---

by Milky
(quotes)

There is however something called 'respect'. You may not agree with someones views on religion/politics which is your right and open debate/discussion about it is fine but spouting flowery metaphor in an attempt to feel superior just makes you look like an ass. I await the 40 page essay reply that is your trademark with...well *yawn*

---

Agreed

---

by Byron

(quotes)
To be frank, the tone of your posts, from the emotive comparisons, to outrage at a meaning of widely-used slang term clearly not intended, and getting upset by a plainly light-hearted post, feels like someone looking to be offended.

---

Sorry but imho cretinous is no longer widely used for the very reason that it is extremely offensive.

I have far better things to do than "look to be offended"!

---

by Byron

(quotes)
Respect, what I give people who've earned it. If making abusive calls and threatening people with the law courts earns your respect ... well, each to their own.

---

I agree about people making abusive calls (although your original post made no mention of this). This is completely hypocritical (imho). However threatening the BBC with legal action is fine by me. As you have said the Blasphemy law does exist (whether you like it or not). There has a to a line as to what is and what isn't acceptable on tv. For example the Ken Bigley beheading video would not be shown because of the offence it would cause. Obviously not everything that is potentially offensive should be withdrawn but there has to be a limit. I think people's religious beliefs should be taken into account when deciding that limit.

You clearly have no repect for religious groups because they "have not earned it." Please look into the work of organisations such as Cafod and Christian Aid and let me know what more they must do to earn your respect.

To the people who seem to be defending the right to mock people for religious beliefs I find your attitude strange and rather sad. I often have to deal with children who are being bullied or teased. Often this takes the form of mocking. Some have attempted suicide. I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend the right to mock other people.

(this post contains spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen it yet)

Well I figured I would first watched the darned thing before I ran face first into a wall..... So I did and here I am

First of all. I watched it and I enjoyed it. It was well executed, funny and easy enough to follow even though it was mostly sung.

Sure they used loads of strong language but what do you expect it's a opera about the Jerry Springer show. Jerry without strong language is like shooting a movie over the life of Oprah where Oprah is played by a skinny white girl. And they use the strong language so often it just takes the mic of using strong language

Now onto the whole Devil, Jesus & God thing.... It fits into the story!
Jerry gets shot and supposedly dies and ends up with the Devil (no surprise there except for Jerry himself ). And guess what the Devil has a little problem with God & Jesus which is totally correct:

---

(revelation 12 7 - 9) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

If you read on you'll see how Jesus ends up in this all (Blood of the Lamb thing....).

So basically what have we got here...... A domestic disturbance in which which the Devil and his mates where kicked out of the house by good old dad. Uhmm sounds like something that we've seen on the Jerry Springer show more than once. So the Devil forces Jerry to do a show with him & Jesus & God. And things get a little out of hand... what you expect it's the Jerry Springer show.

In the strictest sense of the word blasphemy (irreverence toward a deity or deities and, by extension, the use of profanity) it was blasphemes but I really don't think we should measure things by the strictest sense of the word because if that is true castrating stray cats and eating cow meat is also blasphemy as cats and cows are deities in more religions.

I hope we can pretty much agree on the fact that castrating stray cats and eating cow meat isn't blasphemy. So working by the strict definition of the word just went out the window. That leaves us with placing it within the context of our modern society. And personally I don't think that this was any more blasphemes than Bruce Almighty (good film btw).

Sure I can see why some fundemantal Christian people might have a problem with this piece of entertainment but that doesn't make it any less valid entertainment. If I'm not mistaken according to Jahovas the drinking of Cola isn't allowed.... I haven't seen hundreds of Jahovas burning bottles of Cola (sure it is pretty tricky to burn but where there is a will there is a way and especially if God is on your side... ooh did I just mock a religion?) and threatening Coca & Pepsi Cola employees or have I just missed that?

Okay the mocking part.....
Mocking a religion is fine with me. An unquestioned answer is even worse than an unanswered question. Religion if faith and if it is any good it should be able to resist some mocking. Mocking of groups on specifics I also have no problem with (but I would advice you to check if you can run faster than the group...)
Mocking individuals that aren't in the public spotlight however is not done in my eyes. I have been mocked in my day (overweight, red hair, huge glasses, brainy & very annoying so how hard can it be.... if I had braces I would have had a complete set ) and it is no fun.

