NationStates Jolt Archive

How many times have we heard that sports star thanking Jesus for sinking that last minute basket, or scoring that touchdown, or whatever to win The Big Game? Personally, I've always thought that this should then allow the opposing team to be permitted to request a "too many men in the playing field" penalty in that sport and have it automatically granted and the winning score nullified.

And I've always wanted to see the interview with the losing team blame The Saviour for abandoning them in favour of the opposition.

But no, Jesus gets all the glory and none of the blame. Clearly the losing team spent far too much time practicing and not enough time praying.

But I'll never get to see that interview. Not now. You see, not crediting Jesus with divine intervention on your behalf in favour of taking PERSONAL credit for your accomplishments now qualifies as an offensive statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/en_nm/griffin_emmys_dc_3


Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday.

Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show "My Life on the D-List."

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

The speech drew fire from a leading Roman Catholic group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous."

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site. He called on TV academy president Dick Askin to denounce Griffin's "hate speech" and on Griffin to apologize.

An edited version of the Creative Arts Emmys is set to air on cable television's E! Entertainment Network on Saturday, the night before the live Fox network broadcast of the main Primetime Emmy Awards.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast," an academy spokeswoman said on Tuesday. An "abbreviated version" of her acceptance speech will air, instead, she said.

Griffin's reaction to the imbroglio, according to a statement issued by her publicist: "Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?"




Yep, denying Jebus his due in now ranked right up there with hate speech for purposes of broadcast in the US.

So, praise Jesus for writing this post for me. I couldn't possibly have managed to string words into sentances without him....

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a big sh*t. Yeah, I'll give Him credit for the stink too....

Yep, denying Jebus his due in now ranked right up there with hate speech for purposes of broadcast in the US.

So, praise Jesus for writing this post for me. I couldn't possibly have managed to string words into sentances without him....

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a big sh*t. Yeah, I'll give Him credit for the stink too....

...but only if it smells like roses. If not, it's the work of the devil.

.

Just a bit of an oximoron there? :D

The speech drew fire from a leading Roman Catholic group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous."
the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous."
the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
.

.

And your point is?

To be fair, I don't think it is "not giving Jesus his due" that people are seeing a problem with. It's more the disparaging tone and the "Suck it Jesus," parts that people seem to have a problem with. If she'd just gotten up there and said, "Awesome! I rock!" and left Jesus out of it, I don't think you'd be hearing any complaints.

Personally, I think it's kind of funny and that, even if it wasn't, there's no reason not to broadcast it. But I can also see how people might be offended by it (which is, of course, true of most comedy).

...but only if it smells like roses. If not, it's the work of the devil.

Do not DARE to deny JEsus the credit for my stinky farts!!! If He wanted them to smell like roses, then they would!

All hail the divinity of my noxious fumes!

And your point is?

What are they supposed to do? Approve?
Their JOB is to make comments like this regarding comments such as the person in the article made.

To be fair, I don't think it is "not giving Jesus his due" that people are seeing a problem with. It's more the disparaging tone and the "Suck it Jesus," parts that people seem to have a problem with. If she'd just gotten up there and said, "Awesome! I rock!" and left Jesus out of it, I don't think you'd be hearing any complaints.

Personally, I think it's kind of funny and that, even if it wasn't, there's no reason not to broadcast it. But I can also see how people might be offended by it (which is, of course, true of most comedy).

Feedom of speech, in the absence of hate speech, trumps the freedom not to be offended.

What are they supposed to do? Approve?
Their JOB is to make comments like this regarding comments such as the person in the article made.

Actually, I've always thought that a group devoted to "religious and civil rights" should be dedicated to the notion of permissiveness of expression - not a restictive organization.

Just a bit of an oximoron there? :D

How so? Catholics have often advocated for civil rights, particularly with regard to worker's rights and opposing capital punishment. They also tend to advocate heavily the right to life in general, and while you and I may not see life as a right in cases like abortion or euthanasia, many Catholics certainly do.

The Catholic church has also enumerated the rights of the religious in its Code of Canon Law.

So yeah, I'd say a Catholic organization trying to uphold civil and religious rights would make a great deal of sense.

I'd like to thank baby Jesus and prepubescent Muhammad for all of the religious people who come out of the woodwork to complain every time something like this happens.

I'd also like to thank teenager Jesus for all my dopest rhymes. I couldn't have rhymed 'shizzle' with 'my nizzle' without him.

Grown up Jesus can fuck off cuz he's never done anything for me. Grown up Muhammad on the other hand is responsible for keeping my house plants alive, so thanks to him.

What are they supposed to do? Approve?
Their JOB is to make comments like this regarding comments such as the person in the article made.

Indeed. I just wasn't clear on what your meaning was in emphasizing that point about the Catholic League. It was rather open to interpretation.

Actually, I've always thought that a group devoted to "religious and civil rights" should be dedicated to the notion of permissiveness of expression - not a restictive organization.

You mean if the person had said, "Haha! I finally beat out all those (racial slur of your choice)!" a bunch of groups wouldnt have had a fit?
Im not saying that civil rights groups dont need to shut up and realize that comedians are idiots sometimes, but I think the typical NS reaction to the reaction to the comment is, as usual, out of proportion because religion has been thrown in.

