Kathy Griffin's idea of an acceptance speech "Suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now"

She's a comedienne -- raised Irish Catholic if I recall correctly. It's a joke, get over it.

one "suck it, jesus" vs. thousands and thousands of church-sanctioned child rapes...

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Which is more depraved?

Well, at least hundreds of thousands of kids probably watched her, so her words are definitely more depraved than the rape of merely thousands of kids.

Come on, now.

Ben and Sun,

Have you heard any Christian publicly applauding the child abuse scandal in the Catholic church? No.

So, why should you applaud or gloss over Griffin's gross remark? If it is a "joke," it was in exceptionally poor taste and frankly hateful.

Tom @ 1.4

Quite the contrary. The rank and file of the Catholic church are deeply troubled by the mess and resentful of their contributions to the church being used as hush money to keep the lid on the whole thing.

ES, my remark may not have been clear. I am saying that no Catholic is in favor of sexual abuse and that all good Catholics are profoundly troubled by the scandals. SunLotus seems to indicate there were "church sanctioned child rapes." That was a cheap shot, I thought, on SL's part.

I guess it depends on how you define church sanctioned - certainly the Catholic church has knowinly covered up abuses committed by priests in the past.

er, knowingly

If your standard for an organization being responsible for a cover-up is that the entire hierarchy must be involved, then you have constructed an impossible standard to meet. Nice rhetorical trick there.

Tom - she makes a living, in part, by mocking the church she grew up in and in large part by mocking the media and celebrities. Further, she's in the school of thought that any coverage is good. Previously, this award or another like it went to some other show and she took the opportunity to have a fit of faux outrage. She yelled something equally distasteful and flipped someone off. She got some press and was pleased I'm sure. So this year she's receiving an award for a TV show based on her comedy. Her saying something off color -- and in particular something that defames God or the church is par for the course and should have been expected.

I spoke to Jesus and He said He would suck it. But, He said, this is the last time. Next time, He said, suck it yourself. I am pretty sure He wasn't joking, but He didn't seem pissed. Controversy over. Now Kathy Griffin can you go over and join Sinead O Connor on the people no one buys much CDs of any more bench? Thanks.

That's right, Bozzor. If she's going to spew it, we have the right to condemn her for it.

And the rest of us have the right to twirl our fingers in circles next to our heads as we nod significantly in your direction. It's a feel-good story all over, ain't it?!

Dag, I will agree with you on one thing: Kathy Griffin's career appears headed in the same direction as Sinead's. Which, coincidentally enough, seems to be on a remarkably similar trajectory to yours as well.

As a fellow God, I will ask Jesus not to smite you for your blasphemy, Tom Bombadil. But I already owe Him a favor for the Kathy Griffin incident, so I advise you to get smiteworthy postehaste.

If you are offended, her job is done.

I guess it depends on how you define church sanctioned - certainly the Catholic church has knowinly covered up abuses committed by priests in the past.

@1.8
I am not even Catholic and that charges me up.
This quote is a flat lie. Totally bad form!

I have seen many many places where there have been strong stands made by those Catholic leaders to defend and attempt to heal the people harmed by sick priests.
I am posting just ONE of many examples of fact to support the TRUTH and debunk this lie you posted.

Please read this

And to debunk the debunking, here you go.

The Catholic Church: where good and bad are one under God.

Kathy Griffin's career appears headed in the same direction as Sinead's

Yeah...she's gone from a background character in a bad 90's comedy, to pure stand-up to sold out clubs, to her own award-winning show....her career is circling the drain alright.....

I can't think of any *cough, George Carlin* comedians that have *cough Lewis Black* gotta more popular when they aim their comedy at religion, I can only *cough Bill Hicks* assume this will ruin the career she's been building with just these sorts of comments for years...it's the only logical way it can go.

If you want REAL depravity, how about a president who lies about his reasons for going to war? How about the myriad of republicans caught in sex scandals and pedophilia. Have you heard the latest, about John David Roy Atchison?

Oh, but this is soooo much worse.

#2

So, in your opinion, respect is only due those certain selected groups in the left's favor? Is there no insult, no word that can be used to mock Christians or Christianity that the left would find unacceptable?

This is a ridiculous show of censorship. Personally I don't see what's offensive about her statements, but even if you see it that way, it doesn't mean it's right to cut out her remarks. She's a comedian, and regardless of whether or not you find it funny, you have to look at what she said in that context.

epiphany

Get off your high horse it's Kathy Griffin it's not political, she says "suck it" a lot and her humor is all about trying to cross the line while staying on TV. But your flame is appreciated.

BTW I hope everyone knows that comparing poking fun at Christians to poking fun at Muslims in the United States of America is not really a good comparison. One group is in power, one is not, one says turn the other cheek the other is a bit more violent.

You do not have the right not to be offended. Sorry. If such a right existed, then mine is violated every time Feckless Leader opens his piehole.

And to put a Christian spin on it, it is not for you to judge. That is in the hands of the Father, to whom all must come in time. You are free to think of this person as an ass and choose not to associate with them however. Just don't go all public with it. Public displays of piety are something else Jesus had no patience for.

That's right, Bozzor. If she's going to spew it, we have the right to condemn her for it.

ndoz says:

because it's hilarious

then epiphany says in direct response:

So, in your opinion, respect is only due those certain selected groups in the left's favor? Is there no insult, no word that can be used to mock Christians or Christianity that the left would find unacceptable?

I'd like to congratulate Epiphany Sorbet on her masterful ability to demonstrate the art of putting words in others' mouths.
and
for her prowess in the area of finding the most biased way of looking at a situation in order to manufacture outrage.

way to go Epiph!

You can condemn it all you want. I don't think anyone cares what you think of her comments. But censor it? C'mon...

2.8

The network chose to censor it - they care about their image and the bottom line.

Well, actually I was addressing those in the thread who are glad and agree with the censorship. I don't care about the network's reasons, though I think they are wrong also.

Since you seem to approve of censorship inthis case, why is it you seem less approving about the network that removed Imus because it "care[d] about [its] image and the bottom line"? For the record, I also thought that was wrong.

2.10

You would equate the removal of a few words with a man losing his livelihood?

btw, the Rutgers player who was so traumatized by Imus's words has dropped her lawsuit. Quelle surprise.

Let's get something very clear here right now. A network - a privately owned enterprise - can censor whatever they want to censor. "Censorship" is a red herring issue here. We're not talking about the government stepping in and forbidding Griffin to be nasty anywhere; we're talking about a television network exercising a modicum of good sense by considering removing part of Griffin's speech.

Also, the government can step in and fine networks if they violate certain agreed upon standards. This still doesn't prevent Griffin from acting and speaking like a jerk in her own home or with friends.

Believe it or not, there should be some standards for speech that are upheld. This is like the crowd at last week's Rutgers football game chanting "F--- Navy! F--- Navy!" That crosses the line and should not be accepted, because it's in a public place with children present. (Aside from the fact that it's in exceedingly bad taste and it's a gross insult to the men and women who serve our nation in uniform.)

Whose standards, though? I see nothing wrong with that chant at a football game--parents should know going in that such things might be heard as a football game isn't a children's event, it isn't Chuck E. Cheese. If the Navy is that insulted and perturbed by a chant, how ready are they for battle?

would have invited them back behind the stadium for a little lecture in proper standards of behaviour.

Ah, yes, violence.

Why is it that some feel violence is OK, but have issue with words?

EPI@2.1

So, in your opinion, respect is only due those certain selected groups in the left's favor? Is there no insult, no word that can be used to mock Christians or Christianity that the left would find unacceptable?

SO while denouncing vile statements you make some of your own. Little lesson for ya pal, the Right is NOT the sole owner of Christianity. There are many on the Left that count themselves as Christian. I think the Left's ideals and precepts are in accordance with Christian teachings.

Having said that, this is a free country, she can say what she wants. It used to be people were given space to say what they felt without people jumping down their throats. Freedom of speech is not just being able to say what you think. The listener has a duty to uphold the speakers right to say it. Without constant harping if you don't like it. It's harassing. It's an attempt to quell speech you don't care for. And that's un-American

With freedom comes responsibility. Words have consequences. Speak freely, but treasure the gift and don't abuse it.

And why is it so hard for some folks to simply say, "You know, I believe in freedom of speech, and Griffin has a right to say what she wants, but it was pretty disgusting?" Or, "Those Rutgers fans may be able to say 'F--- Navy!' at a football game, but it sure was in bad taste?"

Somewhere along the way, decorum took a hike.

Ah, well.

2.17

You seem to be very confused about "freedom of speech". The First Amendment guarantees a person's rights to say what they wish without government interference.

Speaking your mind is not consequence free: ask Don Imus or Michael Richards or Mel Gibson. People can and will take action.

You seem very concerned that Kathy Griffin be left to say what she wants with no consequences. How about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Should they be allowed to say what they want without criticism or organized efforts to boycott their sponsors?

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

So you ridicule someone's personal beliefs, she knows exactly what the reaction will be and she has accepted responsibility. She has no need to apologize to anyone, unless she really regrets her actions.

I personally get tired of acceptance speeches thanking some invisible man in the sky. It is equally boring as someone belittling the same invisible man in the sky.

If you don't like it, don't watch.

I doubt that anyone who would boycott Griffin would have gone to see her in the first place. She's not going to lose out on this deal.

How do you deny her venues and airtime? Your terminology is starting to edge uncomfortably close to censorship.

Why is it that they *should* do that? Where is your moral imperative coming from?

I was speaking morally.
Of course businesses have that right, but I don't see why people should try to incite them to that. If you're not trying to incite them to that, yet again: I don't understand your argument.

And, yet, those champion female basketball players wilted in the face of a third rate morning TV host's comments about hoes. Go figure.

I'm thinking Jesus is better equipped to defend himself than your average nappy ho,
what with the ability to hit people with lighning bolts and all...
I just don't see him not getting a job based on his ethnicity because a stereotype prevails about his nappitude.

