Jerry Springer The Opera and religious zealots.

Apparently we're meant to be being protected from a fictional gay character who believes he is Jesus in the show.

This is surely an intelligence matter. If you are either an intelligent Christian or atheist I'm certain you will see this as it is. A fictional representation of someone with psychological problem. I doubt it will cause you to doubt your faith.

Jonathan

The usual "I haven't read/seen/heard XYZ but I don't like it, and I THINK IT SHOULD BE BANNED.
I am fucking fed up of bleeding heart liberals, religious zealots or what ever making up my mind for me.
If you don't like it don't bloody watch it, and let those that do go to hell in a handcart.
Re- anti protest protest don't sink to their stupid level,you will never change their concreted minds anyway.
THe world still seems to revolve even after Life of Brian, Passsion of the Christ et al.
So who is right? Perhaps god don't agree with his followers?

Howard (Is it really warm in here?)

This is a huge issue in America where they have this trend for organised write-ins from bizarre, ultra-right wing Xtian groups about televison programs. The FCC duly gets 10,000 complaints about how terrible and morally corrupting programme X was and duly fines the network a gazillion pounds.

In reality it turns out that of the 10,000 complaints, 9,000 are basically a form letter coming from some group of whacko nutjobs with a website and the number 10,000 does not represent the actual level of public grievance. The result is that the newly fined networks schedule and commision more conservatively and the US gets less Sopranos and Sex in the City and rather more Jessica Simpson and her husband singing wholesome Christmas songs in front of a roaring fire in a log cabin. Efectively you end up with a creeping form of censorship from a tiny minority of the population.

Matthew

I understood that this is about Jesus being portrayed as a gay man who comes over as being a bit daft. This is the basis of the complaint by the Christians who are protesting.
I agree with their point that if this was another religion, no-one would dare, so that is fair comment and double standards on the part of the Beeb. But...
I also thought that Christianity taught to turn the other cheek and not be afraid of this sort of thing, not to judge, and certainly not set oneself up as judge and jury - let alone without even seeing the evidence. I'm sure God is big enough to deal with this without the "help" of those who are misguided enough to interfere on His/Her behalf. So...the Christian protestors and the Beeb are hypocrites in this case.

I reckon the whole protest thing is a conspiracy dreamt up, sponsored and financed by the BEEB's marketing department to ensure record viewing figures on Saturday night, but maybe I'm just an old cynic

Oh Dear - from the abrupt disappearance of my comments [and those of a couple of other contributors] I gather that censorship is not the sole perogative of Christian Zealots and licence-burning loonies in Wood Lane, but also that of those a little closer to home.

When I said 'Adam Meredith - this is your moment' I rather thought I was joking, but it seems that Mr Meredith hasn't much of a sense of humour.

Censorship is a really dreadful thing, Adam - I feel like a Hungarian in 1956 right now, and rather think that the forces that are attempting to stop our Saturday Night's viewing have found a friend in you - which is sad. First Tom Alves, and now me - and I'm the Only Gay On The Forum! Shame on You. Butterflies. Wheels. Etc.

Anybody who thinks this is a bit off, please feel free to make a fuss - I would, if I were you.

bye bye.....

lovely throb

Those religious zealots should be kept from experssing their point of view !

oops.....

quote:

---

Censorship is a really dreadful thing, Adam - I feel like a Hungarian in 1956 right now, and rather think that the forces that are attempting to stop our Saturday Night's viewing have found a friend in you - which is sad. First Tom Alves, and now me - and I'm the Only Gay On The Forum! Shame on You. Butterflies. Wheels. Etc..

---

Get a grip - You're no Butterfly and that was no Wheel

[This message was edited by Adam Meredith on Fri 07 January 2005 at 21:07.]

Hmm, thought that might happen, Throb! Damn funny though... particularly the bit about Germaine Greer: I can't stand her either!

Adam - I'm a man of letters but I don't know what that means! Sounds profound though.

Ah well, I'm going to have a tinny and listen to Beethoven. Catch you later.


*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***

So exactly why was my post pulled then?
throb [flap flap, turn turn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Adam - I'm a man of letters but I don't know what that means! Sounds profound though.

---

It's a well used quote from Pope (Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot) and was more recently (than 17??, at least) used in John Mortimer's defence summing up of Mick Jagger & Keith Richards on drug charges.
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?

And therefore a little grand, I felt, for the removal of a post.

Adam - don't you even have the slightest qualm censoring a post about censorship?

throb

quote:

---

Originally posted by throbnorth:
So exactly why was my post pulled then?
throb [flap flap, turn turn]

---

The last paragraph of your post was bizarely (in a strangely condensed way) offensive on many levels. It was the random insult to Islam that got it removed.
I have banned other posters for racism and your comment was offensive.

'Bizarely [sic] (in a strangely condensed way) offensive on many levels.'

I was searching for just the right sig. Adam - thank you so much for supplying it.

gratefully,

throb

Chaps

Censoring art is a very wierd subject.

Mr A who is a lefty pinko may complain about censoring the Gerry Springer show but may be out with placards if another show was racist, homophobic or whatever.

Mr B who is a churchgoing pillar of society may have totally opposite views.

So do we allow anything or nothing.

The trend lately is to censor that which offends and if we continue down this route, none of us with be offended and hence all of us will be happy.

So I say ban the bloody lot and keep everyone happy.