Feedom of speech, in the absence of hate speech, trumps the freedom not to be offended.

Actually, I'd say that freedom of speech - even "hate speech" - trumps the freedom not to be offended. Only speech which is inherently dangerous (ie. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or actively calling for violence against another) should ever be infringed upon by law.

Of course, that is where the government is concerned. A private broadcast company can censor whatever they like. I may not like it, and I may decide not to deal with that company, but they can still do it.

Reminds me of when Shaun Micallef got his second Logie Award:

Last time I won this award I thanked Jesus Christ and I copped some flak for that, so this year I would like to thank Satan the Prince of Darkness, for all his help on the show.

Indeed. I just wasn't clear on what your meaning was in emphasizing that point. It was rather open to interpretation.

I know, I was just looking for an excuse to get my postcount up by explaining ;)

You mean if the person had said, "Haha! I finally beat out all those (racial slur of your choice)!" a bunch of groups wouldnt have had a fit?
Im not saying that civil rights groups dont need to shut up and realize that comedians are idiots sometimes, but I think the typical NS reaction to the reaction to the comment is, as usual, out of proportion because religion has been thrown in.

Oh, I expect people to get offended by speech.

What is most disturbing is the network pandering to it and editing the speech in their favour. THAT is the problem, not the Catholic group's complaint.

I don't understand when people are upset by corporations pandering to large groups of people. How successful would a company like Microsoft be if they said, "We don't care what you think, we're making the product our way and you will just have to deal with it." Oh wait...
Okay, Microsoft was a bad example. But in general, a company that depends on the public for profit is not going to antagonize the public.

Actually, I'd say that freedom of speech - even "hate speech" - trumps the freedom not to be offended. Only speech which is inherently dangerous (ie. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or actively calling for violence against another) should ever be infringed upon by law.

Of course, that is where the government is concerned. A private broadcast company can censor whatever they like. I may not like it, and I may decide not to deal with that company, but they can still do it.

Yes they can.

And I can point to it, laugh at it, and note that it is representative of the decline of freedoms within the United States of America when such trivialities become deemed too offensive for broadcast.

The amount of sway religious groups have on the content of the mainstream media is become scary.

All I have to say is, God helps those who helps themselves. God ain't going to make you rich unless you put your own effort into it.

Oh, I expect people to get offended by speech.

What is most disturbing is the network pandering to it and editing the speech in their favour. THAT is the problem, not the Catholic group's complaint.

OIC.
Well, ratings is ratings. If its what people want to hear, the news'll run it.
*Shrug*
This is what happens when you've got corporate news.

How many times have we heard that sports star thanking Jesus for sinking that last minute basket, or scoring that touchdown, or whatever to win The Big Game? Personally, I've always thought that this should then allow the opposing team to be permitted to request a "too many men in the playing field" penalty in that sport and have it automatically granted and the winning score nullified.

And I've always wanted to see the interview with the losing team blame The Saviour for abandoning them in favour of the opposition.

But no, Jesus gets all the glory and none of the blame. Clearly the losing team spent far too much time practicing and not enough time praying.

But I'll never get to see that interview. Not now. You see, not crediting Jesus with divine intervention on your behalf in favour of taking PERSONAL credit for your accomplishments now qualifies as an offensive statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/en_nm/griffin_emmys_dc_3




Yep, denying Jebus his due in now ranked right up there with hate speech for purposes of broadcast in the US.

So, praise Jesus for writing this post for me. I couldn't possibly have managed to string words into sentances without him....

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a big sh*t. Yeah, I'll give Him credit for the stink too....

Catholic group: In the immortal words of Robert Plant.....SUCK IT!

Goddamn, how is it that now I respect Kathy Griffin?

What is this world coming to?

OIC.
Well, ratings is ratings. If its what people want to hear, the news'll run it.
*Shrug*
This is what happens when you've got corporate news.

I think you misunderstand. It is being edited from the broadcast event itself (it is a delayed broadcast from the actual ceremony) - not the news.

The comments will NEVER be broadcast. Ever.

Reminds me of when Shaun Micallef got his second Logie Award:

:p

I don't understand when people are upset by corporations pandering to large groups of people. How successful would a company like Microsoft be if they said, "We don't care what you think, we're making the product our way and you will just have to deal with it." Oh wait...
Okay, Microsoft was a bad example. But in general, a company that depends on the public for profit is not going to antagonize the public.

Hehe, bad example :p


OP: I thought it was quite funny, but I can see how people might be offended. It shouldn't affect what is broadcast though.

I think you misunderstand. It is being edited from the broadcast event itself (it is a delayed broadcast from the actual ceremony) - not the news.

The comments will NEVER be broadcast. Ever.

Pretty much the same response...they dont want to piss anybody off, so they dont run it. Good business policy, in the short term. 'Course in the long term you dont run ANY storys because everything is offensive.

Wow, I had never thought about it in that way before. :P

Yes they can.

And I can point to it, laugh at it, and note that it is representative of the decline of freedoms within the United States of America when such trivialities become deemed too offensive for broadcast.

If the local bookstore decides not to sell a given book because its customers find the book to be offensive, does that mean that people are losing freedoms?

Of course not.

The amount of sway religious groups have on the content of the mainstream media is become scary.

