|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
<snip>... well, on the whole, people are stupid, so I have no doubt that the world would be a better place if
... someone I could trust ... quote:
were in charge.
I do so agree.
WOW. Just wow. Nothing like advocating a complete abdication of personal responsibility that leads to EXACTLY the situation that the real Jerry Springer showcases every single day.
Congratulations. I'm sure all of the men and women who've died so that you could be free are dancing with joy at the thought that you spit on their sacrifice so easily.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
You can see why it won awards - it was beautifully done, very engaging and intermittently very funny. Wasn't much more morally complex than a Disney movie, but I don't suppose it set out to create a viable humanistic set of mores through deconstruction of medieval religious myth. But it did have what must be the longest sung swearword in musical history, and the warning that knowledge of Judeao-Christian mythology was required went down a treat.
From what I saw, I wouldn't expect an upswelling of popular support for the Christan Voices. Perhaps the shrill opposition campaign will make people think about the dangers of regulating or legislating to protect religion from criticism or 'offence'.
I read recently that there was a proposal, I think in the 70s, for all UK obscenity legislation to be harmonised under one law that dispensed with prescription or description and instead set a test of identifiable, measurable harm. One of those ideas that's far too radical to be adopted, no matter how sane...
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
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
IngoB,
Who decides what is more perfect, more excellent?
Having watched the thing, I can't agree that it was not performed by excellent actors, singers and musicians.
Overall, I thought it was ok. Very funny in places, very good music in places, strangely moving in places, but inconsistent and it seemed too long because of that. It's revealing I think that the piece was essentially workshopped as a series of sketches.
On the depiction of Jesus and Mary and so on - certainly not a Christian one, but I kept thinking it was a reasonable one, one that made sense in the context of the play. It was Jesus and Mary as Jerry Springer show guests. That would be a problem I guess if I thought I needed to protect a particular view of Jesus. If I thought that other people weren't entitled to make their own minds up over what they thought of him.
As for the swearing, to misquote my favourite philosopher - one Malcolm Reynolds - quote:
They tell you swearing ain't big nor clever, it is, however on occasion, hilarious
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ok I watched it all the way through.
I found Act 1 patchy due to the way it followed the chat show format, which made it into a series of sketches: one of which, the diaper scene, was duff - but it was then followed by better stuff. Loved the sung adverts and operatic duels. Wasn't bothered by the swearing - which is made absurd by being operatically sung. I can hear much worse if I stick my head out my window after pub chucking out time and no I don't think the reason people drift past my window singing obscene sectarian songs is because they've been corrupted by watching BBC 2 opera...
Onto Act 2 - this was so good I was gripped and wondered where the time went - it really picked up. It was great seeing Jerry get his comeuppance for destroying people's lives. I almost choked with laughter when the title came up saying 'warning not suitable for those without a strong grasp of Judaeo-Christian mythology'. Fantastic singing - amazing the way the whole thing shifted seamlessly between musical genres and great comic acting from David Soul. Also very much to my amusement the only times the word cunt is used in the entire production is to describe the Devil. How dare they call Satan a cunt! I hope outraged Satanists are writing in even now.
I wasn't so keen on the depiction of Jesus - (although the supposed nappy struck me as a parody of all those loin cloths you see in biblical movies). It was a bit lame and you think 'this will annoy people but it isn't actually saying anything very worthwhile', though the actor sung beautifully and had some very funny lines. I did get a laugh at Satan and thought the God figure was quite fun - he had a good number. Throughout the expression on David Soul's face 'this can't be happening to me' was very funny. The ascension and apotheosis of Jerry made me fall about laughing - the cheeky buggers!
And I was also surprised by the dying Jerry quoting a fragment from one of my favourite poems: Philip Larkin's Arundel tomb 'What will survive of us is love.'
'There is no good or bad' but 'be good to yourselves and to each other': feel good chat show stuff, but then what did you expect from the apotheosis of a chat show host - words of wisdom? And hilarious tap routines.
I'm sorry but in my opinion it was a high-class bit of zany piss-taking, chiefly aimed at Jerry Springer and all his works and featuring excellent singing, music and acting which I was pleased to see. I understand that people who want to pursue arguments anent blasphemy feel they have to watch it whether they like it or not, and I felt sorry for Father Gregory watching it - because I could see bits that I knew would offend him terribly, but then that's the price of religious activism, I have felt I had to read some ugly homophobic religious works so I could answer points on these boards but I've never suggested that these must be banned or taken off the bookshelves of my local university because my tax money helps pay the library to buy them - in fact I was glad they were there for reference.
If you want to burn your telly licence in protest because a tiny fraction of a pence of it may have gone on that, you're welcome, but I'm glad this campaign to ban that programme didn't succeed.
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
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Watched about 5 mins and then turned off. Generally, because I do not like obscenities - even if they are sung to music!
I guess the problem for me would be not so much that it was broadcast (there's a problem when censorship is introduced in any way). The problem is it was broadcast using public money (money that I pay in the license fee). I don't think I've ever come across anything on TV with so many swear words in so many minutes (maybe its my sheltered life!!). I didn't see the "religious" bits, I have better things to do with my time.
However, it seems to me that apart from reflecting the baseness of much popular culture today, it also displayed the hypocrisy of secular, liberal society. It is not OK to use public funds to celebrate religious festivals, i.e. Christmas, but it is OK to use public funds to satirise religion.
In this sense, the Jerry issue is different from the Behzti one. It's not about what's said - but who is paying. If it was broadcast on one of the commercial channels, I probably would be as concerned, would still not watch it, could engage in a critical debate about the content, but at least I wouldn't be paying for it!
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
However, it seems to me that apart from reflecting the baseness of much popular culture today, it also displayed the hypocrisy of secular, liberal society. It is not OK to use public funds to celebrate religious festivals, i.e. Christmas, but it is OK to use public funds to satirise religion.
