|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Of course, having been humiliated by the Government over Gilligan they have no wish to receive any more body blows ... so having committed themselves to, what shall we say, "Jerry Springer - The Fart in the Library," they must now tough it out.
Meanwhile the pressure increases and the Governors wonder whether they really will get away with it with their reputation and image in tact. In a sense these have already been soiled ... strong word associations how having been made in the public mind between < BBC, blasphemy and profanity.> Really, they just can't win now whatever happens.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Meanwhile the pressure increases and the Governors wonder whether they really will get away with it with their reputation and image in tact.
Nonsense. Its just a musical play.
It won't even be the rudest thing broadcast on TV this month - they played a whole heap of Peter Cook & Dudley Moore sketches the other day that were far ruder (I am told by people who have seen the Jerry Springer Opera - which I haven't of course)
And the original Jerry Springer Show itself, and trash like Big Brother, are far more demeaning and trivialising and potentially insulting to their participants than this. (I say "potentially" because whatever they were like when they started, aftrer a few years the participants on JS and BB were in effect actors, people putting on a show themselves in order to make money, and not any longer naive members of the public having their private lives exposed for others to jerk off to)
A few clue-rinse Daily-Moron-reading authoriTories got it into their excuse for a head to complain about it, and for some reason that the last 7 pages of this tedious thread have not yet explained, a few decent clever chaps like yourself and Adeodatus have been carried along on their bandwagon.
If the BBC gives in to this ridiculous over-reaction it will just show how scared their masters in the government are of the tabloid press, and how much direct control they have managed to gain over the BBC. I hope the Beeb still has enough autonomy to resist.
I'm begining to wish I had a decent TV so I could watch it now. I hadn't intended to but all this fuss is making me feel as if I should, just as a stand for decency and liberty and our English way of life - which is a way of life that does not, on the whole, allow the rotting corpse of Mary Whitehouse to dictate to the rest of us which musical plays we may or may not be permitted to look at by our masters and betters.
[ 07. January 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I suppose it's really a matter Ken of judging the public mood isn't it? There will, I hazard, be many more "silent ones" falling in with our view that gratuitous profanity and blasphemy is neither cool nor a safe thing for shared values in a society than those who bang on and on about my freedom to fart in the library.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
According to Radio 4's 6 o'clock news this evening, various BBC executives have had their contact details disseminated among the protestors and are now receiving 'serious' threats by phone.
I'll be interested to read the anti-Springerites' responses to this.
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Serious Threat?
Oh, I think we would need much more information on this than "serious threat." Afrer all I issued a "serious threat" in my last communication to the BBC ... "Expect more after the broadcast. Much more."
Of course if Mrs. Enid Baxter really is ready with the Sarin cannister at BBC Reception that might merit a more serious response.
What is sad in all of this is the lack of appreciation of the real depth of feeling there is about this amongst the protestors. Many still think of them as a harmless and dotty set of killjoys. The chattering classes have lost the "feel" for what blasphemy really means to those whom it affects. It's a lack of empathy. It could be little else since the loss of a sense of the sacred.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
According to Radio 4's 6 o'clock news this evening, various BBC executives have had their contact details disseminated among the protestors and are now receiving 'serious' threats by phone.
I'll be interested to read the anti-Springerites' responses to this.
R
Why should I or anyone else opposed to the broadcast be expected to respond? If I hated Jennifer Lopez and some nutter were to go out and stab her would I be expected to defend or justify it? Get real!
--------------------
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
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I know about the media and its responsibility to society. Being respectful and courteous is not part of its mandate. [snip] Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are what people in other countries die for, and from this thread it seems that many people who are granted those freedoms by an accident of birth can't give them away fast enough.
It's very telling that you believe that freedom is inherently incompatible with respect and courtesy. It betrays a concept of freedom, due to William of Ockham, which is slowly destroying the world. But that's a discussion for a different thread at another time. For now, I'm delighted with the succinct and clear summaries of your last two posts. Indeed, the woes of modernity in a nutshell.
Hold on. There's a world of difference between the media's responsibility to society and the general nature of respect and courtesy. You can't conflate the two so generally. The media's job is to let us find out about things - some of that will of course involve respect and courtesy and that should be the default, but that cannot be an overriding consideration in all situations.
Only the Polite Society holds respect and courtesy as the most important thing in its world. In every other institution - and in personal relationships - respect and courtesy is afforded as deserved. When you get institutions that think they deserve respect just because they say so then that's precisely when I hope the insolent satirists give 'em both barrels.
There are things in the media I find offensive: the (now, I think and hope, receding) 'candid camera' programmes where people acting in good will are deliberately duped in order to make them look stupid are unacceptable. That's an abuse of power. The same techniques used to reveal hypocrisy, crime or deceit are both good and necessary.