Then counteract it. Organizations that get all up in arms over these things don't speak for the majority of people or even the majority of religious people. They're just loud ad obnoxious and most people are too apathetic to do anything to counteract it. Get your own organization together and make some noise. Organize a boycott of the parent company editing the broadcast. There are all sorts of things you can do if you think this is really awful.

Then counteract it. Organizations that get all up in arms over these things don't speak for the majority of people or even the majority of religious people. They're just loud ad obnoxious and most people are too apathetic to do anything to counteract it. Get your own organization together and make some noise. Organize a boycott of the parent company editing the broadcast. There are all sorts of things you can do if you think this is really awful.

Well, yes, you could do that...or you could just keep complaining, that's usually easier and more satisfying.

I know, I was just looking for an excuse to get my postcount up by explaining ;)

Be careful with that. You wouldn't want to be set upon by The Spamish Inquisition.

Be careful with that. You wouldn't want to be set upon by The Spamish Inquisition.

But now I'll be expecting them, that takes away one of their many chief weapons.

Be careful with that. You wouldn't want to be set upon by The Spamish Inquisition.

nice!

The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquistion (here we go)
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
But the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

I'd like to thank Jesus for starting a religion that would bring about such suffering .

Well, three pages without the "But they didn't behead Kathy Griffin" apology defense. That's a surprising trend.

And something else on this subject:

Thank You Jesus! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIdXEBRfZX0)

I don't understand when people are upset by corporations pandering to large groups of people. How successful would a company like Microsoft be if they said, "We don't care what you think, we're making the product our way and you will just have to deal with it." Oh wait...
Okay, Microsoft was a bad example. But in general, a company that depends on the public for profit is not going to antagonize the public.


There is a fundamental difference in the world of broadcast media where there is not an open means of entry to the industry due to strict federal regulation on participants via licencing of the airwaves.

If Microsoft panders to a large group, competition can and will look to the other market.

When the broadcast media panders to a large group, there are no alternatives for the general public.

If the local bookstore decides not to sell a given book because its customers find the book to be offensive, does that mean that people are losing freedoms?

Of course not.


Again, fundamental difference between local bookstore and originating media.

If the publishers were refusing to print Tom Sawyer due to religious pressure (too f@ggy), and the government's licencing system created immense barriers to entry by others to the publishing market, then you would have a problem of implicit censorship.


ANYTIME the media caves to special-interest group pressure to curtail content, the people should put it under the spotlight.


You know, like perhaps pointing it out to people in the hopes that they might register a complaint with the corporation to force them to defend their censorship.

So, please complain. And have your friends and neighbours complain too!

I'd like to thank baby Jesus and prepubescent Muhammad for all of the religious people who come out of the woodwork to complain every time something like this happens.

I'd also like to thank teenager Jesus for all my dopest rhymes. I couldn't have rhymed 'shizzle' with 'my nizzle' without him.

Grown up Jesus can fuck off cuz he's never done anything for me. Grown up Muhammad on the other hand is responsible for keeping my house plants alive, so thanks to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKDC2iBQTYg

Had to be done. :D



Oh and this story should be just one more example as to how "free" speech isn't so free that it is all dependant on the media and what they choose to let us hear and see. Yup we are free alright as long as media corporations allow us to be.

I can't remember the comedian, but there was one who said "you notice that nobody ever blames Jesus when they lose? Yeah, thanks for makin' me drop the ball, Jesus. Apparently the guy is undefeated, despite the fervent prayers on both sidelines."

There's a point there, and I think it has to do with what Divinity involves itself in and the selfish nature of SOME prayers. I'm of two minds about it, though. I think there are genuine believers and then there are those who are deliberately showy with their faith. Problem is, it's sometimes hard to tell them apart.

I can't remember the comedian, but there was one who said "you notice that nobody ever blames Jesus when they lose? Yeah, thanks for makin' me drop the ball, Jesus. Apparently the guy is undefeated, despite the fervent prayers on both sidelines."

There's a point there, and I think it has to do with what Divinity involves itself in and the selfish nature of SOME prayers. I'm of two minds about it, though. I think there are genuine believers and then there are those who are deliberately showy with their faith. Problem is, it's sometimes hard to tell them apart.

Has anyone heard the Bob Dylan song 'With God on my side', I think off his very first album though I'm not certain.

The song makes this very point, that when any army has gone to war they've claimed God on their side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Unfortunately Bob extends this for about 52 minutes in his nasally drawl with a basic 3 chord sequence through every war until 1963 until you're beating your head against the wall shouting 'shut up, SHUT UP Bob, I got your DAMN point, just SHUT up!

Well, three pages without the "But they didn't behead Kathy Griffin" apology defense. That's a surprising trend.

Well Christians used to burn at the stake. I think beheading is much more humane.

Like someone else said already, I'm skeptical that it was the exclusion of thanking JC that got the Catlicks up in arms-- it was the "suck it, Jesus." She could have said "a lot of people get up here and thank Jesus... but this was ALL me!" or something to that effect, but she said "suck it" in a deliberate attempt to be provocative. Granted, as a comedian that's arguably her job. Whatever you think of censorship (I'm ambivalent, myself) it was to be expected that saying "suck it, Jesus" would provoke Christians just as surely as "suck it, Mohammed" would have offended Muslims.

