The Catholic Bishop's fight over the Bloody Mary episode of South Park is a fight for civilisation itself.
Some see it as an issue of free speech - where the ability to be as offensive and crass as possible is equated to much needed freedom to express unpalatable ideas. This is an example of the type of the confusion that is rampant in society today.
Screen "Bloody Mary" to the civilised world of one hundred years ago, and the reaction would be far more aggressive than that of the Catholic Bishops today. The men of hundred years ago would be very aware of the grave insult to women that the "Bloody Mary" episode represents, and would not leave it to Bishops to point out the obvious. That today's cravens cannot see it shows just how much we have degenerated over the years.
Some see it as an issue of free speech - where the ability to be as offensive and crass as possible is equated to much needed freedom to express unpalatable ideas. This is an example of the type of the confusion that is rampant in society today.
Screen "Bloody Mary" to the civilised world of one hundred years ago, and the reaction would be far more aggressive than that of the Catholic Bishops today. The men of hundred years ago would be very aware of the grave insult to women that the "Bloody Mary" episode represents, and would not leave it to Bishops to point out the obvious. That today's cravens cannot see it shows just how much we have degenerated over the years.
The Catholic Bishop's fight over the Bloody Mary episode of South Park is a fight for civilisation itself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting such a smile on my face.
And to think, my Waitakere City mayor, Bob Harvey co-signs the letter to Ian Wishart protesting the revelations in Investigate about radical Islamists visiting here and preaching their bile.
ReplyDeleteAnd Harveys concern was? ... He doesn't want to see car bombs going off on Henderson.
Nice
Danyl, yeah, I'm not surprised you don't get it.
ReplyDeleteYou want it banned by the state?
ReplyDeleteI'm testing you.
"The men of hundred years ago would be very aware of the grave insult to women that the "Bloody Mary" episode represents, and would not leave it to Bishops to point out the obvious."
ReplyDeleteI think you're right to the extent that the Church's concept of respect for women is rooted at least a hundred years in the past...
Seriously, has even one of these bishops ever had an adult relationship with any woman that didn't involve telling her what to do? Personally, I'd find it hard to sit listening to them tell me what's offensive to women without laughing in their faces.
Hmmm, Milt, if the criteria for what is offensive to women has changed *that* much in the last 100 years it is probably because of the so-called "women's liberation"
ReplyDeleteToday's culture pretty much says to women things like 'take this white pill that was invented by men so that men can have all the fun they want and you won't get pregnant; now that you're the equal of any men we'll free free to insult you like one'. If you open a door or stand up when a woman comes in, most will appreciate actually being respected.
James, as far as having the No. 1 dude on our side, yes we do, but he must be shown respect - and his mother also. He is King and Creator. What if you had a king on your side? Would you not respect him, especially if he has saved your eternal soul? And his Mother also? You'd be pretty weird if you didn't.
ps, most Bishops today probably weren't around 100 years ago; they grew up in the same world you did and probably had girlfriends - they didn't go straight from the womb into becoming priests.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, Fletch. Women's lib has been a big part of the change. Men have always had the tendency to behave badly, but have been kept in check by women. Now that women are encouraged to behave badly as well, they're not even keeping themselves in check - let alone men.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'm totally generalising here, as there are always exceptions.
Rick, I think there ought to be public decency laws that cover this sort of thing. And strangely enough, I think there already are public decency laws. The problem is not so much the law, it's that many people have lost their sense of what is indecent.
ReplyDeleteJames
ReplyDeleteBecause the No. 1 dude wants us to tell you He's on your side as well. Strange for you to hear but true.
As for Danyl, well....medical treatment is obviously needed.
James, what are you talking about?
ReplyDeletePeople have the freedom to be as offensive as possible, and yet to take offence and express that is somehow not an allowed freedom?
ReplyDeleteIf people are going to trumpet respect for people showing disrespect, they can also show respect for the right for others to test whatever laws we have around the right not to be denigrated and abused.
I get a sense that the tolerance and respect is all one way traffic.