Maybe you don't really get the whole "creator of the universe" "all powerful" thing he has going for him..

plus, and I must stress this,
the disingenuous thanking of "jesus my lord and savior through whom all things are possilbe" for winning an award based on violence and degredation of others NEEDS to be made fun of.

that being said, I usually don't think Kathy Griffin's that funny, but this sounds like some of her better work.

No, eiphany, they didn't. They stood tall. It was the Rev Jackson and pals that used both the third rate morning shock jock and those female basketball player for personal and political gain.

For the record I don't condone either Ms Griffin's or Mr Imus's comments, but they don't make me angry either. Both are third raters in their respective celebrity statuses.

epiph

I personally think that black women are comparable to deities but I'm not sure too many other white men feel this way, didn't really think you did either.

the disingenuous thanking of "jesus my lord and savior through whom all things are possilbe" for winning an award based on violence and degredation of others NEEDS to be made fun of.

Kinda my whole point and most likely hers.

the disingenuous thanking of "jesus my lord and savior through whom all things are possilbe" for winning an award based on violence and degredation of others NEEDS to be made fun of.

I remember Pablo Francisco doing a bit about this on Comedy Central Presents:

[imitating rapper making speech]: "I'd like to thank Jesus Christ! And Jehovah God Almighty! For helpin' make my new hit single! It's called 'Suck Yo Momma', thank you, thank you!"

Thanking Jesus is the new "I want world peace" when it comes to publicity pageants.

I would expect nothing less from a 'comedienne' who drops trou in her comedy act to generate laughs. Like a male version of Carrot Top but less funny.

Imagine how different this conversation would be had she referred to any other group.

Imagine how different this conversation would be had she referred to any other group.

And imagine how different it'd need to be to make any other group equivalent to Christians in America.

Don't bet on it.

Oh. Uhm. Not work safe, foul language. But it does illustrate the point that Griffin will insult Muslims in her act.

Oh please. You are really embarrassing yourself here. Offensive and sick? It was a joke! Get a sense of humour or get off the internet. You won't survive long around here.

I stand corrected then. But it still is offensive and sick.

And now we're back to empty rhetorical hoo-hah.

Would it be funny if I made a jokes about AIDS victims dying, or lesbians being raped? Would that be acceptable? Or are their some things which are just too offensive?

I wouldn't think it was funny probably...but it hasn't nothing to do with being "acceptable" or "too offensive". It would be my PERSONAL opinion that what you said wasn't funny, and would have nothing to do with what anyone else might think about the comment. That's how free speech works. No one here is saying you should like what Kathy Griffin said, just that she has the right to say it, and she'll deal with whatever consequences (good or bad or neither) that comes from it...that's all.

Bozzor, a lot of those kinds of jokes are hilarious, behind closed doors.

Martin is right. A lot of things are funny given the right context and the right audience and the right intent. I remember when I was a wee little kid, I found my dad's copy of Truly Tasteless Jokes which introduced me to dead baby jokes. Now, I certainly don't go around telling dead baby jokes to just anyone, but they can be quite amusing.

Okay, you clearly need to work a little bit on seeing the lighter side of life.

Try telling that to someone who loses their 4 month old girl to SIDS/crib death.

Why would you read a comment that emphasizes that context is critical for humor and then deliberately choose a context which could not possibly be appropriate? Are you just trying to be obtuse?

Try telling that to someone who loses their 4 month old girl to SIDS/crib death.

Exactly, you need to know the people you talk this way to very well. That is why it is often over looked in conversations like this... Who wants people to think they are nuts for enjoying a good dead baby, racist or just plain crude and vulgar one liner? Or more. It depends.

Well, for anyone else who wants a chuckle, here are some dead baby jokes.

I am saying there is no context in which this would be funny. If people laugh at this, then I do pity them.

No wonder you don't seem to have a sense of humour, you actually don't have one....sad.

Pity to me is like sex... I don't go out of my way for it, but if someone is giving it away, I'll take it, cautiously.

Would it be funny if I made a jokes about AIDS victims dying, or lesbians being raped? Would that be acceptable? Or are their some things which are just too offensive?

depends on the setup and the timing.

let's face it, some people just can't tell a joke; so if YOU or I made it, probably not. If Larry the cable guy did it and followed with a sprited "Git r done!" maybe...

Ever see "the aristocrats?"
I personally couldn't go there with some of the material the people were using, but most of it was pretty dang funny even though WAY offensive.

"Sense of humor" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

"Sense of humor" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly.

A dead baby joke? Try telling that to someone who loses their 4 month old girl to SIDS/crib death.

Try telling a redneck joke to a born and bred redneck.
Try telling a blonde joke to a blonde with your level of humor.
Try telling a joke poking fun at men to a crowd of insecure guys.
Try telling a Starbucks joke to an obsessive Starbucks rep.

Every joke needs a context. Even Ellen DeGeneres' brand of comparatively PC humor probably offends someone, somewhere out there.

Why is it open season on Christians but all other groups are 'protected'?

Yeah, man. No one ever makes blonde jokes, women jokes, or Mexican jokes anymore. o one. Look past your persecution complex for once.

Why don't you display a little more sensitivity to people instead? You may find you become a better person for it.

HAH

Why don't you display a little more sensitivity to people instead? You may find you become a better person for it.

And how many times have you called Griffin or her comment "stupid"? I doubt I have enough fingers for that.

Why don't you display a little more sensitivity to people instead? You may find you become a better person for it.

Because I am criticizing something stupid and evil

Actually, you were insulting someone and calling THEM stupid for saying something YOU deem stupid and evil, and nothing at all to do with it actually BEING stupid and evil or not. Your opinion is certainly as valid as anyone else's, but your opinion has no effect of objective reality, so it doesn't really work as proof that something is stupid and evil just because you say it is.

Because I am criticizing something stupid and evil, whereas you are making a joke out of the death of a child.

I'm afraid that Bozzor has you beat, Rukh. He gets his judgments from the Grand Tribunal on True Judgments. When he says something is "stupid and evil", it really is absolutely and irrefutably "stupid and evil."

Insulting Griffin, well, who would deny themselves that pleasure?

Someone with even a tad bit of respect for other people or their right to an opinion of their own maybe?...sadly that seems to be lost on you...

Oh, only people who agree with him deserve respect.

Anyone else is simply asking for gleeful insult.

Bozzor, you just went over the edge man. If you demand respect, that demands you respect the disrespectful...

it doesn't really work as proof that something is stupid and evil just because you say it is.

Actually being a God, I do have that power. 'Tis right in Me contract, the standard Divine Rights and Powers Agreement. Ye can read it yerself, but then I'd have to smite ye.

Apparently I have no decency.

Apparently I have no decency.

You smell funny too. SO THERE! ;)

Maybe we should switch to Yo Momma jokes, Rukh.

Yo mama is so poor she can't even pay attention! (damn it's been forever since I've done a 'yo momma' joke...I feel dirty....oh so dirty.... :P)

You momma stank so much, she moved in next to the sewage treatment plant and they moved.

I respect that Griffin is really an idiotic non-entity

Oh my, do you crack me up with your flagrant hypocrisy.

Even yo momma jokes are better than the tripe you're spewing.

She deserves no less respect than you.

What do you mean "even yo momma jokes?" These are classics!

True. I apologize, spiffie.

I shouldn't have lowered Yo Momma jokes to the level of that comparison.

4. On Mars?
5. in a silly Ukrainian accent?
6. in a boat or on a plane, in the sun or in the rain, with a twinkle in her eye, while she baked a cherry pie, in a pool when in the nude, would it seem so awfully rude, or are ye such a goddam prude that her joke'd e'er be misconstrued?

1. That's not sensible because that's a much smaller audience than national TV. I'd laugh at her for passing up national TV for a mere church audience.
2. Again, same thing.
3. A mass shooting at Columbine actually happened. People died. Jesus is merely a figment of personal belief who might've been an actual Middle Eastern nomad. Show me the grave of Jesus, His mourning family, the photos of the crufixion if you want to argue that he's objectively anything more.

Further, you apparently want to simply ignore that she blatantly anchored her comment to satire that wouldn't work in those three situations: the thanking of Jesus is not gratuitous and meaningless in a church or religion class as it is in many award speeches, and mass shootings are not meaningless at a Columbine student meeting.

Try again. I hope your next few arguments are much, much better.

It also ignores what some of us have been saying since the very beginning: namely, comedy is highly dependent on context. You cannot create a new context designed specifically to moot the comic value of a statement in one context and then pose the question if the statement would still be funny. Of course it wouldn't in such a highly contrived example. Comedy is not a logical statement, equivalent across multiple contexts. That's why foufga mentions below that comedy is neither right nor wrong--it quite simply doesn't carry a value in the same way as some other statements.

None of you here would have the vile gall to tell a dead baby joke to a family grieving for a son lost to SIDS, yet you find it OK to laugh at Christians for whom their faith is very serious. Try another form of hypocrisy.

Wow... I'm a Christian... seriously not the same thing, not even close, not even in the same ballpark or universe for that matter. I never knew, nor do i believe, that making fun of a personal tragedy that occurred in ones lifetime is the same making fun of a religious figurehead, son of God though he may be. I think some people try to elevate their offense to a point that other people will find it acceptable, laughing at Jesus is the same as laughing at a dead kid. That's not hypocrisy... According to that train of thought there can be no comedy because laughing at anything is like laughing at a dead kid.

And Jack, stop being facetious with your ridiculous requests for evidence of graves or photos, otherwise there would be no evidence for many figures and events throughout history.

I'm sorry if requests for accountability adn evidentiary support are facetious acts. I'll work on simply accepting empty assertions at face value from now on.

Give me evidence outside of religious texts that Jesus ever existed, much less as the son of God. The physical evidence for the existence of Ramses II, for example, is overwhelming, as is that for Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Arguably, the evidence for Jesus' existence and divinity needs to be several levels more solid, as you're basing your worldview around that belief.

And Griffin's intent was not satirical as much as it was rude and offensive. You may have taken it as satire, others saw another meaning.

Hahaha, well I'm glad you can read Griffin's mind. Some of us are not blessed with such mystical powers.

