Religious censorship?

[Ray Jones]

Get a grip, guys. If they thanked Zeus or Odin (Buddha?), would you get equally bent out of shape?

If these persons would get bent out of shape because I'd mention not Zeus, nor Odin, neither Buddha did get me my stuff, yes. If these people openly blame their success on god or whoever, and I have to take it, why can't they take it that I don't and express that opinion?

[Darth InSidious]

I don't know much about this, but I think if you put that sentiment in the form of "Suck it [insert religious icon of choice here]", then I'd imagine the midden would hit the wind farm. I would rather think tha it is this that caused the offence, not saying that it had nothing to do with a religious icon you don't believe in.

[Jae Onasi]

If these persons would get bent out of shape because I'd mention not Zeus, nor Odin, neither Buddha did get me my stuff, yes. If these people openly blame their success on god or whoever, and I have to take it, why can't they take it that I don't and express that opinion?

 

Because when you acknowledge someone with thanks, you're not being offensive, you're just being thankful. You're not making a value judgment about those who don't happen to believe in whatever or whomever you're giving thanks to.

 

When you're saying "Suck it, [insert deity of choice or person]", you're intentionally getting in someone else's face and making a value judgment about their belief. If she'd just said "Jesus/God didn't get this for me, my hard work got this for me," it wouldn't have been offensive. She could have handled this tactfully, but she didn't--she chose a cheap shot.

[Achilles]

Given that this is an action taken by a private corporation, I have no problem with them covering their own bases, protecting their profits.

*shrugs* To ET Warrior's earlier point, then perhaps it's time that secular political forces created an environment in which private companies felt similarly compelled to protect their profits by voluntarily censoring other forms of religious speech. Perhaps they can start by bleeping out the word "god" whenever uttered. If it's good for the goose...

 

Had it been a government action, however, I'd be rather angry. It doesn't sound like what she said was "hate speech," which I don't think should be illegal in the first place, just a bit of poorly-executed mockery.

I guess I find it disappointing that the fundie agenda has been so successfully implemented. Government doesn't have to get involved because E! already knows that Focus on the Family is sitting around the corner with a shiv.

 

And since when are we guaranteed the right not to be offended in the first place? So much for objective rules...

QFT

 

It was a comment calculated to cause offence, hence designed to insult. And mocking a belief system because you think it's irrational is no different from mocking a type of human because you believe them to be genetically inferior, or mocking people with a certain melanine-level in their skin because their culture is different to your own and you perceive it as less worthy.

First, irrationality can be objectively measured and applied, therefore equating to a personal prejudice isn't exactly an accurate comparison. Second, there is a huge difference between mocking an adopted belief and any other non-controlable circumstance of birth you'd care to think of. Surely you can see this huge difference, correct?

 

No, perhaps she shouldn't be censored, but nevertheless, there are unwritten rules which those of us who know of them like to call 'tact'.

 

Thanks for your post.

[Jae Onasi]

I guess I find it disappointing that the fundie agenda has been so successfully implemented. Government doesn't have to get involved because E! already knows that Focus on the Family is sitting around the corner with a shiv.

 

Since when? The Moral Majority et al were not active in the 70's, and the gov't censorship rules were much more strict. The rules (and their enforcement) for what's appropriate to say on TV have become far more lax in the last 10-15 years--so much so that Janet felt safe risking a 'wardrobe malfunction' on live TV--she knew she was unlikely to get anything more than a slap on the wrist at most. There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago. There's open discussion and depiction of all sorts of unsavory behavior that would have never made the airwaves a couple decades ago. If E! didn't self-censor, they'd pay a huge fine from the gov't--s**t is still a prohibited word on prime-time, and I doubt 'suck it, x' is appropriate for young children to hear, either.

 

I'd like to point out that a bunch of the websites that I visited looking for the exact text of her speech yesterday had heavily censored what she said prior to posting it on their sites, too. I had a difficult time finding a complete transcript and ended up having to piece it together from several sites. E! wasn't the only one assessing the wisdom of posting her offensive comments. Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism.

[Ray Jones]

When you're saying "Suck it, [insert deity of choice or person]", you're intentionally getting in someone else's face and making a value judgment about their belief.

