If The Person Who Named Walkie Talkies...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Christians lose court case over Springer the Opera
22 Answers
A Christian group has lost its court battle against Jerry Springer the Opera. The group claimed the show was blasphemous and the BBC received 63,000 complaints when it was aired on TV. What do you think? How did you feel about the show? Was it outrageous?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well it was for all intents and purposes blasphemous. But I don�t think it went to the extreme of inciting religious hatred. As a Christian I am used to the ridicule and scorn that this brings, and I more often than not can laugh at the humour directed at my religion or even me (Life Of Brian is one of my favourite films). But in answer to your question, the show itself was boring and inherently crap going more for sensationalism than substance - in my opinion as an appreciator of �the arts�.
For that alone it should have been on Channel 5 at 11pm, which I believe is the usual slot for tedious drivel.
For that alone it should have been on Channel 5 at 11pm, which I believe is the usual slot for tedious drivel.
It's actually a disgrace that blasphemy is still on the statue books.
We have a law now that protects perople from religious hatred - it was suggested that the blasphemy law that gives special rights to Christianity should be repealed but it never was.
Actually looking at recent history you seem most likely to face it for suggesting that Jesus was Homosexual.
Perhaps it should be renamed to the "My God's not gay" act!
We have a law now that protects perople from religious hatred - it was suggested that the blasphemy law that gives special rights to Christianity should be repealed but it never was.
Actually looking at recent history you seem most likely to face it for suggesting that Jesus was Homosexual.
Perhaps it should be renamed to the "My God's not gay" act!
Only those 63,000 people can explain why they complained, perhaps they didn�t like the swearing or seeing Jesus in a nappy. Personally I often wonder why there are not more complaints directed at the level of violence and alcohol consumption portrayed in pre-watershed soaps, but hey ho, I guess we are becoming more and more desensitised. Who knows? I�m all for freedom of speech, but if you ask me to opine on the merits and quality of the show, then words generally fail me.
Jesus was a homosexual Jake? Hilarious, next you'll tell us his mother was a virgin.
Jesus was a homosexual Jake? Hilarious, next you'll tell us his mother was a virgin.
Please note: Despite Stewart Lee being my favourite stand up, I thought JStO was terrible.
Of the 63,000 complaints, 50,000 were recieved PRIOR to broadcast. Strangely, the stage show which had been incredibly high profile and running in the heart of the west end for ages, winning awards and plaudits left, right and centre received virtually no complaints. After broadcast, according the DG Mark Thompson, there was a much more balanced number of complaints and compliments. Perhaps this was because having watched it, it became apparent that it wasn't anymore blasphemous than The Life of Brian.
The repellant Stephen Green's Christian Voice orchestrated the campaign of complaint against the BBC because it was going to make more of a splash in the media than protesting the stage show, which rather makes you doubt their motivation.
I wonder how many of those demanding the Director General of the BBC be prosecuted for broadcasting JStO were in favour of Gillian Gibbons' punishment?
Of the 63,000 complaints, 50,000 were recieved PRIOR to broadcast. Strangely, the stage show which had been incredibly high profile and running in the heart of the west end for ages, winning awards and plaudits left, right and centre received virtually no complaints. After broadcast, according the DG Mark Thompson, there was a much more balanced number of complaints and compliments. Perhaps this was because having watched it, it became apparent that it wasn't anymore blasphemous than The Life of Brian.
The repellant Stephen Green's Christian Voice orchestrated the campaign of complaint against the BBC because it was going to make more of a splash in the media than protesting the stage show, which rather makes you doubt their motivation.
I wonder how many of those demanding the Director General of the BBC be prosecuted for broadcasting JStO were in favour of Gillian Gibbons' punishment?
I would be interested to hear the views of those 63,000 people over the recent affair in sudan. In neither case was there any hatred or incitement of violence towards the respective religion but while these 63,000 people wanted action taken against the producers of JStO they were more than likely horrified at similar treatment of Gillian Gibbons.
Hypocrisy in the extreme.
Hypocrisy in the extreme.
-- answer removed --
JStO is about marrying low brow with high brow and does that in two ways: Firstly, by playing out the vulgarity of a JS show as one of the most cultured forms of art, opera. It then makes a point of showing that with very few substantial changes, high art looks remarkably like low art.
I don't see anything in JStO that could be considered a serious attack on Christianity. It (obviously) appropriates the images of Christianity, but that's hardly a great cause for concern per se, surely? Virtually all of western art borrows from Christian-derived idioms and imagery.
As for it not being Islamic, obviously this reflects the culture of the writers and the majority of their potential audience. What would be the point of trying to make a satirical point about something if the audience didn't know the frame of reference being employed?
I don't see anything in JStO that could be considered a serious attack on Christianity. It (obviously) appropriates the images of Christianity, but that's hardly a great cause for concern per se, surely? Virtually all of western art borrows from Christian-derived idioms and imagery.
As for it not being Islamic, obviously this reflects the culture of the writers and the majority of their potential audience. What would be the point of trying to make a satirical point about something if the audience didn't know the frame of reference being employed?
What disdain? You see it where there's none, I assure you.
They're not making a point about Christianity, they're making a point about art. To make that point they're naturally going to use culturally significant touchpoints. Islam clearly doesn't meet that ciriteria as most people.
You only have to read this site to see that most people don't know an awful lot about Islam outside of what their newspaper tells them.
They're not making a point about Christianity, they're making a point about art. To make that point they're naturally going to use culturally significant touchpoints. Islam clearly doesn't meet that ciriteria as most people.
You only have to read this site to see that most people don't know an awful lot about Islam outside of what their newspaper tells them.
Octavius, the only gross thing here is your dismissal of any view other than your own. If it was too complicated for you to understand, I'll explain again.
These 63,000 people were happy for archaic, out of date laws to protect their religion but were presumably outraged that another religion would do the same.
For the record, I think neither set of bigots is correct.
These 63,000 people were happy for archaic, out of date laws to protect their religion but were presumably outraged that another religion would do the same.
For the record, I think neither set of bigots is correct.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I watched it on TV because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I didn't think it was outrageous - I thought it was boring, sensationalist, trash - and I was very pleased I hadn't wasted an evening at the theatre to see it.
Bearing in mind that most of the protests were registered before the programme went out, I wonder how many of those angry people actually took the trouble to go to the theatre and watch it before making their judgement. I would guess very few.
Bearing in mind that most of the protests were registered before the programme went out, I wonder how many of those angry people actually took the trouble to go to the theatre and watch it before making their judgement. I would guess very few.
Here is my take on this whole thing.
http://soapboxrants.files.wordpress.com/2007/1 0/father-ted-careful-now.jpg
http://soapboxrants.files.wordpress.com/2007/1 0/father-ted-careful-now.jpg
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.