I have the right - indeed the duty when it comes to religion - to make it clear that its not funny, not appropriate and if done again there will be consequences, namely loss of business in this case.

Sure. It doesn't mean anyone here needs to agree with you. I also doubt that Griffin really cares at all that you're not watching her shows anymore, if you ever did.

I thought it was funny. Apparently Chewb1zz, as a Christian, doesn't find your fanciful parallels apt. ...Oh, but he's not one of those Christians that "take their faith seriously." My bad. (and please, don't insult the intelligence of commenters by trying to weasel out of making that implication. An 8-year-old could spot it from a mile away.)

My previous hopes are still unfulfilled.

The New Testament is a biography of the life and times of Jesus of Nazereth.

Really? Then I should be able to find out what Jesus was doing during his teenage years and early adulthood in the New Testament, shouldn't I?

No, spiffie, don't you know that Jesus was born fully grown? Sheesh. Even I knew that.

This argument you have is ridiculous: do you seriously expect that all cultures would have had the resources to construct Pyramids and elaborate mausoleums, or indeed that their cultures supported such????

I would expect something (anything) more than what an old novel tells me. By that standard of credibility, Achilles was actually whisked off of the battlefield of Troy by his divine mother, Odysseus' men were actually transformed into swine, and Prometheus was actually sentenced to the eternal torture of having his liver eaten daily by a hawk.

I admit that history would be a lot more fun/em> if everything written in every religious text was remotely true, but I somehow don't see that as accurate. :-)

Indeed, because the writers of the OT were somehow actually present for creation. Or, is that the fanciful made-up part added after the "start"? If religious texts only start as historical records, who's to say that, if he even existed, Jesus' divinity wasn't tacked on later?

Nice parry that simply ignores all of my questions.

you are asking for evidence acceptable by 21st century standards that would only have been available to the (equivalent of) multi-millionaires of a few thousand years ago.

I'm asking for something, anything, more than an epic novel. According to your threshold for "evidence", then if you've read the Iliad, you must naturally believe the Achilles was a demi-god and the Greek goddesses actually held a popularity contest for Paris of Troy.

Do you believe that? I'm merely trying to get some self-consistency from you.

Newton and Galileo were no millionaires, yet their existence is corroborated from dozens, if not hundreds, of historical sources. Evidence for the ancient history of Native American tribes is plentiful, as well, though I think you'd be very hard-pressed to argue that those tribes were "the rich ones."

I should be able to find out what Jesus was doing during his teenage years and early adulthood in the New Testament, shouldn't I?

T' read of th' exploits of teenage Jesus ye'll be wantin' th' Gospel accordin' to Simon, who was said t' be one of Jesus' little brothers. Th' gospel was supressed by th' Council of Nicene in 432, largely because it was seen as a ramblin' an' incoherent account of Nazarene teens hangin' out in th' market, oglin' pretty girls and wondherin' endlessly about how would they beat the lads from Cana at an upcomin' stonin' contest.

And Jesus' evidence is corroborated by the New Testament

The stories of the NT are the ONLY source of info on Jesus, and even then they are very inconsistent. One source is not corroborated evidence by any definition...

You might want to reread that second link again. It doesn't help your case all that much.

Ok, I skipped over explaining why those links proved nothing because I thought it was plainly obvious, but I guess I'll give a bit more detail...but since it's all been covered by many people in the past, I'll just post this link, which covers the more serious issues with the first 2 links, and some references you didn't mention. Not the least of which being the fact that neither of them are contemporary accounts.

The 3rd link just seems to say "the new testament is truth worthy"....which has been explained to be completely false more often than I can count, so if you still think it is at all worthy as evidence for Jesus than I doubt yet another explanation would change your mind, so I'll just skip that one...

I feel like every time a Christian loses an argument on Newsvine, the topic gets the "we'll talk about this later" dodge.

I can't find it right now, but I saw this webcomic recently about a robot invented t' save humans from th' "tedious task" of arguin' with born-again Christians. The robot lasts about 200 panels before goin' on th' fritz. Next comes th' smug self-satisfied smile on th' Christian. 'Tis his duty an' he's done 't, d'ye see?

Robot vs Fundamentalist Christian

FSM bless the internet.

That's th' one. Thank ye, Rukh!

We can point to various Internet links all day, but at the end of the day we may have to save it for a separate thread. This issue is complex and way beyond the scope of our discussion here.

Haha, alright. You still haven't begun to justify "But what is beyond doubt is that a Man known as Jesus Christ existed."

Christian teachings - at their core - represent doing good to those around us.

Too bad Christians often fall far short of embodying these core teachings.

But that should not diminish the integrity of the message: in the end it offers hope.

A religion is useless when considered as an abstract set of ideas. A religion must always be considered as the sum of its' believers' actions. After all, it's supposed to be a guide for behavior.

Christians believe in Jesus the Man who is God, but even those who choose not to accept this can do worse than following His example in how He treated others and suggested we live our lives.

And Jesus' teachings simply embody fundamental social morals that have existed for millennia before him.

Care to show me how that's a new ideal?

Forgiveness for wrongs has been observed in chimpanzees through social grooming behaviour. Did they listen to the Gospel of Jesus, too?

When a guide for behaviour can be so easily and is so frequently "perverted" into something that entirely doesn't fit its original positive intents, yet amazingly, retain almost as much credibility and inspire just as much suspension of critical thought, it's time for a new guide.

A guide for behavior must be judged on the breath of behavior that it can be used to encourage and justify.

A guide for behavior must be judged on the breath of behavior that it can be used to encourage and justify.

If your beliefs can be misconstrued as justifying bad behavior then those beliefs are wrong? Well get rid of every belief structure, including yours, because I can't think of one that bad things have not been done in the name of.

If your beliefs can be misconstrued as justifying bad behavior then those beliefs are wrong?

Way to ignore the paragraph before my last sentence.

If your beliefs can, time after time after time, be so easily and convincingly misconstrued with horrendous results, then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be so dazzlingly sure about the Truth and Good those beliefs supposedly embody.

Actually I did read it. And it doesn't change anything.

Point one set of beliefs that have not been perverted by men, who have not been used to justify bad things. Time after time I've seen every belief system I've ever seen misconstrued with horrendous results. When people are put into the equation whatever the equation is, it is then perverted. There are not any exceptions so according to your logic every belief system is faulted.

There are not any exceptions so according to your logic every belief system is faulted.

Precisely.

No belief system is without fault. No belief system lends itself to glib assumptions that it's the embodiment of some abstract, yet universal "good," yet can only possibly support this notion in an utter vacuum.

Organized religion's beliefs are simply the ones which most blatantly assert their perfection.

Organized religion's beliefs are simply the ones which most blatantly assert their perfection.

Unlike atheists who do the very same without a God. Nice try but doesn't hold water.

Unlike atheists who do the very same without a God.

Care to support that statement? Atheists as a group (even remotely) think that their personal beliefs are unassailable, that their authority on such things is all-powerful?

That's a new one.

Care to support that statement

You just did, the belief that members of any belief system, or lack thereof is above reproach is the same as what you are complaining the Christians are doing when they think they are above reproach. You just exchanged god for the absence of god and the same thing occurs, which leads me to believe it is man not belief that is flawed.

Another example is:

"The God Myth"

I've read it, some would find it that atheists think themselves holier then thou which is a complaint against Christians. How they are so much smarter then Christians. I see it quite often, and you'd be hard to dispute that it doesn't happen. For all the talk of acceptance for other peoples belief, it boils down to individual atheists, and their imperfections, not the beliefs imperfection. Just like it boils down to with Christians. Man is corrupt on many levels, we corrupt what we are involved in, and belief structures are nut lessened by the indiscretions of the individual, but the affect they have on the betterment of you, Atheist, Christian, Diest it's your belief system.

You just did, the belief that members of any belief system, or lack thereof is above reproach is the same as what you are complaining the Christians are doing when they think they are above reproach.

Refusing to accept any ol' criticism you can dream up doesn't mean I think atheists are, as a group, beyond reproach.

it is man not belief that is flawed.

The two are not separate.

Man created belief. Thus, whatever flaws you attribute to man must be the minimum threshold of imperfection you attribute to belief.

How they are so much smarter then Christians.

And often, the forum for such statements is built upon a point of abject idiocy or bigotry believed by some Christians which is then given solidarous support by others.

belief structures are nut lessened by the indiscretions of the individual, but the affect they have on the betterment of you, Atheist, Christian, Diest it's your belief system.

So, a belief structure is separate from "indiscretions", but do affect the "betterment" of the believer? That's circular logic: belief systems are good because we attribute just good things to the belief system.

And anyway, how does this support any sort of assertion that Christian beliefs are the embodiment of Good? (not to mention "Truth") Even if belief structures are not "lessened" by the vast indiscretions of believers, why assume perfection as an initial state?

You've simply demonstrated that Christianity is worth only as much as any other belief system you can pull out of a hat. That's hardly a warrant for the pedestals that millions of your fellow Christians shove under their feet and have been shoving under their feet for 2000 years. For every Christians that might recognize that Christianity is "just another belief system," there are scores which believe that the Bible is the True word of the creator of the universe.

That's hardly a warrant for the pedestals that millions of your fellow Christians shove under their feet and have been shoving under their feet for 2000 years. For every Christians that might recognize that Christianity is "just another belief system," there are scores which believe that the Bible is the True word of the creator of the universe.

So what warrants everyone who is not a Christian getting up on their pedestal, they certainly do the same I gave references. If we are jumbling people up with their belief systems I can't find group or individual that is not guilty. So what warrants their behavior? Their behavior is the same as Christians, so what's their excuse. Again this can't be related to the belief system, because those that don't follow it are also guilty of the same transgressions. Man is the fault, and since I beleiv in god, that makes my belief system not at fault, but me. Belief in God is moot for the transgressions of man,

So what warrants everyone who is not a Christian getting up on their pedestal, they certainly do the same I gave references.