Pinning a minority moralistic outrage onto 'respect and courtesy' demeans the whole idea of respect that it claims to want to uphold, if it is done immoderately and without the respect for other views that it seeks to claim for itself. The BBC has been reporting the dissenting views on the Springer show, and I have no doubt that once it has been transmitted there will be endless discussions about it all.
I am a foul-mouthed heathen at work, as are many of my workmates. There is one person in front of whom I will not swear -- not because she is a Seventh Day Adventist and will find it offensive, although she is and I'm sure she would, but because she behaves herself with such cheerfulness and integrity that I would find it disrespectful. And besides, she never *acts* offended, which makes my shame when I slip up all the worse.
There are other Christians who I positively enjoy winding up, not because they are Christians but because they are obnoxious about it and stand on their dignity. For a while, there was a small core of witnessing Evos at work who saw it as their duty to try and convert everyone else, and believe me that caused a *lot* of offence - to the point where they were officially warned that the disruption they were causing to the office was not acceptable. (it was at this point that my desk sprouted a Darwin fish, a small stone Buddha, a copy of the Quran and a bust of Lenin, a battery of pagan gods to ward off the evil I's. They're probably still there under the drifts of A4, mineralising nicely).
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
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
According to Radio 4's 6 o'clock news this evening, various BBC executives have had their contact details disseminated among the protestors and are now receiving 'serious' threats by phone.
I'll be interested to read the anti-Springerites' responses to this.
R
Why should I or anyone else opposed to the broadcast be expected to respond? If I hated Jennifer Lopez and some nutter were to go out and stab her would I be expected to defend or justify it? Get real!
I didn't say 'defend or justify', I said 'respond'.
Other responses are available.
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
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
Christian Voice, who are organising protests outside BBC offices and threatening prosecutions, have a pretty scary site. If that's the impression the general public gets of all Christians as a result of this it will do much greater harm to the cause of Christianity than anything the programme could possibly do IMO. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Christian Voice, who are organising protests outside BBC offices and threatening prosecutions, have a pretty scary site. If that's the impression the general public gets of all Christians as a result of this it will do much greater harm to the cause of Christianity than anything the programme could possibly do IMO.
eek I think that's the one my father is a member of. He mentioned that he got email alerts from some organisation, and pretty sure that was the name.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Many still think of them as a harmless and dotty set of killjoys.
Whoever said "harmless"? Loonies who want to make a fuss aboud rude words in a musical can cause great damage if other take them seriously.
quote:
The chattering classes have lost the "feel" for what blasphemy really means to those whom it affects.
Who does it affect? God? The unbelieving
majority? Christians?
quote:
It's a lack of empathy. It could be little else since the loss of a sense of the sacred.
So its all the fault of us Protestants again?
Nasty individualistic westerners have no "sense of the sacred" unlike our ancestors who realised that Father Knows Best and had the king to beat obedience into them when they dared speak up for themsleves? And who could be flogged for daring to read the Bible themselves, so had to put up with the pretty pictures interpreted by authority?
Your record is stuck.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
People might be interested to see what the librettist Stewart Lee has to say about it
My show has 7,549 fewer swear words than people say, but who's counting?
quote:
as the personally abusive e-mails began to trickle into my inbox yesterday morning, it was great to be offered an opportunity to set the record straight.
A pressure group called Mediawatch is orchestrating a campaign against the show, which it maintains includes 8,000 swear words, 3,168 of them f---s and 297 of them c---s. There are actually seven c---s in the show - four of them adjectives, and three of them nouns. At the National Theatre, the sentence in which they all appear often received a standing ovation.
There are, in fact, 117 f---s in the show, all of them sung beautifully by a hugely talented cast, leaving Mediawatch with a shortfall of 3,051 f---s. The Daily Telegraph has gone to the trouble of counting all the swear words in the show and pegs the figure at 451, some 7,549 less than Mediawatch's figure, but I think the organisation must have included category B and C obscenities such as "ass", "poop" and "nipple" to hit this score. Perhaps Mediawatch multiplied the swear words by the number of people singing on stage. Who knows?
And a flood of nasty e-mails to the writer too - because God's like that, presumably he can't cope with surreal comic operas where characters hallucinate crazy things about him.
I also just found this very interesting article in Ekklesia
Get a life over Jerry Springer opera, say Christians
quote:
Christians who see some merit in the show and who oppose banning it from late-night TV have told Ekklesia that they do not wish to be named because of what one described as “the unhealthy climate of abuse against dissenters stoked up by moral panic tactics.”
Lovely.
I'm not going to presume to write satire using Islamic or Sikh themes because it isn't my background or religion so I wouldn't know what I was talking or writing about but if a young Sikh or Muslim playwright wants to be critical or satirical I support their right to do so. I would have supported the BBC to screen Bezhti- however the poor author is afraid for her life and so is currently asking people not to stage her play.
