|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Quote Father Gregory: "I can understand why many Muslims despise Christianity (as they find it today). Don't kid yourselves."
Quote Scott: "Why ... "
Those of us who live in a multi-cultural environment with large numbers of Muslims (and therefore inter-faith interaction) will know why. 'Look at what these Christians believe about their faith etc etc'.
For many people, England (UK) is a Christian country - wrong, but that's what they believe and a lot follows from that in their eyes.
And I am not saying that we should water-down our radicalness, although some would argue that this follows from what I have said.
Blessings!
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Read my posts passim. I for one disagree entirely with you and I resent my money being spent by my public service broadcaster on gratuitously offensive crap.
No, I'm not keen on Eastenders either. But I've discovered that I can change channels on my TV. Amazing.
Isn't it within the remit of the BBC, however, to take a popular theatrical production and let anyone with a licence have the chance to make their own minds up?
It takes a lot for a TV broadcast to offend me. But I have long been of the opinion that I should form my own conclusions on so-called offensive material. As Scot said, I like to think my faith can withstand anything that is so fragile as to be disrupted by satire.
I am presuming you won't have watched the recent "X-Rated" series on Five. This featured some (very diluted) 'scenes the censor wouldn't allow' from the sixties and seventies. And Mary Whitehouse. She hadn't seen much of the material either before making her mind up... To me, that spoiled many of the reasonable arguments the NVLA and Festival of Light may have had.
I have avoided some of the more controversial productions like The Last Temptation of Christ and Mel Gibson's Passion - but that's because I didn't think I would like them, not because of the response of 'religious groups'. As for Jerry Springer The Opera, I guessed it would be loud, offensive - and funny. It was.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If it really bothers you, then you should send out a mass email requesting that everyone who reads it spam everyone they know with a copy of your whinge. That ought to take care of things.
Funny you should say that.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
I don't disagree, if that's the opinion you formed of the show, as I haven't seen it. However if you came to this opinion by seeing the show are not others also entitled to form their opinion in the same way, rather than having you decide for them.
I am not deciding for them, I am simply suggesting that my licence fee shouldn't be spent in this way. If some fool wishes to take a commercial risk in the market by putting on a production which is extremely offensive to a large minority of people, then that is their look out. If individuals want to use their money to go and watch this bilge, then that's fine by me. What is decidely not fine by me is an unelected quango, the recipient of a hypothecated tax monies of mine spending it in a way that offends my sensibilities on the spurious pretext of fulfilling its mandate to push back artistic boundaries (a pretext that is spurious because it doesn't appear in the BBC's Charter).
Furthermore, I am enraged by the sheer moral cowardice of an organisation choosing to kick sand in the face of Christians because they know what a gutless response they'll get from the chronically lukewarm, whilst falling over themselves to avoid any criticism whatsoever from other religious groups whose response is likely to be rather less restrained.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
The problem is that free expression of views has has to be equally available to all or none and that does not exist in the present situation. I could uncomfortably live with the Springer Opera on TV if I also saw regularly uncensored postive expressions of Christians and Christianity on mainstream TV channels. Instead, outside of settings like Songs of Praise, such expressions are restricted, filtered and always subject to balancing opposing views. Ask any Christian who has tried to say something radical on slots such as Radio 2's Pause for Thought and they are likely to confirm this. The number of times that Christians appear outisde of such slots and that Christians and their values are accurately represented in mainstream TV drama is tiny.
quote:
Originally posted by madferret:
I am presuming you won't have watched the recent "X-Rated" series on Five. This featured some (very diluted) 'scenes the censor wouldn't allow' from the sixties and seventies. And Mary Whitehouse. She hadn't seen much of the material either before making her mind up... To me, that spoiled many of the reasonable arguments the NVLA and Festival of Light may have had.
