|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But isn't hostility towards others' beliefs just as time-honored and universal as reverence of one's own? It seems to me a lot of OT prophets railing against false gods (probably trying for maximum volume, I expect) would quickly run afoul of your proposed regime...
Well, I'm talking about what the state should aim for. Progress in civilization has made it ever more clear that goods should be arranged by the state to oppose each other as little as possible. I'm hopeful that civilization has progressed enough so that future advances can be gradual rather than revolutionary. I'm not entirely sure though - the main point of worry is capitalism with its aggregation of economic power in a few hands. In a revolutionary situation (prophet-inspired or not), I might break state rules and could then not expect others to keep them in opposing me.
So you'll respect everyone else's sense of the sacred, except when you think it's really important not to? I guess basing "state rules" on what everyone agrees is inherent good and evil is a trickier business than it might at first appear.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, I'm sure that even the US has some sort of system in place. Whether it's good, bad or ugly - I wouldn't have a clue. I'm just concerned to show the "absolute free speech" crowd that such a system may not be the ultimate evil - I hope then that they will not be as shocked when they discover that they actually live in one. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Still no description of what your proposed system might consist of, I see.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB wrote: Restrictions should be made on speech that attacks:
- procreation, in particular long-term social and/or personal relationships aimed at the conception and/or rearing of children
Damn. There went a good 40% of my posts on this board.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So you'll respect everyone else's sense of the sacred, except when you think it's really important not to? I guess basing "state rules" on what everyone agrees is inherent good and evil is a trickier business than it might at first appear.
As I've said, if I'm going to break the rules, I will not expect others to stick with them! As I've furthermore said, I consider such a situation as evil in principle, will do my bit to avoid it, and have every reason to believe it's avoidable. But yes, reality is always tricky business. Now, does it contribute to the discussion if you simply re-iterate the problems I've already pointed out and answered myself?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Still no description of what your proposed system might consist of, I see.
Yes. I've not studied law, I know nothing about media organisation and I've not made an in-depth study of the political, social and religious conditions of any country (although of course I have some experience from living in countries). It seems prudent to leave the details to those more informed. Clearly, at some point some things will have to be "judged" - like "Should this opera appear on TV?" I assume some sort of consultation process - in this case with Christian representatives and some art critics - would be in order. Still, in the end a person, or a committee, will have to make a decision. How to best elect them? I don't know. It seems also clear that not every piece on TV can be scrutinized, so we must rely on the good judgement of the staff helped by some guidelines defining "what should be scrutinized". Who should write those guidelines, what should be in them, how should they be "enforced"? I do not really know. If I get hired by the BBC for thinking about these issues, I will. ![[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
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
IngoB wrote: Restrictions should be made on speech that attacks:
- procreation, in particular long-term social and/or personal relationships aimed at the conception and/or rearing of children
Damn. There went a good 40% of my posts on this board.
Raises shackled arms with Pres and sings, "We shallll overcommmme...."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I don't see how a form of expression could not have as its main purpose quote:
to communicate an idea, opinion, or viewpoint
Having endured this "discussion", I have no problem conceiving of a form of expression that has no intent to communicate, whatsoever.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
I furthermore notice that few people are as consequent as KenWritez ( with regards to that) and refuse my entire list of fundamentals. Instead it's only the "sacred" bit that get's attacked, although I sincerely mean "sacred" in the most general way thinkable (not just "Christian"). However, this "fundamental" of human nature has at least as much historical support as the rest. Hence I wonder if the one and only truly sacred belief of (post-)modernity is that nothing is sacred. A belief, of course, which has to be be protected - within reason - for its sacredness...
I think the difficulty is that sacredness has often been used as a mask for political power. From the Crusades to the Bezhti affair religious affront has been a facade for elites to tighten their hold on society.
This is why we insist so vehemently on the freedom to criticise, satirise and even abuse religion. Because religion is intimately linked to political power. The founder of the Christian religion was crucified as a blasphemer because he criticised the religious hierarchy of his day. The reason we have homed in on religion is that there are not many historical instances of authoritarian regimes based on respect for the dead. Notwithstanding political correctness, I am not aware of an authoritarian regime whose ideology was anti-racism. (The Soviets are a debatable partial case, IMO). The contemporary examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia, I would have thought, demonstrate what a sense of religious rectitude allied to state power can achieve and why, therefore, many of us are extremely suspicious of such ideas.
As Ken says, it is history, actual empirical fact, about how governments and religions behave which should inform this debate, not quasi-Thomist logic chopping which, whilst ostensibly reasonable, is not a good basis for politics which is an empirical and contingent art.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think the difficulty is that sacredness has often been used as a mask for political power. From the Crusades to the Bezhti affair religious affront has been a facade for elites to tighten their hold on society.
No argument from me, there.
But,
quote:
The contemporary examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia, I would have thought, demonstrate what a sense of religious rectitude allied to state power can achieve and why, therefore, many of us are extremely suspicious of such ideas.
Some of us also have difficulty with Israel and the US (current Administration)on this precise matter. There is a religion-based sacredness inherrent in the US Presidential Office duty; no matter how that religious influence is interpreted or implemented, it is still there and often referred to in order to lend credence. eg "God Bless America" is widely used in Presidential speeches (I have no problem with God blessing America!) but it is a gratuitous addition to a political speech and infers 'righteousness'.
