Leslie

Huxley,

Did I say that I support the sort of programmes that you mention? You did not read my post very carefully did you?

My comments were based on seeing a Jerry Springer show which was awful and the comments made by people who watched it, or some of it before they switched off.

I chose not to have to put up with a string of obscene language or blasphemy which is a cheap effort at comedy. That is my choice by right.

I do however agree also with what Iain Young says about Soap/Changing rooms/Ground force as a waste of our licence fees as well.

Les

Huxley

Leslie
Could you point me to the bit where I said you "supported that type of programe"

Hactualllley I was agreeing with you about the rubbish that is on TV these days, ie Big Brother and I'm a rich git get me out of here and the like

KiwiGTI

But surely that is reflective of the majority of society? Most people are not that intelligent really, so filling the channels with high brow drama, political debate, clever comedies and the high arts wouldn't really work.

scoob_babe

Only had a look to see what all the fuss was about as many others did I suspect. What a pile of rubbish, we switched it off . The writers couldn't have bought this amount of publicity if they tried!
What exactly is Christian about publishing the BBC chaps home address and phone no and making death threats against him and his family (2 small children!). What happened to forgiveness????????

Chris L

Personally, I'm more offended by certain groups trying to push their influences and opinions onto me and remove the freedom of choice I have to watch the programme and make my own mind up. Relgious or not - it makes no difference. If this type of thing offends you - DON'T WATCH IT. Very simple really.

gsm1

The writer, Stewart Lee, has also done his bit to court all the controversy for cheap publicity.
I wasn't offended by the language, I've heard as bad and worse on the comedy circuit. My problem was that this production relied solely on swearing for a laugh and the supposedly deep message was trite.

chunk082

I watched the opera all the way through. I enjoy classical and contemporay opera anyway so I was looking forward to seeing it. I really enjoyed it and not because I think it's funny watching people swear, but if they didn't include all the most commonly used expressions that feature in the actual Jerry Springer Show, there wouldn't have been much point to making the opera in the first place, since the people on the show swear like that all the time. A lot of you would say there's not much point to the opera any way but I think most people have kind of missed the point.
Most of the reality shows including the Jerry Springer Show and Big Brother etc, are a kind of modern day gladiatorial ring, which throws together people who want "fame" but do not have the skills to get it any other way. All these people have to do is be a caricature of their real selves and the rest of us watch and cheer on their efforts. They are only there because we want to watch them, and we only watch them in a kind of horrified facination because we are glad it's not us.
The Jerry Springer Opera has in fact got a very Christian message. We should be tolerant of other people and their views, way of life, religious beliefs and stop condemning people who do not agree with our own views. There are no right or wrong religious beliefs. There are no proofs about any of the "facts" in any religion. The whole point of religion is to have faith without needing proof. The one thing that most religions agree is that we should love each other and show forgiveness. I'm not seeing much love or forgiveness among the people who want to ban things they don't agree with.

Aaquil

This reminds me of 'satanic verses' Salman Rushidie had a rubbish book which probably have not sold hardly any copies so he went and insulted Prophet Muhammad... great loads of outrage...loads of publicity...loads of books sold. This seems to be exactly the same...average (or rubbish) show...loads of swearing...loads of insults to Prophet Jesus...loads of interest...Bob's your uncle...objective achieved.

Some people maybe don't care (not religious) some people are neutral some people highly offended. If there is something that plays a significant role in your life and someone attacks that thing. If you feel strongly enough you will want to stand up and be counted.

By the way Kilroy Silk was very narrow minded when he made those statement as was that MP when he spoke out against Liverpool...what if your son, daughter or mother had died in that disaster?

Many people felt strongly about the war in Iraq and spoke out people are doing here likewise. To some people Jesus is a significant part of their lives like their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, son and daughters are...if anyone insulted our family menbers then we would be angered, greatly offended and judgeing by some of the replies on this thread would want to attack such an instigator so try to see it like that gusy then you may understand.

Good thread again...lets keep it civilised.

Aaquil.

DocJock

serious question Aaquil, from someone who is not very well versed in Islam.

Why do you find it offensive that someone has alleged that one of your prophets may/may not have been homosexual/bisexual ?

It was fairly commonplace in those times for men to have sexual relations with other men as well as women.

Mick

iTrader: (1)

So here we are on ScoobyNet... all airing our own views... there seems to be a lot of intolerance towards some people being able to hold their own personal views!

I am a Christian. Jesus Christ is the centre of my life! I know where I am going when I finish with this body here on earth. The intolerance to the Christian message makes me sad. Not for me - for those who will not listen. You don't have to listen - that is your choice! - But choices have consequences - that is something that seems to be forgotten in our materialistic world.