Atheists do not explicitly ascribe to, and wear on their sleeve or around their necks, a belief system that explicitly teaches humility. As such, there is no flagrant hypocrisy characterizing our behavior vs. our professed belief system (which... isn't any).

Say that about Christians. (in case you're thinking about it, I wouldn't use the "oh, but some people aren't real Christians" argument here)

Christianity stands out as a belief system that's been continuously used for social control and oppression virtually since its inception, yet has managed to hang on to its "oh, I'm totally a force of Good" declaration over that same time. It's very, very clever about PR, I'll give it that much.

On a more general level, the idea that a belief system should not be faulted for the follies of man is rather dangerous. What about communism? Stalinism? Nazism? Those are all belief systems. If you give Christianity the excuse of "fault the believer, not the belief," then you must naturally extend the same self-righteous justification to every other belief system.

Again this can't be related to the belief system, because those that don't follow it are also guilty of the same transgressions.

This only means that the belief system is worthless!

If it has no actual effect on behavior, to the point of needing to justify it by saying "oh, but everyone else does what they do," then what is the point of this belief system? Further, how do Christians ever then begin to say "oh, but it gives people righteous, good morals and make them better"? If it doesn't change your behavior, then don't pretend that it somehow makes people good and is a good guide for behavior.

It obviously doesn't work.

Don Imus's whole shtick was being a shock jock . . . that didn't save him.

epiph

picking on those with more power than you is cool
picking on those with less than you is not.

This is why we don't hit women unless they are kicking our asses.

Come on, we learned this in elementary school.

Besides, I thought Don Imus is coming back.

Brilliant. You'll need a name for you campaign, something evocative of Christian iconography but still pithy. Hm…French has a word croisée, literally "the state of being marked with the cross." How does that sound? We should Anglicize it though. I think we could just settling on crusade. There. Every movement needs a name, after all.

That Christianity is declining doesn't mean that there are still too many judgmentalists out there for living to be comfortable.

Foufga, in your opinion, are all Christians judgmentalists? Also, are all judgmentalists Christian? Are there any athiest judgmentalists?

since Christians seem to be on the back foot these days and the world is full of minorities on the rampage and taking control

Ah yes. There are no minorities who are Christians. Good one, kid.

I guess "still in control of every level of US gov't" counts as "on the back foot these days" in your book, eh?

@Tom
From what I've seen, Christians tend to be much more judgmental that others, because that's part of the "I sin, you sin, but at least I'm forgiven and going to heaven" mentality.

Foufga, if that is what you've witnessed from all of the Christians you know, then that is very tragic. I will not argue with you that some Christians can indeed be horribly judgmental.

But, I am not sure it stems from the "I'm forgiven" mentality so much as this:

Let's say a Christian believes that the teachings of Jesus are true and that Jesus is the Son of God. Well, that's a nice thing to believe, but it's much more difficult to make the teachings of Jesus a personal reality in our lives. Sometimes, Christians (myself included) make the mistake of thinking that just because we've heard "the truth," then we completely understand it or are actually walking in that truth.

If Christians really understood what it means to be forgiven by God - how great our (Christians) sin really was and how gracious God has been to forgive us and how great the cost was to Jesus - then I don't think judgmentalism would be the primary result of that understanding, but rather humility would be.

There is a difficult line that Christians - or believers of any sort - must walk between aiming for a high standard and recognizing the reality of where we fall short and continually need God's grace. There is also a fine line between exercising good discernment and lapsing into petty judgmentalism. Again, sometimes Christians err in this.

At the end of the day, I think judgmentalism is a human problem moreso than simply a Christian one. But, as you say, perhaps Christians sometimes feel they have a "license to judge." Which is definitely not healthy.

The conundrum is how to speak out "in love", express opinions redemptively, and exercise "good judgment," without straying into harsh Phariseeism.

That sounds nice in theory, but like I say, I've never seen it practiced. And 99 percent of everyone I know claims to be Christian.

Sure, wanting to feel 'better' than other people might be a human thing - I don't know - but I don't feel condemning someone in one's mind is a human thing. Without some sort of authority backing what someone says, he won't feel he has a right to tell others what they should be doing. You have to have some sort of god or god equivalent for that.

point out sin when they see it, but to still love the sinner and help them to the best of their knowledge, and not to condemn them. One can easily point out wrongdoing without criticizing the person doing it.

I've seen this used against gay people.

"You're going to hell for your sinful lifestyle, but I love you!" is one of the biggest loads of bulls--- I've ever heard.

I've heard(and heard of) no one yell to a child they pass on the street that he's going to Hell for eating too much chocolate.

Since you love using "people should know what's appropriate for different contexts, and anyone who doesn't is a flagrant ass", why don't you apply that to your own assertions?

If you're at a restaurant, and a child at the table next to you (or across the room from you) is scarfing down more chocolate than you think is appropriate, do you take it upon yourself to point and yell "You're going to hell for that!"?

You can express your views quite adequately without that word in this context.

Should I have to? I think not.

You're saying you have the right to tell someone they've sinned, which is deeply offensive (indeed, offensive on every level). I think it requires strong emotions and harsh language to shake Christians of their being okay with continuously judging people and their actions (and worse: actually verbalizing their judgments). It's too ingrained in their minds for soft words to affect their very poorly thought-out viewpoint (the narrower viewpoint of judgmentalism, I'm not specifically referring to believing in a deity here). So yes, using that word was completely intentional and justified. It wasn't what you'd probably label "gratuitous profanity" but was literary in that the style was meant to highlight the substance.

Think harder next time before you hit 'delete'. You may end up looking like Strongbad.

So you think the reaction to the publishing of the Danish Mohamed cartoons was perfectly justified, I assume. By any Muslim's judgment they were totally blasphemous.

Or is it only Christian blasphemy that upsets you head so much?

please---no comparison in terms of reaction - how many people have lost their lives as a direct result of Kathy's remark?

Did you support the censorship of those cartoons? Or did you think those Muslims should "just get over it?"

You can put me in the latter camp. At least I am consistent. I think the Christians should "just get over it" on this "issue." If you have the faith that can move mountains, then this is trivial bull@!$%#.

what exactly is that difference?

blasphemy and comedy are not mutually exclusive, and so I'm wondering if you can make some intelligent statement about where to draw the line.

go ahead, give your shot at being the PC police

or should Kathy just check her material with you in the future for a thumbs up/thumbs down?

I think part of the reason that it's comedy is precisely because it's blasphemous. Or rather, blasphemous to some. Not to me. But then neither you (who finds it blasphemous) or I (who doesn't care either way) pay her bills, so why should she care what we think? And why should we care what she says?

Chasing - the people who pay her care what we think - just ask Imus about that.

I don't think you understand. Griffin is likely to sell out more shows because of this than she would have before. Her fans will eat this up. Donohue isn't hurting her prospects in the slightest.

In a way you are right, Lisa. If by saying this, she alienates so many people she can no longer get a gig, then that's the price she pays. I wouldn't shed a tear for her. But she has her eggs in many baskets, and caters (generally speaking) to a rather narrow audience, so she is less exposed to such fallout than the likes of Imus are. No matter what happens, she's sure to get enough people to agree with her that she can fill a comedy club in most cities.

Imus, on the other hand, somewhat commoditized himself; for all the talk of his being a "shock jock", he still was marketed to a rather broad audience, and CBS and MSNBC were easy targets. To do similar "damage" to Griffin, you'd have to go not after one or two networks, but a couple of networks and hundreds of clubs, etc. For better or for worse she's just more insulated.

Moreover, Griffin was pointing out the (yes, here it comes) essential blasphemy of saying "Thank you Jesus for letting me sell records about slapping a whore!". Isn't that worse? Not only that Jesus would support that, but that he'd pick sides, one whore-slapper over another? It's ridiculous, and that's what Griffin was pointing out. What was Imus pointing out with the "nappy headed" thing? Anything but his own ignorance?

If kathy doesn't really think Jesus had all that much to do with her winning her statue then why talk about him at all? She could have been the same statement referencing Jesus and still been funny without saying it "SUCK IT". I agree with you that her audience is less concentrated vs the Imus Radio show......nevertheless she has offended many and worse she could probably care less. I didn't care that much about her before this happened and I could care even less about her now. Think I'm alone on that?

I didn't care that much about her before this happened and I could care even less about her now. Think I'm alone on that?

Not at all. In fact, with that part, I agree.

If kathy doesn't really think Jesus had all that much to do with her winning her statue then why talk about him at all?

maybe it was more about making fun of the culture of thanking jesus for the award (as though jesus makes hip hop stars win awards) rather than making fun of jesus or religion itself

it's alot funnier in that context than in a just making fun of jesus for the sake of being shocking; which leads me to believe that this was her intent rather than making fun of the church or god.

I think some people are too afraid of the fall from the particular horse onto which they're perched to consider this viewpoint though.

was she actually making that to mock Jesus or to mock the way that some people flippantly call His name for everything? But given her track record, it appears the former is correct.

Hahaha, you're serious, aren't you?

I didn't think her explicit qualification before the censored line was that subtle, but hey, I guess it's harder to see for some people.

My own take, for whatever it's worth, is that Griffin was - in part - trying to satirize people who win awards for stupid or obscene performances and then "thank Jesus" for it.

In that, I agree with her.

But, I believe she went way too far and what she said was terribly offensive.

Of course, at the end of the day, all it's done is garner more attention for her and her sad little career, which was no doubt her overarching goal.

So essentially, you're agreeing with me in that she was commenting on other celebrities, then saying "oh, but I didn't like what she said."

That's a far cry from but given her track record, it appears the former is correct.

Of course, at the end of the day, all it's done is garner more attention for her and her sad little career, which was no doubt her overarching goal.

And this makes her any different from any other celebrity... how?

Perhaps it's because few people have brought it up, but I don't see any blanket condemnations of the whole of Hollywood from you. I see what seems to be a condemnation of Griffin above and beyond the baseline of Hollywood.

TJG - funny how when they get themselves in trouble i.e. - sent to jail - a la Michael Vick & Paris Hilton - they seem to find God just fine.

Lip service.