I did see some of 'X-Rated and its a classic example of the above problem. At numerous points through the show film critics and former censors would say why in most cases they thought the censorship on various movies had been totally unreasonable. There were two or there points where brief very old clips of Mary Whitehouse were shown where she said why she thought the films in question should have been banned/censored. No doubt if challenged the producer of X-Rated would have used these clips as evidence that a balance of views had been included. However the reality is that there were long present day interviews with numerous people against the censorship set against 30 year old short clips from one person (Whitehouse) giving the opposing view. The underlying message was that only old women from 30 years ago could possibly object. The same underlying assumption is at work in showing the Springer Opera and that is why I do not think it should be shown unless and until Christians get genuinely equal access and fair treatment in mainstream airtime.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am not deciding for them, I am simply suggesting that my licence fee shouldn't be spent in this way.
What mechanism do you propose for ensuring that every individual's license fee is spent in a way that individual approves of down to the level of individual programs?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Undiscovered Country;
quote:
I do not think it should be shown unless and until Christians get genuinely equal access and fair treatment in mainstream air-time.
A valid point. Why don't Christians get equal and fair access to media? What is it in our culture that makes audiences turn off when Christian views are expressed but tune in to see a bit of church bashing? Could it be that it's our fault? or is it all a left wing liberally media plot?
Why do we as Christians not have answers to attacks (real or supposed) rather than objections?.
As to the idea that the BBC would not show a program as offensive to Muslims, no they wouldn't. Simply because the general culture doesn't feel Islam is relevant and as such can be ignored. Yes respect for Islam is a form of ignoring, it's saying "I don't think this applies to me and as such can be granted considerations that Christianity can't because it threatens my comfortable semi-atheistic lifestyle" I don't think the BBC would hold back because of Muslim anger. More because the culture would support that anger. Politically Correctness dose not apply to Christianity.
I still wouldn't ban the blasted show though, I would ask for a right to reply on air. though I don't think that show would top the tam ratings.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
I did see some of 'X-Rated and its a classic example of the above problem. At numerous points through the show film critics and former censors would say why in most cases they thought the censorship on various movies had been totally unreasonable. There were two or there points where brief very old clips of Mary Whitehouse were shown where she said why she thought the films in question should have been banned/censored. No doubt if challenged the producer of X-Rated would have used these clips as evidence that a balance of views had been included.
I'm not sure X-Rated was intended to be a balanced program at all - though they did present the point of view of some of those inside the BBFC, who were moderately pro-censorship, in much more depth. Which is a lot more relevant than the point of view of Mary Whitehouse, since the BBFC people had actually seen the films in question. The MW segments were just intended as news of what was happening in the field of censorship at the time, and why it affected the BBFC.
I take it you haven't seen Jerry Springer, either, so can't comment first hand on its blasphemy or lack thereof? If you have, what precisely did you object to?
What irritates me more than supposed anti-Christian bias in the media is Christians shooting themself in the foot by saying "Isn't it dreadful, this blasphemous show, of course I haven't watched it." I'd actually say compared to a lot of other milieux the media are not too bad, since they know many of their "stakeholders" will complain loudly, whereas for example when a boss or a colleague makes an anti-religious or anti-Christian colleague the Christian on the receiving end will either shut up in fear of their job, or decide it's not worth mentioning, in order to keep the peace.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Simply put ... I find it bloody offensive that any supposed work of art / entertainment should contain such lines as "Mary was raped by an angel."
As Trisagion as said ... as I private citizen I can choose whether or not to go to a theatre and watch that but to have the BBC, funded by what is essentially a national tax, putting that out knowing that it will gratuitously and deeply offend a (now) minority religion in this country is an abuse of its public (still) privileged position. For any other broadcaster than the BBC I have no position whatosoever outside of the law other tnan to deeply lament that it is has come to this in Britain today.
I repeat, as a deeply offended Christian I shall use every means at my disposal in the next few days to raise hell about this for the BBC ... and that includes the press.
From where I'm standing the so called "whingeing" is being done by those who have been so conditioned to salute the flag of uninhibited expression as to lose much of what was once called "common decency." You don't like what I do? Tough.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Dear Gregory,
what is so offensive about the line “Mary was raped by an angel”? You put it in your post, so it’s not the words in themselves that are the problem. I used to have a book (until I lent it to a friend) that suggested the phrase ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to your word,’ implies sexual availability – that it carries nuances of a very particular sort of servanthood. The book is scholarly and hedges its claims with many provisos, but makes the comment in all seriousness. Is that offensive?