I'm amazed at the implication that those kinds of attitudes to blasphemy and criticism which we see in some quarters of Sikhism and Islam are just the sort of thing we should all aspire to for Christianity to make sure nobody ever takes the piss out of us on the TV or radio. A society where free expression is ruled by fear of the mob at the door - what a good idea - it already exists for some of our religious communities here - so let's make sure and extend it to ourselves out of a sense of equality!
'They wouldn't dare do it to the Muslims! We demand equal rights!' cry the would-be censors. One of the biggest problems for Muslims which fuels Islamophobia is that there are sections within their community who will threaten or resort to violence because they think their religion has been insulted. It's precisely the sort of thing which gives Islam a terrible reputation and in some cases rightly so - look at the use of the blasphemy ordinances in Pakistan to threaten Christians. Why would anyone want to emulate something so blatantly prone to abuse?
In fact, people are daring to write and film critical scholarly and satirical pieces about Islam. It's coming slowly and it's being done by brave people who know they are risking their lives to change that culture of shutting down art and thought with cries of 'blasphemy!'. The scholar going by the name of Christophe Luxenbourg whose theories on the origins of the Quran point to the importance of its Christian roots (there was an article on him in the Guardian only a few days ago virgins or grapes scroll down to get it). In Iran, filmmaker Kamal Tabirzi was hounded by the mullahs and forced to withdraw his comic film The Lizard after it poked fun at the clergy. In Egypt, Professor Nasser Abu Zeid dared to write a book suggesting the Quran be treated like any other literary text - he was declared an apostate forced to divorce his wife and he and she had to flee the country after threats. Far from running scared of offending people because some former C of E choirboy has written a comic opera, we should be thinking about how we can bring these books and films and ideas to British audiences to open up debate. We're lucky enough to live in a free society where that should become possible - the price for that is that occasionally we have to put up with somebody having a laugh. I know what I prefer.
L
PS. I thought from the outset that this would lead to some of my colleagues being threatened and that those who were most enthusiastic in banging the blasphemy drum would immediately say 'nothing to do with me, Guv!'. There's a surprise, eh? The laugh of it is I can bet good money that some of those being harassed in this way are Christians like our head of editorial policy or the DG. If Richard Dawkins and co turned their guns on the Bishops or evangelical clergy in a similar way in an e-mail harassment campaign I bet that would count as 'persecution'.
[ 07. January 2005, 20:41: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually, back to "lack of empathy". I'm pretty sure that more British people will empathise with me on this than you.
I knew about the show. I've never seen it and didn;t intend to see it. I thought it sounded mildly funny. A bit of taking the piss. NOt really very intersting to me.
A few people - and it is only a few - started whinging about it.
My immediate reaction?
"How dare they try to stop me seeing this play?"
So now I feel sort of interested. I think I want to see it.
And I think that reaction is far more common than trying to cloak a piece of perfectly normal authoritarian censorship in guff about some mythical pre-modern community when we all had a sense of the sacred and danced around the maypole in solidarity or whatever.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
One thing that bothers me about this thread is the number of posts arguing about the quality of the show and/or its contribution to serious debate.
What has that got to do with anything?
If a show has to pass some sort of seriousness test before it's deemed to be acceptable then the battle over freedom has already been lost.
A lot has been made too of the special status of the BBC. Funded by us all, the 'nation's conscience' apparently, guardian of our 'shared values'.
Well I wasn't aware of this, and frankly I can't think how this mission would ever be realistic. Not least because I don't think most people really do share the value that we should offer special protection to other people's sacred cows. I know I don't.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
posts arguing about the quality of the show and/or its contribution to serious debate.
What has that got to do with anything?
Hear hear!
quote:
I don't think most people really do share the value that we should offer special protection to other people's sacred cows. I know I don't.
I rather fear that the Daily Wail Tendency are claiming that by showing Jerry Springer the Opera the BBC is pandering "to other people's sacred cows" - the sacred cow being free speech.
All that stuff about "chattering classes" gives it away. The idea is that Real People don't care about this sort of thing & its just a metropolitan pseudo-intellectual foible.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I was just in England for the Christmas (and a couple weeks either side of it), and I'm finding this "Jerry Springer is offensive to Christians and we never get other good exposure" argument really quite amusing.
1) It is "Jerry Springer, the Opera." It isn't about God, it is about Jerry Springer. If sacriligeous things get said, they really are no worse or better than the gazillion other sacriligous things that get said.
2) In terms of not getting positive Christian spin on BBC - whoohoo! Which BBC are you watching? I saw the Christmas Carols from Kings, I saw a programme on the journey of the Three Kings to the birthplace of Christ, in the past I've seen all KINDS of things on the Beeb about Christianity, what we believe and why we believe it, and don't be knocking Songs of Praise. Every week, week in, week out, there it is. The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other religions don't get anything LIKE the good exposure Christianity gets on the Beeb.