Again, not saying whether it's legitimate or not to cater/pander/be considerate to those religious people's sensitivities, but acting all surprised that she offended someone with what she said is disingenuous.

Like someone else said already, I'm skeptical that it was the exclusion of thanking JC that got the Catlicks up in arms-- it was the "suck it, Jesus." She could have said "a lot of people get up here and thank Jesus... but this was ALL me!" or something to that effect, but she said "suck it" in a deliberate attempt to be provocative. Granted, as a comedian that's arguably her job. Whatever you think of censorship (I'm ambivalent, myself) it was to be expected that saying "suck it, Jesus" would provoke Christians just as surely as "suck it, Mohammed" would have offended Muslims.

Again, not saying whether it's legitimate or not to cater/pander/be considerate to those religious people's sensitivities, but acting all surprised that she offended someone with what she said is disingenuous.

It highlights the inherent fact that most if not all influential organized religion will develop a thin skin over their beliefs, especially that of Christian denominations in an age where looking for the slightest pretense to scream "Muslims are intolerant barbarians who can't find enough heads to lop off" has become a bigger Western sport than the World Cup.

Why is it that every one thanks Jesus, but no one considers thanking the REAL savior of the world...CHUCK NORRIS...

**Realizes a horrible and stupid joke has been made and runs off in a corner to hide his shame***

How many times have we heard that sports star thanking Jesus for sinking that last minute basket, or scoring that touchdown, or whatever to win The Big Game? Personally, I've always thought that this should then allow the opposing team to be permitted to request a "too many men in the playing field" penalty in that sport and have it automatically granted and the winning score nullified.

And I've always wanted to see the interview with the losing team blame The Saviour for abandoning them in favour of the opposition.

But no, Jesus gets all the glory and none of the blame. Clearly the losing team spent far too much time practicing and not enough time praying.

But I'll never get to see that interview. Not now. You see, not crediting Jesus with divine intervention on your behalf in favour of taking PERSONAL credit for your accomplishments now qualifies as an offensive statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/en_nm/griffin_emmys_dc_3

Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday.

Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show "My Life on the D-List."

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

The speech drew fire from a leading Roman Catholic group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which condemned Griffin's remarks as "obscene and blasphemous."

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site. He called on TV academy president Dick Askin to denounce Griffin's "hate speech" and on Griffin to apologize.

An edited version of the Creative Arts Emmys is set to air on cable television's E! Entertainment Network on Saturday, the night before the live Fox network broadcast of the main Primetime Emmy Awards.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast," an academy spokeswoman said on Tuesday. An "abbreviated version" of her acceptance speech will air, instead, she said.

Griffin's reaction to the imbroglio, according to a statement issued by her publicist: "Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?"


Yep, denying Jebus his due in now ranked right up there with hate speech for purposes of broadcast in the US.

So, praise Jesus for writing this post for me. I couldn't possibly have managed to string words into sentances without him....

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a big sh*t. Yeah, I'll give Him credit for the stink too....

I didn't see this covered, but I didn't exactly read every single reply. I only have one thing to add, based on the whole ""It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site."

He may be the Catholic League president, but he's absolutely right with that statement. The Catholics were upset about the insult to who they believe is god and deserving of respect, but all they did was call is rude and obscene.

On the other hand, we all remember what happens if you insult or poke fun at Mohammad or Islam. If I'm not mistaken, you get death threats and terrorists blowing up buses in your country.

If you're pissed off that someone verbally complained when their beliefs were insulted, then I suggest you try moving to Denmark (or the middle east) and try dealing with people that are going to bomb your ass or behead you for it.

Seriously, if someone gets offended and tries talking about it upsets you, but someone bombing a bus full of children doesn't, then you need to get some serious help.

I can't remember the comedian, but there was one who said "you notice that nobody ever blames Jesus when they lose? Yeah, thanks for makin' me drop the ball, Jesus. Apparently the guy is undefeated, despite the fervent prayers on both sidelines."
I think George Carlin said something about that. Though he's probably not the only one to have done so.

How many times have we heard that sports star thanking Jesus for sinking that last minute basket, or scoring that touchdown, or whatever to win The Big Game? Personally, I've always thought that this should then allow the opposing team to be permitted to request a "too many men in the playing field" penalty in that sport and have it automatically granted and the winning score nullified.

And I've always wanted to see the interview with the losing team blame The Saviour for abandoning them in favour of the opposition.

But no, Jesus gets all the glory and none of the blame. Clearly the losing team spent far too much time practicing and not enough time praying.

But I'll never get to see that interview. Not now. You see, not crediting Jesus with divine intervention on your behalf in favour of taking PERSONAL credit for your accomplishments now qualifies as an offensive statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/en_nm/griffin_emmys_dc_3




Yep, denying Jebus his due in now ranked right up there with hate speech for purposes of broadcast in the US.

So, praise Jesus for writing this post for me. I couldn't possibly have managed to string words into sentances without him....

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a big sh*t. Yeah, I'll give Him credit for the stink too....

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/jesus_is_my_health_insurance

I blame Jesus personally for the Vikings four superbowl losses.

That's so bullshit.

If Jesus helped one sport team win the game, then what did he have against the other sport team that lost?

If Jesus helped one sport team win the game, then what did he have against the other sport team that lost?