Would this be the same secular, liberal society that funds Songs of Praise?
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
It is not OK to use public funds to celebrate religious festivals, i.e. Christmas,
What do you think these BBC religious programes for Christmas were made with?
quote:
Counting down to Christmas, the Bishop of Liverpool the Rt Rev James Jones leads live worship programmes for the season of Advent.
In Down to Earth (BBC ONE) he explores the theme of ecology and the environment from a theological perspective, looking at the connections between the gospels and the earth.
On Christmas Eve, the BBC joins the congregation to celebrate Midnight Mass live from Saint George's Roman Catholic Cathedral, Southwark (BBC ONE) and St. Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham (Radio 4).
The Christmas Day Service, Crackers for Christmas (BBC ONE), comes live from Methodist Central Hall in Coventry.
Celebrating Christmas with a selection of well loved carols, John Rutter directs the South Bank Sinfonia and Pegasus in Radio 4's Christmas Morning Service. The service, from St Mary, Islington, is led by the Bishop of Stepney the Rt Rev Stephen Oliver and features the Rev Colin Morris reflecting on the significance of "the Word made Flesh".
50 years after its first televised recording, Carols from King's (BBC TWO) tells the Christmas story afresh in music and prose. The world-famous choir of King's College, led by Stephen Cleobury, performs popular carols such as Once in Royal David's City and O Come All Ye Faithful.
The traditional Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols (Radio 4) also welcomes in Christmas for radio listeners throughout the world. The choristers perform traditional favourites and specially commissioned carols including God would be Born in Thee by Judith Bingham and Starry Night o'er Bethlehem by David Willcocks.
The musical celebrations continue with another long-running favourite, Songs of Praise (BBC ONE).
Jonathan Edwards introduces carols by candlelight from Ely Cathedral and actor David Suchet reads the story of Christmas. Renowned for his love of pop hits, Pete Waterman is also passionate about hymns and carols. In the final Songs of Praise of the year, he introduces his choice of Christmas carols and takes a festive trip back in time to look at Christmas customs just before the First World War.
A Seaside Parish returns to BBC TWO over the festive period with an hour-long special to mark the start of the new series. This year, Boscastle became headline news when a devastating flood swept through the town, destroying all in its path. But, at the start of the year, the Rev Christine Musser and her parishioners could have no idea of the disaster that would engulf this sleepy seaside village. The first episode of the new series revisits Boscastle and its residents in the months running up to that fateful day.
Other radio highlights include the Christmas Meditation (Radio 4) from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrew's and Edinburgh, Cardinal Keith O'Brien...
On Christmas morning, the Rev Roger Royle is joined by special guests and religious leaders in Good Morning Christmas (Radio 2), whilst Don Maclean looks back at interviews with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Martin Bell, Lionel Richie and Sister Wendy Beckett as he introduces The Best of Good Morning Sunday (Radio 2).
Should my atheist and non-Christian friends object to tiny fractions of their licence fee being used?
L.
[ 09. January 2005, 02:49: 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
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Unfortunately, the God slot is in the BBC's original remit, so unoriginal rubbish which shows Christianity in a poor light is half-heartedly broadcast in the form of "Songs of Praise" and other such programs. (Personally - they are the best advertisement against Christianity - well, that and the RE taught in most schools - speaking as an RE teacher!). If it was removed it would not be missed by me.
However, if you read the Secular Soceity et. al.'s comments on this "opera" (more a musical - saw some borrowings from Gospel music there), they are worried about the God-botherers protesting outside the BBC yet equally concerned about manifestations of religion in the public arena. That strikes me as basically hypocritical. These people do not want religious broadcasting at public expense, but broadcasting that mocks religion, courtesy of the public purse, is fine. I'm not arguing in favour of religious broadcasting, I'm arguing that anti-religious broadcasting should not be at the public expense either.
I have no problem with this work as a play, I can even see what the authors are trying to get at, can see why gratuitous obscenities are somewhow necessary to make thing work, and can even see the point of sending Jerry to hell and seeing Jerry's vision of it (as a fictional piece). I don't have to watch it and I certainly do not have to pay for its production. Personally, I am never in favour of censorship.
The protests made by many Christians serves to confirm in the secular mind that all believers are fanatics etc. I think, in this wise, such protest does Christianity a great disservice.
However, as a license fee payer I do not think this is appropriate use of the license fee money.If someone really wants to hear two hours of trite profanities in musical form they can take a trip down to the National and see it at there own expense! (I guess some people could say the same about Songs of Praise - if they really wanted to hear old fashioned hymn singing they could go to Church). Also, as a license fee payer I am perfectly at liberty to make that point after the broadcast, as I am about any program. In this case I don't think the BBC was doing what its charter sets out that it should do - and that's the issue.
Maybe with the new charter coming up the expectations of the BBC could be clarified and we would know what we are paying for.
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Should my atheist and non-Christian friends object to tiny fractions of their licence fee being used?
L.
Apparently people involved in the various secular and humanist societies think they should!
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
Marinka, the end result of your argument is surely that either:
(a) the BBC only shows programmes which are approved by every single person in the country or
(b) the BBC is disbanded
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Just wow. Nothing like advocating a complete abdication of personal responsibility that leads to EXACTLY the situation that the real Jerry Springer showcases every single day.
No, the world cannot operate as a collective of individuals, who for the most part will act selfishly to the detriment of others. There has to be a hierarchy of government; I just want that hierarchy to be trustworthy.
I think that the real Jerry Springer adequately showcases the inability of people to live harmoniously without a common moral framework. Perhaps the show broadcast on BBC2 demonstrates that, perhaps it shows that everyone is subject to an ultimate Head, perhaps it shows that, yes, anything goes if it feels good.
I didn't watch it, for the reasons I posted earlier.
quote:
Congratulations. I'm sure all of the men and women who've died so that you could be free are dancing with joy at the thought that you spit on their sacrifice so easily.