God’s battles cannot be fought with bombs or purple-faced, 'I'm going to use every means at my disposal to stop this' complaining.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
You didn't mention 'Talk to the stigmata ...'.
I saw it in the theatre, and found it mostly enjoyable. There were times in the second half which went well beyond my personal 'offensiveness' threshold, but not the concept as a whole. However, I'm torn over whether or not to watch it on TV.
It is, to me, all about the link between religion and talk-shows - the modern confessional. The idea that you can offload responsibility for your actions onto a talk-show host or onto God. And it really does provide food for thought. And a whole new vocabulary (I can't see a step-shuffle-hop-ball-change now without putting the rhythm to 'three-nipple-cousin-f***er').
There's a different way of seeing the second act.
(SPOILER ALERT! DON'T READ ON IF YOU DON'T WANT A MAJOR PLOT POINT REVEALED!)
Jerry is shot at the end of act 1, and his descent into hell is a hallucination. He sees all the people who have been on his show, but as Mary, Jesus, God and the Devil. Sort of like a perverted version of the Wizard of Oz.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Simply put ... I find it bloody offensive that any supposed work of art / entertainment should contain such lines as "Mary was raped by an angel."
As Trisagion as said ... as I private citizen I can choose whether or not to go to a theatre and watch that but to have the BBC, funded by what is essentially a national tax, putting that out knowing that it will gratuitously and deeply offend a (now) minority religion in this country is an abuse of its public (still) privileged position.
In the spirit of Purgatory, perhaps you could discuss the points I raised earlier about how you expect the BBC to behave about broadcasting stuff you don't find offensive but is offensive to others?
quote:
I repeat, as a deeply offended Christian I shall use every means at my disposal in the next few days to raise hell about this for the BBC ... and that includes the press.
So are you in favour of Islamic jihads and Sikh riots as means at the disposal of 'deeply offended' people of other faiths?
quote:
From where I'm standing the so called "whingeing" is being done by those who have been so conditioned to salute the flag of uninhibited expression as to lose much of what was once called "common decency." You don't like what I do? Tough.
(this IS getting Hellish) But I don't consider the right of freedom of expression as counter to common decency. Your argument is that being offended is a sufficient sole reason to demand that something that other people enjoy be prevented from happening: why is it 'common decency' to remove my ability to hear what offends you? I consider it rude.
I wish you'd answer my question of Quranic theology. Would the BBC be fulfilling its duty as a public service broadcaster if it transmitted a serious academic programme about the possible use of Afrem the Syrian's 4th century Hymns of Paradise in the Quran? Such a proposition is deeply offensive to many holders of a minority religion in this country, after all. And if that's OK by you, what if the same issue was dealt with faceiously - say a play where the Quran is referred to as 'that crappy old copy of Hymns Ancient and Modern Revised'?
R
--------------------
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
There's a different way of seeing the second act.
(SPOILER ALERT! DON'T READ ON IF YOU DON'T WANT A MAJOR PLOT POINT REVEALED!)
Jerry is shot at the end of act 1, and his descent into hell is a hallucination. He sees all the people who have been on his show, but as Mary, Jesus, God and the Devil. Sort of like a perverted version of the Wizard of Oz.
That would seem to answer my question of who's being made fun of here. Looks like the idea is to view Christianity from the distorted perspective of Jerry Springer and to see the absurd results.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
My offense (albeit it exists) is neither here nor here. It's not my wounded feelings that constitutes a breach of public decency but the actual desacralisation of God and his friends in the culture. So, when it comes to Jesus, the saints, the Trinity ... (call me old fashioned), hands off ... hallucination as literary device or not. I will join forces with Muslims to defend them vis-a-vis Muhammad as well should it come to that. Of course you can always tie the argument round and round in more and more words. Tha's irrelevant to me on this one. It's a visceral thing. It's not just about logic or debate. Sorry. Which is why I have very little to say now on this if we keep on this track, since this is a discussion board.