Danyl, death by a thousand cuts requires response by a thousand parries.
ReplyDeleteLucyna said...
ReplyDeleteJames, what are you talking about? "
I thought it was obvious L.You are supposed to have God....you know...the big chesse,the man,the be all and end all in your corner.What possible threat are we critics to you and your faith? So why do you feel the need to go on the offensive over matters? You are already in the winners circle with no chance of falling out so why all the angst?
Leave us non believing sinners alone to do our own thing and come judgement day let God sort us out.Kick back,relax,put your feet up......;-)
Or do you think God isn't doing all he could so you have to pick up his slack? ;-)
I'm a Catholic and I do watch South Park.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Bishop's fight over the Bloody Mary episode of South Park is NOT a fight for civilisation itself.
To use the example of 100 years ago is a failure in itself to prove the point.
Why not look at 2000 years ago when Jesus was on Earth preaching to the masses.
Some of the things he said we against religious beliefs at that time.
He ended up on the cross for that.
Now I not arguing that South Park is a religion, nor should it.
But the freedom to be able to put ideas across into the marketplace and let them compete is all about Western civilisation.
Satire has always been about poking fun at things and is a good way of people putting points of view across.
Otherwise go join the Jihadist on the other side - you have a lot in common.
Well said Anon....
ReplyDeleteI disagree Anon. The Jihadists want to kill the South Park creators, and that's different from complaining when some-one shits in your lounge in the name of satire.
ReplyDeleteAs I said - if you are going to have a market place of ideas, then you need to allow haggling on the price.
At the moment, the seller has said "your soul for this joke" and the buyer is saying "that's too much. How about the sole on my boot"? and the bystanders are all screaming "no fair haggling over the price - we must accept the first offer"
Well, excuse me for haggling.
Your idea, on this thread, no sale with me. But James is buying, so you wont leave empty handed.
I'm of two minds over it.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways its best ignored.
The whole point is to offend us Lucyna and if we show that they have succeeded we have given them a victory.
But if you let standards slip - they keep on slipping.
I can think of the several offensive steps beyond this that they might take and someone will go down that track for sure, just to get a rise and free poublicity.
I don't watch South Park, but I've heard the episode in question explained. And I simply won't watch South Park until they let me make and episode demeaning their own parents or someone important in their life, say with a pencil and a goat. After all, that would be only fair right? Childish, but fair...
ReplyDeleteNow, if offending people is the method by which to raise discussion, then that shows how far down the path to barbarism we may have gone. The same method of lack of decency and respect applied to the "art" of P*** Christ and Virgin in A Condom some time ago. The idea was simply to offend - nothing else.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone are simply guys who've found a niche to explore and get away with it. The fact that Catholics might watch it says more about them than it does about the Church or the Bishops.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI find there are several types of Catholics.
There are the hard core types, those that understand the Pope's encyclicals and strive to follow what they read therein. These types of Catholics are comfortable in the presence of Opus Dei members, and know that confession every two weeks is good for the soul. The only problem becomes finding a priest that doesn't trivialise the problems brought to the confessional.
Then there are all the other varieties, the outer most being the liberals or cafeteria catholics who pick and choose what they will and won't believe.
Now, at a guess, as you are totally comfortable with our Blessed Mother being mocked, you have no sense of reverence - so I'd put you somewhere on the liberal scale.
You also are most likely very ignorant, so are unaware of Mary's status as the New Eve, mother of all Christians. Therefore the link to mocking all women.
But hey, there's still hope. It's never too late to actually learn your religion. That way when you think back to calling for me to join the Jihadists - you'll realise just how much of a dope you've been.
Zen wrote: "People have the freedom to be as offensive as possible, and yet to take offence and express that is somehow not an allowed freedom?"
ReplyDeleteI must have missed Parker and Stone filing proceedings against the Catholic Bishops of NZ in an effort to prevent them expressing or broadcasting their taking offense at South Park...
Public decency laws.
ReplyDeleteSo noted.