That reminds me of those folks in school or where ever, who get utterly upset and incite a fist fight just because someone says "hey your mum s**** d****". It also reminds me of those who try to upset others by saying such stuff. And last but not least, it reminds me of those who start giggling when someone says "penis".

 

 

I think what she meant was more like "see Jesus, I did it without believing in you", which contradicts itself but gee, it can't be worse than "you are gay and'll burn in hell". It's language, Jae, not Nazi symbols spray painted to a Jewish church.

[Achilles]

Since when? The Moral Majority et al were not active in the 70's, and the gov't censorship rules were much more strict.

So the moral majority is the only possible movement that could have been at work?

 

Was the moral majority active when the Hays code was rolled out? How about when the Hays code transitioned to the MPAA? And the fundamentalist movement started when? I'm sure this is all coincidence though.

 

I realize that I'm not exactly addressing your argument though, because you specified "gov't censorship", however since I did not reference gov't censorship in my post, I think it's okay to reinforce my point rather than argue your unrelated point.

 

The rules (and their enforcement) for what's appropriate to say on TV have become far more lax in the last 10-15 years

Source please?

 

--so much so that Janet felt safe risking a 'wardrobe malfunction' on live TV

Wait, wouldn't the wardrobe malfunction had to have been intentional in order for it to be considered a risk? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

 

--she knew she was unlikely to get anything more than a slap on the wrist at most.

Which interview did she state this in? And doesn't this also speak to intent?

 

There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago.

In which medium? Television? Music? Yeah, you're probably right. Movies? I beg to differ.

 

There's open discussion and depiction of all sorts of unsavory behavior that would have never made the airwaves a couple decades ago.

Yes, with regards to music and television, you're probably correct. Not sure what causal relationship you're trying to establish though.

 

If E! didn't self-censor, they'd pay a huge fine from the gov't--s**t is still a prohibited word on prime-time, and I doubt 'suck it, x' is appropriate for young children to hear, either.

Yes, a huge fine imposed by the FCC. The same FCC that receives more than 99% of all complaints from the Parents Television Council (an activist group). But that's not fundamentalism influencing the government or censorship or anything.

 

But I'm glad they're around though. That way I can keep my children up until 10pm (or later) on a school night so that they can watch the Emmy's and know that they'll be spared from traumatizing language such as "suck it, jesus". In the old days, I would have simply sent them out of the room to play a violent video game or something.

 

I'd like to point out that a bunch of the websites that I visited looking for the exact text of her speech yesterday had heavily censored what she said prior to posting it on their sites, too. I had a difficult time finding a complete transcript and ended up having to piece it together from several sites. E! wasn't the only one assessing the wisdom of posting her offensive comments. Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism.

But Jae, I already pointed you to the horses mouth back in post 8 *confused*

[Darth InSidious]

First, irrationality can be objectively measured and applied, therefore equating to a personal prejudice isn't exactly an accurate comparison. Second, there is a huge difference between mocking an adopted belief and any other non-controlable circumstance of birth you'd care to think of. Surely you can see this huge difference, correct?

To my mind it is far worse to insult something at the centre of someone's life like their religious belief than to insult them over something as irrelevant as the level of melanin in the skin.

 

Thanks for your post.

Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank.

[Totenkopf]

What's still obvious from several posts is the misunderstanding of why the "egregious" censorship by the network took place. If she'd said something like "suck on this..." to one of her colleagues, that'd be grounds for redacting her comments too. Freedom of speech does NOT equal the freedom to force others to hear what you have to say in any/all venues. If you can get the networks to respond to such a petition, Achilles, by all means..give it a try. You'll probably need a lot more numbers to make any headway, though.

[Achilles]

To my mind it is far worse to insult something at the centre of someone's life like their religious belief than to insult them over something as irrelevant as the level of melanin in the skin.

I'm glad you qualified your argument by specifying that this is your subjective opinion.

 

Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank.

Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter. Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.

[Jae Onasi]

Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank.

Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter. Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.

 

*Jae pops some popcorn and sits back on the couch to watch the fireworks*

 

Should be as entertaining as when Achilles and I go at it. Just make sure to stay within the MPAA guidelines, guys (not that you haven't been already).