Why do you right wingers get so invested in nonsense issues like this?

Because it's a great way to tout their s*** onto others - because, as you can see, things like this attract attention.

TJG - with all due respect - lately every discussion point I have is a "non issue" or "nonsense issue" for you depending on the thread....why comment on my comments if you consider them irrelevant? Just curious.....also, without taking this thread too far off course - what would count as a "real" issue in your book?

It just seems that Republicans in general get upset about things like this (she's an entertainer, and a bad one at that) or manufactured outrage scandals such as moveon's ad while ignoring big things, like a war and rights being trampled on.

One can't be dead unless they existed in the first place.

True. But if he were alive he'd probably be watching Animal Planet instead of long boring award shows.

And he probably wouldn't care if someone poker fun at him either.

And he probably wouldn't care if someone poker fun at him either.

I forget the exact wording, but I heard a quote once... "Someone wise can never be insulted. If it's the truth, then they'll know that it's the truth and accept it, and if it's false, then they'll know it's false and disregard it."

More Than Happy - yes, I'm sure Jesus in his line of work must have to have a very good sense of humor and not get too easily offended....it's just so hard to find a good sacrilege joke these days.

lisaed @ 12.5

There's the left's bigotry of low expectations. They think Jesus should laugh it off, but Allah should get indignant.

Go figure.

Oh, now it's turning into, they support terrorists more than they support Americans, because Jesus is all American. Great guys.

They think Jesus should laugh it off, but Allah should get indignant.

when did anyone say, or even imply that?

If you're gonna complain about things, complain about things that actually happen at least.

I'm sure Jesus in his line of work must have to have a very good sense of humor and not get too easily offended....it's just so hard to find a good sacrilege joke these days.

If the censor-happy get their way, then yes, I expect that findnig a "sacrilege" or "blasphemous" joke would become quite difficult, indeed.

Oh noes! They made fun of my creator of the Universe! Smite!

E S: Even from you, I expected more than shoving words into other people's mouths that blatantly.

As a centrist with social leftward leanings, I think people should just chill the f--- out in general, regarding jokes about religious/political/social/whatever idols, imaginary or not.

12.9

Mayhaps, if you actually read the thread before commenting . . .

As a matter of fact, I did.

It doesn't change my comment.

Cute dodge, though.

P.S. - If you think AdipicAcid was somehow supporting the Allah cartoon hysteria, you need to read that comment again.

Cute dodge, though

Thanks.

And my original comment stands.

There's a reason certain people are on the old ignore list Jack. Was she really claiming that I was supporting the hysteria? I thought I made it damn clear that I thought it was an overreaction, just as this is an overreaction.

Meh, she can talk out of her ass all she wants.

I'm just making sure people see beyond the petty partisan hogwash and notice the pile of horses--- it's built upon.

I'm new here so I'll just ask: How does the ignore list work? If I put someone on it, does that mean I can't read the rest of the thread? Or does just their nonsense not show up?

I believe that you stop seeing that person's content in any of the front page modules. Also, in any thread in which they leave a comment, for you that comment is auto-collapsed (it's indicated as "Ignored" next to their name"). However, you can still browse to that content manually if you choose, and you can expand the collapsed comments if you want.

Thanks, Spiffie.

My apologies for the horrendous grammar in that last sentence.

#13

In this case, she did it while accepting an Emmy award. This was not one of her tawdry shows with her usual fans.

Perhaps, in the future, the TV academy will be more careful with their awards.

Yeah, let's give people awards based on what they might say during their acceptance speech.

13.3 From the comments here, her act is pretty debased. So, if the academy wants to repeat the award, there will be those who will wonder why, given this year's performance at the award show.

That's probably true.

Can you insult Barbie? Jesus is less real than Barbie. Should Mencia stop making Dee-dee-dee jokes because someone with a retarded kid gets offended. Get off your high horse here. Just because it means something to you doesn't mean it should to me.

I see Bill Clinton as my family, so don't insult him or you have libelled me. I also feel like Barack Obama may be related so lay off of him too. In fact, don't criticize anyone to the left of Claiborne Pell. We are all family.

He is here now with us, as close to us as our fmaily members.

Then maybe he should hire a lawyer and sue Griffin? Of course, what she said may have been insulting, but it wasn't libel. She didn't say Jesus was something.

Can I go around saying that your parents are crooks and criminals? No. Firstly, I have no evidence of that, secondly it is libel, thirdly it is just darn stupid and offensive and fourthly, you would have every right to come up and smack my head in for saying that.

Now, I've made some pretty bad analogies in my day, but this is horrible.
1) She made a jab at this historical guy Jesus. She said "suck it" and "this is my god now", neither of which is a false statement. (The first isn't even a statement: it's a command, if my memory of grammar serves. The second is also true, as only she can say who or what her god is.) Saying that your parents are crooks and criminals could be true or false, plus you have to define the words crook and criminal.
2) It's not libel.
3) You don't have the right to assault someone for something they say. Think of it as being the bigger man, if that makes you feel better. Otherwise, whenever people say @!$%# like "being gay is wrong" or "abortion is not your choice" or any thing like that, we all have the right to smack that person. The moral of this story? Assault is not a mature/legal response to verbal 'abuse', and: be consistent.

Now, I've made some pretty bad analogies in my day, but this is horrible.

foufga, As analogies go, would you say this one sucks?

Agreed with foufga: the analogy is absolutely absurd, and the law doesn't back you on #4 even if Jesus was your relative.

Okay, so I'm guessing that since Bozzor hasn't rebutted, the conclusion for this block is that she had every right to say what she did, at least according to the law. It would've been nice to get a "geez, you're right" concession, but I guess the absence of argument will have to do.

Tom's question was whether she was right to say it, not whether people would try to make her pay for it.

Whoops, sorry, this wasn't the part about Tom's question. To respond to your comment: But you did, in fact, make the claim that what she said was not within her legal rights. Reread your post.

There would be an uproar if she said, "suck it Allah".

It'd also be even less funny, because there'd be no social commentary on pop culture.

But hey, you keep spoutin' contrarian-sounding SAT words and leave the snark to the big kids.

akakubi,
Do you have an example of these hypocritical neo-liberal types getting all in an uproar about Allah being disparaged?

Muslim people being singled out? Probably. Muslim sky-beardies being laughed at? I really doubt it.

Um....suck it, Allah.

because she has no beef with allah or any of those other "gods".......... She is speaking out against the God Whose Son is Jesus.

As an atheist, she wouldn't really have a "beef" with any of "those other "gods""....but she also wouldn't believe in any of them either. I imagine she spoke against Christianity for the same reason most North American atheists do......it's the most vocal religion in the area.

If she comes out with her disrespect of Jesus, well, He's not going to let that go unnoticed.

Because, oh man, Jesus' ears perk up when people say bad things about him on TV.

He can deal with her.

Oh snap. Power of Christ will compel her!

She has a religious agenda.........
It is ANTI religion
Well, specifically Anti Christian

I'm glad that at least you're aware of there being other religions out there, even if that is an afterthought.

And there are plenty of His followers still out here so let her hang herself professionally.

Meh, many, many Christians watch Family Guy, no matter how depraved their depictions of God (God's arm-wrestling creation of the universe comse to mind). They've hardly hanged themselves.

I imagine she spoke against Christianity for the same reason most North American atheists do......it's the most vocal religion in the area.

I think she picked Jesus probably because some celebrities make it a point of thanking Jesus during acceptance speeches.

I think she picked Jesus probably because some celebrities make it a point of thanking Jesus during acceptance speeches.

Yah, and this is Murrika, we wouldn't want people to think that we respect each other's beliefs.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Yah, and this is Murrika, we wouldn't want people to think that we respect each other's beliefs.

Seeing as how there was a huge uproar about the senator who took the oath of office on the Koran, yah, we wouldn't want people to think that we respect only beliefs we personally agree with.

Hey, and at least Griffin has the decency to make it clear that she's doing stand up by, you know, actually doing stand up, instead of appearing as a pseudo-pundit on putative "news commentary" shows like Ann Coulter. But Ann is "just an entertainer," right? Right?

I love that some people are saying "how can you make fun of Jesus but get mad at making fun of Allah" when no one's really arguing that. But they ignore the posts dealing with that question. Did everyone just skip over these two comments?

Also, the question about whether the comment was right or wrong was answered here too. Was I angry in this post, Tom? Because it was my first, and I think I have a pretty coherent position on the issue.

Bozzor, forgive me, I mistakenly gave credit to Epiphany for seeding this. I should have applauded your courage. I had been responding earlier to one of Ephiphany's threads. Sorry about that confusion!

America supposedly is a Christian country, full of people who believe and respect God. Yet this two bit tramp says this blasphemy and gets away with it.

America is not a Christian country, it's a country inhabited by a majority of Christians. They aren't the same thing. As for people who "respect" God, I have to wonder about that given the 25+ years of Christian scandal that has taken place here, not to mention the rise of Charismatic "prosperity gospel" types.

And finally as for "get away with it," what the hell? What do you want to happen to her? Should she be tarred and feathered? Prosecuted for blasphemy? Thrown in a dungeon? Please.

Hahahaha. Nice. Well this 'two-bit tramp' - or however you want to blaspheme her - isn't a Christian. She doesn't have to play by your rules. What about the religion I'm going to start that worships her? Hmm? What if I told you that according to our Holy Book, your comments have just earned you a place in Katy Griffin Haters Hell? (In which, of course, you would just see reruns of Suddenly Susan, with commercials with Sarah Silverman, just for Tom.)

More fundamentally, your logic is off:
1) "The majority of America is Christian" or whatever (given by You)
2) There should logically be an outcry when someone doesn't agree with this Christian majority
3) I am mad because there is no such outcry

America, then, is obviously not offended enough to care. Obviously, then, your given is untrue enough to warrant #2.

"Untrue" in the last sentence should read "not true", my bad.