Regards

Mick

Good idea. Let's do away with different newspapers and have a govenment official publication too while we are at it...oh, and lock up anyone trying to protest against it. You lot frighten me sometimes, and I'm scared right now that you are not joking.
I presume they will be happy because that is what they are told to feel about it.
I think it may help us all if the Padded Cell was given a list of topics we are allowed to discuss and those that will cause us to "Disappear".
It also strikes me that those who have been "Disappeared" and censored are those that I would consider the least likely candidates. Throb may be gay and he may be a son of God, but he isn't the guy in the opera. He's more important than that.

[This message was edited by Rasher on Fri 07 January 2005 at 23:22.]

Is removal of private topics somehow linked? It is after all the only unseen, unmoderated area. It all sounds very Michael Howard to me.

Seems to me that offense is becoming a sort of fashion accessory in certain circles - often religious circles. Well I say offend them! You can censor and ban to your heart's content, there's no point in pussyfooting around the perverse sensibilities of a bunch of people who're determined to see offense in things.

People who want things banned and censored on religious grounds offend me, but unfortunately I can't censor or ban them! They depress me immensely.

It's a cruel world. Deal with it.


*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***

Crap! Commiserations and kudos Throb, that was the funniest post I've read in a very long time.

This can't be fair. Can't we have a vault for work of this calibre with disclaimers and warnings for old ladies and insufferable sensitive types?

I think like the Catholic docrine allows we can run up a number of sins then, go and do our Hail Mary's, come back and start all over again, innit !


Fritz Von 666 is on the Pope's Titfer (honest)

As Matthew points out, this has been a problem in the States for many years, and it seems to be becoming more of a problem here - especially as we currently have a cynical government full of feeble-minded simpletons who seem intent on appeasing any religious pressure group in the pursuit of votes. Recently a play was pulled thanks to the thuggery of a group of Sikh extremists in Birmingham, which I personally find quite worrying.

Unfortunately, the desert monotheisms have gods who appear to be the most ghastly despots imaginable, and their more zealous followers see it as their duty to install the same despotisms here on earth.

I am an atheist, but not a particularly proseletysing one - if people want to follow a religious path in life, that's up to them. Religion is an entirely personal matter. However, the problem with many (or is that most?) people of faith is that they feel they have a monopoly on virtue, and that their views and particular sensitivities have to be impposed on the rest of us.

I really don't see why I shouldn't be able to watch Jerry Springer The Opera on BBC2 tonight if I want to. I pay my licence fee, just like the "30,000" (?) who have complained. If they don't want to watch it, they don't have to. I don't see why a vocal minority with a particular set of prejudices should dictate for the rest of the population.
Besides, these evangelical types rarely seem to exhibit any of the more positive Christian virtues (tolerance, respect, charity, forgiveness, etc), but seem instead to be obsessed with clamping down on sex in geneeral and homosexuality in particular.

The lesson from all this is that all religions – not just Muslim, but also Christian, Jewish, Sikh. etc - represent a threat to the values that I (at least) hold dear.

So there.

Kevin

Kevin

I think you are looking at this from one side.

Would you complain if there was a televised re run of meet your neighbour (I think that was what it was called) which contained gratuitously racist remarks and constant reference to the N word.

If you honestly believe in no censorship, it could easily be played again.

Either you maintain standards of some sort by censorship or you allow a free for all.

Regards

Mick

Love Thy Neighbour?

Mick

Indeed I remember Love Thy Neighbour, it was a big hit when I were a little lad. I agree the constant references to "nigger" "sambo", "coon", etc make it largely unwatchable today. But I would have absolutely no objections if one of the TV channels wanted to show it - after all as a society we have move on in many ways and it is always interesting to see how things were 30 years ago. Don't forget, at the time Love Thy Neighbour was being shown, it was perfectly acceptable to utter the "N word" in public and quite a few people would worry about blacks mmoving in next door. A programme like that is a reflection of wider attitudes in society rather than a piece of racist programe-making.

On a similar tack, I regret the BBC's decision to drop the phrase "Paki shop" from broadcasts/DVDs of early issues of Only Fools & Horses. After all, it was a very common phrase in the early 1980s, and its use in the script an indication of attitudes of the time.

And look at DW Griffifth's monumental film Birth Of a Nation of 1915. An incredible achievement technically, and by far the most successful silent film ever made. Howeveer, it is very difficult to watch these days because it is so racist (all blacks are cringeing, duplicitous swine out to ravage good white girls, the Klu Klux klan are a noble bunch out to protect decent white folks, etc).

Indeed, so repellently racist is its black stereotyping that the Klan actually used it as a recruiting tool in the teens and '20s - with a great deal of success.

Yet Griffifth did not set out to make racist propaganda. He was born in 1875, the son of a Confederate officer and from a family ruined by the Civil War. He was merely a man of his time, a Southern conservative, and his film reflects this (they also reflect a rather charming Victorian genteelness as well, as respect for manners, hospitality and gentlemanly conduct and old-fashioned morality).

I do not think this film should be banned - in fact, it deserves to be seen. It just needs a context.

Does that answer your question?

Kevin

Kevin

Yes it does answer my question and I can respect your POV because it is balanced on both sides.

I only have a problem with those who want only to ban / censor that which offends them but complain when someone whats to ban something in which they have little interest in.

The problem with this subject, is that it can be very emotional to those affected and logic goes out the window.

FWIW, I am a committed Christian but I have no objection to the Gerry Springer Opera being televised, in fact I think it is good for any institution / religion to have a few leading issues pointed at it.

Regards

Mick