Perhaps Ken can shine light on the extent of the religion card in British politics.
PS an authoritarian regime such as pre-freeMandela was pretty well based on a racist ideology? And ancient China and Japan were certainly dead-revering yet autocratic?
--------------------
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
Argh! Double-post, sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by BigAL:
Action to be Taken by the Christian Institute
I've not read this entire thread at 18 pages you can't blame me, but someone is actually going to "try" do something about it!
You should read the whole thread. It isn't possible to read the last page in context otherwise.
Who the hell is The Christian Institute ?
Christian political lobbyists. I'm not sure I would want TCI speaking on my behalf, but the soundbite mentality in the media puts the idea around that they speak for 'Christians'.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, does it contribute to the discussion if you simply re-iterate the problems I've already pointed out and answered myself?
Well, if you're referring to the difficulty of reconciling a) enforcing respect for everyone else's feelings of what's sacred and b) allowing believer to proclaim that (e.g.) the worship of false gods is a damnable sin - then no, I don't expect to get any other answer, and I won't raise the question again.
However, you did say (in response to objections raised by Ken)
quote:
Clearly, in my system you can do all this. The point is, however, that if you do so you also can be asked whether your critique does more harm than good. And if you do massively more harm than good with your critique, you may be asked to pipe down. And yes, possibly with force, after a due process (the details of which are clearly worth discussing).
and I rather thought you meant worth discussing by us, perhaps before we had all undertaken extensive, in-depth studies of law, media organization, and the political, social, and religious conditions of various countries - maybe even before we had been hired by the BBC.
The fact that I don't buy your derivation from "inherent good" doesn't mean that I must necessarily find your project worthless. Different people can agree on the usefulness of a law or social norm for a multiplicity of reasons. In such a case, though, I'd expect that the supporters would at least have some common notion of how the law was supposed to work practice.
However, I'm afraid your "system" still seems to me to be little more than "we'll use some good method to select some good people (or person) to rely on good judgement and good guidelines to do something" - and evidently this something will at least involve exercising prior restraint of TV broadcasts, with unspecified penalties for violators.
If you're not interested in speculating further at the moment, we can certainly table this discussion, pending our elevation (or would it be demotion?) to positions among the great and the good of BBC management.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
However, I'm afraid your "system" still seems to me to be little more than "we'll use some good method to select some good people (or person) to rely on good judgement and good guidelines to do something" - and evidently this something will at least involve exercising prior restraint of TV broadcasts, with unspecified penalties for violators.
Now, that's interesting. What else could it be? I note that even the entire Judiciary, or even the entire modern government, could be characterized by your initial paraphrase. Now, I know exactly one alternative - the group "palaver" which is maintained between all parties concerned until perfect (or very nearly perfect) unanimosity is obtained. That works very well indeed in small African communities, and also in religious groups like the Dominicans, which have a "palaver" power structure. Is there any conceivable way though in which a "palaver" system could be installed in a modern nation state? To the very least one would have to install it at many different levels and in many different sub-communities. For if we engage all the millions of a nation state in one big palaver aimed at an unanimous decision, we will be debating the simplest decisions for centuries...
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This seems to have run out of steam. At the risk of repeating myself may I ask that this be archived somewhere, for use the next time freedom of speech crawls out as a major slanging match (sorry "emerges as a fascinating topic resulting in a deep and meaningful exchange of views")? The criteria for Dead Horses seem appropriate to me, but maybe Limbo would be more appropriate.
[ 25. January 2005, 15:43: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Postscript - I see that big JS is reported in today's Independent as saying that he thought the show was blasphemous and didn't approve of making fun of people's religions! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I, too, vote for putting the thread to bed; all has been said and no-one has been persuaded to change their mind. It has been an exercise in being outraged at what other people have been thought to have said. Night-night
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
I, too, vote for putting the thread to bed
The thread will sink to the last page of Purgatory once people stop posting on it, and at that point we'll make a decision about whether or not to put it in Limbo. Chances are it's going to Limbo.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Postscript - I see that big JS is reported in today's Independent as saying that he thought the show was blasphemous and didn't approve of making fun of people's religions!
This would be the same Jerry Springer who having seen it in Edinburgh in 2002, a whole 2 years before anyone discovered that it was the end of civilisation as we know it, pronounced it to be 'wonderful' and continued
quote:
'I hope the show comes to America,' he told The Observer. 'I only wish I'd thought of it first. I don't object to anything in it. The whole show is tongue-in-cheek, so what is the problem?'
Observer Aug 25 2002
No coincidence then, that our dear Jerry who has had a previous political career in the US, appears to be thinking of a possible senate or governor run in Ohio. Wouldn't want to upset the religious vote now, would he?
Looks like a good campaign strategy to me - it certainly fools people.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Looks like a good campaign strategy to me - it certainly fools people.
L.
You underestimate me, Louise. It didn't fool me. I can't see that JS would not have been consulted about the show beforehand in order to avoid potential legal action at least. Natural vanity would have done the rest.
I could smell a 'post-protest' barge pole manoeuvre; I just thought it was a funny addendum to the thread.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