Sadly, there is not much of an outcry - yet - due to a couple of issues:

1) America once held predominately Judeo-Christian values, but does not any longer, at least in terms of popular culture and mainstream media

2) Kathy Griffin is such an irrelevant nobody that it's tough for a lot of people to get worked up about her jabbering or they just haven't heard about it yet

I do hope that in all of this, she isn't made out to be some kind of "martyr" for secularism, guaranteeing her a slot on all the trendy talk shows and magazine covers.

1) Exactly. America is not predominantly Christian. QED. You cannot impose your values on everybody anymore. And I think that's cause enough for celebration.
2) Okay, then why do you care? What are you mad about? And she can only be a martyr if people like you try to take her down for comments that were not wrong.

"America" in the very generic sense (especially pre-Revolution) held predominantly J-C values. But America The United States has never been "a Christian country" in any sense other than that most Americans are at least nominally Christian.

Kathy Griffin is such an irrelevant nobody that it's tough for a lot of people to get worked up about her jabbering or they just haven't heard about it yet

You realize why this is ironic, don't you? She would agree with you. The show she won the award for is "My Life on the D-List," which show's entire premise is that Kathy is a nobody who only gets attention because she's outrageous.

And I doubt she'll use this to martyr herself, although I imagine it will come up in her act, since most of her act involves her own life.

Jesus is God, the Father of us all.

Only if you follow Christianity. And many do not.

Y'know I would never have heard of her if Bozzor hadn't seeded this. Perhaps turning the other cheek was definitely in order here? Instead she gets the attention she so desperately craves.

America isn't a Christian country. There is no state religion.

Perhaps there isn't a huge outcry because this is tabloid news at best and people are concerned with real problems.

Honestly, I doubt most people have heard of her or this story. She isn't a top-tier comic, her show is on a minor cable network that isn't even carried in all markets in the US, and her fan base isn't especially broad. She's had a number of talk show appearances, but how many people really remember everyone they see on talk shows? She truly is what she says she is, a member of the D-list.

@ #20.2

Yet this two bit tramp says this blasphemy and gets away with it. OK, maybe she is just a stupid half-witted moron trying to be funny - and failing -

I'm not going to let you get away with saying that.

Congrats, you've earned the ranking of the first person I've ever put on my ignore list.

bozzor @ 20.11

It's because the left is in charge of the media. Offended Christians would have taken action against the network if they would have allowed the comment to stand. You know, urging sponsors to drop their support ... just like the left does to Fox News. But, just so you know, it's a bad thing when Christians do boycotts and a good thing when radical leftist groups take aim at Fox News. That may sound like censorship, to try to get a network defunded, but it's not when Democrats do it.

Stick with me, Kid, I'll learn ya the way of American culture:)

The thing is Bozzor,
we here in the US aspire to believe in freedom of expression, Epiphany notwithstanding. I think it's even written into one of our important historical documents or something...

By all means, stick with epiphany if you're interested in "being learned" a right wing slanted version of american culture.

Truthfully, I don't think it was gonna recieve any media coverage. Kathy Griffin's just not that important.

Not to mention, in addition to what greck said, that giving her the attention, even moral outrage (maybe especially moral outrage), won't hurt her career. If anything, her bookings are likely to shoot through the roof as long as this "controversy" remains in the news. Her fans certainly don't care about this incident; in fact, I would say that her fans appreciate her for incidents like this.

bozzor @ 20.17

You can read the opinions of the low minded here. They have quite a large megaphone . . . here. There is a larger megaphone out there that they never seem to hear . . . until the votes are counted.

Jacob, you got all a-twitter at Bozzor when he challenged a public figure who made a nasty remark and wrote:

Congrats, you've earned the ranking of the first person I've ever put on my ignore list.

If you got so offended at Bozzor for that, then I'm afraid you will be putting a lot of different people around here on your ignore list for many different reasons.

I have been called many nasty personal names, I've been personally mocked and ridiculed, I've had virtually everything I value spat upon here, and I have yet to put anybody on my ignore list. If Kathy Griffin was on Newsvine, I probably would not even put her on my ignore list either. I might argue with her a lot, though. You seem to be taking all of this very personally. Wait!You're...not...actually...Kathy...Griffin...are you?

I did not know Jacob was Kathy Griffin.

It's because the left is in charge of the media.

Laugh my ass off you're funny. There is this one big boss of all these commy liberals out there that hates America and is running a conspiracy to drive us into the ground. There's this guy in the sky that this big boss ignores and hates (in spite of so much objective evidence to his existence), but he just sits back and lets him do his thing... ruin America... because one day he's going to destroy boss guy and his minions with fireballs.

You should write novels.

Offended Christians would have taken action against the network if they would have allowed the comment to stand.

Hold on a minute. I have heard of no offended Christians besides the two of you that are so appalled. No one else cares. I'd suggest you learn from them to grow up and that this isn't a big deal. Neither is making fun of Muhammad or Allah or Joe Smith, like I said before. Who honestly gives a damn.

You know, urging sponsors to drop their support ... just like the left does to Fox News.

Well, Fox News has been proven countless times to be objectively insubstantial and heavily biased, much more so than any actual network. Have you ever looked into the facts of this boycott? There is an outcry over this because they are perpetually deluding (a lot of) people's minds with false facts and factless analysis (read: O'reilly). Like I've said above (or perhaps below, I can't keep track), let the free market decide on both issues. But you have to keep in mind that Griffin's primary job is to be a performer, whereas members of Fox are supposed to be telling us the truth. Big distinction, and Fox fails.

But, just so you know, it's a bad thing when Christians do boycotts and a good thing when radical leftist groups take aim at Fox News. That may sound like censorship, to try to get a network defunded, but it's not when Democrats do it.

See above, there's a vital difference between the situations.

20.23

Gee, maybe you should have read the article. A Catholic group was the one that lodged a formal complaint and that is why Kathy's "precious" words are being excised from the Emmy broadcast Sat night.

Okay... then why are you complaining that no one's complaining? Or are you? What are you trying to say here?

20.25

If you are speaking to me - I was explaining to bozzor about why he hadn't heard more about it.

Well okay... but you did say 20.23... which was me. What is your point here? And if you've said it 100 times, let's pretend like I'm a dumbass that can't understand what you're saying. Could you delineate your point(s) here, in succinct form, so I can know what I'm dealing with. Because I don't see the anti-Griffin position as coherent right now, as per my comments before.

Foufga, millions of people find Griffin's remarks grotesque and deeply offensive. You may not, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way you do.

And, what do you personally think about her remarks? Not whether or not you believe she has "a right" to make them, but do you personally think she was right to make them?

Bozzor:

America supposedly is a Christian country, full of people who believe and respect God.

Oh God, you're right! That means that we, as a nation, should totally b---- and moan about Griffin, right? Dammit!

Jesus is God, the Father of us all.

Ha! Maybe in your little book, but I personally think that my dad is my father. Jesus was no more than a Middle Eastern nomad in the right place at the right time. Care to challenge that without referencing the Bible?

How would we feel if someone personally insulted our parents?

Well, it's good that I don't think I'm the progeny of a long-dead Middle Eastern dude, then.

I am perhaps more critical of the general lack of total outcry at this statement than for Griffin's foul mouth herself.

Oh no! America isn't b----ing and moaning enough!

Since you believe this because Americans are predominantly Christian, you can blame the apathetic Christians for this slight. I guess they're just not Christian enough to b---- at a comedian.

Tom:

millions of people find Griffin's remarks grotesque and deeply offensive.

Really?! There was a poll?

that doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way you do.

Right back at ya.

do you personally think she was right to make them?

Why does that matter? Seriously, why are you even asking that question?

Many of us aren't so glib as to just assume that whatever personal values/biases we justify using a book should be the way of the world.

There's an episode of "Father Ted" that comes to mind about how the bishop ordered Ted and Father Dougal to protest an unwatchable art film, "The Passion of St. Tibulus," which is banned for blasphemy in Ireland but through some loophole can only be shown on Craggy Island. They go to the cinema to protest (Dougal has a sign reading "Down With This Sort of Thing"). Only two other patrons have paid to see the film and one of them walks out because the film is in French and only has subtitles. Ted and Dougal view the film and agree it was inaccurate. "I know for a fact that St. Tibulus wore more clothes than that!" Ted says matter-of-factly. Nevertheless the next day, they show up seven hours early to protest the film, handcuffing themselves to a railing in order to cause more of a scene. Well, of course, Dougal doesn't have the key to the handcuffs so they wind up having to saw off the railing and bring it back to the rectory with them, which is how we see them when they learn that not only was their boycott ineffective, but it has made "The Passion of St. Tibulus" Craggy Island's most successful film since "Jurassic Park." The bishop fulminates "They're coming from Gdansk to see this film!"

Bishop Brennan, ever irate, threatens to reassign them to even more remote parishes — he has in mind for Ted an island off the coast of Suriname where two tribes have been warring for almost 100 years and for Dougal a place in the Philippines where sewage treatment is not a special concern of the local authorities. (Father Jack, meanwhile, has discovered a tape marked "Summer Holiday" in the bishop's bag, and the trio watch it to see scenes of the bishop kissing a woman who is his secret mistress (Ireland actually had such a scandal about that time, a bishop having a "wife" in America) and they realize [Ted does, actually, the other two are blithering eejits] they can use this tape to blackmail "Len" into changing his mind about reassigning them.

You had me at "Father Ted".

Foufga, millions of people find Griffin's remarks grotesque and deeply offensive.

Obviously not. If they did, you wouldn't have to try to rile people up here. ...?

You may not, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way you do.

As said above, right back atcha. I don't have to get offended just because you want me to. Nothing anti-religious offends me, because I can discern no reason to think any religion is more credible than mythology.

And, what do you personally think about her remarks?

They were halfway funny and better than the standard hypocritcal "I'd like to thank god for this award" that everyone makes fun of anyway.

Not whether or not you believe she has "a right" to make them, but do you personally think she was right to make them?

Last time I checked, comedy wasn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a question of funny/ironic vs. not funny.

Actually Jack Huang , you may be correct that I am somewhat bemused by the lack of outcry against Griffin by America's Christians, which could be for many reasons. Weakness in the Christian faith is the one reason I do not wish to be the underlying one here.