Good point. But this is a circular argument. I know that many in my country who survived WW2 so that freedom of expression is preserved, frequently bemoan the fact that this freedom is constantly abused. It is a persistent theme in our tabloid newspapers. Your comment indicates that I have abused that freedomm by expressing my view?
No, I don't think you can be saying that, but being 'free' is very difficult to get right. It can go to one extreme where anarchy rules the day or to the other where freedoms of action have to be cicumscribed.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Louise,
Thank you for posting your report on the show. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm happy I didn't watch it and feel it was the right decision for me; I still feel it would have been better not being broadcast on BBC2.
As for the right to protest to the BBC, licencepayers are like shareholders aren't they? Any licencepayer has the right to protest to the BBC (a pity the protestors in this case are assumed to be all Christian Voice supporters). I'm sure there would be howls of protest if the BBC showed a blatantly partisan support for one particular political party, for example.
Anyway, all over now .... but a broadcasting line has been crossed hasn't it?
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
I would also like to keep the struggle for democracy and against tyranny a separate issue. On that issue it's enough to point out that St Thomas Aquinas, a champion of "freedom for excellence", actually suggested representative democracy as the ideal form of government. He was also in favor of the separation of church and state (although he acknowledged - correctly - that the pope at that time was both a religious and secular power). All that in the 13th century!
Historical revisionism is the politest description of this paragraph. Aquinas argues that the ideal form of government should contain monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements. He very likely had a feudal monarchy with a strong aristocracy and a parliament in mind. Furthermore he believed that the crime of heresy was sufficiently wicked to warrant execution and that this should be carried out by the secular arm. This falls rather short of a belief in representative democracy and separation of Church and State in my book.
You may be confusing Thomas Aquinas with Thomas Paine.
--------------------
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
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
I caught the second half of Act 1 and the first half of Act 2. It was then I decided that I would far rather go to bed than watch it.
There were a couple of bits that I loved; the tap dancing Klan members, Satan and the 'sing off between Satan and Jesus. I fail to understand why people have found it so funny. Yes, there was some fantastic singing, but the thing that really caught my attention was trying to work out which cast members were playing multiple parts. I like the bearded nurses. I was not comfortable when Eve started foundling Jesus and did not watch much more.
Going to the theatre is a different experience thatn watching tv at home, but I suspect that I would not have stayed to watch the whole thing in the theatre either. I was bored. Bored with the length of time it look for the story to happen, and bored with the swearing. I kept thinking that the script writers/lyricists needed to learn some new words.
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Aquinas argues that the ideal form of government should contain monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements. He very likely had a feudal monarchy with a strong aristocracy and a parliament in mind.
Well, here's what he says:
quote:
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia IIae q. 90 a. 3 (translation: Jean-Pierre Torrell, Robert Royal):
Properly speaking, the law first and principally aims at order in light of the common good. To establish this order in light of the common good is the business of the whole people (totius multitudinis) or of someone representing them (gerentis uicem totius multitudinis). That is why the power of legislating belongs either to the whole people or to official figures who have that responsibility (quae totius multitudinis curam habet). The reason for this is that, here as in all other realms, ordering toward the end belongs to the one who is in charge of the end.
and
quote:
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia IIae q. 105 a. 1 (translation: Jean-Pierre Torrell, Robert Royal):
Two points need to be observed in the good organization of the government of a city of a nation. First, everyone should have a part in government, for in this, according to the second book of the "Politics", there is a guarantee of civil peace, and everyone cherishes and supports such a state of things. The other point concerns the form of the regime or the organization of powers. We know that there are several such distinguished by Aristotle in the third book of the "Politics", but the main ones are kingship, or the predominance of a single ruler according to virtue, and aristocracy, which is to say government by the best, or the predominance of a small number according to virtue. That is why the best organization of government for a city or kingdom is a single ruler, put at the head by reason of virtue, having authority over all, while under his authority are found a certain number of subordinate heads, qualified through virtue, and where nevertheless power thus defined belongs to the whole people, for all have the possibility of being elected or electors. Such is the perfect regime, happily mixed (politia bene commixta) by combining monarchy through the pre-eminence of a single man, aristocracy through the multiplicity of virtuous heads, and finally democracy, or popular rule by the fact that simple citizens may be chosen as leaders, and the choice of leaders belongs to the people.
One should also not forget that the Dominican order, to which he belonged, had a very "democratic" organisation from the outset. Clearly, his model would have been more "top-heavy" than even the US democracy (which has a strong president). But hey, given that we are talking about the 13th century, I think it's fair to call this a pretty good shot at representative democracy...
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Furthermore he believed that the crime of heresy was sufficiently wicked to warrant execution and that this should be carried out by the secular arm. This falls rather short of a belief in representative democracy and separation of Church and State in my book.
Well, here's again what the man says himself:
quote:
St Thomas Aquinas, In II Sent. d. 44 exposito textus, ad 4 (translation: Jean-Pierre Torrell, Robert Royal):
The spiritual power and the secular power both derive from the divine power, consequently, the secular power is subordinated to the spiritual power only to the extent that it has been subjected by God, which is to say, in what concerns the salvation of souls; in this realm it is better to obey the spiritual power than the secular. But in what concers the political good (bonum ciuile), it is better to obey the secular power than the spiritual, as it is said in Matthew 22:21: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
With regards to who does executions, I'm sort of amazed that you consider this a point against him! It's precisely the way modern society works: the Judiciary is declaring the death penalty, but it is the Executive (i.e., "the state") which carries it out - not the judges themselves. Of course, St Thomas Aquinas indeed believes that the "spiritual power" has the right to judge people, even unto death. That's an issue one can discuss - keeping in mind that we are talking about the 13th century! But I see no particular problem in handing the execution to the Executive, once we accept that there is a "Spiritual Judiciary", as well as a "Secular Judiciary".
