|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Ham'n'Eggs wrote: Apologies to Father Gregory and Presleyterian for inaccurate quotation.
I'll cop to one set. The other 28 on this thread alone are Father Gregory's responsibility. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: But I am outraged and when people are outraged they don't always want to sit down and have a nice sensible discussion.
Which is why there's a board called Hell.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
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).
If this is the case, then it is a pity that the OP was posted in Purgatory and not in either Hell, which is the place for rants, or All Saints which is the place where the wounded may have their feelings salved by the like-minded.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
What? Are you saying that you won't deign to discuss this in either Hell or All Saints? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I tried emotional literacy and even that doesn't work. Listen. I am trying to say that I have nothing more useful to contribute here. OK? Just keep beating me ... that's fine.
[ 03. January 2005, 21:12: 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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
God's sacredness is not something we provide or must protect. God is the very definition of sacredness.
Exactly. God can take it. I don't think Mary is likewise the very definition of sacredness, but I think she can take it too.
quote:
Christianity is the Microsoft of Western culture.
And like Microsoft, Christianity keeps giving people the Blue Screen of Death, but most people aren't stupid. They just reboot.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
But many more liberal/secular orientated posters make prononcements every bit as much. Its just that because their comments fit the prevailing culture it is much less noticed and commented on. quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
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.
I would storngly question whether Christianity has effectively been the background religion of western civilisation for the past several decades. It is actually a far greater background in many non-western civilisations. The fact that it is not an effective background in contemporary western civilisation is at the heart of this present issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
My goodness. What happens when I go out for a beer with my fellow inmates.
If you do not wish to debate a particular subject, Gregory, then perhaps it would behoove you to not start threads on that subject in our dedicated debate space. And if during the thread you decide you don't wish to discuss it, then you can jolly well keep your trap shut and STOP posting that you won't discuss it. There is a worthwhile discussion to be had on this subject, but your continued proclamations that you won't discuss it are mucking up the works.
Now, for those who aren't Gregory and are able to discuss it, can someone answer the questions that have been put forth on this thread? Namely, how can one desacrilize God, and also, what makes certain subjects off-limits when it comes to secular society?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
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?
But as so often on these boards, there hasn't been any attempt at an engagement with what was originally said. It so often seems that if certain liberal assumptions are challenged by a Shipmate, what he or she gets is a barrage of aggressive bullying. This sort of ganging-up might well work in Hell but I really don't think it belongs here.
Many of us are outraged by this production because it is:
1. being paid for out of our licence fees by an organisation which almost never presents a balanced approach to Christianity;
2. making a mockery of the central figures of Christianity (or any other religion) is an abuse of the self-restraint and self-control those exercising free speech need to accept if they are not to damage that very freedom of expression;
3. public decency depends on showing respect for other peoples sensibilities.
No-one is saying you shouldn't have a serious debate about the virgin birth or whatever. What is being said is that this is nothing of the sort and suggesting that it is is disingenuous.
I am interested that several people who have posted here have also posted on the current thread in Hell on censorship. The offence complained of there was about some extremely unattractive homophobic remarks on a particular website. I share the horror and wonder whether, if the BBC decided to present a programme containing those views in an entirely uncritical way, I'd be able to read the forthright assertions of the right of free-expression for such a programme from those who've been so outspoken about it here. I shouldn't hold your breath FrG.
[ 03. January 2005, 21:29: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am interested that several people who have posted here have also posted on the current thread in Hell on censorship. The offence complained of there was about some extremely unattractive homophobic remarks on a particular website. I share the horror and wonder whether, if the BBC decided to present a programme containing those views in an entirely uncritical way, I'd be able to read the forthright assertions of the right of free-expression for such a programme from those who've been so outspoken about it here.
Well, I would.
quote:
I shouldn't hold your breath FrG.
But you can feel free to in light of the fact that you feel perfectly justified in calling people hypocrites with no basis in that pesky little arena we call reality.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But you can feel free to in light of the fact that you feel perfectly justified in calling people hypocrites with no basis in that pesky little arena we call reality.
There are just plenty of examples of that sort of behaviour hereabouts (the current Hell thread being one amongst many) to suggest that my grip on reality is quite strong enough, thank you.