The respect issue......... This has been an issue of heavy debate between me and my mates. Everybody should have your respect and you should treat anybody respectful (do to others etc). So there is a "default" level of respect you should have for everyone. However people can lose part of your respect by their action of get "additional" respect.

What Chambler said ^^^

As someone who has, deities help me, read Paradise Lost and rather too many other works of literature dealing with Heaven and Hell, the characterisation of the argument in JS:TO was quite in line. Lucifer leads a revolt in heaven because, essentially, he thinks Jesus is getting above himself. Andrew Lloyd-Webber characterises Judas as feeling the same way, hence the turning Jesus in for the thirty pieces of silver thing. Putting this section in to the opera actually made the first act into an allegory. The characters' petty lives are a microcosm of the grand struggle, if you like. And the morality of the whole thing is summed up neatly in Jerry's final line - "Take care of yourselves; and each other". The theme is personal responsibility, which is summed up in God's song - "millions of voices making all the wrong choices then turning round and blaming me." Humans say "the devil made me do it", the devil says "God/Jesus made me do it" (and he does do exactly that in Paradise Lost), the humans on the show say "Jerry Springer made me do it." The existance of The Jerry Springer show doesn't cause people to sleep with their girlfriend's brother and best friend and ask to be spanked in a nappy (and in the second act, Jesus was wearing a loincloth, which has always seemed perfectly acceptable in Christian iconography before, why not now?)- if those things didn't exist in the first place, then there would be no show.

There's more than enough material for Christian allegory in the show, starting points for countless sermons, and at the end of the day, I find it quite a moral show. However, as with the Chris Morris Brass Eye episode fiasco, too many people have waded in to argue without having seen the show, or having only listened to a biassed account of it (I saw so many inaccuracies in the tabloid I could barely believe it). If people are still offended by it afterwards, then fair enough. I can only say that I wasn't, and I'm very glad to the television for giving me a chance to see something I wanted to see, but couldn't go and see in the theatre in London.

(Edited by Bee 13/01/2005 15:58)

---

by Kneon Light
Sorry but imho cretinous is no longer widely used for the very reason that it is extremely offensive.

I have far better things to do than "look to be offended"!

---

I've no doubt your opinion is honest on this. Agree to disagree time.

---

I agree about people making abusive calls (although your original post made no mention of this). This is completely hypocritical (imho). However threatening the BBC with legal action is fine by me. As you have said the Blasphemy law does exist (whether you like it or not). There has a to a line as to what is and what isn't acceptable on tv. For example the Ken Bigley beheading video would not be shown because of the offence it would cause. Obviously not everything that is potentially offensive should be withdrawn but there has to be a limit. I think people's religious beliefs should be taken into account when deciding that limit.

---

You've completely sidestepped the issue. Nay, you've taken a ringroad around the issue and are heading away from it at 90 in the inside lane. Saying "there has to be a limit somewhere" isn't an answer, it's a statement of fact. You've not explained *why* blasphemy should be a criminal offence. If you're arguing the law should be used to silence people's opinions, you need a wee bit more than "here's good a place as any".

An aside: what should be acceptable on TV and what should be illegal are two completely different things. The BBC could quite legally show Ken Bigley's death, but don't because they know it would cause widespread outrage. Which shows you don't need to threaten people with the courts.

---

You clearly have no repect for religious groups because they "have not earned it." Please look into the work of organisations such as Cafod and Christian Aid and let me know what more they must do to earn your respect.

---

You're reading things I've never said, best not make a habit of it. I have no respect for people who use religion as an excuse for common thuggery. Not a word have I spoken about Christain Aid.

---

To the people who seem to be defending the right to mock people for religious beliefs I find your attitude strange and rather sad. I often have to deal with children who are being bullied or teased. Often this takes the form of mocking. Some have attempted suicide. I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend the right to mock other people.