3) Protest all you want. Protest is good. If you think the Beeb is going beyond its remit, then you should tell them, and tell Ofcom. But the biggest protest you can make is to just not watch the thing. Because quite honestly, with the kicking up of all this fuss, a lot of people are now going to watch it who probably never would have in the first place before you kicked up all this fuss.
5) I'd still rather have terrestrial UK telly than my 92 cable channels. Much much much better programming.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
I was going to post again, but ken and Louise are saying everything I would want to, only in more coherent fashion.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'm going to be in London next week and will go and see the stage version, if it is still on.
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This is really all quite irrelevant now. Whether the "musical" is shown or not a line has been crossed (in other words, the intention merely of the BBC to show it has been enough) ... more importantly a stifled Christian voice has now been heard. I doubt it will be silenced again.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
Ken, for once I agree with almost everything you say. Please stop spoiling it by claiming that that it's the Tories who are, as always, to blame. You really shouldn't blame everything at the feet of a Conservative. I suspect that the politics of those opposed to Jerry Springer are pretty well evenly spread; the difference is that the MediaWatch cretins and suchlike (and, I fear, more likely to vote Conservative, are more vocal.
For the record, I've now received eight unsolicited round-robin emails from various 'Christian' groups (including MediaWatch which rather goes against their claim on the News this evening that the complaints sent to the BBC were unorchestrated) asking me to complain. I've replied to all of them saying why I think they are mistaken AND that I don't care to be associated with them. The result: three no-replies, two 'I will pray for you to see the light', one sensible reply, one you are an idiot type reply and one which says in total 'Fuck you you catholic blasphemer. I look forward to watching you and all your fag friends burn in Hell at the Day of Judgement'.
So good to see rational debate making a comeback.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
You didn't post any details about the sensible reply.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Hold on. There's a world of difference between the media's responsibility to society and the general nature of respect and courtesy. You can't conflate the two so generally. The media's job is to let us find out about things - some of that will of course involve respect and courtesy and that should be the default, but that cannot be an overriding consideration in all situations.
And so on... My point was exactly that modern man cannot see "freedom" and "respect and courtesy" as anything but a conflict of interest. When "crunch time" comes, one or the other has to lose. That freedom may exactly mean being respectful and courteous has become an unthinkable thought. As we can see in this discussion, modern thought then must revolve around rules and restrictions, for in a war between concepts one has to stake out territory of occupation. Actually, my critique is a bit silly, since I can hardly expect the BBC to behave any different than the rest of society. If society changes back to older (and superior) ideas of freedom one day, these problems will largely disappear...
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
This is the reply I got when I answered the e-mail I was sent (saying I've heard about the show from someone who actually saw it, was going to watch the show to make up my own mind and no, I wasn't going to send the e-mail on to anyone else, or complain to the BBC):
"Thank you for the feedback on the "show"
I think you have a valid point about making complaints.For myself, i am sick and tired of the offensive rubbish that is dished out in the name of entertainment.I don't think you have to be Christian to be cross about them either.Many of my non Christian friends and collegues are pretty fed up with the content of many programmes too.We become desensitised by it over the years.They are depressing and not at all inspiring or life enhancing."
Rather a nicer reply than the ones Cosmo got! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
You didn't post any details about the sensible reply.
OK. The sensible reply dealt with some of the points I had raised with the sender going into a little more detail why they were willing to support such a campaign and why they felt it was justified. The sender was also willing to see that the point of view I hold also had some validity and was consistent and that we should agree to differ - also that I would be taken off their email list. Interstingly this email was the only I know sent to me by somebody who had seen tha stage show.
That seems, to me, more sensible than 'Burn in Hell'.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If society changes back to older (and superior) ideas of freedom one day...
Which "superior" ideas of freedom are you referring to?
--------------------
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
Freedom from sin? Freedom from injustice? Freedom from poverty? Freedom from neglect? It's a very constricted and bourgeois notion of freedom to exalt freedom of choice above all else.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Freedom from sin? Freedom from injustice? Freedom from poverty? Freedom from neglect? It's a very constricted and bourgeois notion of freedom to exalt freedom of choice above all else.
And what in holy hell has any of these "freedoms" to do with the subject at hand?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Freedom from sin? Freedom from injustice? Freedom from poverty? Freedom from neglect? It's a very constricted and bourgeois notion of freedom to exalt freedom of choice above all else.
I really don't want to be harsh, but have you any idea how that sounds? Have you totally lost the capacity to relate what you say to what you're commenting on? Or maybe you just don't give a shit any more. Either way, time to step back I think.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If society changes back to older (and superior) ideas of freedom one day...
Which "superior" ideas of freedom are you referring to?
The so-called "freedom for excellence", an idea of freedom which was held throughout the "known world" (i.e., Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa) from antiquity through to medieval times until the "freedom of indifference" of William of Ockham spread and took over from the late 14th century onwards. (Although it's probably unfair to blame it all on him, clearly the new idea was "in the air" back then).