He didn't. Problem was, they used iron chariots, and God/Jesus couldn't overcome that minor impediment.

He didn't. Problem was, they used iron chariots, and God/Jesus couldn't overcome that minor impediment.

ROFL! I read that in Lego Bible, and that just cracked me up. Ok, so Yahweh being all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing couldn't squash iron chariots?

ROFL! I read that in Lego Bible, and that just cracked me up. Ok, so Yahweh being all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing couldn't squash iron chariots?

That's right. You'd think, of the contradictions included, they might have wanted to help their whole "omnipotent" case a little more by putting it in Apocrypha or something like that, but no ....
http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

Yes, parallel translations all read the same.
*shrugs*

That's right. You'd think, of the contradictions included, they might have wanted to help their whole "omnipotent" case a little more by putting it in Apocrypha or something like that, but no ....
http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

Yes, parallel translations all read the same.
*shrugs*

It's just things like this that makes me believe that the Bible is really work of man instead of any higher power, and any book would be too small for it's message. It's message would be all around us in the world.

and any book would be too small for it's message. It's message would be all around us in the world.

You're probably more right than most people would realize.
*bows*

I didn't see this covered, but I didn't exactly read every single reply. I only have one thing to add, based on the whole ""It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site."

He may be the Catholic League president, but he's absolutely right with that statement. The Catholics were upset about the insult to who they believe is god and deserving of respect, but all they did was call is rude and obscene.

On the other hand, we all remember what happens if you insult or poke fun at Mohammad or Islam. If I'm not mistaken, you get death threats and terrorists blowing up buses in your country.

If you're pissed off that someone verbally complained when their beliefs were insulted, then I suggest you try moving to Denmark (or the middle east) and try dealing with people that are going to bomb your ass or behead you for it.

Seriously, if someone gets offended and tries talking about it upsets you, but someone bombing a bus full of children doesn't, then you need to get some serious help.

It's BS like this that annoys the cr@p out of me. "Unless we're as bad as <insert worst transgression you can think of>, then you have a problem if you don't just complain about that and not this!"

Oh yes, now you can't complain about people unless they are out trying to behead their opponents!!

F*ck that. Al Qaeda did not raise a bar that magically confered immunity from complaint against all other transgressions. They simply set a new bar for more vociferous complaint.

The problem I have with the story, in case it totally escaped you, is not that some deliberately provocative remarks raised the intended reaction. The problem I have is that the network pandered to that reaction to censor content.


But yes, you're right. The Catholic group has nothing on the Taliban. Yay them!
Because as long as they're not that bad they must be pretty darned spiffy!!!

:rolleyes:

Feedom of speech, in the absence of hate speech, trumps the freedom not to be offended.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about that guy from Seinfeld who said "******?"

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about that guy from Seinfeld who said "******?"

I thought that Mr. Richards was deservedly pilloried. He directed an inflamatory ratial epithet at an individual. And I totally fail to see how that is in any way related to "Jesus didn't do this - I DID." at an awards ceremony, unless - of course - you are suggesting that the Saviour had a reserved table at the event, however even then the speech did not include a racial slur, nor a slur against Christians.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about that guy from Seinfeld who said "******?"

Made for an equally titillating South Park episode.
*interlopes, runs away*

It's BS like this that annoys the cr@p out of me. "Unless we're as bad as <insert worst transgression you can think of>, then you have a problem if you don't just complain about that and not this!"

Oh yes, now you can't complain about people unless they are out trying to behead their opponents!!

F*ck that. Al Qaeda did not raise a bar that magically confered immunity from complaint against all other transgressions. They simply set a new bar for more vociferous complaint.

The problem I have with the story, in case it totally escaped you, is not that some deliberately provocative remarks raised the intended reaction. The problem I have is that the network pandered to that reaction to censor content.


But yes, you're right. The Catholic group has nothing on the Taliban. Yay them!
Because as long as they're not that bad they must be pretty darned spiffy!!!

:rolleyes:Except that you totally missed my point. I simply meant that you only see people freaking out if a Christian group gets upset about being offended and someone tries to make amends. When someone tries to appease offended members of other groups (except maybe the Jews), no one seems to care much about it.

I'm not defending anyone here. I'm simply saying, that it seems like labeling a group as "Chrisitan" is an automatic excuse to bash them when they attempt to be treated equally to any other group.



To get it out of a specifically religious setting, you could look at it from a racist stand point.

Suppose some rich white guy had gotten up there and said something like "I don't know why everyone thinks blacks are so special. Suck it Martin Luther King, this award is more important than you ever were, you stupid ******!" If African Americans were offended over it, claimed discrimination, and the station edited out the comment, there would be a thread like this made praising the network for editing the broadcast to remove such an intentionally discriminatory and inflammatory remark.

I'm curious as to why it's only Christians that get hated on when they demand the same equal treatment any other offended group would receive in the same situation.

Oh, I expect people to get offended by speech.

What is most disturbing is the network pandering to it and editing the speech in their favour. THAT is the problem, not the Catholic group's complaint.

The networks job is to have shows that appeal to the broadest market available. Cutting out something that a group may find offensive (that they may have avoided tuning in for, if the offensive comments were left in) is a business decision.