[tangent]I wonder when it is permissable for a Shipmate with less than a thousand posts to remind one with over twelve thousand posts of the differing standards of expression between this board and that where her voice is more often heard?[/tangent]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Many of us are outraged by this production because it is:
1. being paid for out of our licence fees by an organisation which almost never presents a balanced approach to Christianity;
Is presentating a balanced approach to Christianity (or anything else) in its charter? If so, then by all means, make a big stink about it. I assume you will make an equally big stink about everything else they don't present in a balanced manner.
quote:
2. making a mockery of the central figures of Christianity (or any other religion) is an abuse of the self-restraint and self-control those exercising free speech need to accept if they are not to damage that very freedom of expression;
There's really no point in having free speech if everyone is supposed to muzzle themselves for fear of offending someone else, because then people really aren't free. It's social control instead of legal control, but it's still control, and it has no place in a free society.
Christianity can take the mockery. If it can't, it's got way bigger problems, and we should be directly our attention to them rather than to cultural phenomena that will be quickly forgotten.
quote:
3. public decency depends on showing respect for other peoples sensibilities.
But courtesy can't and shouldn't be legislated. You can't make policies for a country's media saying people should show respect. And there is no way for the media to respect your sensibilities without offending someone else's.
Furthermore, offending sensibilities is frequently exactly what great art does, and does well. Not that the Jerry Springer opera sounds like great art. But if you want a culture of the blandly inoffensive, and if you'd like to give up a lot of the greatness of British culture through the ages, go ahead and argue for respecting people's sensibilities. You can send all the extant Jonathan Swift manuscripts to me here in California.
quote:
No-one is saying you shouldn't have a serious debate about the virgin birth or whatever. What is being said is that this is nothing of the sort and suggesting that it is is disingenuous.
If we're all very serious and scholarly about arguing that Mary might have been raped, it's okay? But if we're flippant, it's not? It amounts to the same thing in my book.
quote:
I am interested that several people who have posted here have also posted on the current thread in Hell on censorship. The offence complained of there was about some extremely unattractive homophobic remarks on a particular website. I share the horror and wonder whether, if the BBC decided to present a programme containing those views in an entirely uncritical way, I'd be able to read the forthright assertions of the right of free-expression for such a programme from those who've been so outspoken about it here. I shouldn't hold your breath FrG.
If the BBC were to present such a program, I hope you and Fr. G would be among the many protesters. Protesting the Jerry Springer opera is also your right as citizens of a free country. But if you can't see the difference between the Jerry Springer opera and homophobic remarks, you really need to reconsider your thoughts about gay people.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
[snip]
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.
[snip]
Good luck when the Muslims say 'Father Gregory, old chap, this Trinity of yours... that's polytheism, you know, and it's really very offensive. Lots in our holy book about it, none of it good. You're desacralizing Allah. Mind if you join us in stopping this nasty TV programme about it?'
R (wanders off, talking to himself again)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[tangent]I wonder when it is permissable for a Shipmate with less than a thousand posts to remind one with over twelve thousand posts of the differing standards of expression between this board and that where her voice is more often heard?[/tangent]
When you're made a host. However, since you called people hypocrites, you're not in any position to throw stones.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But if you can't see the difference between the Jerry Springer opera and homophobic remarks, you really need to reconsider your thoughts about gay people.
Really...so, let me get this right...if I share your liberal hanky squeezing viewpoints, then my protest is legitimate and to be encouraged and if I don't then I "have no place in a free society".
I'm afraid I don't believe in the view of self-expression unlimited by self-restraint, that you champion.
You have no idea about my "thoughts about gay people". In any event, my "thoughts about gay people" are not the point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
As for your remarks about what the BBC is or isn't for, you clearly don't know where it fits in to the UK cultural map and the particular responsibility it has. It has an almost acknowledged status as the national conscience: a conscience which has, in recent years, become almost overtly hostile to Christianity. Of course Christianity can take the mockery. It won't hurt God [i]per se[/] but it will hurt plenty of people and offend them. Express it, sure. Put it on in the theatre or on commercial TV, fine. But it doesn't have a place where it is being put.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Trisagion wrote: I am interested that several people who have posted here have also posted on the current thread in Hell on censorship. The offence complained of there was about some extremely unattractive homophobic remarks on a particular website. I share the horror and wonder whether, if the BBC decided to present a programme containing those views in an entirely uncritical way, I'd be able to read the forthright assertions of the right of free-expression for such a programme from those who've been so outspoken about it here. I shouldn't hold your breath FrG.
Funny. As Trisagion was posting this, I was on that very thread defending Fred Phelps' right to protest peacefully -- and, by analogy, the right of those who don't like the Jerry Springer opera to do the same. So if you are traveling with anyone who is holding his breath, kindly secure your oxygen mask first before assisting them.