Which means that any writings you read from prior to this time, which concern freedom, morals and ethics, will likely be misunderstood since you apply your changed concepts to the text (yes, that includes the Bible). If you want a philosophical treatment, read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue", if you want a comprehensive Christian account, take a look at Servais Pinckaers' "The Sources of Christian Ethics".
To give a very brief analogy: Given a piano, modern (Ockham's) freedom means to be able to play anything you like on it, when you like it, how you like it - irrespective of any "quality" your play may have. It's a "pure" freedom of choice, the choice itself is indifferent to good, bad or ugly (if you are free, you can choose to play Bach or just randomly slam some of the keys).
An ancient would have seen the situation quite differently: When you first encounter a piano, you have very little freedom: you can play nothing, you can play random crap, or you can play finger exercises. Say you choose the "good": finger exercises. After a while, your freedom grows, you can now play: nothing, random crap, finger exercises or easy pieces. Say you choose the "good": easy pieces (plus some finger exercises). After a while you will be able to add medium pieces to your freedom. Then hard pieces. Then the music of the greatest composers. Finally, your freedom becomes perfect through excellence: you are now in complete control of the piano. But note how you got there - it was a long, hard slog of disciplined striving for good, it was not a given from the very start. The ancients assumed this to be the case for all freedoms, including social behaviour and morals. Somebody without trained virtue could only claim the sad freedom of randomly hitting some keys on the piano...
Once you see where all this is coming from, a lot of problems moderns see in Christian teachings disappear. But this is getting long and I'm not really much of an expert. If you are interested, read the mentioned books.
--------------------
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
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
What is really bugging me about this is the number of Christians and Christian groups I have never heard of who apparently presume to speak for me, as well as the way some news media seem to assume that all Christians object. Perhaps some shipmates could comment on the BBC News site to try to get across the range of views held by Christians.
I hate Tennis and would never watch it myself but it has never occurred to me that I should object to the BBC showing Wimbledon for those who do want to watch it. Nor has it occurred to me to burn my TV licence when a series I am watching is taken off air for a couple of weeks because of Snooker or Darts or some other sport I have no interest in. This is one show, lasting 2 hours, and I am sure all the fuss will mean much bigger audience figures than if those who do not want to watch it had just ignored it instead of embarking on a futile attempt to impose their views on everyone else.
My husband and I decided not to see the show at the National Theatre as we have never seen Jerry Springer and find the idea of sneering at those who have to go on talk shows to get help distasteful, but will be watching tonight, if only because those who want to prevent us from doing so are even more distasteful.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear IngoB
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear IngoB
Make that a double
You have so much more eloquently than I articulated a notion of freedom which is at once universal, humane and compatible with all human aspirations multi-theist or a-theist.
There is a heck of a lot more to freewill than merely choice, yet "choice" has, above all else, been exalted to divine status by modern secular western liberal democracies. (I should like to think that "do no harm" balanced that but since we all know that not to be true empirically, it cannot be claimed).
--------------------
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
Well, that's a lovely (though typical) post about the dangers of pesky modern thought where dead hetero white men aren't dictating to everyone else, but really, that's not freedom. It's responsibility. Tiny bit of difference.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
[IngoB has] so much more eloquently than I articulated a notion of freedom which is at once universal, humane and compatible with all human aspirations multi-theist or a-theist.
Unless you can give a clear explanation of why this makes any kind of practical sense, I fear you are losing touch with reality in a potentially dangerous way.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
My sanity is committed to God and my spiritual father Dave ... since when did you become my therapist?
We've hit a really, really deep point of division here haven't we? (See Disunity and Disagreement thread).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
My husband and I decided not to see the show at the National Theatre as we have never seen Jerry Springer and find the idea of sneering at those who have to go on talk shows to get help distasteful, but will be watching tonight, if only because those who want to prevent us from doing so are even more distasteful.
'Have to go on talk shows'? I had no idea that in the United States those in personal difficulties were compelled to go on crap confessional shows to boost ratings on profit-orientated networks. I thought most people who went on these shows went of their own choosing.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
I'm possibly getting an alarming idea of what most posters on this thread advocate. To help me understand your views correctly, is there any subject matter which should not be shown on television, or public theatre, in the form of entertainment (musical, satirical, drama or whatever)? Would you like to have the show performed in your church - those who don't want to see it needn't turn up, of course. Are there any programmes which should not be shown at particular times? Have you any sensibilities which you can have grossly offended?
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cartwheel
Apprentice
# 5149
|
Posted
I'm deeply confused by this. I saw the show some time ago at the National - and yes, I came out thinking that it was slightly blasphemous because of the moral relativism (and for no other reason). But moral relativism is fairly common in the prevailing culture and I don't tend to form my conclusions based on musical theatre. In my experience very few people do, but maybe I'm not in Kansas any more...
