Blasphemous TV Program

[owl]

I just got this email from Joel, normally the most laid-back of characters, but apparently he has actually phoned the Beeb about this. I know some of you don't share my beliefs, but for those who do:


BBC2 plans to broadcast Jerry Springer's "The Opera", immediately after Christmas. This musical, notorious for containing over 8000 expletives, depicts the characters of Jesus, Mary and God as self-centred sexual deviants who give and receive extreme verbal abuse and a horrific series of blasphemies, all in the name of comedy. BBC concedes that the intended broadcast "pushes back the boundaries of taste and decency". Nevertheless, the show is scheduled to be transmitted without any cuts.

If you strongly disagree with the BBC's plans to broadcast this material, please register your feelings with the BBC, this does make a difference - 500 calls are considered as a very significant complaint.

Email: info@bbc.co.uk or Tel 08700 100222

If this were about Mohammed it would never be allowed.

Just in case you still think this is a hoax, the following quotes come from the BBC review of the stage show which was filmed for this.


Jerry, in a delirious dream, is taken down to Hell, which he really doesn't want to do as it would be a sideways step in his career. This is a great excuse for some stage pyrotechnics. In Hell he is made to present a show where his guests are Satan, Jesus, Adam & Eve, Mary and God. This is where the show has come in for some criticism for blasphemy. Indeed the Jerry Springer Show declined to invest in the opera because they objected to its language, and sexual and religious content.

Link to TV listings

Comments

[owl]

1) You would need to know Joel to understand why his phoning the BBC is so impressive; given that, I can't exactly say I did nothing when the brat returns at the weekend from his nefarious purposes in Glasgow.

2)You can watch what you like, but I'd rather my hard-earned cash had no part in that particular program, especially seeing as they refused to refund my licence money for the part of the year I didn't have a TV.

3)Where can I find contact info for these insane Baptists so I can complain at them? First thing I would ask would be 'Who gave you the right to rejoice at the death of the unconverted? Are you writing off everyone who dies as irredeemable?'

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

I think my point is that you have no evidence whatsoever directly from anyone who has actually seen this programme that it contains the material it is asserted that it contains. I've seen over the course of my life too many people trying to stir up campaigns (eg the campaigns against Harry Potter) based on third or fourth hand hearsay about what is actually objectionable about the thing complained of to trust anything less than my own eyewitness evidence before I would lend my name to a complaint about such content. Has even your friend Joel actually seen this programme? If neither of you have, how can you know that someone isn't using your faith to manipulate you into reacting in a particular way?

Secondly, tsunami link Tsunami FAQs (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Tsunami) here.

[owl]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/going_out/footlights/review_archive/shows/jerry_springer/jerry_springer_review.shtml

<--The review I quote. Apparently have lost all ability to cut and past properly.

One has to wonder how far reason will get with people whose website is named godhatesfags.com
Although this does cause me some cultural dislocation, considering what a fag is in British English :D

"God is not mocked! God Hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates Sweden and all things Swedish, and these filthy Swedes have made Thailand the world epicenter of pedophile traffic in child sex slaves*, and the fastest-spreading AIDS epidemic.

Okay, forget Christianity for a moment, somebody needs to teach whoever wrote that some basic logic. Remember the 11-plus type things: Some men have red hair. Some men are tall. Therefore all men with red hair are tall. True or false?

Do you ever pray for the salvation of those who you feel are condemned?

Of course not! For, if we follow (as we ought) the example of our Saviour and the clear commandment of God, we would not dare to do so.

Hang on...

Jesus=God=omniscient
godhatesfags.com=/=God=/=omniscient

[owl]

Continued:

I did email them, for what it's worth, not for the first time. It's a bizarre feeling, that I can talk the talk just as well as they can, because the starting point of our theology is practically identical, but I agree with very little of what they're saying. Certainly not with its tone.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

The review quoted doesn't support the statement in the complaint that the show

"depicts the characters of Jesus, Mary and God as self-centred sexual deviants who give and receive extreme verbal abuse and a horrific series of blasphemies, all in the name of comedy."

What the review says is that the central character has a delirious dream in which God, Jesus, Satan, Mary, Adam and Eve are interviewed on the Jerry Springer Show, and that this has led to accusations of blasphemy.

Nothing in the review supports the contention that Mary, Jesus and God are portrayed as "sexual deviants"; the review supports the interpretation that the skit is about someone's skewed perceptions of religious figures not about the figures themselves. Nor does it give any clue to what those perceptions are. It might well be that the "point" of the sketch is to suggest that Jerry Springer is hubristic enough to consider himself superior to God.

It may be that the review is inaccurate about what the skit shows, or that on watching the show there might be material a Christian could reasonably consider blasphemous, or that it's an unnecessarily vulgar and shocking way of making a valid point. But the statement of the reviewer and the statement in the complaint simply do not add up, making it (as I suggested earlier) unwise to rely on the wording of the complaint without more facts at your disposal if you want to be sure that your criticism is valid. After all, blasphemy's a fairly serious accusation to level at anyone, and I'd have thought the standard of proof ought to be set reasonably high.

I don't expect the people behind godhatesfags (who do however appear to be a "genuine" Church, presumably with the tax breaks to prove it) to be amenable to reason at all. But would you consider that theirwebsite is blasphemous? And if not, why not?

[owl]

I do consider their website to be blasphemous. As I said at some earlier point in this convoluted thread, they appear to believe their opinion is equivalent to God's.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

Further to the earlier discussion, you may find this an interview with the producer of the programme, about the misrepresentations being made about it both in the press, in the email you quote and by the BBC (http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/Jan05/springer030102.php) of interest.

Of course, you may well still find it offensive on the basis even of what he says about it, and no-one's entitled to quarrel with you about that if you do. But hopefully the site will provide a more accurate foundation for any criticism levelled.