The networks job is to have shows that appeal to the broadest market available. Cutting out something that a group may find offensive (that they may have avoided tuning in for, if the offensive comments were left in) is a business decision.Exactly. When you alienate customers, you get screwed very quickly.

Exactly. When you alienate customers, you get screwed very quickly.

Not to mention commercial sponsors. Piss of enough of them by allowing this stuff, and watch your network's sponsorship suddenly fall to the levels of public access.

Seriously, if someone gets offended and tries talking about it upsets you, but someone bombing a bus full of children doesn't, then you need to get some serious help.
Exactly. That's why we're posting here, not toting rifles and fighting a war...

Exactly. That's why we're posting here, not toting rifles and fighting a war...Again, someone has missed the point of my post entirely. Read my last response on the previous page.

You mentioned bombing buses and not having a response...

I just thought the Israel conflict is a pretty good example of what happens to people who bomb things... you get war.

For people who just talk, and complain (here)... you get talk and complaints...

=P

But yeah, I knew you were trying to say something else. Anyway;
Quote:
"I simply meant that you only see people freaking out if a Christian group gets upset about being offended and someone tries to make amends. When someone tries to appease offended members of other groups (except maybe the Jews), no one seems to care much about it."

Simply put, we do care about it, we appease them by wiping pictures off magazines and proceed to bash their heads in... =)



PS: Don't feel up to logic today... =( ... hence a smilely spam =P

I'd think that thanking Jesus or God or Muhammad for things like winning a sports match is ALREADY blasphemous, and I'm not religious, you know.

Perhaps we should thank Jesus for the victory in Iraq… that or pray harder (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46938)….

Somehow I always assumed Jesus hated PE and PE teachers.

I'm curious as to why it's only Christians that get hated on when they demand the same equal treatment any other offended group would receive in the same situation.

Because they usually don't demand equal treatment. The more radical Christians usually demand precedence. They usually demand that "Sky Faerie Built Us From Clay" is taught as science. They usually demand that Wiccan soldiers don't get to choose their graves. They demand that gays aren't allowed to marry, all of these things out of sadism, spite and all those motivations JESUS CHRIST NEVER, EVER, EVER IN A MILLION FUCKING YEARS, ESPOUSED. And were they still in true power, they'd be demanding heresy to be punishable, preferably by death. And that is why when they make a "reasonable" claim it gets thrown in with all the CRAP they usually say.

Also, you claim Islam does "worse" when offended? Not only radical Christianity does worse with radical Christians do things like bombing abortion clinics (y'know, with the passersby that aren't even thinking about abortion being fair game, of course) on an everyday basis, if all Muslims thought (as a hivemind, you seem to think) the same and reacted the same to the Potsdam event, for instance, about 20% of the Danish population would be dead by now.

Please.

Like someone else said already, I'm skeptical that it was the exclusion of thanking JC that got the Catlicks up in arms-- it was the "suck it, Jesus." She could have said "a lot of people get up here and thank Jesus... but this was ALL me!" or something to that effect, but she said "suck it" in a deliberate attempt to be provocative. Granted, as a comedian that's arguably her job. Whatever you think of censorship (I'm ambivalent, myself) it was to be expected that saying "suck it, Jesus" would provoke Christians just as surely as "suck it, Mohammed" would have offended Muslims.

Again, not saying whether it's legitimate or not to cater/pander/be considerate to those religious people's sensitivities, but acting all surprised that she offended someone with what she said is disingenuous.

QFT.

If it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus, it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus. If you are not allowed to offend other religions, why should you be allowed to offend Christians?

Because they usually don't demand equal treatment. The more radical Christians usually demand precedence. They usually demand that "Sky Faerie Built Us From Clay" is taught as science.No, they, as most religious groups, simply want something other than a strict evolutionist/atheistic viewpoint at least mentioned in schools. Simply put, evolution has not more real evidence for it than any or the major religions. You have no real evidence for it, no real intermediary forms, and definitely no one around to see the universe explode into existence and life magically form on its own and evolve into humans. Generally have to accept that on faith just as you would any religion.


They usually demand that Wiccan soldiers don't get to choose their graves.Huh? I've never even heard of that one...

They demand that gays aren't allowed to marry,They aren't the only ones against that... From a strict evolutionary standpoint, gays should be killed off, since there's obviously something wrong with their genes that's making them do things specifically to prevent them from procreating. By being gay, they've essentially given up their right to life and procreation. Not that I believe that, but if you really want to get right down to a survival of the fittest thing, that's what it comes down to.


all of these things out of sadism, spite and all those motivations JESUS CHRIST NEVER, EVER, EVER IN A MILLION FUCKING YEARS, ESPOUSED. And were they still in true power, they'd be demanding heresy to be punishable, preferably by death. And that is why when they make a "reasonable" claim it gets thrown in with all the CRAP they usually say.No, but apparently you think every major atheistic leader has espoused making unjustified attacks against other people's beliefs...

Also, you claim Islam does "worse" when offended? Not only radical Christianity does worse with radical Christians do things like bombing abortion clinics (y'know, with the passersby that aren't even thinking about abortion being fair game, of course) on an everyday basis, if all Muslims thought (as a hivemind, you seem to think) the same and reacted the same to the Potsdam event, for instance, about 20% of the Danish population would be dead by now.