--------------------
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
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
Wasn't intending to watch it, as explained in my previous post. However, because of this thread and a spam e-mail from Christian contacts, the rest of the family did watch it when they would not otherwise have done so - how is that for the Law of Unintended Consequences? It was impossible to do other things in the house and particularly sleep with three other people laughing themselves silly over bits of it. Our two teenage boys have just the right sense of humour for the absurdity of the show.
I wonder why the Jerry Springer organisation let the stage show take place, let alone televise it. It shows the show on which it is based as shallow, hypocritical, uncaring, staged and scripted for entertainment, not reflecting real life at all. It can't help their "brand" at all. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
As for the protests that televising the show has brought, their arguments and actions once again say much more about the protesters than the object of their disgust.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
As for the protests that televising the show has brought, their arguments and actions once again say much more about the protesters than the object of their disgust.
To protest shows you up as narrow minded. Not to protest means anything goes. I'm struggling to see the middle ground.
I saw the first act. Found it very funny. I was too tired to watch part two.
So dip me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Without this thread I would not have bothered to watch the show. So, "Thank you," to everyone who has posted so far - I loved it! Very funny, very moving, and extremely thought provoking. Overall I found it a deeply moral show (as well as being hilarious).
Now I wish I had videoed the whole thing. Does anyone (Louise?) know where I can get hold of a copy? To my mind clips will be extremely useful in teaching English, RE and Music to secondary kids.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Clearly, his model would have been more "top-heavy" than even the US democracy (which has a strong president). But hey, given that we are talking about the 13th century, I think it's fair to call this a pretty good shot at representative democracy...
It's an even better shot at describing a polity consisting of Kings, Lords and Commons which was common in the period in which Aquinas wrote. It is wildly anachronistic to suggest that this was anything like representative democracy as it is currently understood. If you want to argue that Aquinas is an ancestor of constitutional democracy then that is fair enough, one can actually trace the lineal progression from, say, the England of Edward I - which is the sort of thing which Aquinas is describing - and the current British constitution. But to say that Aquinas was advocating anything like the British constitution as currently understood is incorrect.
quote:
With regards to who does executions, I'm sort of amazed that you consider this a point against him! It's precisely the way modern society works: the Judiciary is declaring the death penalty, but it is the Executive (i.e., "the state") which carries it out - not the judges themselves. Of course, St Thomas Aquinas indeed believes that the "spiritual power" has the right to judge people, even unto death. That's an issue one can discuss - keeping in mind that we are talking about the 13th century! But I see no particular problem in handing the execution to the Executive, once we accept that there is a "Spiritual Judiciary", as well as a "Secular Judiciary".
This misses the point about what the separation of church and state is. Under a government where the church and state are separate, the fact that a church condemns someones opinions as heretical does not affect their ability to get a job or an education or to avoid prison or death. Aquinas is advocating a regime where condemnation by the Church leads inexorably to the stake. The fact that the head of the Congregation for the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith does not moonlight as the public hangman, does not really constitute what most people mean by the separation of church and state. I am quite prepared to judge Aquinas in the light of the fact that he wrote in a worse age than our own. This doesn't alter the fact that, as far as he was concerned, the government is obliged to act as the enforcer of religious orthodoxy. Aquinas insisted that the church and the state were separate inasmuch as the King and the Pope are separate offices. But the King is obliged to enforce the Pope's judgements. Again, this may make Aquinas an ancestor of modern liberalism but it is, again, wildly anachronistic to suggest that he was a modern liberal merely because he was not a modern totalitarian.
--------------------
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
|
|
Huntress
Shipmate
# 2595
|
Posted
The show accompanied my coursework efforts last night, so I listened to half/watched half of it.
I was compelled to watch it by:
1, holy friends telling me they would not be doing so
2, an opportunity to see it for a lot cheaper than in Edinburgh or London
3, a simple curiosity
4, despite hearing about the worst bits from other sources, being resolved to switch off if things got *really* bad/offensive.
I laughed at quite a few points in the first half as I thought it was a well-observed pastiche of the Jerry Springer show (and the security guard's cameo was one of the funniest points in it). The second half (with Kirsty Wark providing the warning about the offensive nature of the content - icing on the cake!) I found less amusing, and yes, 'Eve' fondling 'Jesus' raised every eyebrow I had. I missed most of the Virgin Mary's performance and didn't really get God.
However; I found that the flames of anger were not being fanned, as the characters on stage seemed no more than grotesques - and bore as little resemblance ( not in the physical sense) to Mary, Jesus and God as the Madam Tussaud's Christmas (Holy Beckham) exhibition did to the Holy Family.
--------------------
The Amazing Chronoscope
Posts: 431 | From: Lancashire / Nottingham | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cartwheel
Apprentice
# 5149
|
Posted
Personally, I still have a problem with the fact that the musical explicitly references "Judeo-Christian mythology" but the only God it comes up with is supposedly equal to Satan in power ("yin and yang" etc) - and such a god is not part of Christian mythology. So there's a major misrepresentation there and I'm uncomfortable with the musical itself because of it.
But I still don't get how you get from this to banning the musical outright or even banning it from the BBC. I know why I'm uncomfortable and I'm capable of expressing why I'm uncomfortable -and in practise the BBC allowed some Church bigwig on to comment before the musical was shown, so there was a right of reply. Isn't that what public service broadcasting should be - providing some award winning theatre for those who like such things, but putting it in a context where the content is clearly signalled and offended parties able to state their case beforehand?
Posts: 25 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
One of the BBC news items over the past few days said that they're commissioning several new "comedy operas" from the writers of JS-tO. I look forward to seeing some of them ridiculing the key figures of other world religions - then I might begin to respect these writers as artists with some courage. But until that happens, I'm afraid I will harbour the doubt that maybe they're cowards in search of an easy taget, a cheap laugh, and a fast buck.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Huntress:
quote:
However; I found that the flames of anger were not being fanned, as the characters on stage seemed no more than grotesques - and bore as little resemblance ( not in the physical sense) to Mary, Jesus and God as the Madam Tussaud's Christmas (Holy Beckham) exhibition did to the Holy Family.