I, too, would love to see a system that allows me personally to dictate where my tax dollars go. There's a war or two going on that I'd prefer not to subsidize. However, no one has yet to address Paul Mason's question from an earlier page:
quote:
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?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country: quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
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.
I would storngly question whether Christianity has effectively been the background religion of western civilisation for the past several decades. It is actually a far greater background in many non-western civilisations. The fact that it is not an effective background in contemporary western civilisation is at the heart of this present issue.
I'm talking about the gestalt background, the one that people who are not in the least Christian still pick up as the background. The background that is necessary to make sense of much of the art, literature, and music of a particular civilization.
You're also using "effective" in two quite different senses in your post. Christianity has definitely been "in effect" in its influence on Western Civilization (and I'm not talking about the past few decades of your existence, I'm talking about centuries). That is quite a different concept from what sort of active "effectiveness" you wish it to have on current culture and behavior. Which seems to be a wish for a Christian theocracy, or at least the social equivalent thereof.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Why should we have to see the show before we protest. If God is being blasphemed I dont want to watch it.
Until you watch the show, you don't necessarily know if God is being blasphemed.
quote:
I have read the review and that is enought.
Is it? The review is by its nature selective, giving away enough details of the show to indicate whether one might want to see the show, but not giving away so much that it would spoil some surprise for a potential viewer. That limits how much information you can get from a review.
Now if you had at your disposal an outline of the plot, you might be better able to know if the show was blasphemous without seeing it. As it stands, you don't.
From Gill H:
quote:
(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.
The line "Mary was raped by an angel" seems to be part of Jerry Springer's hallucination, if I read Gill H, right, which would seem to say more about Springer than Mary.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I, too, would love to see a system that allows me personally to dictate where my tax dollars go. There's a war or two going on that I'd prefer not to subsidize. However, no one has yet to address Paul Mason's question from an earlier page:
quote:
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?
In the case of the BBC, I would like to see those responsible for editorial policy and programming coming from a much wider philosophical base. There has been much criticism over the last few years about the institutional social-liberalism within the BBC, elements of which are openly hostile to viewpoints other than their own.
I am now breathing again.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I, too, would love to see a system that allows me personally to dictate where my tax dollars go. There's a war or two going on that I'd prefer not to subsidize. However, no one has yet to address Paul Mason's question from an earlier page:
quote:
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?
It's rather crude, but I have long thought that the federal income tax forms should have a place where one could check off which particular Departments one wished to support. So I could designate my tax monies to the the Dept of Education, and let them know that not a single cent should go to the Dept of Defense. And that these checkmarks should be used as the basis for the first round of allocating funds when developing the Federal Budget.
Oh, and corporations would have to do this, too. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
And all the data would be made public.
While it would all be undone in making the details work, it might provide an interesting set of data about who wants what for our country. Gee whiz, BiggieDefenseContractorCorp allocated all their taxes toward the Dept of Defense. Oh my, who would have guessed that they pay so little! Aren't those tax lawyers amazing!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But if you can't see the difference between the Jerry Springer opera and homophobic remarks, you really need to reconsider your thoughts about gay people.
Really...so, let me get this right...if I share your liberal hanky squeezing viewpoints, then my protest is legitimate and to be encouraged and if I don't then I "have no place in a free society".
What has hanky-squeezing or even liberalism got to do with anything? Don't you know any any conservative gay people? I do.
The reason I went ahead and took the bait you dangled with the hypothetical homophobic program is because I actually do think there is a limit to what public money should fund. I would draw the line at homophobia but not at a tasteless satire of God and Mary not because homophobia is offensive but because I believe it's wrong the way I think lying and murder are wrong.
quote:
I'm afraid I don't believe in the view of self-expression unlimited by self-restraint, that you champion.
Why not?
quote:
You have no idea about my "thoughts about gay people". In any event, my "thoughts about gay people" are not the point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Actually, I think when we're comparing homophobia to the Jerry Springer opera, we're talking apples and oranges.
quote:
As for your remarks about what the BBC is or isn't for, you clearly don't know where it fits in to the UK cultural map and the particular responsibility it has. It has an almost acknowledged status as the national conscience: a conscience which has, in recent years, become almost overtly hostile to Christianity. Of course Christianity can take the mockery. It won't hurt God [i]per se[/] but it will hurt plenty of people and offend them. Express it, sure. Put it on in the theatre or on commercial TV, fine. But it doesn't have a place where it is being put.
Again, I don't see the basis of defending a ban on all potentially offensive things on the BBC. If it really is your national conscience, it should offend you from time to time.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
God's sacredness is not something we provide or must protect. God is the very definition of sacredness.emphasis mine
Exactly. God can take it. I don't think Mary is likewise the very definition of sacredness, but I think she can take it too.