What do I expect the BBC to do? Well, I expect the BBC to leave it in the theatre ... that's what I expect .... as a PUBLIC broadcaster with my licence fee that is. You see, for all his paternalism, I am still a Reithian.
[ 03. January 2005, 15:51: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: My offense (albeit it exists) is neither here nor here. It's not my wounded feelings that constitutes a breach of public decency but the actual desacralisation of God and his friends in the culture.
So who decides what constitutes "the actual descralisation of God and his friends in the culture"?
Wait. Wait. Don't tell me.
Ah, yes. You.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I can't believe you said that. Really I can't. If Mary being raped by an angel isn't desacralisation, what is? Are you only dealing with this on my say so? Isn't there some reaction to that image in your own heart to this? Do you know what public service broadcasting is? Do you understanding what the Church as a public cultus is? I fear not otherwise you could not have been capable of asking such an extraordinary question or making such an unbelievable claim against me.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
But if 'this is a visceral thing; it's not just about logic or debate,' then it is not just your feelings but your gut feelings that you wish to have govern what gets shown on TV. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It isn't obvious to me why 'Mary being raped by an angel' is any more offensive than the Collected Works of Algernon Swinburne, which Father Gregory has never broken a sweat over.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Can God actually be desacrilized? Can anything that really is sacred be made to be not sacred by people not taking it seriously?
There are serious scholars who have put forward the possibility that Mary was got pregnant because she was raped by a Roman soldier. Does that desacrilize her?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
There are two things here ... Christian sensibilities about Jesus et. al. and the public service broadcasting angle. I don't have to choose between them. They are connected. They were part of Lord Reith's vision ... now sadly neglected by those who would make the BBC like all the other private channels.
I just get the feeling here that protest is alright so long as the protestor is "one of us," ... in this case that means, sharing our assumptions about absolute freedom of expression, the inappropriateness of blasphemy protection in a liberal democracy etc. etc.
Dear Ruth
Yes, to all those questions. What we do with God is just as important as God himself ... arguably more so for we will all be called to account.
It matters not whom Mary has been raped by ... it's the same issue ... given added significance and centrality by the BBC being a public service broadcaster ... which I keep repeating but nobody will deal with.
[ 03. January 2005, 19:03: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
It would help if the connexions between 'Christian sensibilities' (whatever they are) and the late Lord Reith's vision of public service broadcasting were made by something more than a series of ellipses. Then perhaps the discussion could be more coherent.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You know what I mean! I am losing patience with this now. I am not trying trying to convert anyone. You need to realise though, that people like me (with our views) will never put up and shut up under any kind of expediency or rationalisation ... ever. Sometimes Paisley's word is appropriate!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
But you still haven't put forth any argument other than "it is because I said so!" Really, you've been around here long enough to know better.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry Erin I am not going down that path. If you are not convinced by my arguments I am not going to keep hammering on. Conceding nothing but drawing a line. All you need to know now is I that am protesting. Presentation over.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
In the OP...Fr. G. said the following...my question is attached to the following...
quote:
..There is all the difference in the world between paying for a ticket to go and see a show in London and having such material available for public viewing on the screens of the national broadcaster.
The question here is whether there should be any boundaries when dealing with any significant religious figure in the media AND in particular, should Christians mobilise.
I see people having an issue with Fr. G. protesting what he considers offensive portrayal of holy figures and asking people to "spam" the ones responsible for hearing this protest.
If taxpaying citizens have an issue with what they consider irreligious views of Christian icons/figures, how is it wrong for a citizen (like Fr. G.) to protest and raise their voice at such? Off the top of my head, I remember the PissChrist was removed after protest, what this reminds me of in America. It was successful democracy at work.
On one hand, do you feel that the NEA supports less artists because of the past protests?
[eta: trying to get this...honestly, so compared it to the only similar thing I know]
[ 03. January 2005, 19:21: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
If you are not convinced by my arguments I am not going to keep hammering on.