The fact that they were played by the same actors who played the people on the Jerry Springer show in the first act was a not-so-subtle clue that these were phantasms and not actual sacred personages.
The only thing I found really offensive was Lee Dixon, on Match of the Day, suggesting that Exeter wouldn't win the replay.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
I look forward to seeing some of them ridiculing the key figures of other world religions - then I might begin to respect these writers as artists with some courage. But until that happens, I'm afraid I will harbour the doubt that maybe they're cowards in search of an easy taget, a cheap laugh, and a fast buck.
Apologies for the double post.
Claiming that white middle class people who prefer to lampoon the dominant tradition of their own culture rather than taking a pop at the traditions of minority cultures, whose members are often subject to racism and discrimination is rather like saying that the word 'nigger' isn't offensive because you don't mind being called 'honky'. There's a power imbalance thing going on.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Er ... Callan, Adeodatus said 'world religions' so perhaps there are some which are not minorities?
Now, if we had news of a play similar to JS-tO to be broadcast the only difference being the lampooned religion was other than Judeo-Christian mythology ( ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), lets say purely for the sake of example, Sikh or Muslim, there would be an almighty row and the BBC would not broadcast it because of the offence it would cause.
Wasn't it silly, portraying God and Satan as equal adversaries. Maybe the writers aren't Judeo-Christian themselves but another faith or none and they thought having a go was fair game. Wait a minute, the show won awards so it must be that they decided to expose the fallacy of the Manichean Controversy.
Excuse my cynicism, but I can see a lot of double standards around.
too tired to spell properly.
[ 09. January 2005, 12:45: Message edited by: Glimmer ]
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tina
Shipmate
# 63
|
Posted
I don't think the show portrayed God and Satan as equals. Satan was explaining that he used to be an angel, complaining that God had cast him out of heaven, and demanding that God reinstate him. Sounds like God had the superior power to me.
--------------------
Kindness is mandatory. Anger is necessary. Despair is a terrible idea. Despair is how they win. They won't win forever.
Posts: 503 | From: South London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
I look forward to seeing some of them ridiculing the key figures of other world religions - then I might begin to respect these writers as artists with some courage. But until that happens, I'm afraid I will harbour the doubt that maybe they're cowards in search of an easy taget, a cheap laugh, and a fast buck.
Apologies for the double post.
Claiming that white middle class people who prefer to lampoon the dominant tradition of their own culture rather than taking a pop at the traditions of minority cultures, whose members are often subject to racism and discrimination is rather like saying that the word 'nigger' isn't offensive because you don't mind being called 'honky'. There's a power imbalance thing going on.
I think you misapprehend my point Callan - which is actually that I regard h***y as being as racist as n****r. There is no excuse for either. My analogy is that if the writers for whatever reason won't lampoon Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism... then for the same reason they should not have lampooned Christianity. And the power imbalance thing really doesn't apply, since (practising) Christians are as much a minority in the UK as anyone else is.
As I say, though, I'm afraid I have a dreadfully uncharitable mind: I suspect the writers merely saw an easy target, a cheap piece of offence that they could get away with, and because sufficient of the chattering classes think as they do, they're laughing all the way to the bank. It shocks me that I am sufficiently cynical to believe this.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Er ... Callan, Adeodatus said 'world religions' so perhaps there are some which are not minorities?
Not within the western world, which is where the power resides.
The Sikh play, Behzti, in Birmingham accused of Blasphemy, which we discussed here, was closed by violence from certain elements of the community in question rather than intervention from authority. (Although authority didn't seem to defend freedom of speech much). After reading some of the information available, I feel that play had important points to make. I'm personally not so impressed at the depth or importance of material in the Springer opera (given limited information I have), but it's hard for me to argue that one should be allowed and not the other without appearing extremely biased.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
April*
Shipmate
# 4614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm personally not so impressed at the depth or importance of material in the Springer opera (given limited information I have), but it's hard for me to argue that one should be allowed and not the other without appearing extremely biased.
I agree. I watched some of the Springer show and found it utterly boring even the music lyrics aside, seemed vile so turned over to Billy Connelly for amusing entertainment.
--------------------
Justice may sleep, but it never dies.( Francis Grimke 1902)
Posts: 1180 | From: Caught in a shower | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I only saw the first 30 minutes or so as I was dead tired and went to bed instead. So I can't comment on the show itself which probably destroys my right to post on this thread. However I can't help wondering why any religious people - Christians, Sikhs, however - get so uptight about the lampooning of their religion . All religions are fair game for comment or criticism because they are all flawed human attempts to contain God. And God can't be contained in our inadequate vessels. Sometimes God can speak through the (even more?) flawed vessels of cheap satire. (example - though I personally would rate it higher than cheap satire - is the Life of Brian)
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
And the power imbalance thing really doesn't apply, since (practising) Christians are as much a minority in the UK as anyone else is.
This line of argument might have more plausibility if the Christian minority didn't include HM the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education etc. etc. or if the government hadn't recently amended one of its Bills at the behest of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. (I have no objection to the Cardinal, or to the result of his intervention. I merely point out that the stereotype of the poor persecuted Christian, the victim of every wicked secularist, may just be slightly overstated.)
quote:
I think you misapprehend my point Callan - which is actually that I regard h***y as being as racist as n****r. There is no excuse for either. My analogy is that if the writers for whatever reason won't lampoon Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism... then for the same reason they should not have lampooned Christianity.
Might it not be the case that criticism of Islam is better expressed by Mr Rushdie and criticism of Sikhism by Ms Bhatt? Or is it the case that religious belief should be above satire and critical scrutiny? I think most thoughtful Gentiles would hesitate before expressing a criticism of Orthodox Judaism. Jews should be bound by no such hesitation. I would have thought that the reason for this hardly needed explication.