See all the interesting things you find out on blogs PM? Although Parker and Stone don't file proceedings, they just issue new episodes.
ReplyDeleteBut come on PM - if you are going to enter a roundabout, at least indicate the direction you wish to exit by rather than stay on the bloody thing going round in circles.
Could we perhaps go with the concept that some people will push the boundaries and even exceed them, others will defend their right to exceed those boundaries, and in doing so, certainly give the impression that they have an expectation everyone who doesn't agree with them will shut the hell up.
Re-Read above comments. Rinse. Repeat.
I'm sorry, but I see only one group here that's trying to silence anyone, and it consists of RC Bishops.
ReplyDeleteI think the roundabout's necessary - if we're to have groups trying to censor public broadcasting, we also need some others to publicly disagree with that, lest the censors get the idea the pro-censorship groups' opinions are uncontested.
I think we are on the same page Milt. There is one group complaining - and I think it's great they complain. Others are speaking up in defence of their heroes South Park - and that's fine too.
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like a crime that "one group is trying to silence..." when it could be considered an equal outrage that one group (SouthPark) are acting in an offensive manner.
Under our system, both parties have a right to do what they have done - and the Church has a right to ask that morals and standards of decency are upheld. And it certainly was the case once the debate started that all sorts of other groups had their opinion to offer on this issue.
It seemed to me that the liberal group instantly went down the line of "one group trying to silence" and paid no respect to the counter view - "one group being unnecessarily offensive". It smacked of "freedom to attack anyone in the most offensive way possible, and if I find it funny I'll complain that anyone who complains doesn't have the right to complain."
And it progresses from the Church trying to do what is legally permissible to restore respect to others making equivalences to jihadists who would simply take the murderous route to express their displeasure....wow, so similar its spooky really...
It's like people wanting to kick dogs in the name of performance art and cry about their freedom being restricted if the dog bites back (and meanwhile a small bunch of spectators are laughing that the dog was kicked - each to his own I suppose).
In our society, we don't necessarily support the dog biting back, but the dog can lay a complaint and the complaint is considered. If the dog says "no more kicking" I don't see why people are so uppity about that. The dog can ask, can't he?
From what I understand, the Church wasn't saying "ban all Southpark. They just wanted the offensive bits taken out.
Disclaimer: I found the Team America movie hilarious, and watch the occasional South Park.
When this South Park thing originally came out I remember blogging that Catholics see Mary as our mother.
ReplyDeleteNow, if someone was to take a picture of *your* mother and photoshop it onto a disgusting photograph and pin it up at your workplace where lots of people laughed at it, you would have the right to take it down wouldn't you? And to complain about it.
Now, you might say that seeing Mary as our mother is not quite the same thing. Well what if someone made fun of the Maori Queen in that way? Would people have the right to complain? It's the same thing.
I wonder if the fact that any (well, most) south park episodes are allowed makes a complete mockery of our broadcasting decency laws.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the difference?
Once upon a time the Church tortured and killed those who were just suspected of heretical views.So forgive me for not getting too upset that they are now getting a well deserved kicking in payback for all those people who never got justice for the crimes committed against them by Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteSure the Church has a right to voice an opinion...the same right it suppressed with violence for so long....the same right Liberalism ensures the unliberal have as well.. least we forget.
Now, if someone was to take a picture of *your* mother and photoshop it onto a disgusting photograph and pin it up at your workplace where lots of people laughed at it, you would have the right to take it down wouldn't you? And to complain about it.
ReplyDeleteI.M.:
Knowing my mother, I'd give her a call and start praying for the fool who did any such thing. Seriously, my Mama can get offended all by her sweet self without an assist from me.
And just for the record, Mr. Fletcher, perhaps not really a very smart move bringing the Maori Queen into this. My iwi do not now, never have, and probably never will recognise the Kingitanga, but I think Te Atarangikahu would be extended exactly the same respect in death as any other human being.
I also think some self-appointed Catholic and Muslim spokespersons really need to brush up on the concept of idolatry. Just a thought.