Maybe when Fr. Gregory uses the word sacred he wishes to express something like:
1 [adj] (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person;
2 [adj] made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use;
We believe in an incarnate God so His physical body, His mother, His friends and all other bodily objects associated with Him we hold as sacred as they have been set apart for service and worship of the deity. Feel free to use what for us is sacred for any other purposes you want, but please understand that in so doing you desacralize them.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Now, for those who aren't Gregory and are able to discuss it, can someone answer the questions that have been put forth on this thread? Namely, how can one desacrilize God, and also, what makes certain subjects off-limits when it comes to secular society?
I'm game...but all I can say is I would have to bang my steel-plated bible. one example. Desacrilizing God though is divesting/stripping Him of sacred qualities, so God can not be "stripped" but he sure as hecked can be mocked and stripped in how your represent Him. One does so at his/her own risk (God's wrath) and also getting a cheesed-off e-mail in their inbox from a protestor.
No subject should be off-limits (being an American, I hold the view of no censorship waving blue ribbon)here thinking and all that...however I have supported protesting against things I don't like on tv by writing e-mails since it is my right to voice, also free speech.
When TV shows are rated by the FCC, they do have some kind of system they use (very badly I might bad) in the USA to filter outcrap. They are tending to let more and more through in the family hour of watching tv...so you get a nice shot of something you have to explain to any kidlets there who scream "Leave it!" when you change the channel, wanting to know more. With pressure on the FCC (protests)...there has been some success in advertising pulling their products and the like. But then I am thinking free-enterprise and not Gov't paying for it tv...so oh well.
This system is something decided on by adults...
V-chip pre-rated system
The Broadcasting industry already rated this so that the parental unit has the convience of using this nice device to keep out nasty shows.
That was my shot...Erin but I might be missing something here since I did not start the OP.
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So when the soldiers spat at Jesus, did that desacralise him?
Does Sacred Scripture not tell you that Jesus served as God willed?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
So where are you going to find the new Religious police for the BBC, Trisagion? Just being practicing Christians doesn't mean that people want to commission radio or television features along ideological or denominational lines. The most powerful BBC commissioning editor for radio I have to deal with is a devout Catholic - he commissioned a series from me about atheists who were still influenced by their religious backgrounds because the subject interested him (and me or I wouldn't have proposed it). His acceptance of the magisterium of the church doesn't make him a knee-jerk commissioner along religious lines. I can think of many people beside myself with religious backgrounds who make programmes - but we don't do it to grind religious axes.
I often make programmes on church history or containing some element of church history but then that doesn't make nice 'How we're being oppressed by the BBC' propaganda to point out producers going about their business making uncontroversial programmes about Covenanters or Protestant revivals or Catholic Apostolics (forthcoming, and ironically, thank you to Father Gregory for helping me) and that's not to mention my colleagues in 'Religion' the vast majority of whose output is aimed at Christians.
I can only imagine the fireworks here if the National Secular Society tried to ban me from making a programme on Billy Graham or on Scottish Jesuits on the grounds that they've paid their licence fee and they don't want it to pay for no stinking religion. Or if one of Trisagion's new mullah-style editors really was a mullah and told me I couldn't have an eight year old reading the Christmas story (as I recently had in a programme) because it was offensive to Muslims to stress the incarnation and call Jesus the son of God.
By deciding to kick up a fuss over a one-off television programme which is primarily taking the piss out of confessional chat shows, we end up starting along a road, the end of which we can see in places like India or Egypt. There you can't make fun of religion and you can't carry out any serious scholarship about it either without being in danger of threats or violence.
If the 'Jerry Springer Show' was stirring up violence against Christians instead of satirising a television genre I'd be happy to join you in protesting against it and man the barricades, but it isn't. However we can see abroad and here (eg. the recent Sikh riot over Bezti) what happens when people start stirring up anti-blasphemy campaigns.
It won't be Trisagion and Father Greg who end up with a brick through their window, or even Roly Keating who commissioned it, it'll be someone like me who just happened to be in the wrong studio recording at the wrong time when the mob turns up. Or maybe it would be our researcher who helped me find the right gospel choir music for a piece, or our evangelical studio engineer who gives his spare time to helping Christian broadcasting abroad or the senior producer who lent me her bible when I didn't have mine to hand - but hey we're all fair game as liberal atheist stereotypes and so are our non-christian colleagues. So go ahead, demonise the whole BBC because one commissioning editor commissioned one programme you don't like. As for stirring up people from the local mosques ... well we saw what happened over Salman Rushdie - do you really think that you not being offended is more important than putting other people in that kind of danger? How can you guarantee that such a thing won't happen? You can't.