---

Enough with the straw dogs. How bullying (victimising people who've done no wrong and can't fight back) has the slightest releveance to taking the piss out of religious fundamentalists eager for a holy war, I suspect only you can know. Mocking = bullying? Then Private Eye, Jonathan Swift, Rory Bremner and Steve Bell are playground toughs? We should never mock anyone, ever?

You approve of religious fundamentalists silencing an opinion they disagree with, but find ridiculing them for it offensive: interesting set of priorities you have there.

---

by Byron
You're reading things I've never said, best not make a habit of it. I have no respect for people who use religion as an excuse for common thuggery. Not a word have I spoken about Christain Aid.

---

But you seem to be being generally abusive to religious groups as a whole. Christian Aid + Cafod are run by people from these religious groups that you have no respect for.

---

by Byron
Enough with the straw dogs. How bullying (victimising people who've done no wrong and can't fight back) has the slightest releveance to taking the piss out of religious fundamentalists eager for a holy war, I suspect only you can know. Mocking = bullying? Then Private Eye, Jonathan Swift, Rory Bremner and Steve Bell are playground toughs? We should never mock anyone, ever?

---

i started off on this thread using the word abuse rather than mocking. I probably should have stuck with it as gentle mocking such as rory bremner etc is fine. But when they do over step the line they need to be accountable for the actions. Private eye for example has been taken to court more than once.

With regard to bullying, what if the children (or adults for that matter) are being bullied because of their religion? Is that ok by you?

"taking the piss out of religious fundamentalists eager for a holy war" - It's juvenile comments like this that show you have a complete lack of respect for religious groups (including groups that include Cafod/Christian Aid). I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to reply to someone that obviously can't cope with an adult conversation without resorting to abuse.

---

You approve of religious fundamentalists silencing an opinion they disagree with, but find ridiculing them for it offensive: interesting set of priorities you have there.

---

To quote you: "You're reading things I've never said, best not make a habit of it."

Ok. Why I think Blasphemy laws are a good idea:

To people who are religious their faith is often the most important thing in their lives. To them it is literally the meaning of life and the reason for living. I think they should therefore be able to practice their faith without being subject to abuse. In many countries people are jailed, tortured and generally mistreated for having a certain religious believe. As a (so-called) civilised country I think it is important to have laws to protect people enabling them to practice a faith without persecution. The difficulty comes in deciding whether something is just a piss take (simpsons etc) or is truely blasphemous. I think it is sensible to have a law to decide this. My worry would be that without a blasphemy law there woud be a stream of abuse aimed at religious groups and as I have already said I think people should be able to practice whatever faith they want without persecution. I would never try to silence people's opinions - discussions on these issues are healthy (even if they get a bit heated sometimes!). However there is a big difference between people's opinions and outright abuse. I think the blasphemy laws should protect people from abuse - not silence opinion.

I think we will have to simply agree to disagree on this. Why don't we discuss something we both agree on - like how fantastic the last season of Buffy is!

quotes fixed

(Edited by Staff 14/01/2005 20:51)

Oh and can someone please tell me how to do quotes properly!!!

---

by Kneon Light
Oh and can someone please tell me how to do quotes properly!!!

---

See the little "" button at the top right of someones post. Clicking that will quote the whole of that persons post.

To quote part of someones post you can do one of the following. If you scroll down the reply page you'll see a box which contains the last 5 posts made plus the original post. If you want to quote from one of these highlight the text you want to quote and press the Quote link underneath the Previous Posts box.

Otherwise copy and paste the text you want to quote into your reply and use <quote> </quote> but with [ and ] instead of < and >

---

by Kneon Light
Ok. Why I think Blasphemy laws are a good idea:



To people who are religious their faith is often the most important thing in their lives. To them it is literally the meaning of life and the reason for living. I think they should therefore be able to practice their faith without being subject to abuse.

---

Sure and thats why we have the right of free choice of religion.

---

The difficulty comes in deciding whether something is just a piss take (simpsons etc) or is truely blasphemous. I think it is sensible to have a law to decide this.

---

This is where I get the creeps. As how can a law define such a thing? You can't expect a complete list of what is and what isn't blasphemous as each situation is unique and involves dozens of different factors. So creating a list of what is and what isn't allowed can't be made. This is the same as saying we have a law you can't break the speedlimit but than not mentioning what the limit is.

