TV over there and over here!

[DavidEngland99]

Hi Everyone,

The following article at CNN caught my attention:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/30/apontv.europe.indecency.ap/index.html

It is about the fact that European (including UK) TV is a lot less prudish than the stuff in the US. I was thinking about this while idly watching one of those review of the year programs in which and interviewer asked a pretty young woman who claims to be Beckam's mistress whether she felt wet as they set off to his place to 'do it'. They also showed a clip of the same woman on a 'reality TV' show where her task was to masturbate a pig to collect the semen! I laughed and laughed because it would be so funny to see the reaction if they showed those clips on US TV!

Well, maybe that was a bit extreme - though it was put on after the 9.00 watershed - and it made me think that I really feel proud of 'our' robust approach to these matters. OK - it can get a bit tacky sometimes, but that will ultimately correct itself without all the 'shock horror' censorship nonsense.

Actually, the only things I would censor on TV would be violence, rape, or things involving children. I find it crazy that you can watch any number or people being killed on TV, here or in the US, and yet consensual adult sexual activity can produce such a negative reaction!

How do those of you on the other side of the pond feel about this?

David

[Crazyhorse]

I hope you watched Jerry Springer The Opera on TV last night. It was really funny, especially where Jerry ends up fronting a 'show' which is basically a confrontation between God and the Devil.
There is one part in the first act where a woman who has been rejected by her fiance for a trans-sexual person, suddenly recounts her visit to the toilet in the middle of the night where she finds she is peeing on a man lying on the floor, and when she asks him what he is doing he replies that she pee on him some more. This is followed by a long nappy (diaper) wearing scene, but unfortunately by then they have moved onto shitting in nappies, so the pee theme ends there, but it is good nevertheless.
I think that the way the nappy shitting actor re-appears as jesus later in the show while still in his nappy, is not going to be accepted by religious groups.....but, hey-ho....... You only live once.

[DavidEngland99]

Crazyhorse,

Thanks for that - I have been away on holiday - so I missed the show! I understand there has been some fuss about it from Christian groups, but I am glad the BBC showed it!

David

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

I saw Jerry Springer The Opera, too. Very interesting - I was glad that the second act explored the consequences of the people who appeared as guests on the first act "show". I also love the way the guest characters were like pseudo-protagonists; not true protagonists due to the fact that they had to be tainted in some way to qualify to appear on the show in the first place, but definitely not the "bad guys". Stewart Lee did a fantastic job, in my opinion.

I was wondering at points whether they needed permission from Springer, or from the company behind the original show. I'm assuming they did, which is surprising because viewers are not necessarily going to walk away from the opera with a positive view of the "corporate Jerry".

It's also very interesting that the BBC would decide to screen the show uncensored, against the wishes of outraged Christians, yet another play that outgaged a lot of Britain's Sikh community is forced to be chopped and changed (read: raped and pillaged) as a consequence. Does that merely show the difference between BBC thinking and London Theatre etiquette or an underlying hypocricy in the way that fringe religions are handled with kid-gloves? To be quite honest, if you're deeply spiritual and truly safe in the belief that your religion is The Way then a stage-performance should be of absolutely no consequence to you. That seems to be too difficult a concept for a lot of people who have "faiths".

[Val]

It's also very interesting that the BBC would decide to screen the show uncensored, against the wishes of outraged Christians, yet another play that outgaged a lot of Britain's Sikh community is forced to be chopped and changed (read: raped and pillaged) as a consequence. Does that merely show the difference between BBC thinking and London Theatre etiquette or an underlying hypocricy in the way that fringe religeons are handled with kid-gloves?.

It means mostly that the Beeb is a huge organisation spread over thou country that can't be burnt down by a few fanaatics. I understand the play is being put on elsewhere. The offence is supposed to be that it is set in a temple. I can see that would be worse than elsewhere of course. All the same, I think there is a certain element of Christian-bashing that in the long run isn't hrealthy because it allows fundamentalists to say that if they're attacking Xianity they must be Satanic, so not giving in to not attacking others proves other religions Satanic too. We already have enough American stuff 'explaining' how Jews and especially Muslims all worship Satan disguised as a god entirely different from the Xian one. Who do they think wrote the Bible and who keeps the laws Moses put in it? Personally, I'd say look up a womnderful site called .../Jehovah Unmasked.htm and anything under Gnostic and Valentinus.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Personally, I'd say look up a womnderful site called .../Jehovah Unmasked.htm

I managed to find that site by searching on Google and I've bookmarked it to investigate later. It certainly looks interesting, although in the first three paragraphs I glanced over immediately the author explains that he was a Jehovah's Witness, then a born again Christian, then a Buddhist - an alarming penchant for flitting between faiths!!


...it allows fundamentalists to say that if they're attacking Xianity they must be Satanic

I'm also quite dismayed, when I hear about things like that on the news, that seemingly none of these people really understand what Satanism is. When people bandy the word Satanic, they are usually really meaning either anti-Christian or Devil Worship. I'm certainly not trying to stick-up for Anthon LaVey's congregation, but even a fairly shallow paddle in The Church of Satan's strange waters reveals the difference. LOL!

[Val]

When people bandy the word Satanic, they are usually really meaning either anti-Christian or Devil Worship. I'm certainly not trying to stick-up for Anthon LaVey's congregation, but even a fairly shallow paddle in The Church of Satan's strange waters reveals the difference. LOL!