But what I really don't get is - why are people campaigning to ban the show? Why not ask for a right of reply? Why didn't the bishop refuse to comment until after the show and then tell the world why it was or was not in accordance with the Official Christian Message? We seem to have missed a trick here - people might want to know what the opera is based on - as it says itself "Jerry Springer in hell is unsuitable for anyone without a grasp of Judeo Christian mythology".
And what's with the assertion that everything that appears on the BBC is somehow a "public service"? There are lots of things on the BBC that appear to exist for entertainment only, or have I missed the deep moral message in "Men Behaving Badly" and the improving facts embedded in "Holby City". Hmmm.
BTW, anyone who wants to hear the musical style should go to www.jerryspringertheopera.com/trailer but there is an f word in there.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
My sanity is committed to God and my spiritual father Dave ... since when did you become my therapist?
Hah! Therapist to Orthodoxy? I think not. But genuine concern nonetheless.
quote:
We've hit a really, really deep point of division here haven't we? (See Disunity and Disagreement thread).
Disagreement, yes. Division here only has meaning in the mind of your disunity demon.
It's your refusal to answer fair questions that is my cause for concern. I don't see any reason for it other than fear that to do so might show your position to be untenable. I wonder what you hope to achieve.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Cartwheel
"Slightly blasphemous" .... only "slightly" blasphemous ... you must have different standards and definitions of blasphemy than I do.
"Moral relativism is common in our culture" ... but how does that inform a Christian response to this play?
Are we able to say ... "it wasn't in a church, so it's OK."? I fear that some here wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was shown in a church ... so bang goes that argument.
"Judeo Christian mythology" indeed! That's already a theology (of sorts). This is not secular freedom of expression at all ... it's ideological comment. 'No-God' forbid that anyone should credence to the idea that any of this stuff might be historically true! After all ... anyone can take the pyth out of a myth ... theologically this is not possible but in common parlance where myth = stupid fairy story ... this is most certainly the case. And all this is just in the use of a commentating introductory phrase ... never mind the content of the play itself. (Don't you just love it when media types say "Christians CLAIM that their founder said this or did that.")
Ban the show? Well, most of us don't want it banned at all - although, even perhaps the most die hard "freedom-of-expressionists" here might cavil at a (different) musical celebrating the "joys of paedophilia." We wanted THIS BROADCAST not to take place.
It's no use objecting that whereas paedophilia is provably harmful and illegal whilst "Jerry Springer - The Fart in the Library" isn't because multiple profanity and religious pyth taking isn't. If Christians consented only to exercise moral discernment in legal matters in the privacy of their own lives and space then we probably wouldn't bat an eyelid at Springer, but rather, as many do here, defend its broadcast.
As it is, the idea that Christian morality is a private moraity is a western heresy arising from the growing secularist mind control of the last 300 years. It's not something most Christians (globally) can sign up to at all. Even those who do deny Christian insights a place at the table of legislation still try to pass laws in some sort of moral framework. Why is the secularist moral framework inherently more true or useful or noble than the Christian one? That would be irrational if it were not driven by political dogma.
Finally, the BBC acting as a public service doesn't mean that you may never say f*** or do anything naughty. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition .... indeed, calm down, there is none. But a line has been crossed when the likes of Springer is hosted by the likes of the BBC with the qualitative difference (whether you liker it or not .... IT'S THE LAW) attached to being a public service broadcaster.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cartwheel
Apprentice
# 5149
|
Posted
In answer to Glimmer, I personally do not think that it would be possible for a work of imagination to raise questions that the Christian faith was incapable of answering (or alternatively of explaining why the questions raised were based on what from the Christian perspective was a false premise).
Blasphemy is only my problem if I'm the one sending out the false picture of God, and I suspect the ways that I do this are subtle and more to do with how I live.
I suspect the same is true of churches in that it's what we do day in, day out in our communities that affects how we are perceived by them - not what shows make it in to the church hall. Though if I thought they'd turn up for Jerry Springer The Opera, I'd be quite happy to see the show in the church - as long as we got to explain Why The Show Is Wrong at some point after. Does this make sense?
Posts: 25 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Blasphemy concerns not a "false picture of God." That's heresy. Blaspheme is to "talk impiously, utter profanity about, revile." (OED)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If society changes back to older (and superior) ideas of freedom one day...
Which "superior" ideas of freedom are you referring to?
The so-called "freedom for excellence", an idea of freedom which was held throughout the "known world" (i.e., Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa) from antiquity through to medieval times until the "freedom of indifference" of William of Ockham spread and took over from the late 14th century onwards. (Although it's probably unfair to blame it all on him, clearly the new idea was "in the air" back then).