Idolatry and veneration of images
ReplyDeleteAn essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater credits the image he reverences with Divinity or Divine powers, the Catholic knows "that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are" (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, "de invocatione Sanctorum").
Source
I prefer the Muslim approach, which includes as idolatry the petitioning of live or dead humans to intercede with God on one's behalf, in the belief that those humans have more "influence" with said God.
ReplyDeleteYou want it banned? You think that us common folk are too thick to watch a show and make up our minds for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteTypical closed minded religious bullshit type thinking. Any criticisim of your fantasies immediately demands censorship.
If your wacky belief's actually stood up to criticism, then you wouldn't need to censor anything now would you.
mikee, there are certain things that should not be mocked. Maybe you just don't understand. If people don't uphold the goodness and right in things and hold things sacred which should be held so then where is the morality in anything?
ReplyDeleteIf something is important to you, should you allow it to be publicly mocked because, hey, you're bigger than that?
If someone mocked something you loved - wife, children, or whatever, would you stand by and do nothing and just let it go on? I bet you wouldn't. If you love someone you don't take offence for yourself but because of the person you love.
Below is an interesting quote from 'Arthur' by Steven Lawhead, which I'm reading at the moment which rang true with me.
--snip--
To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.
--snip--
I.M:
ReplyDeleteI'll mock religion whenever I please thank you very much. Anyone who attempts to stop me will do so over my dead body.
If you think you can control my mind, thoughts and speech you got another thing coming.
mikee, did I say I was trying to control? That is the thing about Christianity - it is not compulsory, unlike Islam. I can tell you about it, and you decide to follow it, or not. If not, I'm not going to force you.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that doesn't mean I'm going to stand by and see things that I believe in mocked. If I didn't stand up for my faith then it wouldn't mean very much to me would it?
In the same way, if someone abused your mother or wife or daughter and you didn't do anything then it would mean they didn't mean all that much to you.
MikeE, how is reacting to denigration of an idea all about not accepting criticism of a fantasy?
ReplyDeleteWhat if people were reacting to the burning of our flag, say?
Are people not "allowed" to get upset if their flag is burnt or shot or pissed on, in a deliberate attempt to mock? And ask that the flag be treated with respect?
I'm not necessarily advocating a law is passed to stop people disrespecting NZ by flag burning, but what I am advocating is that people have a right to complain about such issues and have a hearing about it.
Whether its the flag, religious figures or other institutions of worth, I think it is important to speak up.
You might not like what I'm saying, but you can damn well defend my right to say it :-)
Zentiger.
ReplyDeleteTheres a difference between calling for a ban/censorship and criticising it/changing the channel.
IM suggested some things should never be mocked. I call bullshit on that.
The priest and all you religious fantasists have every right to criticise south park, just as you have every right to change the channel.
The minute you try to use force to stop it however, you overstep the line.
I think you are all missing the point here. What I want to know is whether Lucyna is hot. Where can I find a photo? Otherwise this is just another token opinions-of-a-dumb-female blog that I don't need to be reading.
ReplyDeletemikee, well, the thing that I have to ask now is - is anything that important to you that would you stand up and defend it? Anything?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then what?
And if not, why not? Does nothing matter to you that much?
Jesus said...
ReplyDelete"I think you are all missing the point here. What I want to know is whether Lucyna is hot. Where can I find a photo? Otherwise this is just another token opinions-of-a-dumb-female blog that I don't need to be reading. "
Jesus is right! (Golly who would have bet on ME saying that? ;-))
I too have pondered on this most compelling of all questions.Yes Lucyna...come clean... are't thou Hot....or not? Over sexed atheists destined for hell need to know.
;-)
"mikee, well, the thing that I have to ask now is - is anything that important to you that would you stand up and defend it? Anything?"
ReplyDeleteyes
Freedom.
"many people have lost their sense of what is indecent"
ReplyDeleteIndeed they have. Of course this is very subjective. Many vegetarians see meat eating is indecent, some see the guilt and obscenity that many Christians apply to the naked human body as indecent, some see the glorification of Marxist bullies like Che Guevara as offensive.
