| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The telly and the radio | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 27. October 2008, 15:48 (1,054 Views) | |
| Clare | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 11:55 Post #46 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
How does that make it right? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 12:15 Post #47 |
|
Deleted User
|
Art is for the individual to decide. Brand is certainly a talent and a master with words, their comedy is funny, and yes, juvenile, but thats why its funny. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 12:20 Post #48 |
|
Deleted User
|
Mary Whitehouse comes to mind, she tried to 'clean up tv', but for her standards but what about everyone else. Where does banning someone end. Maybe Priests should no longer be allowed to go on TV as they may offends someone, maybe a garden show or house show should go because they offend someone. I believe TV should be free and open, every voice should be heard, because if you start banning one then anything can go, and who decides? TV has become so PC. Take racism, which is vile, however, rather than such views being discussed and addressed in the open, that hate material is pushed underground, and whilst many people have such racist views, they never hear an good honest conversation on TV regarding the issue, instead all they get is BNP material etc that links in with their false belief. If you push certain views underground it can cause resentment, and long term problems for society. As long as that info doesnt create hate. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 12:22 Post #49 |
|
Deleted User
|
He didnt, he insulted his audience who found his actions true and representative without question. Thats the whole point about Cohen, some people he interviews, dont come accross as stupid, but the audience do for believing what they see, although, he did question some racists etc, and he made them look like a bunch of muppets, which was funny. |
|
|
| Clare | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 13:47 Post #50 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
What about Christian standards? Mary Whitehouse was right, and that is proved more and more each year.
Not the current crop of morally bankrupt, godless Pagans, that's for sure.
So there is a line to be drawn then? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 13:50 Post #51 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Did you read the article I linked to?
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:17 Post #52 |
|
Deleted User
|
The village missed the plot, and the real target was the ignorant audience. They lost in court. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:20 Post #53 |
|
Deleted User
|
One cant shout fire in a crowded room, one cant shout bomb in an airport and expect to get away from it. Where speech encourages people to be violent - murder etc, or causes a stampeded in the crowded room, then yes, free speech has limits.
Mary Whitehouse had her version of what was right or wrong, but what made her or anyone else the acceptable face of morality. |
|
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:33 Post #54 |
![]()
Administrator
|
JD you worry me. I held back from saying this yesterday but I feel it needs to be said. You hope to be a priest yet you stand up for the right to free speech, claiming artistic license for crudity, and for revealing the sins of another (the grand daughter), you even defend some perceived "right" to ridicule Catholics, in the name of humour. One day somebody might ask you for absolution, for causing distress by publicly ridiculing a neighbour, for "fun". If that were me, I would not expect the confessor to say "That is not a sin, you have a right to offend your neighbour." |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:36 Post #55 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Christianity. http://www.indcatholicnews.com/mwgu564.html |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:42 Post #56 |
|
Deleted User
|
I dont agree with the comments, and found them quite wrong, however, sometimes comedy goes to far, and people should apologise, which they have done. But I dont think they should be sacked, and the outrage is manufactured. Somethings are just funny, but if the object of humour is offended, then an apology should be made, however, where such humour is legitimate like joking about Lord Archer, then its justified and no apology is needed. However, against Andrew, the humour was off base, and an apology should have been made earlier. But certainly not sack them or the witch hunt that is taking place, which is initself un-Christian.
I always complain to the BBC when such comments are made, like on Mock the Week, but I dont want the show removed or people sacked. Any religion has to accept the right of people to offend, and we have the right to argue back with Truth and love. Where does one draw the line. If I want to joke about Islam for example, I should be allowed without the fear of protests, or is it the case that no jokes about religion are acceptable. What I dont like is not having balance and the chance for the opposing viewpoint, which is where Brand and Ross got it wrong. They should have said those things to his face and not on an answering machine. One thinks because it was a machine, they just didnt think.
What they did was objectively sinful, and wrong. However, they apologise so lets move on. The person offended obviously thinks it has done to far, the only issue is with some public getting involved in what is an issue between Brand, Ross, the BBC and the individuals offended.[redit][/redit] |
|
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:48 Post #57 |
|
Deleted User
|
Mary Whitehouse attemped to ban things that werent even truely offensive. An argument can be made that TV is a mirror on society, on real life, so Mary should have worked to clean up society and not TV. |
|
|
| SeanJ | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:52 Post #58 |
|
Administrator
|
Rose, Thank you for the link to the story on Mary Whitehouse. I was living in the USA when she was active, and though I knew her name, I didn't know the whole story. |
![]() |
|
| SeanJ | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:59 Post #59 |
|
Administrator
|
Has the Church ever suggested banning anything that was wan't offending anybody? A lot of people would answer Yes to that question. Does that mean that the Church was wrong? |
![]() |
|
| SeanJ | Thursday, 30. October 2008, 15:01 Post #60 |
|
Administrator
|
Perhaps the first step in cleaning up society is to clean up what people watch on TV.[redit][/redit] Edited by SeanJ, Thursday, 30. October 2008, 15:03.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |





9:19 AM Jul 11