feelings about my belief there is no God."
Too God-damned bad.
"Your speech offends my political sensibilities."
Politics has no sense. Too bad.
"Your speech offends my...wait a minute...no, your speech is making me think about things I'd never considered before."
Too right.
[ 10. January 2005, 16:25: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I agree that I may have read 'too much' theology into it - that's my job, kind of.
The point I was trying to make about the swearing is that many people have used that to write off the whole thing, without paying any serious attention to its contents.
From the few episodes I have watched of the Jerry Springer Show and from the many hours I have spent at work with people from some estates in my city, the amout of "f's" per minute was not much of an exaggeration.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Leo, I see part of the job of theology as looking for the echoes and congruences in earthly things that point us back to God. "This also is Thou; neither is this Thou," as Charles Williams used to say.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
DJ Taylor has an excellent commentary on the issue in today's Independent at here
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
"Either one has freedom of speech or one does not." --DJ Taylor
And this from a Brit! Bingo!
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Leo, I see part of the job of theology as looking for the echoes and congruences in earthly things that point us back to God. "This also is Thou; neither is this Thou," as Charles Williams used to say.
And so parts did - pointing away from false images of God - all theology/spirituality has an iconoclastic phase - and to a truer image, of the one who picks up up when we give away control.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
RM, I'm aware of the naughtiness in Nigeria and the Sudan as well. Erin did say 'in your world' and those countries are not my world.
They bloody well are in my world.
This thread's length and circular arguments are nearly as tiresome as the sad theatre show we were talking about, so it's understandable that posts or parts of posts are skipped.
Erin's comment about 'my world' referred to a world that he assumed I wish was mine, not the planet earth upon which most of us live. Erin was incorrect, of course, in his assumption.
(Unless you live in Nigeria and suffer religious persecution, in which case I truly sympathise.)
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Erin's a "she" as far as I know.
And I don't live in Nigeria or Sudan (though I used to live in a country that borders on Sudan), but literally hundreds of my friends, neighbours, and workmates are from those or neighbouring countries, including an actual majority of the worhippers in our church.
But even if that was not the case, to dismiss tens or hundreds of millions of people because their countries are "not in my world" is rephrehensible.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
"Either one has freedom of speech or one does not." --DJ Taylor
And this from a Brit! Bingo!
So you agree with him that Christians should be free to express their desire to control the actions of others whether that be by means of spoken words, telephone calls, e-mails, letters or books?
[ 10. January 2005, 21:19: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
So you agree with him that Christians should be free to express their desire to control the actions of others whether that be by means of spoken words, telephone calls, e-mails, letters or books?
Free to do so, yes.
I think it's wrong though.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Would you do anything to prevent them besides just saying a few measly words?
Talk is cheap, you know.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Would you do anything to prevent them besides just saying a few measly words?
Talk is cheap, you know.
Excuse me?
I believe they have the right to say these things, write these things and believe these things. I disagree with them, but I don't think that should mean they can't say them any more or should be stopped from saying them.
That's not how free speech works ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) .
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