Please.Actually, I never said "Islam is worse than Christianity." I simply stated that radical Islam has been historically more violent than radical Christianity. Yes, stupid people are going to do stupid things regardless of their beliefs, but the sheer quantity of attacks on "innocent passersby" is by no means highest among radical Christians. In fact, MOST of the radical Christian sects I've encountered leave society to go form their own little communities away from everyone else and just want to be left alone.

There's also a difference between the "Suck it Jesus" and the Postdam thing. In this country, we are absolutely inundated with slander and mockery of Jesus. Radical Chrisitans here have remarkably patient about that and seldom do more about it than change the channel or not by the magazine/newspaper. If there was the same level of abuse geared towards Mohammad, Radical Muslims would never be so patient. After all, the key difference in the two groups philosophies is that when one was being crucified, he said "Father, forgive them" while the other, when simply being called wrong about Allah, said "May the hands of Abu-Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gain avail him. He shall be burnt in the flaming fire, and his wife, laden with firewood, shall have a rope of fibre about her neck!"

Anyway, I'm not advocating any one group over the other or trying to make a political or religious stand here. I'm simply an agnostic anthropologist that hates seeing some group get bashed without at least someone to argue their side of the deal.


If it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus, it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus. If you are not allowed to offend other religions, why should you be allowed to offend Christians?That's been my point all along. Why do people feel it's acceptable to publicly attack Christian beliefs, but insulting other religions or any ethnic group is a "hate crime?"

Because they usually don't demand equal treatment. The more radical Christians usually demand precedence. They usually demand that "Sky Faerie Built Us From Clay" is taught as science. They usually demand that Wiccan soldiers don't get to choose their graves. They demand that gays aren't allowed to marry, all of these things out of sadism, spite and all those motivations JESUS CHRIST NEVER, EVER, EVER IN A MILLION FUCKING YEARS, ESPOUSED. And were they still in true power, they'd be demanding heresy to be punishable, preferably by death. And that is why when they make a "reasonable" claim it gets thrown in with all the CRAP they usually say.

Also, you claim Islam does "worse" when offended? Not only radical Christianity does worse with radical Christians do things like bombing abortion clinics (y'know, with the passersby that aren't even thinking about abortion being fair game, of course) on an everyday basis, if all Muslims thought (as a hivemind, you seem to think) the same and reacted the same to the Potsdam event, for instance, about 20% of the Danish population would be dead by now.

Please.

My dear sir, you seem to be overreacting somewhat. Let's have a look at the facts of this particular case, shall we?

Comedian insults Christianity
Christian group registers a complaint
Station chooses to listen to that complaint

Now what's so unreasonable about that? If the comedian had insulted blacks, or muslims, or women, and a group designed to defend the rights of that demographic had complained, what would be so bad about it? And if the station chooses, voluntarily, to listen to this complaint, then what are you complaining about?

As to many of your broader allegations, you appear to be tarring Christians with a brush so broad I'm suspecting you of trying to flamebait someone. The people who you are alleging represent the 'more radical' wing of Christianity are actually in such a crazy minority that you might as well be comparing them to Muslim suicide bombers or the Illuminati. Despite what you seem to think, the vast majority of even fairly radical Christians don't make any sort of demands like this.

Furthermore, it is a fact that the reaction from radical elements of the Muslim community to what can be seen as slights on their religion is vastly more dangerous (remember the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) ?). But nevermind that, it's obvious that all Christians are fundamentalists who spend their time frothing at the mouth while throwing bombs at abortion clinics and shooting homosexuals. You're almost as bad as Andaras Prime.

Anyway, The Gay Street Milita seems to have said things on the direct topic well enough already, so I'll end this here.

What is humorous is this:

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site.

Guess what, asshole?

Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday.

Yeah, Catholics/Christians are really oppressed. Thats why it's been censored, dipshit, right? The poor Christian minority in this country suffers so much.:rolleyes:

Simply put, evolution has not more real evidence for it than any or the major religions.

The simple fact that you typed this tripe allows me to disregard the rest of your post. Read about evolution, nay, read about anything, before commenting on it.

. Simply put, evolution has not more real evidence for it than any or the major religions. You have no real evidence for it, no real intermediary forms, and definitely no one around to see the universe explode into existence and life magically form on its own and evolve into humans. Generally have to accept that on faith just as you would any religion.


You lose all credit here for sleeping through biology class. Sorry if molecular, genetic, fossil, geological, and observed evidence isn't "real" evidence. I guess nothing will please creationists (but we already knew that). Btw, learn the difference between abiogenesis (and the complexity behind it) and evolution before you make another ignorant statement like the above.

Next?

Snip.

I made a point of separating the fundies in Christianity. Re-read my post.

If it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus, it's offensive to Christians to say suck it Jesus. If you are not allowed to offend other religions, why should you be allowed to offend Christians?

Who said you can't offend other religions? Honestly, where do people get this idea from?

I made a point of separating the fundies in Christianity. Re-read my post.

I read your post, and it felt that all of Christianity was implicated. Therefore I responded as appropriate. Especially as the phrasing gave the impression that the Catholic church was considered radical.

I read your post, and it felt that all of Christianity was implicated. Therefore I responded as appropriate. Especially as the phrasing gave the impression that the Catholic church was considered radical.

