Jerry Springer The Opera and religious zealots.
Posted by: Shayman on 07 January 2005
No doubt all those of you in the UK will have heard that the BBC plan to broadcast the musical "Jerry Springer The Opera" this weekend.
Fanstastic. Every review I've read says it is a great piece of theatre.
However the BBC has now received 15000 complaints ahead of the showing from various religious and mediawatch groups. The head of Mediawatch-UK has apparently counted 8000 swear words in the show although to do this he had to multiply each word he heard by 27 to account for the whole cast singing certain songs. What (and for whose benefit) does this prat think he's protecting us from. A free and open socitey?
Anyway, as the previous highest level of complaints was 10 times less than for this it would suggest an organised drumming up of intolerance and pro-censorship.
Just wondered if anyone fancied ringing the BBC to complain about Songs Of Praise saying it doesn't match my beliefs or requirements. If we started a campaign perhaps we could eclipse the 15000 Jerry Springer complaints and show these crackpots the banality of their actions.
Jonathan
Fanstastic. Every review I've read says it is a great piece of theatre.
However the BBC has now received 15000 complaints ahead of the showing from various religious and mediawatch groups. The head of Mediawatch-UK has apparently counted 8000 swear words in the show although to do this he had to multiply each word he heard by 27 to account for the whole cast singing certain songs. What (and for whose benefit) does this prat think he's protecting us from. A free and open socitey?
Anyway, as the previous highest level of complaints was 10 times less than for this it would suggest an organised drumming up of intolerance and pro-censorship.
Just wondered if anyone fancied ringing the BBC to complain about Songs Of Praise saying it doesn't match my beliefs or requirements. If we started a campaign perhaps we could eclipse the 15000 Jerry Springer complaints and show these crackpots the banality of their actions.
Jonathan
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by Kevin-W
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
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.
Regards
Mick
Mick, I actually agree with you. There are plenty of hypocrites on the authoritarian Left who would ban plenty of things but not others. FWIW, I'm against banning anything, except the obvious things like child pornography.
I don't think racists should be banned from making speeches - they generally earn contempt from the vast majority when they do, and at least we know who they are.
Kevin
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by Adam Meredith
Some time ago I was on the end of an initially abusive telephone call from a forum member – complaining about the link to a “spoof” video of a cat getting its head cut off. He had also posted on the forum.
I asked him to address me calmly and think to direct his ire where appropriate. I looked at the two sides of the matter and decided to edit the original post to remove the active link and substitute just the url – with a small warning for cat lovers and instructions to cut and paste the link IF YOU WANTED TO. Cleverly, I then cocked up massively and the original post got lost. Not conspiracy but cock-up – early days of using InfoPop software.
Just as we are free to write the word “fuse” and explain that the “N” word is “Nigger” we should be free to discuss many areas which some would wish removed from discourse.
A while ago I banned a member who posted “Never trust a Paki”. It was difficult to see much of merit in such a statement – unless you agreed with its undeniably racist content. Similarly, it was my lack of understanding what, apart from a deliberate attempt to insult the followers of a religion in a graphically obscene way, could be the intent behind the post. Irony is not enough defence.
I am an atheist and, at core, believe that all religious believers are wrong. I think I am entitled to argue my position and any society that tries to prevent me (and we may be going further that way soon) would be repressive of the values that I hold necessary for my preferred version of civilisation. What I do not think this allows, is for me to seek to insult groups and shout “freedom of speech” to defend my outburst. Freedom to spit in the face – should be enshrined in any constitution?
Sometimes the consideration we extend to others should NOT be “do unto others” but a step further. I used to be a bit more robust in what I demanded others took from me – I was caught out one day when told about the football crowds shouting at Beckham “I hope your child dies of cancer”. Perhaps not a basis for everyone’s morality or sensitivity but recent events in my life had, I then discovered, made these words unbearably painful.
I do not argue from special sensitivity to special treatment but for my own part I had gained perhaps an added ability to empathise and I would not be true to my own morality if I did not apply this to the way I now behave and speak. I feel uncomfortable about saying this but you should know that my morality and sense of what is right and wrong do not come from given absolutes but a life of reflection and hard lessons in reality. You should not have to hate others to like yourself.
[This message was edited by Adam Meredith on Sat 08 January 2005 at 13:37.]
I asked him to address me calmly and think to direct his ire where appropriate. I looked at the two sides of the matter and decided to edit the original post to remove the active link and substitute just the url – with a small warning for cat lovers and instructions to cut and paste the link IF YOU WANTED TO. Cleverly, I then cocked up massively and the original post got lost. Not conspiracy but cock-up – early days of using InfoPop software.