I would argue that "weakness in the Christian faith" is the reason FOR the outcry in the first place. Thankfully not all Christians are so eager to attack someone for their opinion or a silly remark. If someone disagrees with someone who entertains for a living, there are plenty of ways to show it. Helping them get attention is probably not the most effective, but to each their own I suppose.

Arrah, but Christians should also know what Jesus was sayin' about Kathy Griffin. Tweren't exactly Christian, if you catch my drift, ye know?

Obviously not. If they did, you wouldn't have to try to rile people up here. ...?

Foufga, surely Newsvine is not your only news source? And surely you realize that the typical Newsvine worldview is not exactly representative of many conservatives? Perhaps you would also graciously concede that even though secularism and liberalism are in vogue right now, there are still more than a few traditionalists out here in the world?

Disagree if you like, but don't be in denial that there are many people who find Griffin's remark offensive.

There are many many more who haven't heard the remark, wouldn't care about the remark if they heard it, don't speak English and so wouldn't understand the remark, or only want to watch NASCAR so don't bother them about some stupid remark, got it?

Perhaps you would also graciously concede that even though secularism and liberalism are in vogue right now, there are still more than a few traditionalists out here in the world?

They're hardly in vogue, as traditionalists still easily outnumber secularists in this world.

but don't be in denial that there are many people who find Griffin's remark offensive.

Some people are offended. Okay. Your point?

Foufga, surely Newsvine is not your only news source?

Nope. Don't know why you'd think that.

And surely you realize that the typical Newsvine worldview is not exactly representative of many conservatives?

The typical newsviner is a thinker, whatever else that implies. That's kindof part of the site's mission. Regardless of what conclusions people come to, most people come to them through thinking instead of feeling on this site.

Perhaps you would also graciously concede that even though secularism and liberalism are in vogue right now, there are still more than a few traditionalists out here in the world?

Straw-man argument. And you missed the whole point I was trying to make. Well, at least we've gone from 'millions' to just 'more than a few' traditionalists. You're starting to see, I think, that just because it's been one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Disagree if you like, but don't be in denial that there are many people who find Griffin's remark offensive.

I don't have to cater to them or agree that it was, in fact, offensive. The thing you don't seem to recognize is that only 'real' Christians can get offended over this stuff, because this isn't real to anyone else. So you can't come to this site complaining about how not enough people are getting offended. If someone doesn't care, they don't care, and you shouldn't try to force the issue.

Also, Tom, here's another thing that's maybe never been explained to you with regards to who can be called a bigot or intolerant or what not. Because you seem to see those words used against conservatives a lot and then want to use them yourself, but it feels misplaced when you use it. Here's the explanation.

I am for personal liberty. That means, I don't see why every person can't do her own thing, try to set and achieve goals in her lifetime, and live as she pleases, unless it restricts someone else's ability to live freely. (That is to say, she must live ethically.) That should be a fundamental right of everyone. Now, history has shown us that this religion phenomenon pops up and, where people should be free, draws people into itself and forces them to do as its founder says. That's fine in my model, because these people generally choose to be part of that religion, or they don't try to get out of it. I would be against religions that won't let people out, because that breaks our personal liberty.

Now, some people (often religions), take it a step further and are constantly trying to get other people (not in their religion or mode of thought) to live by their ideology's rules. When the person refuses, they keep at it, saying things like "gay is not the way" or "abortion is wrong" or something like that. Again, that is restricting the freedoms of other people, and not acknowledging their personal liberty/agency. That is wrong and is actual intolerance. (This type of intolerance is on the 'offense', if you made a sports analogy.)

Now, people who are being condemned by this one group don't like it and realize they shouldn't have to abide it. So they say, for example, "Christians have no leg to stand on, stop telling me what to do until you can prove what I'm doing is somehow morally wrong". And when the Christians don't stop, but neither provide concrete evidence that what they're saying is justified, the person calls the Christian stupid or ignorant or something. You, Tom, would say that person is being intolerant, but it is an 'intolerance' of a vastly different kind. It's 'defensive' intolerance, if you can even call it intolerance. It would be naive to be tolerant of those who weren't tolerant of anyone else. (The person calling the Christian stupid would be like a football player at a football game telling the volleyball player to get off the field, because they're trying to set the ball or something crazy like that.)

Does that make sense? There is a huge distinction between the 'intolerance' you tout and the one 'we' use.

Well, I've had enough quotation marks and analogies for one day, hope that helped you understand the way we think.

Jack responds to my question for Foufga:

do you personally think she was right to make them? Why does that matter? Seriously, why are you even asking that question?

Many of us aren't so glib as to just assume that whatever personal values/biases we justify using a book should be the way of the world.

I am not asking if you believe or care about the Bible or any other book. I was asking if you think Griffin was right to make the comment. Simple question and relevant. See, everyone wants to give a knee jerk response: "Why, she has a RIGHT to say WHATEVER she wants to say, by cracky, this is AMERICA!" OK, fine, she has a right. Now, the rest of us have rights also to share our opinions about what she said.

Ergo, the question: what do you think about what she said?

Foufga, I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you feel, and you asked:

Does that make sense? There is a huge distinction between the 'intolerance' you tout and the one 'we' use.

Well, I've had enough quotation marks and analogies for one day, hope that helped you understand the way we think.

Well, no, it actually doesn't make sense. What you are saying, in effect is that your "intolerance" is justified and the "intolerance of Christians" is not. You must employ a form of "intolerance" to fight the greater evil of the Christian "intolerance." I understand that you believe it; you will not be surprised to learn that I do not.

I think that is a neat pat answer that you've been given by those who are tutoring you in secularist thinking to further you in your journey away from your spiritual heritage. In a matter of months, you have moved from being more open about searching for the truth to being a rather fierce spokesperson for "the way we think." In so doing, you sound as much like a preacher as some of the more zealous Christian evangelists on television.

Also, Tom, here's another thing that's maybe never been explained to you with regards to who can be called a bigot or intolerant or what not.

Oh, I think that's been "explained" to me ad nauseum here on Newsvine. It's part of the template, sort of a standard "Christian Bashing 101" tutorial that goes with the turf here. By the way, having graduated from a very liberal college some 23 years ago, I am not unfamiliar with these arguments and tactics.

Well, no, it actually doesn't make sense. What you are saying, in effect is that your "intolerance" is justified and the "intolerance of Christians" is not. You must employ a form of "intolerance" to fight the greater evil of the Christian "intolerance." I understand that you believe it; you will not be surprised to learn that I do not.

No, you missed the whole analysis. The only reason there is a need to call Christians intolerant is because they aren't playing fair. They are depriving people of rights. Did you miss the spiel on defensive versus offensive? This is why I get angry: You don't seem to understand the complexities of these issues.

I think that is a neat pat answer that you've been given by those who are tutoring you in secularist thinking to further you in your journey away from your spiritual heritage.

Haha, bull @!$%#. That is the pure @!$%# of bulls. No one has 'tutored' me or whatever you want to call it. Unlike the Christian model, in which the only way someone can possibly believe is by someone else telling them what to believe, atheists can become so just by looking at and thinking about nature objectively.

In a matter of months, you have moved from being more open about searching for the truth to being a rather fierce spokesperson for "the way we think."

Again, loaded language, and you ignore the real points. My frustration is with your inability to grasp what others say, and not with conservative ideas. I would defend some conservative ideas against liberals, too, and I am still searching for the truth. I just happen to know that you have never given me any good reason to think as you do.

How many times do I have to say it: My views are based on reason. If you don't give me reasons for your views, I'm not going to change my mind. And don't you dare call me close-minded for not doing so.

In so doing, you sound as much like a preacher as some of the more zealous Christian evangelists on television.

@!$%# that, you make terrible analogies, too. I really hope this is just a glitch on your part and isn't representative of the way you actually think.

Oh, I think that's been "explained" to me ad nauseum here on Newsvine. It's part of the template, sort of a standard "Christian Bashing 101" tutorial that goes with the turf here.

Well, from your response, you are incapable of understanding. Also, if it's a template, how did I come to understand it without anyone ever telling me or pushing me to it?

By the way, having graduated from a very liberal college some 23 years ago, I am not unfamiliar with these arguments and tactics.

But you're still blind to them. Which is sad. I'm still searching. You never have. Stop the ad-hom and try to stick to the facts and actual analysis. I'll do the same and we'll both end up in very different (but hopefully) happy places in life.

Foufga,

I understand just fine. I just don't agree. It seems you have those two concepts confused. Please don't patronize me about "not grasping complexities." Again, you have climbed very rapidly up on a high horse and claimed that those who disagree with you are unreasonable and intolerant and how dare we say you are closed minded for saying so.

Unlike the Christian model, in which the only way someone can possibly believe is by someone else telling them what to believe, atheists can become so just by looking at and thinking about nature objectively.

I see. So, you've never studied Dawkins, Darwin, Hitchens, Harris, Jacoby, Shermer, or other prominent athiests and evolutionists? At your school, you have no teachers or professors who advocate secularism? Do you have teachers and professors at your school? Of course you do. Of course you have mentors who have helped to guide you along the path that you are on now. It's nothing to be ashamed of. No need to be reactive, unless perhaps I hit a raw nerve.

Frankly, I wish you would just go back and re-read some of your comments in this thread. Your frustration and anger have gotten the better of you. That's happened to me more than once also on Newsvine, so I can relate to that.

You've wanted to steer this discussion into another debate about faith versus athiesm, when it's really more about cultural civility and the rights of a broadcasting company (not the government) to censor the content on its airwaves.

I asked you a simple question some time back that seemed to irritate you and launched us onto this tangent. Let's go back to that question: regardless of whether or not Griffin had "the right" to say what she said, how do you feel about the actual content of her remarks?

Start with that question.

I've go no problem with it.

'Tis yer run-o'-th'-mill stupid remark, right up there with "This award is for you, Aunt Loopy. Keep on rockin' in the attic, girl!" or "I'd like to thank my tax accountant without whom I never could've won" or "I'm the decider!"