What revolts and bewilders me is the idea of a God who needs this kind of protection. Maybe an idol needs protection because people could come round and break it or deface it but does God the creator of Heaven and Earth need to be defended from people laughing at some writer's satirical concept of God? A satirical concept of God is not God. The map is not the the territory. As far as I'm concerned a writer's zany ideas about God are not worth one person being harassed or threatened in the name of Christianity.
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
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Duchess wrote: When TV shows are rated by the FCC....
They're not rated by the FCC. They're rated by the broadcasters and networks themselves. In the United States, no federal agency of any kind rates TV programs, movies, music, or video games.
As for the last post, game, set, match, Louise. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JohnBoot
BOOTED
# 3566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are serious scholars who have put forward the possibility that Mary was got pregnant because she was raped by a Roman soldier.
I assume "scholars" means more than one. Do you care to divulge their names?
And what makes a scholar "serious"?
Posts: 789 | From: Detroit | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
God's sacredness is not something we provide or must protect. God is the very definition of sacredness.emphasis mine
Exactly. God can take it. I don't think Mary is likewise the very definition of sacredness, but I think she can take it too.
Maybe when Fr. Gregory uses the word sacred he wishes to express something like:
1 [adj] (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person;
2 [adj] made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use;
We believe in an incarnate God so His physical body, His mother, His friends and all other bodily objects associated with Him we hold as sacred as they have been set apart for service and worship of the deity. Feel free to use what for us is sacred for any other purposes you want, but please understand that in so doing you desacralize them.
One of the bits of writing that helped push me over the edge into accepting Christianity was this quote from Madeleine L'Engle:
quote:
There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation.
I gather, Ley Druid, that you would disagree with this?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are serious scholars who have put forward the possibility that Mary was got pregnant because she was raped by a Roman soldier.
I assume "scholars" means more than one. Do you care to divulge their names?
I'll look them up at work tomorrow.
quote:
And what makes a scholar "serious"?
Are you seriously asking?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JohnBoot
BOOTED
# 3566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
And what makes a scholar "serious"?
Are you seriously asking?
Yes. You used the adjective "serious" to lend credibility to your assertion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.
What do you mean by "serious scholar"?
"Serious" would seem a subjective adjective. It might mean one thing to you and something different to another person.
Posts: 789 | From: Detroit | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So where are you going to find the new Religious police for the BBC, Trisagion?
I imagine the present police would do just fine. Blasphemous libel is defined in Section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act of 1819. Not only does this empower the government to harass and threaten, but also to confiscate the offending material.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
One of the bits of writing that helped push me over the edge into accepting Christianity was this quote from Madeleine L'Engle:
quote:
There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation.
I gather, Ley Druid, that you would disagree with this?
I agree with it as written:
"nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred"
AND NOT "nothing so secular that it is not sacred".
If something can be sacred then it can also be not sacred, that is, desacralized.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
What revolts and bewilders me is the idea of a God who needs this kind of protection. Maybe an idol needs protection because people could come round and break it or deface it but does God the creator of Heaven and Earth need to be defended from people laughing at some writer's satirical concept of God?
God does not need to be defended, obviously - people need to be protected from blasphemy. Unfortunately, the logic behind that is only accessible if one believes in God and in the possibility of eternal perdition. It's roughly similar to the logic the secular word applies to child porn - it's so bad, one cannot allow it to exist in any form, not even as among adults, for the fear of tainting the mind of the weak. Thus the positions are mutually unintelligible: the believer can't understand why something so evil should be unleashed on the public, the non-believer can't understand what the fuzz is about. Many "modern" Christians are somewhere in the middle between these positions (usually this relies on dropping the perdition bit...).
I think people should scale back the rhetorics and simply ask: "Is it worth it?" Is the point the BBC making with this - whatever it may be - worth the hurt and damage it causes to (part of) the Christian community? And the other way around - is it worth for (part of) the Christian community to try to stop this, does the effort more good than bad? The BBC must be hard pressed for ratings if it runs a piece of cultural codswallop, which apparently just aims to shock. Christians must be seriously deluded if they think fighting it will fill their empty pews.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So when the soldiers spat at Jesus, did that desacralise him?
Does Sacred Scripture not tell you that Jesus served as God willed?