There's more than one Satanism and always has been, including early versions of Christianity. It works that since the OT god is really the creator Devil, then breaking all his rules worships the Supreme God. Another version is that Satan is appointed lord of this universe, so worshipping him is what the Supreme intends for us. I don't know how far Anton LaVey really believed his own stuff or how far it is 'just another Californian cult'. There's stuff closer to Crowley with a possibly more traditionally Satanic line. But as you say, from a fundie viewpoint, everything outside their particular madness has to be Satanic, even including somebody whose E-sig is 'Zionists are Satanic Talmudists' or some such rot. I quite agree with the evils of Zionism but Satanic? Meaningless. In a way, 'genuine' Satanism is meaningless too because only a Christian believer can believe in Satan as the demi-god Christians developed him (maybe Parsees but there's not many of them). For Jews he's God's prosecutor, for Muslims I'd say 'the deceived deceiver', the fool foolish enough to believe he can fool the godly - hence Khomeini's totally accurate description in that context of the USA - and I think Allah will forgive him come Judgement Day. For any other religion, Satan doesn't apply. It interests me how far proto-Christian Nazarenes deviated from official Temple Judaeism of the day. It seems they may have been closer to their Samaritan neighbours - totally reverses the Good Samaritan fable, he is not the good outcast but 'a good country lad like us' where you can't trust these southern city officials. Another curiosity that the 1611 bible uses the Hebrew Old Testament, but the earliest Christian writings always quote the rather different Greek, even St. Paul who claimed to have studied in the Temple - and spent 3 years learning a religion he knew enough about to persecute supposedly being preached practically outside his window. Samaritan (all 600 or so of them) have their own bible, so do Iraqi Mandaean followers of John the Baptist and Galileeans also rejected the standard Hebrew version. All we know about what Jews really believed in those days is official writing. And that's like trying to understand the Bible Belt from Papal Bulls...

[DavidEngland99]

Kate,

I'd be interested in looking at that site that you bookmarked please.

Meanwhile, I once read a very revealing book about the way in which extreme intolerance to sex got grafted on to Xianity:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140165002/002-4973558-2570467?v=glance

All this happened centuries after X was supposed to have lived! I'm not suggesting you order the book (unless you want to) but the Amazon page gives you enough info to look for the details with GOOGLE.

I was brought up a Christian, but re-thought things at university - when you think of all the suffering and beastliness that has (and still is) caused by belief in Jesus, who was supposed to be always ready to help people and 'turn the other cheek', it is staggering.

While I would not necessarily rule out the idea of a 'higher being' of some sort, it does seem to me that organised religion always descends into an excuse for old men (and maybe the odd woman) to indulge any prejudice in the name of God!

There was also a series on BBC a while ago about the real beliefs and practices of the pagans. Basically, they sounded much more pleasant than you average Xian (who obviously persecuted tham!). The only trouble was that the program material was spread over too many programs - as often happens!

David

[bspider]

I always thought that "Stranger in a Strange Land" contained a much better prescription for life than anything else I've read - including the Bible, which I've read a *lot* of in the King James' version. Anyone else grok that?

Steve.

P.S. No, "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" does not count!

[Val]

I always thought that "Stranger in a Strange Land" contained a much better prescription for life than anything else I've read - including the Bible, which I've read a *lot* of in the King James' version. Anyone else grok that?

Steve.

P.S. No, "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" does not count!

Have you seen the later 'directors cut' version containing stuff excluded from the original version? I don't like Heinlein but I make an exception to the old fascist for Stranger. It's also amazingly ahead of its time. When I first saw it, I thought it was writting in the Hippy period, not ten or more years before. Naturally I've heard feminists describe it as 'misogynist' - it recognises women as equally sexual and that's naturally 'degrading'. (Though some of th estrip show stuff is a bit questionable - maybe difficult now to understand 1950s attitudes). It creaks a bit now, especially in light of Heinlein's later obsession with Wise Old Sages. It's also a bit of a question he would never ask as to responsibility with these assumed powers. You can't really have a Wild West situation of blasting people into reincarnation just because you disapprove of them! The one thing I think weakens it dreadfully is that it turns out the Jesus-figure is a 'son of God' - the Archangel Michael to be precise, which is what Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus was - and not a normal person with special wisdom after all. So he has hidden advantages! As a 'gospel' it's a lot more coherent than most religions' myths.

[Val]

I always thought that "Stranger in a Strange Land" contained a much better prescription for life than anything else I've read - including the Bible, which I've read a *lot* of in the King James' version. Anyone else grok that?

Steve.

P.S. No, "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" does not count!

It creaks a bit after 40 years but it's about the best thing Heinlein ever did. Thereafter he gets increasingly self-referential and disappears up his own aspirarions. Liking for time travel so he he can screw his grandmother as well. That aside, it weakens it that Mike turns out to be a 'sone of God', the Archangel Michael (which is what Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus was), and not a normal person. We're back to possibly he has supernatural advantages.
There's always been a legend that Heinlein, LaVey and Hubbard had a bet on who could create the most successful religion but Heinlein thought better and wrote about one. I think that's just urban myth.
All the same, 'Stranger' is as good as any other religious scripture and a lot more coerent than most. Maybe that's why it can't become th e basis for a creed: not enough leeway to twist to what the leaders want!

[Crazyhorse]

In my opinion, the reason that a musical that could be deemed insulting to Christians is allowed, while one that could be deemed insulting to Sikhs is banned, stems from the power that the voiciferous minority hold in many religions whereas their power in Christianity has been eroded by rampant materialism.
The Church of England has allowed itself to go so far down that road that the Church Commisioners are one of the richest organisations in the country. The fact that they wont reveal whether or not they have vast investments in companies producing ammunition and military hardware speaks volumes.
I think the majority of the English public has just become tired of the links between the Church and the state, and the way that the Church hierarchy mirrors that of the Monarchy, with sycophantic underlings clinging to each gravy train.
The upshot of all this is that for the majority in this country, religion is not taken seriously; so a play that makes fun of it is treated with overwhelming indifference.