--------------------
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
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Asked by Paul Mason of IngoB: quote:
Who decides what is more perfect, more excellent?
The fact that this question has to be asked is symptomatic of the erosion of common values, which Fr Gregory expressed his frustration about earlier in this thread
St Paul wrote quote:
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Philippians 4:8 (KJV)
He could not, I think, have commended this if he and his readers had no shared notion of what such things were.
Some aspirants to Orthodox monasticism have been recommended to read novels by Charles Dickens; such novels are the product of Western 19th century society, which was certainly not Orthodox, but many of the moral, social and cultural values of English Victorian society which Dickens shared with his contemporaries were (and are) much the same as those to be found in Orthodox societies.
These shared public mores have become so eroded in the 20th and 21st centuries that it is almost impossible for some people to believe that they existed and, furthermore, that they could only now be imposed by some external agency. That Christians should be complicit in this, to the extent that the concept of blasphemy, for example, either no longer exists in their vocabulary or has become distorted, is simply astonishing.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The essential point is that with regards to social and moral (and religious...) behaviour, we have largely lost the idea of "freedom for excellence". At best it has been relegated to child rearing, again because it is unavoidable there. However, for adults "freedom of indifference" rules supreme: "If I choose to do this, what gives you the rights to restrict my freedom?" This argument is essentially absolute, without considering what it is that is being done - pure Ockham.
Um. I still don't understand what this absolute rule of freedom is. One of my best (and most slacker) pals is currently working (very) hard to finish his Masters in IT. Why? Lots of reasons, but one is that it will give him more consulting options. Sounds like your 'freedom for excellence' idea in full operation. And while I claim the right to write what I like, I know that if I don't make it as good as I can then nobody will bother to read (or pay!) for it. So with all these filters encouraging excellence, and plenty of other limits on my behaviour both cultural and legal, where's this universal Ockhamist Liberty Hall in which we live?
quote:
I would also like to keep the struggle for democracy and against tyranny a separate issue. On that issue it's enough to point out that St Thomas Aquinas, a champion of "freedom for excellence", actually suggested representative democracy as the ideal form of government. He was also in favor of the separation of church and state (although he acknowledged - correctly - that the pope at that time was both a religious and secular power). All that in the 13th century!
Now you've amplified, I'm sure there's no disparity between FFE and modern concepts of personal liberty. So, er, how's it been lost? Are you saying it's been lost to Christianity in particular?
<snip>
quote:
I assume that this play is actually bad, that it is not is some way or the other a major cultural advance, not even in the sense of a "minority rebellion". Note that I've asked about three times if anyone thinks otherwise, and apparently nobody really does. Thus: an excellent playwright would not have written the play, an excellent theatre manager would not have staged it, excellent actors would not have taken part in it, excellent theatre visitors would not have watched it, excellent critics would not have given it awards, excellent BBC program directors would not have picked it up, and an excellent TV audience would ignore it completely anyway.
I couldn't answer that earlier, as I hadn't seen it! But yes, it exhibited excellence in various departments - the music, the players, and in some ways the book. Groundbreaking - probably not. If there hadn't been that huge upsurge in moral outrage, I doubt anyone would have given it much notice beyond finding it a quirky treat unlike most of the schedules.
quote:
If I'm asking for "restrictions", then that's simply a pragmatic response in our current environment dominated by "freedom of indifference". However, my ideal world is quite different.
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
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.
I'm not opposed to progress in any way. Excellence does not mean ignoring developments, to the contrary. To cite the modern music industry as a sign of good progress seems somewhat ironic though - Brittney Spears vs. Mozart and all that.
But now we have Mozart *and* Brittney! Who loses?
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I think the show has a limited shelf-life so far as 'art' is concerned. It will probably always have a bit of a cult following - perhaps in the style of the Rocky Horror Picture Show; and in that way will always find an audience of some sort. But for the most part may generally be seen as a bit of an oddity, perhaps appealing to fewer people than the positive publicity would like to suggest.
The volume of obscenities seemed a little 'naughty-boyish'- especially with some of the audience's reaction - and therefore irritating, which I thought detracted, in the main, from any real appreciation that might have been possible of it as a musical drama. And I was disappointed that there weren't any serious dramatic moments. None that I could see anyway.
I thought that there might have been opportunities to have revealed to us the 'inner' lives of the guests, for example, something moving or touching. But everytime the musical seemed to drift in that direction it veered off into 'naughty boyishness' again, almost as if it couldn't cope with the idea of portraying some realistic emotion or feeling from the more tender or vulnerable side of human life. Interesting, in itself.
I disliked some of the religious depiction, though it was obvious that it was an hallucination within the story of the play. (And as an artistic idea it was coherent, imo.) But that is because I don't like the thought of people associating Jesus Christ with the petulant, smug, immature character he was portrayed to be. I winced particularly when 'Jesus' was told 'to for Christ's sake get some clothes on and grow up!'
But it did make me think seriously about the kind of Jesus that I, and Christianity in general, spend our time trying to introduce people to. If I am to accuse the writers and performers of producing a Christ that is a serious distortion of the scriptural verity, I must check out the plank in my own eye, too.
One thing that wasn't a surprize, of course, was how glamorous and smart the character of Satan was compared to the 'I want to poop in my pants'/ Jesus guy, the frowzy nagging mother/Mary, and the self-pitying self indulgent ineffectual/God characters. Even when he's the source of all the world's woes, Satan always manages to be the funniest, smartest, best-dressed and most attractive one of the bunch! Weird that!