I don't understand the relevance of your question. Yes, the scriptures tell us that Jesus was obedient to death, even death on a cross.
My point was that, hearing that soldiers spat on Jesus, you don't think 'Gosh! He can't be the Son of God. Look, people are making fun of him. He must be some ordinary secular bloke like me.'
The authorities made a good attempt to desacralise Jesus - arrest, beating, mockery, trial, and finally the shameful, abominable execution. But I would say they failed, and so would you. In fact the humiliation of Christ magnifies his exaltation.
You can't desacralise God. And the offence of blasphemy is always against the sensibilities of people. It's not about God, it's about the person complaining. And don't they just love it; that self-affirming feeling of righteous outrage? 'Goodness I'm so religious I'm getting angry on God's behalf, these days.'
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
Quote
. Christians must be seriously deluded if they think fighting it will fill their empty pews.
It has got nothing at all to do with filling empty pews, more to do with someone that we love being mocked and blasphemed.
If Christians dont protest who will.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So when the soldiers spat at Jesus, did that desacralise him?
Does Sacred Scripture not tell you that Jesus served as God willed?
I don't understand the relevance of your question. Yes, the scriptures tell us that Jesus was obedient to death, even death on a cross.
My point was that, hearing that soldiers spat on Jesus, you don't think 'Gosh! He can't be the Son of God. Look, people are making fun of him. He must be some ordinary secular bloke like me.'
The authorities made a good attempt to desacralise Jesus - arrest, beating, mockery, trial, and finally the shameful, abominable execution. But I would say they failed, and so would you. In fact the humiliation of Christ magnifies his exaltation.
My point is that in all three synoptic accounts and even echoed in Jn 12:27 it is clearly foretold that the blasphemy Christ would suffer was freely chosen to serve God's will.
Just because some acts of blasphemy were suffered to serve God's will doesn't mean all acts of blasphemy will serve God's will.
quote:
You can't desacralise God. And the offence of blasphemy is always against the sensibilities of people. It's not about God, it's about the person complaining. And don't they just love it; that self-affirming feeling of righteous outrage? 'Goodness I'm so religious I'm getting angry on God's behalf, these days.'
There certainly are a lot of proscriptions against blasphemy in the Bible, and exhortations to set things apart as sacred for the Lord.
Are you telling us these are of no concern to God?
Do you know God's will?
Not coincidentally, your position denies personal repsonsibility:"Nothing I do blasphemes God, the problem isn't with me, but with 'the authorities', 'the sensibilities of the people', 'the person complaining'"
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Likewise it's clearly foretold(TM) that Christians will suffer persecution, that blasphemies will occur and that the cultural and civil authorities will not always (ever?) be entirely sympathetic to the gospel.
In such cases, I am led to believe by a certain J. Christ of Nazareth, NW6, that we should rejoice and be glad. Insane and unnatural responses, to be sure, Perhaps he was joking.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
The show “Jerry Springer – The Opera” is one that I have not seen. I therefore will only post on the idea of putting onto television works that some may consider offensive, as if you haven’t seen it you cannot judge it to be offensive.
(Two of my chums have seen it though, and greatly enjoyed it, but then they were the Chair of the Methodist Youth Exec and the Meth Youth President…but then what do we know…. we’re only Methodists.)
I think that that to show such programmes are healthy. It shows a culture that wishes to explore and challenge the beliefs of everyone. Only by showing the things that push the boundaries do we then break through into a new cultural world. Else events such as the enlightenment, the 1960s liberation etc would not have occurred.
The issue of satire and religion is a tricky one. For everyone feels passionate about his or her own religion. Therefore is there a point to be reached where the lines of taste cannot be overstepped? To which I would have to say no! Because by pushing everyone’s preconceptions and personal prejudices then we really grow as as society. Should the BBC not show a programme that illustrates the BNP for being Nazis because some don’t think that? Should the BBC stop showing the Vicker of Dibley because some people refuse to accept woman as ministers? Of course not, as one persons’ freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. We all need to be challenged!
I now my viewpoint might not be the most eloquently placed, but I have grown up enjoying persons such as Rowan Atkinson ridiculing the Christian religion. This has lead, I belief, me to hold a healthier view of my own faith as I can laugh at the absurd parts and accept them as thus. We all need to do this!
Now down to the ol meat and bones – there was this one line about Mary that keeps being quoted. On paper it may seem absurd. Yet that is what people go to entertainment for, the suspension of disbelief. This is a technique that is employed by the successful media to sell you a possibly absurd story so you remain hooked form the first minute to the last. No doubt that line is incredibly plausible in the context it is sung. Who knows – it could be sung by (for example) a chorus who act like a Greek chorus who sing what has gone on – or to illustrate views expressed. Therefore I think that we cannot take single lines to create any form of argument.