The Catholic Church may not be radical (well, for Christianity in general I guess), but Mr. Donohue's group certainly is.

No, they, as most religious groups, simply want something other than a strict evolutionist/atheistic viewpoint at least mentioned in schools. Simply put, evolution has not more real evidence for it than any or the major religions. You have no real evidence for it, no real intermediary forms, and definitely no one around to see the universe explode into existence and life magically form on its own and evolve into humans. Generally have to accept that on faith just as you would any religion.


I can't wait to see you get your ass handed to you on this one.

Coming up- one n00b with no ass.

Who said you can't offend other religions? Honestly, where do people get this idea from?

Admittedly, I am not completely up to date on whether hate crimes to do with religion exist in the USA or not. Nevertheless, many posters on here seem to support the idea that such actions should be a crime or at least oppose attacks on Islam and other faiths, if you don't like these attacks you should extend the same courtesy to all religions and not whine about when something is done about someone insulting Christianity on live tv, lest you be a hypocrite.

How so? Catholics have often advocated for civil rights, particularly with regard to worker's rights and opposing capital punishment. They also tend to advocate heavily the right to life in general, and while you and I may not see life as a right in cases like abortion or euthanasia, many Catholics certainly do.

The Catholic church has also enumerated the rights of the religious in its Code of Canon Law.

So yeah, I'd say a Catholic organization trying to uphold civil and religious rights would make a great deal of sense.

Behave yourself now!!!!
The catholic church only advocates the rights that agree with their doctrines. If something gives a person a right that they don't happen to wish for, they go mental and decry anyone who would dare to disagree with them.
Religious and Civil Rights are sadly only applicable where you agree with the church who happens to be fighting for them. Freedom of speech is not really needed in religion. REPEAT AFTER ME "I believe in one god, the father almighty, the creator of heaven and earth....... yadda yadda yadda
You are as free as you want to agree with that but if you disagree then my god you are going to go to hell! Freedom of speech won't feed my children!

AMK
xxx

Oh sorry, i forgot to mention,
JESUS IS DEAD!!!!!!
therefore he can't win a football match! The same way Elvis can't, Princess Diana can't and George W Bush can't. (Braindead but still moving sadly)

Dammit, have I just trolled? :(

AMK
xxx

You mean if the person had said, "Haha! I finally beat out all those (racial slur of your choice)!" a bunch of groups wouldnt have had a fit?
Im not saying that civil rights groups dont need to shut up and realize that comedians are idiots sometimes, but I think the typical NS reaction to the reaction to the comment is, as usual, out of proportion because religion has been thrown in.

Agreed. I mean if she had said something like, "All you athiests out there can suck it. This award proves that Jesus works miracles." the responce here would be different, I'd think.

Agreed. I mean if she had said something like, "All you athiests out there can suck it. This award proves that Jesus works miracles." the responce here would be different, I'd think.

How so? I'd point and laugh, but I still would not demand that it be censored.

And, in point of fact, she did not direct her comments directly at any segment of society so your example is far, far, FAR from anything she said.

Behave yourself now!!!!
The catholic church only advocates the rights that agree with their doctrines. If something gives a person a right that they don't happen to wish for, they go mental and decry anyone who would dare to disagree with them.

Um...that's what everyone does. If someone does something you don't agree with, you claim it is not a right (because you don't believe it is). For example, I have a right to burn down the houses of my enemies (of which there are many, I'm sure). But I'm sure plenty of right-wing reactionaries would claim that is not really a right, just because they don't happen to wish for it.

Can't say I care for Kathy G's attitude much more but won't I be delighted to hear it when a member of Anton LaVey's First Church of Satan wins something :upyours: :p

Um...that's what everyone does. If someone does something you don't agree with, you claim it is not a right (because you don't believe it is). For example, I have a right to burn down the houses of my enemies (of which there are many, I'm sure). But I'm sure plenty of right-wing reactionaries would claim that is not really a right, just because they don't happen to wish for it.

Eh, no you don't!
You might have the ability, that is not a right. It's just an unfortunate co-incidence that someone as short sighted as would do that, would get that power in the first place.
Just because many people do it, doesnt mean it is correct!

AMK
xxx

I can't wait to see you get your ass handed to you on this one.

Nah ... they've got us dead to rites.

How so? I'd point and laugh, but I still would not demand that it be censored.

And, in point of fact, she did not direct her comments directly at any segment of society so your example is far, far, FAR from anything she said.
I thought it was pretty funny myself. The downside of being an atheist is that you don't really mean anything when you tell a self-righteous blowhard like Bill Donahue to go to hell. Unless you mean Detroit.

I thought it was pretty funny myself. The downside of being an atheist is that you don't really mean anything when you tell a self-righteous blowhard like Bill Donahue to go to hell. Unless you mean Detroit.

Dr. Klahn: "The CIA thinks it can infiltrate the Mountain of Dr. Klahn!?"
Spy: (spitting defiance) "You can't scare me, you slant-eyed yellow bastard!"

(Cue ominous music)

Dr. Klahn: (coldly) "Take him to Detroit."
Spy: (wide-eyed in terror as henchmen start dragging him away) "NO! NO, NOT DETROIT! NO, PLEASE!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!! NOOOO!! Nooooo..."