I might if there'd actually been one.
I personally think it's every person's right to express their disagreement with whatever they fancy. That's what we believers in freedom of expression... well... believe in. If you want to organize an e-mail campaign to make it go away, hey, knock yourself out. BUT I think you might be more effective if you went into a little more detail other than "it's wrong because you shouldn't say that about Mary!" Why shouldn't someone say that about Mary? What is inherently wrong with it? And I ask this as one whose regular prayer only ever consists of saying the rosary.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As I said Erin ... I am a firm believer in not going on and on where there is little if any possibility of resolution.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
How can God be desacrilized? And wouldn't the universe collapse if she were?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Great googly moogly, if you would just answer the questions people ask of you then maybe there would be some resolution.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
In this case, 'God...God's Friends™...the Theotokos' being 'desacralized' seems to be a fancy way of saying 'blasphemy!'.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: Isn't there some reaction to that image in your own heart to this?
Since I believe Mary was the vessel that bore God Incarnate, of course there's a reaction to that image in my heart. But now you've changed the measuring stick from your sense of outrage to the reaction of my heart. A vastly superior standard, I submit, but still not what the law should be in a democrat society.
quote:
Do you know what public service broadcasting is?
Yes, and in the United States, an important component of that is the license holder's obligation to represent a diversity of viewpoints. As Justice Jackson wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...."
quote:
You need to realise though, that people like me (with our views) will never put up and shut up under any kind of expediency or rationalisation ... ever.
Father Gregory, the only person insisting that another person "shut up" is, well, you. I support the right of citizens to protest in any peaceful fashion and encourage you to exercise that right.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Why do you folks keep prodding me? We have radically different assumptions here about liberal democracies, secular culture and social responsibility. They are NOT going to be resolved. Going on and on in such circumstances is no virtue. There is a limit to talking.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dwynwen
Shipmate
# 3900
|
Posted
Reading through this thread concerning 'The Opera' I feel impelled to respond, not with anger, but with sadness.
I am sad for people who do not know God and yet use their freedom to produce blasphemous material in the name of entertainment. To know God is to love Him. Do we ridicule those we love?
I feel sad that Christianity is so weak in this country that people will condone abuse of their religion, and even encourage obscenities in the name of making capital out of it.
I feel sad that Christianity is fair game for all and sundry while other faiths are protected from such insensitivities.
I feel sad that all faiths and many of no faith at all will be ashamed, and appalled, at the BBC's intention to show such overt sexual rubbish, not to mention intolerable language, in the name of comedy if they are decent, caring citizens.
I feel sad that the BBC programmes are deteriorating rapidly in their bid to attempt to compete with other channels for obscene productions in the name of achieving a high rating value.
I rarely view TV because the more choice of channels one has the less I find anything worth watching.
I feel sad because of the affect this is having on our young people.
I feel sad.
Yours in Christ,
Dwynwen.
Posts: 149 | From: Manchester | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: Why do you folks keep prodding me? . . . Going on and on in such circumstances is no virtue. There is a limit to talking.
Father Gregory, you posted the OP on what is defined as "a serious debate space." If you can't stand the heat -- or in the case of Purgatory, the mild warmth -- stay out of the kitchen.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
Tim Luckhurst in his book profiling the Today Programe has a chapter on the 'Thought for the Day' slot in the programme which casts an interesting light on the attitude towards religion in contemporary British media ('Today' is a high-profile breakfast news programe on BBC Radio 4 and is much listened to by politicians and the 'chattering classes' generally. 'Thought for the Day' is a 5 minute quasi-religous/spiritual slot in the programme with a rotating set of guest presenters). As far as I know, Luckhurst is not a Christian. He highlights the ambivilant/semi-hostile attitude towards Thought for the Day by the production staff which he suggests is reflective of the BBC in general. He quotes Christina Odone (Deputy Editor of the New Statesman and well-known Catholic) as saying 'Religion and the Today programmme do not go hand in hand. It is not tremendously interested in the spiritual life unless it is touchy feely New Ageism. It is so very much part of a self-conscious anti-establishment which is, in truth, really the new establishment, a north London, liberal thinkng left-wingish kind of commmunity...it follows as night follows day that there is an anti-Christian, anti-religious element to (the programme).'