Many Regards Ever
John
Fr Gregory, I was wondering, do you think part of this anger you feel is due to the iconography which you use in your denomination – therefore you can visualise the person concerned (as more angelic) then those of us who don’t use iconography?
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God does not need to be defended, obviously - people need to be protected from blasphemy. Unfortunately, the logic behind that is only accessible if one believes in God and in the possibility of eternal perdition. It's roughly similar to the logic the secular word applies to child porn - it's so bad, one cannot allow it to exist in any form, not even as among adults, for the fear of tainting the mind of the weak.
I'm pretty sure that the basis of the prohibition on kiddie porn is the injury done to defenseless and weak children. Your analogy implies a defenseless and weak God, something that you already admitted does not exist.
--------------------
“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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
There are two sides to this thing. First, there's the whole idea of taking something sacred and making a mockery of it - should we stand for this, or not? I think we should not, because the benefit to us of keeping things sacred is to remind us of the importance of what they signify. The benefit to those who aren't Christians* is that by showing that we actually care about what the symbols represent enough to want to defend the symbols, we are providing an example of faith that is significant. God isn't damaged in any way if I spit on an image of Christ. I am, though, and perhaps so is anyone who sees me do it and concludes that I therefore think Christ not even worthy of respect, let alone worship.
I say we, when of course, I mean anyone with the spine to do it. I wonder some days how I manage to stand upright, myself.
Second, there's the specific line, "Mary was raped by an angel." This one is, rather than a slur on Mary's honour or a scholarly question on the nature of the Incarnation, a direct assault on God's character. To the materialistic mind, if angels exist then there's no longer any reason to doubt that God does too, and angels that disobey God we have another name for, therefore the line actual translates as "God is a rapist."
Quite a straightforward blasphemy. It's doubtful that it's intended that way, of course - it wasn't stated as truth in the play - but that's what I think Fr G was referring to with the comments about Islamic reaction to this. Will we let anything pass without protest? If that line is offensive to Christians, then it's just as offensive to Moslems.
* Don't kick that one off again. I'm using it in the sense that The Man In The Street would.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
quote:
The benefit to those who aren't Christians* is that by showing that we actually care about what the symbols represent enough to want to defend the symbols, we are providing an example of faith that is significant.
But is half of the churches problem the fact that so much of it can get so hung up on symbols etc so all we do is go through a series of motions rather than actualy do something meaningful.
Many Regards
John
--------------------
"I am still a Methodist, You can never get it's special glow out of your blood" Ellen Wilkinson
Read my ramblings
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
I’m slightly confused by this … No, truly I am.
“Jerry Springer – The Opera” started out as a National Theatre production in 2003. It transferred to the West End later and has been running to packed houses ever since. It’s been widely reviewed and advertised in the national press and … well, no one has made a fuss about it as far as I know. And the National Theatre is partly State funded. Father Gregory, where were you then? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Suddenly, the BBC films a successful and popular theatre production that hasn’t toured “in the provinces and we’re being told by Father Gregory that the End of Civilisation At Hand ™. Hmmm. Maybe it’s just that such things are alright in the theatre, where they will only be seen by chattering classes but not on the television where everyone might see them? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I can’t help disagreeing with the Good Father. Filming and broadcasting such a production strikes me as being completely within the BBC’s “public service broadcasting remit”. It’s part of a wider BBC programme made opera more publicly available and to commission new work. It also gives people a chance to see it who wouldn’t otherwise be able to Or a chance to not see it and go and do something more to their taste instead. As the programme is likely to be on late and has “Opera” in the title … And it’s on BBC Two. It’s not exactly “Eastenders” is it?
A glance at previous mass protests by “The Church” against similar material reveals two things:
1) People are curious – and will tend to make an effort to see things that others have told them are bad for them. “Last Temptation” would have been a small scale art house film that would have made no money and disappeared without a trace in a week or so without the fuss
2) Broadcasters ask people complaining whether or not they’ve actually seen the programme in question – of the people who complained in their thousands to C4 about the showing of “Last Temptation”, only two had actually seen all or part of the film. The rest complained because they’d been told to … And that just makes us all look a bit mindless.