Which means that any writings you read from prior to this time, which concern freedom, morals and ethics, will likely be misunderstood since you apply your changed concepts to the text (yes, that includes the Bible). If you want a philosophical treatment, read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue", if you want a comprehensive Christian account, take a look at Servais Pinckaers' "The Sources of Christian Ethics".
To give a very brief analogy: Given a piano, modern (Ockham's) freedom means to be able to play anything you like on it, when you like it, how you like it - irrespective of any "quality" your play may have. It's a "pure" freedom of choice, the choice itself is indifferent to good, bad or ugly (if you are free, you can choose to play Bach or just randomly slam some of the keys).
An ancient would have seen the situation quite differently: When you first encounter a piano, you have very little freedom: you can play nothing, you can play random crap, or you can play finger exercises. Say you choose the "good": finger exercises. After a while, your freedom grows, you can now play: nothing, random crap, finger exercises or easy pieces. Say you choose the "good": easy pieces (plus some finger exercises). After a while you will be able to add medium pieces to your freedom. Then hard pieces. Then the music of the greatest composers. Finally, your freedom becomes perfect through excellence: you are now in complete control of the piano. But note how you got there - it was a long, hard slog of disciplined striving for good, it was not a given from the very start. The ancients assumed this to be the case for all freedoms, including social behaviour and morals. Somebody without trained virtue could only claim the sad freedom of randomly hitting some keys on the piano...
Once you see where all this is coming from, a lot of problems moderns see in Christian teachings disappear. But this is getting long and I'm not really much of an expert. If you are interested, read the mentioned books.
It's undoubtedly true that since William of Ockham, there have been no good pianists.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Cartwheel, I don't have a sufficiently subtle grasp of debate to fully understand your post.
I am trying to find out if those who believe that this show should be broadcast on grounds of defending 'freedom' (and what a lovely revealing sub-discussion is going on there) have any personal limits which they feel should not be breached in a similar way. For instance, if there was a play to be broadcast on television after that critical 9 o'clock point which depicted let's say, primary school teachers mercilessly battering children with severe learning dificulties, teenagers burning animals, or pop stars indulging in canibalism. All with copiuos amounts of bad language, drunkeness, indiscriminate sexual activities and memorable lyrics to catchy tunes. I'm trying to find out if those who scorn others' offence can live with it applying to themselves.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cartwheel
Apprentice
# 5149
|
Posted
quote:
"Slightly blasphemous" .... only "slightly" blasphemous ... you must have different standards and definitions of blasphemy than I do.
Yes. I probably do. Basically, anything that ends up coming to the conclusions that good and evil are arbitrary is blasphemous, insofar as it denies the claims of God. However, this is a musical. It is not intended to inform. I don't think it is intended to be a work of religious insight. Its main target is cheap television that uses people and makes them objects of ridicule. I would say that such television is far worse, because it is denying the image of God in those people. Slightly was probably the wrong word and I'm sorry I offended you but I was trying to get across the idea that I find lots of other things far more shockingly godless.
quote:
"Moral relativism is common in our culture" ... but how does that inform a Christian response to this play?
Arbitrarily calling for the banning of ONE WORK is hardly going to solve the problem, is it? In all the chorus of disapproval, I've heard noone on the radio take issue with the moral relativism it espouses (actually I think those lines come from "The Marriage of heaven and hell, by William Blake" - I could be wrong but I'd certainly heard them before). And banning it rather than engaging with it doesn't address the issue, whereas saying "Actually, God wouldn't do this because..." is assuming people are capable of understanding our message and choosing for themselves.
quote:
Are we able to say ... "it wasn't in a church, so it's OK."? I fear that some here wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was shown in a church ... so bang goes that argument.
"Judeo Christian mythology" indeed! That's already a theology (of sorts). This is not secular freedom of expression at all ... it's ideological comment. 'No-God' forbid that anyone should credence to the idea that any of this stuff might be historically true! After all ... anyone can take the pyth out of a myth ... theologically this is not possible but in common parlance where myth = stupid fairy story ... this is most certainly the case. And all this is just in the use of a commentating introductory phrase ... never mind the content of the play itself. (Don't you just love it when media types say "Christians CLAIM that their founder said this or did that.")
Um. OK, as I understand it, some Christians claim the Adam and Eve story is literally true. Some claim it as mythology. The Adam and Eve story is referenced in the opera. I thought (and I'm not theologically trained so sorry if I'm wrong here) that calling something a mythology was not an automatic denial of historical truth, rather an affirmation that the meaning attached to the story goes beyond the story itself. I personally find "stupid fairy story" offensive because it contains a value judgement (stupid) and noone ever claimed there was a deep meaning innate in the form of fairy stories. I do not find "mythology" offensive, because I think that reflects that all christians attach meanings to the story, whilst they might disagree on their historical truth. In the opera, Adam and Eve are real people.
quote:
Ban the show? Well, most of us don't want it banned at all - although, even perhaps the most die hard "freedom-of-expressionists" here might cavil at a (different) musical celebrating the "joys of paedophilia." We wanted THIS BROADCAST not to take place.