I would suggest that it is this attitude that is at the heart of the above debate. We live in a society (and the media promotes a society) where a general interest in spirituality is acceptable but to have an active faith which has any sense of absolute right and wrong is unacceptable and regarded as fair game for attacking (and this is not just Christianity. It is very instructive to see how very liberal proponant of multi-cultural society actively react against any Muslims or Sikhs that wish to live differently in terms of attitudes to marriage, the role of women etc. Multi-culturalism and spirituality are regarded as wonderful when it involves colourful outfits and dancing but anything that challenges chattering classes values are definately off the acceptable agenda.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Thank you Presleytarian but I don't take my marching orders from you. If I decide I am not pursuing a line of argument because it is going nowhere because of irreconcilable differences in approach I shall follow that instinct.
On the other hand something more productive of debate coming from The Undiscovered Country.
Might it be possible that some Christians have also joined "the enemy?" I don't mean the Infernal One of course ... I mean as unwitting apprentices of the New Regime, not adepts.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dwynwen:
Reading through this thread concerning 'The Opera' I feel impelled to respond, not with anger, but with sadness.
I am sad for people who do not know God and yet use their freedom to produce blasphemous material in the name of entertainment. To know God is to love Him. Do we ridicule those we love?
I feel sad that Christianity is so weak in this country that people will condone abuse of their religion, and even encourage obscenities in the name of making capital out of it.
I feel sad that Christianity is fair game for all and sundry while other faiths are protected from such insensitivities.
I feel sad that all faiths and many of no faith at all will be ashamed, and appalled, at the BBC's intention to show such overt sexual rubbish, not to mention intolerable language, in the name of comedy if they are decent, caring citizens.
I feel sad that the BBC programmes are deteriorating rapidly in their bid to attempt to compete with other channels for obscene productions in the name of achieving a high rating value.
I rarely view TV because the more choice of channels one has the less I find anything worth watching.
I feel sad because of the affect this is having on our young people.
I feel sad.
Yours in Christ,
Dwynwen.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: Why do you folks keep prodding me? . . . Going on and on in such circumstances is no virtue. There is a limit to talking.
Dear Father Gregory,
I don't know whether you have explained this elsewhere, but I shall ask anyway: what purpose do the ellipses that you favour so much serve?
I find them both distracting and confusing, and trust that it is not your intention to obscure the meaning and disrupt the flow of your posts. I don't believe that I am the only Shipmate that finds this to be the case.
Perhaps I will be able to modify my reading of them once the intended function is made clear.
With grateful thanks,
H&E
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Lost for words? I do sympathise.
Of course, it's so much better than giving way to swearing.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
On the other hand something more productive of debate coming from The Undiscovered Country.
You are no more the absolute judge of what will produce debate than you are of what should be broadcast on the public airwaves.
And I still want to know how God can be desacrilized.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
Sorry that I pressed the buton too soon, but I was going to say that the last post expresses how I feel,sad but also very angry that such shows should be allowed on our TV screens.
I think that we who profess to be Christians should all make a protest by letter,phone call or email.
Why should we have to see the show before we protest. If God is being blasphemed I dont want to watch it. I have read the review and that is enought. We shouldnt want to watch it. I for one want it stopped.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Just call me an incompetent writer ... that's fine by me. I will try and do better and avoid shorthands.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Ham'n'Eggs: The ellipses is the quote you selected were mine, not Father Gregory's. His full statement was:
quote:
Why do you folks keep prodding me? We have radically different assumptions here about liberal democracies, secular culture and social responsibility. They are NOT going to be resolved. Going on and on in such circumstances is no virtue. There is a limit to talking.