So - for the record - i did object to the Jerry Springer Opera being broadcast. Would you deny me the right to register that I as an individual would prefer that such a programme was not broadcast on a publicly funded service? There are many programmes that I would rather were not available for all to see, but by the BBC's own admission they were 'pushing the boundaries of taste and decency' - soemthing I might have been excited about in my

Freedom of speech seems to be OK for some but not for others...

Anyway, I love you all and will be praying for you...

Chill out - from you point of view my prayers are worthless... but if you are wrong and I'm right you might stand to gain a priceless gift

Cheers

Mick

For anyone who does have an open mind and wants to look at some 'real science' check out www.answersingenesis.org

the moose

So why did you object to the opera being screened? Have you been picketing outside the theatre, where it's been playing for months? And do you normally protest BEFORE you've seen something?

I entirely support people registering disapproval of a programme, but feel it rather churlish to have a(n obviously organised) campaign to create massive "anti" publicity. Watch it, THEN complain .... I'd have more time for you then.

As for the opera itself? I rather enjoyed it, in as much as I enjoy any opera. It was witty, contemporary, and poked fun at trash TV. All in all, good and thought-provoking entertainment, and something which will remain in my memory for a long time.

Congratulations to the BBC.

PS If you want some REAL science ....... don't try to get it from Genesis.

Neil Smalley

The real issue is one of if you believe that personal morality has a greater priority than social morality.

"Do whatever you feel is right for you" may seem a reasonable attitude on the face of it, but I believe that most of societies ills are'nt caused by people doing wrong, but doing what they feel is right for them.

For example, We often read of peoples cars being dented and no one leaving a note and how no one respects anyones property anymore but this comes from the denter thinking "I can't afford to get that fixed, they have insurance and a posh car, they can". I.e They do what they think is right for them personally.

A more extreme, but logical progression is "Ok, I feel like poking you in the eye. It feels right to me, so stand still for me please."

There have to be absolutes for behavoir otherwise things would plunge into archachy either because there is none at all, or anarchy is created by an over enthuastic zeal to make sure every one gets an equal say. The latter is what is happening to the UK right now. Everyone is trying to see things in shades of gray, but the reality is that some things(and i'm talking about the wider issues here) are just downright wrong. It seems to me that people who have the guts to stand up and say "Don't do that it's just wrong" are villified for doing so.

It's easier just to go with the flow and be a sheep, so fair dues to the Christians, Muslems etc for having the ***** to be different and stand up for what they believe in. IMHO it's the wet, mediocre cowards who cop out and say "whatever is right for you." who should take a long hard look at themselves.

Iain Young

As has always been the case throughout history, and probably will be for ages to come. Not saying it's right, but it's human nature. The question is, who decides that something is wrong? If you have equal numbers of people believeing something is wrong or right, then whch one is correct? In some cases it could be argued that the minority view is correct, in others the majority. This is a philosophical argument which does not have an answer, but it makes for good debating material

In my experience, religious people are just as guilty of being "sheep" as evryone else. It's just that they're following the dictates of their religion rather than those created by "society".

Personally, I am not religious, but I have no problem with people believing in what they want. I do object to the inference that I'm a wet. mediocre coward however. As far as I can see, why is my point of view any less valid because I' don't believe in a god?

What I object to is people enforcing their views upon me and not allowing me to make up my own mind. For example, why should my license fee money go towards paying for the religious programs shown on a Sunday when I personally don't believe in it at all, and actually find a little offensive. I don't vocally air my objections because I know a lot of people like this stuff, but equally I expect them not to object when something is shown that does not tie in with their beliefs.

People have been objecting to the JS opera claiming it poked fun at religion, when in fact if you watched it carefully there was a strong message underlying the storyline about tollerance and understanding.

People may object to the way this was done, but there was nothing terribly offensive in there, and you can certainly see a lot worse on tv / film than this. Can't really see what was in it to cause such a media uproar....

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Neil Smalley

Iain,

I was specifically talking about the wider issues presented here and on other sites.
The Jerry springer thing was IMHO blown out of all proportion by the media as a whole. Besides if TV shows are judged on the number of viewers they have, then the JS TV show was a miserable failure.

I take my hat off to anyone who makes a stand on what they believe in. Lukewarmness is the true bain of society.

Iain Young

Agreed that people who stand up for what they believe in are sometimes to be applauded, but it depends on what they believe in. Take the members of the BNP for example. They stand up for what the believe in very strongly, but their opinions are offensive to a great deal of people. You can also add Hitler into this as a charasmatic leader who stood up for what he believed in. I guess there are not many people who would agree with him these days though. On the flip side, you have people like Martin Luther King, Nelson mandella etc who have genuinely done some good.