I wouldn't want to watch it again; even without the religious bits at the end of the show, I found the constant obscenity a bit 'samey' and tedious. Though I appreciate it was meant to reflect cleverly and ironically on the level of inarticulateness (real word? inarticulacy?) of the average Springer guest. I think there are ways that it could have been genuinelly clever and ironic without the smokescreen of so much bad language, and some of the music was pretty good. And I did like David Soul's performance.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Apropos of Dickens, in his novel Little Dorrit, we are introduced to the character of Mrs Clenham. Mrs Clenham is an austere and fanatical Calvinist whose proud rectitude is purchased at the expense of any kind of love for her neighbour. Dicken's gives us a glimpse into the psyche of a deeply flawed woman whose view of the divine as a malevolent tyrant is some kind of character flaw. This is the sort of thing that Orthodox postulants are supposed to read.
'Jerry Springer' gives us a glimpse into the psyche of someone who sees the divine as just another series of grotesques as the ones who appear on his talk show. But because the peculiar deities that inhabit his psyche are personified and set to music, Orthodoxy stands aghast and the nation must be protected from such damaging ideas. Perhaps the criticisms of 'Jerry Springer' will one day seem as blinkered as Macaulay's dismissal of Hard Times as 'sullen socialism'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I girded my loins and watched the show last night. As much as I could manage that is.
The main problem was that I don't like Jerry Springer and the other confessional shows and I'm not an opera fan either. It was indeed a parody of daytime trailer trash TV using the world's most absurd artform and it made such grim viewing that after fifteen minutes I was bored silly. Yes, it was tasteless, trashy and blasphemous but little more than two hours of EastEnders.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of Dickens, in his novel Little Dorrit, we are introduced to the character of Mrs Clenham. Mrs Clenham is an austere and fanatical Calvinist whose proud rectitude is purchased at the expense of any kind of love for her neighbour. Dicken's gives us a glimpse into the psyche of a deeply flawed woman whose view of the divine as a malevolent tyrant is some kind of character flaw. This is the sort of thing that Orthodox postulants are supposed to read.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Why wouldn't that be good reading for "Orthodox postulants"? Why would the Orthodox object to Mrs. Clenham's view of God as a tyrant being portrayed as a character flaw?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cartwheel:
Personally, I still have a problem with the fact that the musical explicitly references "Judeo-Christian mythology" but the only God it comes up with is supposedly equal to Satan in power ("yin and yang" etc) - and such a god is not part of Christian mythology. So there's a major misrepresentation there and I'm uncomfortable with the musical itself because of it.
It's not an unfair point to make, though - I've seen Satan described as "Christianity's other god" by a mischeivous Buddhist - as the image of God and Satan locked in conflict for thousands of years (with us in the middle) does imply a certain parity of force. Why doesn't God just wrap this game up now and save a whole heap of misery (and countless more souls condemned to eternal suffering)? I know that there are various reasons why this picture is wrong, but none make sense to the faithless. It remains a paradoxical aspect of Christianity - no wonder it's not directly addressed in the mythos.
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:
I know that many in my country who survived WW2 so that freedom of expression is preserved, frequently bemoan the fact that this freedom is constantly abused. It is a persistent theme in our tabloid newspapers. Your comment indicates that I have abused that freedomm by expressing my view?
No, I don't think you can be saying that, but being 'free' is very difficult to get right. It can go to one extreme where anarchy rules the day or to the other where freedoms of action have to be cicumscribed.
The capacity for abuse is the price we must pay for freedom. The alternative is that no one has any freedom, ever. I actually do think that saying you'd be willing to sacrifice everyone else's freedom so that the world will be to your tastes is an abuse of that freedom, but hey, that's what freedom is about. In my world, you can say those things, no matter how distasteful or disrespectful others may find them, and all you get is people telling you that you're wrong. In your world, I and people like me would be executed for expressing illegal beliefs.
[ 09. January 2005, 15:26: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
JJ, my point is that if Mrs Clenham can satirise a certain type of Calvinist then Jerry Springer can satirise a certain type of post-Christian. One form of satire is no more deplorable than the other.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
All religions are fair game for comment or criticism because they are all flawed human attempts to contain God. And God can't be contained in our inadequate vessels.
I also rate the Life of Brian highly - brilliant satire of so many things, not just religion (e.g. the proliferation of "judaen people's fronts"). I also have no doubt that God can speak through satire. However your comment that religions are flawed human attempts to "contain" God irritates me. This completely ignores the fact that at least two of them (Christianity and Islam) and probably more for all I know claim to be religions of revelation and whilst the following of such revelation is always flawed that doesn't mean that the religion itself is a flawed attempt to contain God. Unlike you I'm afraid I have yet to go beyond my naive Christian understanding of God to see what God is really like so I have no objective criteria to compare the portrayal of him in Christianity against so I can't know how flawed or otherwise it actually is.
Sorry if that's a little off-topic: if Angloid (or indeed anyone else) would like to debate it in more detail I am game for another thread.
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Artists set out to provoke. So did Jesus. On that basis, I think this opera was excellent.
The music was good. There were some good ironic bits, e.g. the adverts for guns – no wonder pro-Bush moral majority types got offended.
I may be reading too much into it but I think:
Language: The expletives are easy to complain about but the simple fact is that many people use them a lot – those of us work with ‘the public’ know that. Real public access TV would show that, instead of the ‘tasteful’ middle class stuff we normally get.
Conservative morality: There are some interesting moral judgements e.g. the fiancée forgives her fiancée for being unfaithful with another woman but NOT with another man
Fetishes often have religious origins: The man who wants to dress as a baby is later the character who plays Jesus in the Hell scene – there’s a valid point here about people concentrating on the ‘nice side’ of Christianity, i.e.’ baby Jesus’ instead of the man who said some radical things and died a horrendous death.
Later, Jesus wants to draw attention to his wounds (George Bernard Shaw contrasted ‘Crosstianity’ with Christianity) – ‘speak to my stigmata’ but gets asked some good questions; “Where were you when the children were dying?” - a good critique of those Christians who worship the crucifix but do little to help alleviate the suffering of the world or fight for social justice.