But back to the OP, Father Gregory, if you don't have the patience to stick to your guns and debate your fellow Christians, how do you plan to get your point across to the BBC, the author of the play in question, secular humanists, and whoever else you see as your opponents in this Battle Royale?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
I was not speaking for the whole Board. Whatever gave you that idea? I don't HAVE to respond to everything though if I judge it unproductive. It's good to be silent sometimes.
You're not listening Presleytarian.
When did I stop beating my wife? Uhmmm.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory: True, you don't have to respond to anything. But your habit of making pronouncements, which is coming out particularly strongly on this thread, make a lot of your judgements sound like they're coming down from on high. You still aren't marshalling arguments for your position that go beyond "This is an outrage!" I'm not outraged. Neither are many of your compatriates, so you'll have to come up with something more concrete or concede.
And for the third time: how can God be desacrilized?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
It's good to be silent sometimes.
As a non-Host with 9759 posts ought to know.
I am listening, Father Gregory -- waiting for your answer to Ruth's question. If you're going to fire off an OP like the one here, does it really respect the spirit of these boards to respond to dissent by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA. I can't hear you."
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Apologies to Father Gregory and Presleyterian for inaccurate quotation.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes Ruth. But I am outraged and when people are outraged they don't always want to sit down and have a nice sensible discussion. I certainly don't right now so it's probably as well that I am not going to respond to the prodding. You see, I am too disappointed, too saddened ... in a small part of me as well, too angry. At least you'll get the emotional transparency ... once.
(Presleytarian ... this is also your answer).
[ 03. January 2005, 20:53: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dwynwen:
I am sad for people who do not know God and yet use their freedom to produce blasphemous material in the name of entertainment.
Why do you assume that it is prima facie evidence that those people do not know God?
quote:
To know God is to love Him. Do we ridicule those we love?
In a healthy and balanced loving relationship, yes, there is room for some satirical humor and even at times some serious jabs softened with a bit of humor. And I suspect God is much better at discerning the true feelings and thoughts behind even nasty humor than we mere mortals, and defnitely less likely to be hurt by it.
quote:
I feel sad that Christianity is so weak in this country that people will condone abuse of their religion, and even encourage obscenities in the name of making capital out of it.
Perhaps you need to separate your personal faith and God from the idea that your entire society should reflect your personal religious personality. I personally find it rather threatening that so many Christians seem to want to live under a theocracy, even though they would be horrified if someone of another religious persuasion began agitating for a different theocracy.
quote:
I feel sad that Christianity is fair game for all and sundry while other faiths are protected from such insensitivities.
I feel sick to death of hearing this constant whinging from Christians of all and sundry stripes that they are somehow more put upon and maligned and discriminated against than other religions.
Get over it. Christianity is the de facto background religion of Western Civilization, and those of us who lived our lives (I'm talking 50+ years in my case) saturated with Christianity just really can't get too worked up about the fact that you are finally having to acknowledge that a large chunk of the world's population isn't Christian. Trust me, they've received a lot more insults and unfair treatment than the little bit of social discomfort you've experienced.
quote:
I feel sad because of the affect this is having on our young people.
I find that young people are pretty media savvy and don't take this sort of thing anywhere near as seriously as you do. They recognize it for the silly and cheap entertainment it is, have a laugh, and then forget about it.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think RuthW is onto the important thing. You can sacralise anything by treating it with great respect. A flag that you salute in the morning and never allow to touch the ground, a person whom you never turn your back on or look in the eye or call by her first name, a book that you never put lower than any other book in the room. And similarly you can desacralise (what a word!) these - burn the flag, shout 'Tara, Liz,' or stand your coffee mug on the book.
But these are artificial sorts of sacredness. They are created by the show of respect. God's sacredness is not something we provide or must protect. God is the very definition of sacredness.
Changing tack, I think that Christian imagery is bound to come in for attack in Western culture because it has for so long been the validating belief system. Christianity is the Microsoft of Western culture. It is hard to challenge views about morality or personal responsibility without the Church and God coming up in some form. We are so deeply embedded in Western culture that, along with parts and functions of the body, we provide the best swear words. God, Jesus and Mary are common property.
On the whole, I think this is a good thing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