Just as we are free to write the word “fuse” and explain that the “N” word is “Nigger” we should be free to discuss many areas which some would wish removed from discourse.
A while ago I banned a member who posted “Never trust a Paki”. It was difficult to see much of merit in such a statement – unless you agreed with its undeniably racist content. Similarly, it was my lack of understanding what, apart from a deliberate attempt to insult the followers of a religion in a graphically obscene way, could be the intent behind the post. Irony is not enough defence.
I am an atheist and, at core, believe that all religious believers are wrong. I think I am entitled to argue my position and any society that tries to prevent me (and we may be going further that way soon) would be repressive of the values that I hold necessary for my preferred version of civilisation. What I do not think this allows, is for me to seek to insult groups and shout “freedom of speech” to defend my outburst. Freedom to spit in the face – should be enshrined in any constitution?
Sometimes the consideration we extend to others should NOT be “do unto others” but a step further. I used to be a bit more robust in what I demanded others took from me – I was caught out one day when told about the football crowds shouting at Beckham “I hope your child dies of cancer”. Perhaps not a basis for everyone’s morality or sensitivity but recent events in my life had, I then discovered, made these words unbearably painful.
I do not argue from special sensitivity to special treatment but for my own part I had gained perhaps an added ability to empathise and I would not be true to my own morality if I did not apply this to the way I now behave and speak. I feel uncomfortable about saying this but you should know that my morality and sense of what is right and wrong do not come from given absolutes but a life of reflection and hard lessons in reality. You should not have to hate others to like yourself.
[This message was edited by Adam Meredith on Sat 08 January 2005 at 13:37.]
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by Adam Meredith
It stayed in the school playground - along with the other simplicities of life.
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
...I feel uncomfortable about saying this but you should know that my morality and sense of what is right and wrong do not come from given absolutes but a life of reflection and hard lessons in reality. You should not have to hate others to like yourself.
Well said, Adam.
You have to make some difficult judgements and you do what you think is right. Of course we may disagree with individual instances but we have to accept that 'the referee's decision is final'.
Steve M
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by Derek Wright
Just watched the program - no more offensive than JC Superstar, some very funny lines in it - I like the song
"My Jerry Springer moment"
To the folk that stood outside instead of watching it - get a life.
Derek
<< >>
"My Jerry Springer moment"
To the folk that stood outside instead of watching it - get a life.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 08 January 2005 by 7V
And actually, Jesus, Devil, Mary and God were not portrayed as 'real' but as figments of the imagination of the Jerry Springer character.
More offensive than JC Superstar or Godspell - the language was awful - but I couldn't see any reason to ban it.
Then again, I wouldn't give it any awards either. It was mildly amusing, quite clever, well performed, not great art and had the intellectual weight of a beach ball.
Oh, and Hutch was very impressive but where was Starsky?
Steve M
More offensive than JC Superstar or Godspell - the language was awful - but I couldn't see any reason to ban it.
Then again, I wouldn't give it any awards either. It was mildly amusing, quite clever, well performed, not great art and had the intellectual weight of a beach ball.
Oh, and Hutch was very impressive but where was Starsky?
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by Earwicker
Adam,
I largely agree with your well written and well argued post. By way, I suppose, of extending your arguments somewhat, I'd say the following:
Sometimes the truth hurts and can be deemed "offensive"; this isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I am an atheist of the unashamedly proselytising variety, and I recall once having an argument about Darwinian evolution with a fundamentalist Christian - which I won. I was very pleased I won (basically she had misunderstood the science behind the Darwinian principle), but I thought the poor girl was going to start crying, once I'd demonstrated (by argument, of course) that speciation can occur due to natural selection and the accumulation of change. I was quite upset that I'd upset her, but pleased, nonetheless, that she'd been enlightened. A painful lesson, but a lesson worth learning.
So far as the morality of offending people goes, well, no one's ever died of it. It takes all sorts though. Religious people seem to think they have the monopoly on being offended these days, but I can tell you that I find the religious practices of animal sacrifice, Halal slaughter, arranged marriages, and the indoctrination of children etc HIGHLY offensive. Vocally support these things if you believe them by all means - I wouldn't want to gag people. However, I most certainly WOULD make a case for banning Halal slaughter as an activity, and other gratuitously barbaric practices.