Also what is blasphemy for one group is free speech for the other. Because if I stand up and say God doesn't exist for some people that is blasphemy but should they be able to sue me for saying that? As it does hurt people in the core of their believes and therefore their being if I say that. But I do have to listen to them saying there is one God who created heaven an earth etc etc?

---

My worry would be that without a blasphemy law there woud be a stream of abuse aimed at religious groups and as I have already said I think people should be able to practice whatever faith they want without persecution.

---

And I'm afraid the opposite will happen. Religions have the tendency to take the laws to the extremes in their favour (just look at history) And we'll get loads of fanatic religious people sueing people left right and center who in their eyes are "blasphemous".

---

I think the blasphemy laws should protect people from abuse - not silence opinion.

---

And there you have the catch as where do you pull the line? I'm off the opinion that where this line is supposed to be moves according to enviromental factors. A law defining this line would therefore always be hopelessly outdated and therefore no good and open for abuse to push religious views more to the center.

There are laws that protect people against physical and verbal abuse combined with the freedom of religion, let them use those instead. There really doesn't need to be another inpraticle law.

If you can't define it and do it properly.... when it comes to laws please don't even try as it will just do more harm than good.

(Edited by Chambler 14/01/2005 20:01)

---

This is where I get the creeps. As how can a law define such a thing? You can't expect a complete list of what is and what isn't blasphemous as each situation is unique and involves dozens of different factors.

---

I can understand what you mean but the same could be said for racism. What one person considers racism another person wouldn't.

---

And I'm afraid the opposite will happen. Religions have the tendency to take the laws to the extremes in their favour (just look at history) And we'll get loads of fanatic religious people sueing people left right and center who in their eyes are "blasphemous".

---

We have blasphemy laws at the moment and have had for a long time. People have not been sueing each other left, right and centre. The fact that the threat of such action over the Jerry Springer prog. created such a fuss in the papers shows that it is an unusual case.

quotes fixed

(Edited by Staff 14/01/2005 20:49)

Oh sod it! got the quotes thing all wrong again!!!!

Just replace the < > 's with [ ] 's and it will all be fine

---

by Miss Corrupt
Just replace the < > 's with [ ] 's and it will all be fine

---

And hit the preview button first

---

i started off on this thread using the word abuse rather than mocking. I probably should have stuck with it as gentle mocking such as rory bremner etc is fine. But when they do over step the line they need to be accountable for the actions. Private eye for example has been taken to court more than once.

---

You have any idea what Private Eye were taken to court *for*? Clearly not, because if you did, you'd know its not for taking the mick but libel prosecutions from desperate politicians trying to keep their dirty secrets buried. Very noble eh?

---

With regard to bullying, what if the children (or adults for that matter) are being bullied because of their religion? Is that ok by you?

---

No, and nothing IÂ’ve said suggests it is.

---

"taking the piss out of religious fundamentalists eager for a holy war" - It's juvenile comments like this that show you have a complete lack of respect for religious groups (including groups that include Cafod/Christian Aid). I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to reply to someone that obviously can't cope with an adult conversation without resorting to abuse.

---

No, it shows I have a complete lack of respect for fundamentlist bigots. Which doesn't include Cafod/Christian Aid, unless they're really had a shakeup at the AGM. Ironically, lumping all shades of Christianity together would be taken as more offensive than anything I've said by many Christians!

And now, the bit that's fit for Jahova.

---

To people who are religious their faith is often the most important thing in their lives. To them it is literally the meaning of life and the reason for living. I think they should therefore be able to practice their faith without being subject to abuse. In many countries people are jailed, tortured and generally mistreated for having a certain religious believe. As a (so-called) civilised country I think it is important to have laws to protect people enabling them to practice a faith without persecution. The difficulty comes in deciding whether something is just a piss take (simpsons etc) or is truely blasphemous. I think it is sensible to have a law to decide this. My worry would be that without a blasphemy law there woud be a stream of abuse aimed at religious groups and as I have already said I think people should be able to practice whatever faith they want without persecution. I would never try to silence people's opinions - discussions on these issues are healthy (even if they get a bit heated sometimes!). However there is a big difference between people's opinions and outright abuse. I think the blasphemy laws should protect people from abuse - not silence opinion.