[Ray Jones]

Thanks to Thrik, and my wise sense for the future, I may as well offer this one:

 

 

 

XDDD

[SilentScope001]

 

The trailers are the best part.

 

"THE GREATEST DISASTER TO HIT THE WORLD'S COLLECTION OF VALUABLE KNOWLEDGE LOOMS. PRECIOUS DATA THAT MAY TAKE SECONDS TO REVERT MAY BE DELETED! CAN PEOPLE SURIVIE THE 'VANDAL ATTACK'? ONLY IN THEATERS!'

[Totenkopf]

1. thrik

A slang term used in various regions of Britain to describe a deity or entity of high religious value. Most commonly, this term is coined to the concept of "God", although it has also been used to describe key historical religious figures such as Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.The word was extremely commonplace up to the late 1800s, at which point it began to gradually fade out of use. Whilst certain areas of the country are still known to use it, specifically the Nottinghamshire county, the general consensus is that it is a dead word.

 

 

Interesting.....a "dead word" for what you believe to be a "dead"/nonexistent entity. Wothy of a chuckle or two.

 

Btw, Achilles, your reasoning is entirely fallacious. You can share traits w/someone that you're diametrically opposed to philosophically.

[Ray Jones]

2. Thrik, the internet entity that may unleash very existent pain upon you, but only if you call him nonexistent. X)

[Jae Onasi]

Thanks to Thrik, and my wise sense for the future, I may as well offer this one:

 

 

Oh, don't forgot the beer. I'm sure Thrik would approve, no?

 

I guess we'll see how the program censors Griffith's remarks and go from there.

[Prime]

I have no problem with people thanking Jesus, God, their parents, or anyone else that they believe helped them attain some type of achievement.

My favorite is when gangster rappers do it.

 

 

Because when you acknowledge someone with thanks, you're not being offensive, you're just being thankful.

I always figured Christians would/should get offended when a rapper or other singer thanks God for giving them the skills and opportunity to sing about pimping their bitches and make raunchy videos.

[mimartin]

My favorite is when gangster rappers do it.[/Quote]

LOL

 

I always figured Christians would/should get offended when a rapper or other singer thanks God for giving them the skills and opportunity to sing about pimping their bitches and make raunchy videos.

I have no problem with them thanking God for it and even if I did, I know I'm far from perfect. I sin, so I would have to be just as offended at myself for thanking god for anything.

 

I have more of a problem with gangster rappers talking about strong women in their life and then getting on stage or in the recording studio and spouting their poison about women.

[SilentScope001]

Why can't we all agree to thank the Intelligent Designer?

 

Theists can think they are thanking God, and atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and Evolution, but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't exist. All hail the Intelligent Designer!

[Totenkopf]

2. Thrik, the internet entity that may unleash very existent pain upon you, but only if you call him nonexistent. X)

 

 

Ok, guess that works too.

 

@Prime--yeah, it is ironic that Jesus gets the credit for mysogynistic/violent rap music.

[John Galt]

Why can't we all agree to thank the Intelligent Designer?

 

Theists can think they are thanking God, and atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and Evolution, but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't exist. All hail the Intelligent Designer!

 

Because there is absolutely no evidense to suggest that there is a designer to begin with, or even a design.

[Jae Onasi]

This reminds me of a rant a friend of mine had one time. She was complaining about Bette Midler using "God" in the song "From a Distance" to a bunch of us in our circle of friends. "Why does she have to use God? That's offensive. Why can't she use "A Higher Power" or something?"

 

The rest of us broke into song in unison:

"A Higher Power is watching us!

A Higher Power is watching us!

A Higher Power is watching us, from a distance!"

[Ray Jones]

Jae, it's popcorn and cola, and nachos and beer.

 

 

atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and Evolution

I didn't know atheists do that? I always thought it to be more like a possible explanation of what's going on, not more, not less ...

 

but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't exist

Does it say where?

[Achilles]

*Jae pops some popcorn and sits back on the couch to watch the fireworks*

Does this mean I shouldn't expect a response to post #32?

[Darth InSidious]

Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter.

Um, no, no it would apply generally.

Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.

As opposed to your own oh-so-mature and measured response? Can I smell hypocrisy?