If everybody stood up for what they believed in all the time then nothing would ever get done, and we would have anarchy. To create a heathly balanced society you need a majority of sheep, and a handful of charasmatic leaders to represent their views. Too many leaders and you'll have chaos...

IMO of course

Neil Smalley

Iain,

Exactly my point. Just that it seems whenever people stand up for what is right, they are looked upon as looneys. (BTW remember we're out of Jerry Springer mode now)

Iain Young

That's always been the case though Neil. Take Gallileo for example. He first suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun, but was forced to retract his statement by the church, was branded a loony, and died a not very nice death because of it.

People who strongly promote an opinion contrary to the accepted norm will always be villified by the majority of people. I'm afraid that's human nature (i.e. go with what you know - it's easier). They will also be stamped down by those in power as they pose a threat to their authority and the status quo (Spanish inquisition for example)...

the moose

Bringing it back to the original topic, how many of the 15,000 who complained had actually seen the work in question? Perhaps a few percent, I'd imagine.

So are they standing up for their beliefs, or are they being sheep in accepting that JS The Opera is evil/sick/anti-Christian etc. I can hear bleating ............

the moose

I think I'd rather face the Spanish Inqusition than Status Quo!

Neil Smalley

No one ever expects the Status Quo..

Iain Young

DocJock

You are being disingenuous (or stupid) in placing freedom of speech in with a physical act of vandalism/violence.

Too many people in this country try to stamp down on those who say anything out of line with the 'percieved wisdom'.

Yes, the BNP say things that many people find offensive. Well does that not just show them up for the bigots they are ? Same with the producers of this show..... their freedom to put it on allows us to form our own (not the medias) informed opinions about them. If you ban it, you are allowing the Government to say "there you go sheep, we've decided that was too bad for you to see/hear, so we won't let you" and we are kept just the way they like us, ignorant of the facts and knowing only what they want us to.

Neil Smalley

DJ, I said it was an extreme but it was a logical progression. At the extreme, if people have the right to do what they feel is right, then why should that exclude eye poking?

I agree with what you say regarding stamping down on people who say anything out of line with the percieved wisdom.

Playing Devils(or not if you are an atheist ) advocate for a moment. If we were discussing the JS opera, then percieved wisdom is to say "If you don't like it don't watch it". The people who protested against it's showing were acting against this percieved wisdom and on BBS's, websites and newspapers across the country were called all kinds of stuff(just read the threads on here as an example).

But since I stated that we were'nt discussing the JS show but the wider question of personal vs society morality.

I guess what i'm saying is that people don't like the idea of something they hold dear, like free speech being used 'back at them'.

It's interesting to note that people are labeled as bigotted, racist, thick, unreasonable etc because they hold the belief that A is the only way to achieve B to the exclusion of C and D. Yet when questioned the people doing the accusing would say freedom of expression is their key value. What they mean is that freedom of expression is their key value as long as that expression does'nt exclude anyone or anything.

Conditions on 'freedom of expression' by definition can't make it free. It'd be 'Conditional Freedom of Expression.'

Incidentally I'll also stick my neck out and say that it's impossible for people to provide an informed opinion as no matter how much they say they are not, they will have been influenced one way or another.

Pascal summed it up
"This is our true state; this is what makes us incapable of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance. We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end. When we think to attach ourselves to any point and to fasten to it, it wavers and leaves us; and if we follow it, it eludes our grasp, slips past us, and vanishes for ever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition and yet most contrary to our inclination; we burn with desire to find solid ground and an ultimate sure foundation whereon to build a tower reaching to the Infinite. But our whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses

DocJock

Conditions on 'freedom of expression' by definition can't make it free. It'd be 'Conditional Freedom of Expression.'

Eer, did you read my prevoius posts on this thread ?

Incidentally I'll also stick my neck out and say that it's impossible for people to provide an informed opinion as no matter how much they say they are not, they will have been influenced one way or another.

The wider the database they work from, the less influenced they are by any particular source.


As an aside, still no reply from the 'protestors' as to why Jesus being portrayed as gay/bisexual is offensive. Are they saying that their chosen religion is only open to 'straight' people ?

OllyK

Excellent response

SJ_Skyline

too right!

I watched 15 minutes of it before switching the TV off, not my cup of tea but at least I was able to make my own, informed choice.

As for the death threats BBC execs have recieved, I thought Christianity was all about forgivenes... oh well I guess they didn't read the small print

**Goes off to dig out some Bill Hicks**