A glance at this thread also reveals that The Good Father cannot debate for toffee.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
But is half of the churches problem the fact that so much of it can get so hung up on symbols etc so all we do is go through a series of motions rather than actualy do something meaningful.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. What motions are we going through that are not meaningful?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugal
Shipmate
# 2734
|
Posted
Having seen the production, I think it is good and the second act follows well from first. I agree with my wife (Gill H) on the premise of act two but I will probably not watch it on the telly.
The BBC obvously feels that this is a ratings puller or they could have chosen another show to broadcast.
I felt very uncomfortable in the theartre but I
--------------------
I have never done this trick in these trousers before.
Posts: 1887 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugal
Shipmate
# 2734
|
Posted
Sorry the computer at work is upredictable. I almost walked out during the second act. I was offended, may be I should have, It felt like they were insulting my best friend.
The show does indeed push bounderies, but does so with no reason other than to push the bounderies. This is fool hardy, if you know you are going to offend people you should have a reason to do it, not because it is entertainment.
--------------------
I have never done this trick in these trousers before.
Posts: 1887 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Likewise it's clearly foretold(TM) that Christians will suffer persecution, that blasphemies will occur and that the cultural and civil authorities will not always (ever?) be entirely sympathetic to the gospel.
In such cases, I am led to believe by a certain J. Christ of Nazareth, NW6, that we should rejoice and be glad. Insane and unnatural responses, to be sure, Perhaps he was joking.
Perhaps you should check your sources again. I don't see any association of rejoicing and gladness with the concept of blasphemy in Sacred Scripture.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
What is this all about, Ley Druid? quote:
Not coincidentally, your position denies personal repsonsibility:"Nothing I do blasphemes God, the problem isn't with me, but with 'the authorities', 'the sensibilities of the people', 'the person complaining'"
Are you accusing me of blasphemy? In what way have I denied personal responsibility, and in what way would this be typical of my position?
The point I have been trying to drive home, and which you have been evading is not that blasphemy is lovely but that it doesn't actually damage God.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
.. quite correct ... and I think the point that many of us have been trying to make Hatless is that it damages US by coarsening our sensibilities and encouraging us to take the things of God too lightly. That is what desacralising means. No one is immune no matter how personally continent one might be. These are social constructs not private transactions.
The classic instance of this of course is the BBC itself. It keeps doing the "God slot" to keep its believing constituency (or at least part of it) happy whilst here grossly violating the very Charter principles it is legally committed to in the rest of its output. Such sops and tokenism do not impress.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Jerry Springer: The Opera, or so much of it I of which I am cognisant, does not make me think less of God. It might make me engage with ideas - the strangeness of the current media climate, the way in which religion is perceived in popular culture, even the possibility of redemption - but it does not, in fact, cannot, make me think less of the God who has gripped my very soul.
Therefore it is not blasphemous.
Members of the jury, the question you must ask yourself is whether this is the sort of opera you would like your servant or your wife to see.
Ley Druid, Our Lord told us to rejoice and be glad when persecution comes because of him and his name, at the end of the Beatitudes (that's in a book called the "Gospel" according to Matthew, chapter 5). St Paul decides that the best attitude to the blasphemous hawking of the gospel is to be sanguine about it - at least it is being heard. Likewise, neither of them appear to have laid any foundation upon which a civil state can use religious opinion (for that it what it is) as a cause for prosecution of the destruction of property.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Greyface:
quote:
Second, there's the specific line, "Mary was raped by an angel." This one is, rather than a slur on Mary's honour or a scholarly question on the nature of the Incarnation, a direct assault on God's character. To the materialistic mind, if angels exist then there's no longer any reason to doubt that God does too, and angels that disobey God we have another name for, therefore the line actual translates as "God is a rapist."
Quite a straightforward blasphemy. It's doubtful that it's intended that way, of course - it wasn't stated as truth in the play - but that's what I think Fr G was referring to with the comments about Islamic reaction to this. Will we let anything pass without protest? If that line is offensive to Christians, then it's just as offensive to Moslems.
It is necessary to distinguish between the dramatist and the drama. If the same line appeared in a novel by a devout Catholic, and were put into the mouth of an anti-Catholic pro-life activist who plays a villainous role in the proceedings, would it be considered blasphemous? Or might a Catholic be expressing reverence by making the character express contempt? In the context of Jerry Springer, is the line an attack on religion or religiosity? Because clearly this makes a difference. A work of drama is not a collection of cracker mottos, in isolation from one another, or even a set of propositions. It contains a plurality of voices, not all of them comfortable or even good. Given that the scene is set inside Jerry Springer's psyche we should no more assume that the author is attacking religion than we should assume from Macbeth's remarks that Shakespeare wanted to become King of Scotland.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