*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***
I largely agree with your well written and well argued post. By way, I suppose, of extending your arguments somewhat, I'd say the following:
Sometimes the truth hurts and can be deemed "offensive"; this isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I am an atheist of the unashamedly proselytising variety, and I recall once having an argument about Darwinian evolution with a fundamentalist Christian - which I won. I was very pleased I won (basically she had misunderstood the science behind the Darwinian principle), but I thought the poor girl was going to start crying, once I'd demonstrated (by argument, of course) that speciation can occur due to natural selection and the accumulation of change. I was quite upset that I'd upset her, but pleased, nonetheless, that she'd been enlightened. A painful lesson, but a lesson worth learning.
So far as the morality of offending people goes, well, no one's ever died of it. It takes all sorts though. Religious people seem to think they have the monopoly on being offended these days, but I can tell you that I find the religious practices of animal sacrifice, Halal slaughter, arranged marriages, and the indoctrination of children etc HIGHLY offensive. Vocally support these things if you believe them by all means - I wouldn't want to gag people. However, I most certainly WOULD make a case for banning Halal slaughter as an activity, and other gratuitously barbaric practices.
*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Religious people seem to think they have the monopoly on being offended these days, but I can tell you that I find the religious practices of animal sacrifice, Halal slaughter, arranged marriages, and the indoctrination of children etc HIGHLY offensive.
Does any religion practice animal sacrifice, today?
Arranged marriages have a far higher success rate than Western marriages which are either based on our notions of 'romantic love' or on 'accidental pregnancy'. It is rare that anyone is forced into an arranged marriage without their consent (at least in the UK), although I would ban non-consensual marriage altogether.
As for finding 'the indoctrination of children' highly offensive, that seems ridiculous to me. I can only assume that you don't have children.
All parents have a responsibility to bring up their children as best they can and to instil in them the best values. Many religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have the family at their core, whether that's through attending church together or lighting candles and singing.
There is no neutral option here. To bring up children without religion is to indoctrinate them with the values of atheism or agnosticism. There may be nothing wrong with that and, in a free society either should be permitted but there is no evidence that the values thus instilled in children are any better than the conventional religious values and, in many cases, there is evidence of a decline. Also, many of the best schools in the UK are church schools.
In any event, to have a society that bans religious education or upbringing (in children) is no better than a society that demands it. China has been an example of the former, Iran/Afghanistan have been examples of the latter. None of these have been free.
quote:
However, I most certainly WOULD make a case for banning Halal slaughter as an activity, and other gratuitously barbaric practices.
Other gratuitously barbaric practices presumably being conventional slaughter and much of Western farming.
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by BigH47
quote:
Then again, I wouldn't give it any awards either.
The award for the most artistic use of the word Fuck in an Opera.
The award for the most gratuitous use of the word Fuck in an Opera.
Comment by my Sally "thats the first time you have sat through an opera"
quote:
As for finding 'the indoctrination of children' highly offensive,
Is it indoctrination or education. Telling your child every religion except......... (insert religion of choice) is heathen/infidel etc is indocrrination,telling them about other religions and letting them make up their own minds is education.
This sould also apply to politics/vegetarianism as well as many other subjects.
Howard
[This message was edited by BigH47 on Sun 09 January 2005 at 13:33.]
[This message was edited by BigH47 on Sun 09 January 2005 at 13:34.]
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by John Sheridan
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
Arranged marriages have a far higher success rate than Western marriages which are either based on our notions of 'romantic love' or on 'accidental pregnancy'.
of course they do - the parties involved aren't allowed to separate.
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by TomK
The BBC has so far received more than 45000 complaints about this, which is a new record. Senior members of BBC management have received abusive telephone calls. I suspect all this extra publicity will ensure an extended run in the west end for an already very successful production. When will folk realise that the best way to publicise a play is to try to get it banned?
I started watching it and although I initially found it funny and generally entertaining the novelty soon wore off as I don't think theatre like this comes over very well on TV. If it comes back to Edinburgh or Glasgow I'll make every effort to see it however.
I started watching it and although I initially found it funny and generally entertaining the novelty soon wore off as I don't think theatre like this comes over very well on TV. If it comes back to Edinburgh or Glasgow I'll make every effort to see it however.
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Is it indoctrination or education. Telling your child every religion except......... (insert religion of choice) is heathen/infidel etc is indocrrination,telling them about other religions and letting them make up their own minds is education.
Howard,
When Jack was 3 years old, his Jewish grandfather (my father) died. Jack was very curious and asked me all sorts of questions. I told him that some people believe that you go to heaven after you die, others believe that you are reincarnated a few years after death, others believe that your spirit dissolves into the spirit of the universe, while yet others believe that nothing happens at all. I said that no one really knows.