Avoidance of real needs: There is a very moving song in the second commercial break when a woman sings about her fear of ageing and losing her looks. Jerry does not want to deal with people’s ‘real ’problems, only those that will add to his show’s fame. Is that a dig at tele-evangelists and some domineering clergy who want to further their own personality cults rather than dealing with real people? Another ‘dig’ is the warm-up man who says that Jerry helped him so he joined the team but is expendable because Jerry doesn’t really care about anyone but himself?
In his hear death experience of hell, Jerry still wants to deal with people in an expedient/utilitarian way instead of dealing with them as real people like himself.
Toxic religion: The fat woman who wants to be a pole dancer seems ridiculous until we meet her moral majority, po-faced mother and realise that she has been deprived of self-expression through introjected guilt for most of her life. It’s a scathing critique of certain types of religion that repress instead of liberating people. Jesus came to bring abundant life, not to damn it up.
There is a also a good critique of some doctrines, e.g. Augustine’s idea of original sin – Eve complains that just because she ate this piece of fruit, humankind has been given all this grief. We should open up the Augustine versus Pelagius debate again.
Self-aggrandisement or self-abandonment: In Hell, Jerry wants to be in control a lot of the time – he calls for his lawyers, he goes up and down a ladder to heaven according to how much he lets God lead him and how much he tries to solve problems by himself – a good metaphor for the way we have to trust God totally.
When Jerry runs out of cue cards, he then realises his total dependence (on God?)
The Devil is just like Milton’s – he blames God for his choices and wants the chance to argue his case.
Blasphemy? When Jesus is accused of being ‘gay’ and says that he is ‘a little bit’ – well if he represents the whole of humanity, then he is. Otherwise, he only represents about 90% of humanity.
God is brilliant: It ain’t easy being me.’ We make choices and then blame him for the consequences that follow. Grow-up religion should take this on board.
Sexism in religion: Adam and Eve and the ‘all women are whores’ scenes are reminiscent of the way the Church has treated women down the centuries, pigeon-holing them either as madonnas or whores.
Anthropology: The ending, where Jerry talks about the human condition, where we have to accept that ’Nothing is right, nothing is wrong’ could be seen as mere relativism. However, a Jungian would say that we have to accept and love our ‘dark’ side. Then the balance between yin and yang, where we not only accept our own shortcomings but those of others, would promote a world of harmony instead of enmity.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Thinking about it some more (for it was a thought provoking show, which worked on several levels) - it appeared to be quite helpful to people on the fringes, who would have trouble being accepted by the po-faced fundamentalists.
For example, when Jesus says 'well, I am a bit gay' (wow, if Jesus really was a bit gay - and who is to say he wasn't - then what affirmation to homosexuals and people who are struggling with their sexuality!)
And the show also gave permission to people who feel like they want to have a row with God, to shout and swear at him and call him to account for things he has allowed to happen to their lives (even the ship has had a thread calling God to hell, which several people said they found very helpful)
I personally liked the 'and Grow up for Christ's sake' line said to Jesus - after all, it was Christians who complained that people are very good at keeping Christ as a permanent baby in a manger for 2,000+ years and not allowing him to be portrayed as a man.
The music was also thoroughly enjoyable, particularly the 'fu, fu, fu' (Devil) and 'tor, tor, tor' (Jesus) duet.
Instant feedback from no. 1 son was firstly, "there was more swearing in South Park" and secondly, "I hope they bring out a Schools Performance version". He is already planning (half-seriously) a church youth-group version. Watch this space.......
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Callan wrote (rhetorically but I couldn't resist it!):
quote:
Or is it the case that religious belief should be above satire and critical scrutiny?
Never. Religous beliefs should always be open to criticism - even if the believer finds the criticism unsettling or even nauseating. I remember being unsettled by the ending of 'Life of Brian' when I saw it at the cinema, a lapsed Christian, back in the early 1980's. Ironcially, going to see the film actually strengthened my faith because it made me realise the depth of reverence I had for Christ but which, being lapsed, I forgotton. It woke me up. Likewise I've read many novels which seek to refute or (IMO) misunderstand some significant religious truths, His Dark Materials for example. Such novels, however, can provide a damn good read and often give me real food for thought by challenging me to reflect on and validate (if only to myself) my own position/beliefs.
To anyone troubled by blasphemy issues, If you think an artistic work misrepresents the truth, why not create one which does? Or if you haven't got the skills or the time to do that, live your life according to that truth and stop fussing.
Chorister, reading your post makes me wish I'd have watched 'Jerry Springer the Opera' on telly the other night. You make it sound rather good.
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Marinka,
Who?
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
To my mind clips will be extremely useful in teaching English, RE and Music to secondary kids.
Except you couldn't show it in school because of the amount of swearing!
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Marinaki - you are kidding? Aren't you?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
In your world, I and people like me would be executed for expressing illegal beliefs.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I can't imagine why you would be executed, or anyone else for that matter. Who are 'people like you'? And how is it possible for a belief to be illegal?
There must be a workable region inbetween the two extremes of 'total control' and 'total freedom'; isn't that what supposedly civilised democracies try to do?
I see there has been some concern in the United States about attempts to ensure the protection of freedom although I'm unclear as to which side is claiming to protect it. I can't pretend to know much about what is going on over there; as I said, I find it very difficult.
There is a very interesting line in this thread which is analysing 'freedom'. All I can offer to this sparkling repartee is - freedom is like a soap bubble. Looks pretty but disappears when you try to grab it for yourself.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Marinaki,
I've not seen Springer the Opera but I have taught Romeo and Juliet to adult students and discovered Mercutio's Queen Mab's speech to be a very naughty thing ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) . This play is routinely taught to 14-16 year olds, so I wouldn't worry. I'm sure very few teenagers would be shocked by explicit language.
(Edited for typo)
[ 09. January 2005, 17:16: Message edited by: dorothea ]
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