But I keep hearing calls for it not to be broadcast at all - that's effectively a ban for anyone in the provinces without a spare £75 to spend on train fare and a ticket. Or would you be quite happy if people watched it on channel 4?
quote:
It's no use objecting that whereas paedophilia is provably harmful and illegal whilst "Jerry Springer - The Fart in the Library" isn't because multiple profanity and religious pyth taking isn't. If Christians consented only to exercise moral discernment in legal matters in the privacy of their own lives and space then we probably wouldn't bat an eyelid at Springer, but rather, as many do here, defend its broadcast.
As it is, the idea that Christian morality is a private moraity is a western heresy arising from the growing secularist mind control of the last 300 years. It's not something most Christians (globally) can sign up to at all. Even those who do deny Christian insights a place at the table of legislation still try to pass laws in some sort of moral framework. Why is the secularist moral framework inherently more true or useful or noble than the Christian one? That would be irrational if it were not driven by political dogma.
Um. Speaking for myself here I'm going by "Do as you would be done by" - I wouldn't want things that have meaning for me to be banned, so I'm against banning as a form of response. That isn't to say I'm in favour of no response - rather I'm confident that my message is (or has potential to be) better that the one that challenges it - hence my question about the bishop's comments. There may be a Christian principle there, it may just be heretical pragmatism. Who knows?
quote:
Finally, the BBC acting as a public service doesn't mean that you may never say f*** or do anything naughty. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition .... indeed, calm down, there is none. But a line has been crossed when the likes of Springer is hosted by the likes of the BBC with the qualitative difference (whether you liker it or not .... IT'S THE LAW) attached to being a public service broadcaster.
But Jerry Springer has won awards. According to those who arbitrate quality in theatre, this is good at what it does. Who arbitrates quality in theatre if not the critical judging panels?
Posts: 25 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What a silly comment. Ingo's point is that freedom is something to be worked at.
As is playing the piano. Surely the history of the 20th century is precisely that freedom is something to be worked at, often to the death.
Ingo seems to be promoting the idea of rigid hierarchies of 'proper' thought, with the higher levels having complete control over the lower - including how one progresses upwards. I can see why this appeals, but how does it guard against error at the top? If one of the consequences of this Ockhamism (which I'm not au fait with) is the creation of ideas which overthrew slavery and led to the American civil rights movement, I think that's a price worth paying.
Going back to pianos: it used to be that if you wanted to hear good piano music, you had to learn how to do it the oldfashioned way or listen to someone else who had. Records, the radio and cheap music technology now means that people can hear and make keyboard music in many more ways. There's a lot more rubbish, but there's a lot more new and exciting and diverse stuff too - and as people are able to sort out the rubbish for themselves, this is a very good thing.
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
For instance, if there was a play to be broadcast on television after that critical 9 o'clock point which depicted let's say, primary school teachers mercilessly battering children with severe learning dificulties, teenagers burning animals, or pop stars indulging in canibalism. All with copiuos amounts of bad language, drunkeness, indiscriminate sexual activities and memorable lyrics to catchy tunes. I'm trying to find out if those who scorn others' offence can live with it applying to themselves.
Well, I for one would be ok with it, because I am able to recognize plays, television shows and movies for what they are: make-believe. In fact, I'm sure a trawl through IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes will produce several movies/tv shows/etc. with those very same subjects.
--------------------
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
Dear Cartwheel
quote:
However, this is a musical. It is not intended to inform. I don't think it is intended to be a work of religious insight. Its main target is cheap television that uses people and makes them objects of ridicule.
I would agree with all of that. The crucial question is whether or not the multiple profanities and blasphemy serves the primary aforementioned purpose of the musical or whether it is gratuitous and operating on another level. Such distinctions are made every day by the British Board of Film Censors. I contend that it is gratuitous and, therefore, it does set out to offend large sections of the populace rather than satirise its object and fulfil its avowed theme.
With its public service broadcasting remit I would have expected the BBC to use a little common sense in this regard.
On banning it ... I think I have said before I wouldn't have objected (so much) if it was on a private company channel. That's why I have highlighted the BBC's special provision as provided for in law (whether anyone agrees with that or not).
On "mythology" ... of course there is myth in Christianity. Adam and Eve is a classic case in point. But, "myth" as commonly understood "stupid fairy story" is the lingua franca and the so-called health warning wasn't discriminating (as you have been) in its use and application of the word.
"Do as you would be done by"
Cannibalism? I'm serious. Remember the German testicle fryer?
The fact that Springer has won awards has no more significance for me than Hitler approving of the work of Leni Riefenstahl. I don't accept the category of art critic as "expert."
[ 08. January 2005, 17:30: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