In the Jewish religion, a service is held one year after the funeral to consecrate the gravestone. Jack wanted to attend so he came and stood with me next to the rabbi. The rabbi was performing the service by the grave when Jack gleefully (and loudly) informed him that Grandpa wasn't 'in there'; it was just his skin. Grandpa himself was waiting to be born again as a little boy or girl. The rabbi was amused and many of the rest of us thought it was hilarious. Jack had come to his own conclusions to allow him to make sense of what had happened.
This was fine and, I guess, very much in line of your view of 'education'. It worked because Jack's not Jewish, my wife is Christian (by birth) and I'm not a practising Jew. To be honest though, if we were orthodox Jews we would have told Jack that we believe 'X' (actually, Judaism is a bit vague about what happens after death) and presumably Jack would have believed that. Indoctrination?
It's no big deal. As Jack got older he would still have made up his own mind as to what he believed, as long as he lived in a free society. As it is he may well grow up minus his belief in reincarnation. Who knows?
The important thing is the religious freedom in the society and let's not forget that this means the freedom to believe and practise a religion as well as not to.
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by John Sheridan:quote:
Arranged marriages have a far higher success rate than Western marriages which are either based on our notions of 'romantic love' or on 'accidental pregnancy'.
of course they do - the parties involved aren't allowed to separate.
What, no divorce or separation allowed in the UK?
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
The BBC has so far received more than 45000 complaints about this, which is a new record. Senior members of BBC management have received abusive telephone calls. I suspect all this extra publicity will ensure an extended run in the west end for an already very successful production. When will folk realise that the best way to publicise a play is to try to get it banned?
This sounds to me very much like a coordinated Christian campaign.
When will folk realize that the best way to get a play taken off is to murder the writer?
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by John Sheridan
quote:
What, no divorce or separation allowed in the UK?
If you're going to agree to/be forced into (more likely) an arranged marriage do you think in most cases that you'll have the option (legalities aside) to shame your family/religion/whatever and leave that marriage?
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by John Sheridan:quote:
What, no divorce or separation allowed in the UK?
If you're going to agree to/be forced into (more likely) an arranged marriage do you think in most cases that you'll have the option (legalities aside) to shame your family/religion/whatever and leave that marriage?
Yes, I do think so.
John, it's not true that an arranged marriage is 'more likely' to be forced, at least not in the UK's Asian community.
Steve M
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by Earwicker
7V,
Why is it ridiculous? Religion would have become extinct a very long time ago were it not for parents exercising their "right" to fill their kid's heads with nonsense. It's a long time since Darwin rumbled the creationists, and conventional religion should now be a thing of the past. I see that you let your son make up his own mind: very commendable, if only others did the same. And no I haven't got any kids of my own.
Breeding and killing animals for food is a necessary evil, but it is nonetheless evil. I presume you make this comment to try to excuse the GRATUITOUS barbarity of Halal slaughter? Suffering to animals should be minimised wherever possible, and it appalls me that Halal methods are legal in a place like Great Britain. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is extremely cruel and totally unnecessary.
*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***
quote:
As for finding 'the indoctrination of children' highly offensive, that seems ridiculous to me. I can only assume that you don't have children.
Why is it ridiculous? Religion would have become extinct a very long time ago were it not for parents exercising their "right" to fill their kid's heads with nonsense. It's a long time since Darwin rumbled the creationists, and conventional religion should now be a thing of the past. I see that you let your son make up his own mind: very commendable, if only others did the same. And no I haven't got any kids of my own.
quote:
Other gratuitously barbaric practices presumably being conventional slaughter and much of Western farming.
Breeding and killing animals for food is a necessary evil, but it is nonetheless evil. I presume you make this comment to try to excuse the GRATUITOUS barbarity of Halal slaughter? Suffering to animals should be minimised wherever possible, and it appalls me that Halal methods are legal in a place like Great Britain. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is extremely cruel and totally unnecessary.
*** Every silver lining has a cloud ***
Posted on: 09 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Why is it ridiculous? Religion would have become extinct a very long time ago were it not for parents exercising their "right" to fill their kid's heads with nonsense. It's a long time since Darwin rumbled the creationists, and conventional religion should now be a thing of the past. I see that you let your son make up his own mind: very commendable, if only others did the same. And no I haven't got any kids of my own.
I've answered this already. It's ridiculous to me because I believe that people should be free to believe or practise whatever religion they wish. This includes their right to teach their children their beliefs.