---

Blasphemy lawÂ’s reason for being is to silence opinion, and they do nothing to stop abuse.

You mention religious persecution. Who are the most consistently enthusiastic persecutors? Believers of other religions! It’s ironic you say you want blasphemy laws to stop persecution and abuse when their main use has been to bully heretics into silence. What do you mean by “abuse” anyway? Seems to me you mean offence. Clearly, for some Christians, the most offensive thing imaginable is the sight of Jesus in a nappy saying he’s gay. But for many other Christians, the most offensive thing imaginable is calling God a tyrant. Do we outlaw Atheism? You might tell me you don’t want that, but what makes one lot of offended Christians more deserving than another? Or maybe it should be the other way round. Many Atheists find much Christian dogma offensive. Lets outlaw Christianity. It’s impossible to draw the line anywhere, and unjust to try.

The concept of blasphemy is nonsense. ItÂ’s designed to give special protection to one religion. It canÂ’t apply to all religions because each religion is blasphemous to all the others. ItÂ’s among the most discriminatory, regressive, downright risible concepts I know of. No oneÂ’s forcing believers to digest heresy. DonÂ’t like it? DonÂ’t continue to look at it. Simple as. If theyÂ’re incapable of surviving exposure to material they find offensive they need help, not the law.

/me walks in, hoses everyone down, leaves the room, gets in a car slipping that baby into 1st and getting the hell out...

Thanks for that! I really didn't need to get wet, I'm standing over here (my post was so boring it didn't merit quoting on )

I will actually watch it when I've got 2 hours that need sufficiently killing

Before I get into this I just thought I'd try and clear up something which seems to have gotten a bit clouded in this thread, the definitions of mocking and abuse. I would say(and you all better agree or else ) that mocking would be comments which are intended in a light-hearted and non-derogatory way. I would say that abuse is at the other end of the spectrum and is intended to cause emotional anguish and distress.

I'd say that the Jerry Springer thing 'mocked' christian beliefs but in no way would I say it was worse than an episode of the Simpsons etc bar the fact that the subject matter and language were more adult. Granted my opinion of christian beliefs is fairly non existent but I truly believe that the intention of the people that made this opera was to 'mock' rather than 'abuse'.

---

by Kneon Light
I can understand what you mean but the same could be said for racism. What one person considers racism another person wouldn't.

---

Got to say I disagree here. Mocking someone for the colour of their skin, a characteristic they have no control over is a slippery slope. Nobody with any sense would ever make a mocking rascist comment towards someone unless they knew that person and could be sure they would understand the context. I would say you can't mock someone for something they have no control over unless you have that 'personal relationship' where you know that they will see it as mocking and not abuse.

Religion on the other hand, as has been pointed out, is a choice. Yes some people may feel that this is a very important part of their lives but I'm sure there's some Chav sitting on the steps of the bus station in Chatham who would be outraged if he heard us taking the piss out of his Burberry cap. Mocking an individuals choice can only be that because if you have made a choice to do something then no matter what other peoples opinion are your convictions should be strong enough that it doesn't matter what they say.

As far as a blasphemy law goes, I don't know the details of the one thats been mentioned, I think it's a bad idea. If we have one for christianity then why not one for Judaism, Sikhs, Buddists etc. Because they would all clash. Any current blasphemy law is a left-over from a less civilised society than we have today.

And I'm sure as Milky is the king of being mocked he knows what he's on about

---

by Byron
The concept of blasphemy is nonsense

---

In your opinion. Not mine.

---

by Byron
Blasphemy lawÂ’s reason for being is to silence opinion

---

I disagree (i'm sure you'll be surprised to hear!). Going back to the original post if it was about opinions being silenced then there wouldn't be this fuss about the Jerry Springer show. It is no-one's opinion that jesus was gay and wore nappies. It was the offence caused that was the problem.

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree otherwise this thread will go on forever!!!!!

And I finally got the quotes right!!!!!