Frankly I find the idea that people should be criminalised for offending others to be wholly indecent.
You have no right for the state to protect you from being offended. This is not to say that people ought to go around insulting others willy nilly, but it is to say that it would be worse if the state criminalised people for doing so.
Jesus and James, in answer to your question - not in the slightest. You may have noticed my age in my profile page. By the time anyone gets to 900+, any trace of hotness disappears.
ReplyDeleteMikeE, whose freedom?
ReplyDeleteJesus and James, in answer to your question - not in the slightest. You may have noticed my age in my profile page. By the time anyone gets to 900+, any trace of hotness disappears."
ReplyDeleteAww come on L....Im sure in the right light with a wisp of make up you can really rock the casbah...;-)
Don't let the other holy rollers put you down and shatter your self esteem as a woman.You are woman....lets hear you roar!
"MikeE, whose freedom?"
ReplyDeleteYours, mine, everyones... providing they aren't doing physical harm to others or their property.
Or are you going to suggest that you can't be free if I take the piss out of your beliefs? That your beliefs are that weak that critcism needs to be censored, just in case you actually begin to question them?
MikeE, personally, I'm cool with people taking the piss. I thought it was really an issue of debating if it is possible to go too far - and it doesn't become a pisstake, but more an unfounded bashing.
ReplyDeleteIt's not physical, but companies approach the same kind of problem a different way - they would argue that their Trademark is being infringed, and the company is suffering irreparable harm from the abuse of that trade mark, and the odd case goes in their favour.
An interesting idea to approach from that angle, and yes, I realize satire is exempted from such TradeMark attacks, so wouldn't be relevant, but the point was more about switching perspectives to looking at the damage to "property"
Like the recent case where Apple sued a women for her flogging the iPod advertisemnt and copying it exactly to promote her iGasm plug in (and you can guess what the plug-in was...).
I think the gist of it was that the advert was in breech of copyright...
...but anyway, I still think this is a case of one group being crass and tasteless (as is their right) and another saying "are their limits on how crass and tasteless people can be in the public arena, just like their are libel and slander laws...and both questioning this, and announcing how offensive it is, because many people wouldn't really understand WHY it is so offensive to some Catholics..and that is perfectly fine too. I think it's healthy for our society to test these incidents and have a check on what kind of place we are trying to make. The dangers of censorship are well understood, and I do not disagree with much of what has been said by the liberal conti9ngent, but for me, I think the dangers of excess are not being fully acknowledged.
We only get to be the person we'd like to be by being aware of our actions and appreciating the consequences of those actions. With freedom, comes responsibility and too many people want one without any understanding about the other.
Acting responsibly can curb the bad consequences (deserved or not) that can arise from "too much" freedom.
"Yours, mine, everyones... providing they aren't doing physical harm to others or their property. "
ReplyDeleteMhmmm, I knew you'd say that.
Here's what ASA Jones at ex-atheist.com says about the subject (sorry the language is a tad strong in places)
--snip--
Secularists do not have the same values as Christians. They claim to be 'moral', but they define morality as the freedom to do whatever one wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else. This definition conveniently avoids having to analyze the impact of the collective actions of individuals on society, which may indeed result in a culture that will prove harmful to its members.
For example, secularism teaches that there is no restrictive sexual morality, as long as the sexual action in question is taking place between consenting adults. Traditional Christian morality, on the other hand, defines any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman as immoral. According to secularism, therefore, a person can be as promiscuous as he or she wants (as long as he or she is not 'hurting' anyone) and still be a moral person. Twenty or thirty one night / no commitment stands? Hey, no problem. Getting drunk at a party and swallowing the sperm of three or four men? Yup, you're still a respectable and moral person. Riiiiight. Secular morality is a lie.
Secularists fear politically active Christians because they know what is at stake. They fear the prospect of having to live in a culture that demands personal restraint, personal responsibility and accountability. They wish to live in a culture that promotes hedonism and that approves of selfish and base pursuits.
--snip--