No, religion would not have become extinct a very long time ago were it not for parents exercising their "right" ...etc. Religion fulfills a fundamental need for many people and many religious people start their spiritual or religious quests quite late in life.
Moreover, many people find no conflict between a belief in Darwinian evolution and a belief in a Universal Intelligence or creative force.
quote:
Breeding and killing animals for food is a necessary evil, but it is nonetheless evil. I presume you make this comment to try to excuse the GRATUITOUS barbarity of Halal slaughter? Suffering to animals should be minimised wherever possible, and it appalls me that Halal methods are legal in a place like Great Britain. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is extremely cruel and totally unnecessary.
I've answered this already, too. Halal methods arose from a desire to inflict less suffering on animals, not more. I'm no expert on the subject but I don't believe that there's gratuitous barbarity in Halal.
As I said before, conventional 'stun-gun' slaughter methods are very cruel and this is indicated by the high concentration of adrenalene in the blood of slaughtered animals. Battery and modern concentrated farming methods are also far crueler than they should be.
I suggest that you campaign for changes in the keeping and slaughtering of animals in your own culture before you criticize Islam's.
Steve M
[This message was edited by 7V on Sun 09 January 2005 at 20:11.]
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by Rasher
" As for finding 'the indoctrination of children' highly offensive, that seems ridiculous to me. I can only assume that you don't have children."
With all due respect, it is clear to me that without the poisoning of young minds from an early age , the continual teaching of religious differences, and using those children as a political target, in Northern Ireland peace could have been achieved many generations ago.
With all due respect, it is clear to me that without the poisoning of young minds from an early age , the continual teaching of religious differences, and using those children as a political target, in Northern Ireland peace could have been achieved many generations ago.
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by Earwicker
Rasher,
I agree. And the same applies to many other places too.
*** It's that irrawaddyng I've stoke in my aars. It all
but husheth the lethest zswound. ***
I agree. And the same applies to many other places too.
*** It's that irrawaddyng I've stoke in my aars. It all
but husheth the lethest zswound. ***
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
" As for finding 'the indoctrination of children' highly offensive, that seems ridiculous to me. I can only assume that you don't have children."
With all due respect, it is clear to me that without the poisoning of young minds from an early age , the continual teaching of religious differences, and using those children as a political target, in Northern Ireland peace could have been achieved many generations ago.
Rasher,
It is clear from the context of this thread that we were talking here purely of religious education. Political indoctrination is entirely different. In my view there is no place for politics in religious teaching.
Teaching children about the customs of Christmas, Easter, Pesah (Passover), Ramadan or the Birth of Mahavira is quite legitimate. Teaching them to hate or even look down on those with different beliefs is morally indefensible.
I fail to see any connection whatsoever between the prejudice and violence of some members of the Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland and the teachings of Christ as described in the New Testament.
Steve M
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by Matthew T
For those of you who seem conviced of the benefits of a society without religion, I suggest you think about those few states that have ever existed that have made a clear rejection of religion, I can think of three in modern times.
And I find the killing of unborn babies offensive, seems that most of this enlightened society doesn't.
Matthew
quote:
Breeding and killing animals for food is a necessary evil, but it is nonetheless evil. I presume you make this comment to try to excuse the GRATUITOUS barbarity of Halal slaughter? Suffering to animals should be minimised wherever possible, and it appalls me that Halal methods are legal in a place like Great Britain. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is extremely cruel and totally unnecessary.
And I find the killing of unborn babies offensive, seems that most of this enlightened society doesn't.
Matthew
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Teaching children about the customs of Christmas, Easter, Pesah (Passover), Ramadan or the Birth of Mahavira is quite legitimate. Teaching them to hate or even look down on those with different beliefs is morally indefensible.
It is morally indefensible to teach impressionable kids to believe things that clearly aren't true. I wouldn't encourage kids to hate things and/or people, but I don't see what's wrong with looking down on the crude beliefs, customs and practices of the past: some of them are quite funny with the benefit of hindsight!! I hope no one hopes their kids will grow up believing that Jesus was really born to a virgin, for example!
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by Matthew T
PS And I have no problem with people critising my, or any religion, or the behaviour of it's followers, it's just nice when they can be reasonably well informed, which is incredibly rare.
Posted on: 10 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
It is morally indefensible to teach impressionable kids to believe things that clearly aren't true.
Clear to whom, Earwicker, you?
Many children are taught to believe in Santa Claus. Is that morally indefensible? The vast majority grow up without that particular belief and, as far as is known, no damage is done.
Steve M