If ye get that incensed and out of joint at a remark made about yer God, ye weren't listening to what He had to say in the farst place.

Beati estis cum maledixerint vobis est persecuti vos fuerint et dixerint omni malum adversum vos mentientes propter me.

Blessed are you when they have insulted and persecuted you, and have said every cruel thing about you falsely for my sake. —Matthew 5:11

Ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo sed si quis te percusserit in dexter maxilla tua præbe illi et alteram

But I say to you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other as well. —Matthew 5:39

Ideo dico vobis omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis remittetur ei qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro.

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.

—Matthew 12:31-32.

So let yiz all get off yer high horses. Jesus is a big God, and can take o' Himself. He don't need th' likes o' ye gettin' yer cacks in a pucker over some wagon talkin' @!$%#e about Him. He'd've as much use f'r ye as tits on a moped.

I see. So, you've never studied Dawkins, Darwin, Hitchens, Harris, Jacoby, Shermer, or other prominent athiests and evolutionists?

I've read one book by Dawkins (Selfish Gene) that doesn't address atheism except in one paragraph. I've come to these conclusions on my own. I've never read any of the others.

At your school, you have no teachers or professors who advocate secularism?

Stop straw-manning. Do you even understand what that means? Of course I have atheist professors at my school. But I'm in science, not philosophy, and I've come to my views based on my thoughts, not theirs. You couldn't have have come to yours without church.

Of course you have mentors who have helped to guide you along the path that you are on now.

No I do not. Stop fabricating.

No need to be reactive, unless perhaps I hit a raw nerve.

You are a horrible debater, to have stooped low like this.

Frankly, I wish you would just go back and re-read some of your comments in this thread. Your frustration and anger have gotten the better of you.

Well, the only anger stems from your lack of facts. Which you continually seem to ignore in my quotes. Which makes me angry, in that so many people I know try to hold on to your style of traditional values without any reason to. (Or they're afraid to share those reasons.)

You've wanted to steer this discussion into another debate about faith versus athiesm, when it's really more about cultural civility and the rights of a broadcasting company (not the government) to censor the content on its airwaves.

Um... You've missed my first comments though. It only turned into a faith-atheism thing when you took Christianity as given. (Reread the comments yourself.)

I asked you a simple question some time back that seemed to irritate you and launched us onto this tangent. Let's go back to that question: regardless of whether or not Griffin had "the right" to say what she said, how do you feel about the actual content of her remarks?

Fine, I've already answered it, but I'll answer it again.

Her comment was amoral. That means, it was not right or wrong. Just like saying "Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side" is amoral. Do you understand? The only way it could be wrong is if Jesus was actually some kind of god. Which is where the debate came from. Also: If this is a debate about network censorship, and such, why did you ever ask this question? Because it's you that's turning the debate from one of networks to one of god.

This is really frustrating. Please reread my posts and (ignoring the angry sentiments in a couple), look at what I have to say. Because it still seems like you don't understand.

Also, instead of saying "really, I do understand the complexities", just show me that you do by picking apart my answers and

me that I'm wrong. I really don't mind being proved wrong, but only via sound logic.

Tom, despite what you think, I doubt most atheists arrive at atheism with much of a support structure of any kind. I can remember beginning to seriously question God in Catechism class at about 12 or 13 years old. I didn't have any atheist friends or know any other atheists (certainly not my teachers). I attended school at the time in Round Rock, TX, at one point home to one of the more conservative school boards in the country.

By the time I was sixteen, I had become (at least in my own mind) a full-blown atheist, to the point where I refused to be confirmed in the Catholic Church. Boy, that set my mother off, but the parish priest backed me; you can't force a person to get confirmed. I came to this point without reading a single book, pamphlet, or essay by an atheist.

To this day, I've never read any book by Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. I think I've read an article on the Internet by Harris, linked from Newsvine. It was in the last six months. I've read a few articles by Shermer, but I have a subscription to SciAm, and he writes for them. I'm now 30. I've been a functional atheist now for almost 15 years.

Atheists are not defined by learning dogma. To be an atheist literally requires one single insight: there probably isn't a God. After that, there isn't a whole lot to bind us together. Look at the anemic atheist organizations. Nobody joins them. Why should we? We have only a single point of view in common, which I personally think is relatively trivial, anyway. The religious might think of the question of God as the most profound question in the entire world, but for me it's as trivial as any question in mythology.

Thank you, Foufga, for taking the time to respond. This particular part of your comment struck me:

Her comment was amoral. That means, it was not right or wrong. Just like saying "Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side" is amoral. Do you understand? The only way it could be wrong is if Jesus was actually some kind of god. Which is where the debate came from. Also: If this is a debate about network censorship, and such, why did you ever ask this question? Because it's you that's turning the debate from one of networks to one of god.

How do you determine what is or what is not moral? And, who, in your worldview, gets to determine what is or is not? Or, is there actually anything that is considered "moral" or "immoral"? Are all morals relative? I'm not trying to debate this with you; I'm just curious as to the source of your definition. You say what she said is "amoral." Many would disagree with you. So, what's your barometer?

Spiffie, I appreciated your thoughts and your history. Of course, many people can have that thought - "There probably isn't a god" - without reading Dawkins or whomever. But, there is an increase in a coalescing of thoughts and - if you will - dogma around the issue of athiesm, as witnessed by a current "hot topic" article here on Newsvine. Many of the folks involved in this movement do in fact share many ideas and teachings from mentors, just as any other group would tend to do.

Having said all of that, as I said to Foufga earlier, athiests have feelings and emotions, just as Christians or Muslims do. And, truth be told, many of the same stimuli that impact a Christian also impact an athiest. We are more alike in our humanity than we are different. Many Christians reacted negatively to Griffin's remark because of the personal nature of their relationship with Jesus - they see Him as a friend, they are deeply grateful to Him, they regard with awe His divinity and holiness. I would wager that there is somebody in your own life dear to you that if I said, "Suck it" about them, it might ruffle your feathers as well.

Dagda actually makes some valid points, very colorfully so, about the fact that Christians in their zeal to "protect Jesus" may be actually behaving in an un-Christlike way. It's probable that I fall into that category sometimes also.

Nonetheless, somehow there must be a way to communicate something basic along these lines: Griffin has "a right" to say what she wanted to say, but in so doing, she deeply shocked and offended a large group of people. Perhaps she views this as her job as a comedian, or perhaps her real point was to ridicule rap artists who thank Jesus for helping them sell obscene music. It's hard to know.

I've voiced the fact that I didn't appreciate her remarks. I am not trying to stop you from appreciating her remarks, if that is your choice. But just as Kathy Griffin or athiests can speak out in the public forum, so can Christians.

The Emmys - like the Grammys, Oscars, Tonys, Nobels, Pulitzers, and other "major" awards - have become mere political sideshows designed to advance an extremist agenda and reward those who stick a fork in the eyes of those who hold traditional values.

Well the last few they don't televise, but the first four have just become boring overproduced schlock that draws fewer viewers every year. I'll bet the producers of the Emmys got down and kissed Kathy Griffin's feet after the taping, because she will bring more eyeballs to the screen to wonder what th' hell yiz ar' makin' all th' racket about.

How do you determine what is or what is not moral? And, who, in your worldview, gets to determine what is or is not? Or, is there actually anything that is considered "moral" or "immoral"? Are all morals relative? I'm not trying to debate this with you; I'm just curious as to the source of your definition. You say what she said is "amoral." Many would disagree with you. So, what's your barometer?

I say it's amoral because of the following observations:
1) The comment was a combination of 'trash talk' and a declaration.
2) The trash talk is only offensive to those who believe Jesus can actually hear her.
3) I don't see any reason to think Jesus can hear her.
4) That something is offensive doesn't make it immoral in most people's views. (Morality has to do with 'right' and 'wrong', not how people respond to that 'right' and 'wrong'.)
5) The declaration was true for her. Only she can decide who or what she puts priority on in her life.
6) There is no reason to think that morals coincide with Christian morals.
7) Something that's said for a laugh can hardly be moral. As I said before, comedy is not a matter of right or wrong.

Overall, I'm not sure about the moral question. I do know that ethics are obvious (don't hinder the rights of others to live freely), but as to questions of motives or personal actions that don't actually hurt others (and I'm not talking about offending, because I don't see a problem with offending), I don't see how they are relevant to anyone but the individual.

Now that I've taken time to adequately answer your question, can you go back to my posts and either concede my point, or provide some analysis (without any personal comments)? I'd appreciate it.

Foufga is right on all but this point:

3) I don't see any reason to think Jesus can hear her.

Jesus has cable and TiVo, so He could hear her if He wanted to. But I watched him watch the program last night and when she came on, He stuck His fingers in His ears and repeated several times "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" — which as ye all know is Greek for "why oh why should I listen to ye?"

Also, I'd just like to point out that in spite of you talking around it in your comments to spiffie:
1) I've never had a mentor.
2) I don't read those authors.
3) I've come to my conclusions myself.
4) Atheists/agnostics can't be lumped together just because we understand basic truth.

Also: You have yet to tell me why initial 'offensive' (as opposed to 'defensive') intolerance should be justified (when everyone else is being tolerant). Because that's where the above discussion came from.

Many of the folks involved in this movement do in fact share many ideas and teachings from mentors, just as any other group would tend to do.

I don't doubt that there are some people involved in atheist organizations. I acknowledged as much. But I don't think the number is very large. I know that Adam Kemp, for example, was involved with a student atheist organization in college, but he's the only one that I know of on Newsvine who was. Of all my atheist friends, none were or are involved in any kind of organization.

You keep mentioning mentors, but I don't know of anyone who was "mentored" into becoming an atheist. Quite the contrary, it's been my experience that atheists most frequently come to atheism despite the influence of their mentors in life, virtually all of whom are religious.

Thanks Spiffie and Foufga. Some quick thoughts:

Spiffie, I don't doubt that you and others come to your own conclusions or convictions. Mentors can be active and personal or they can be in the "virtual" sense of societal role models, heroes, authors, or other influencers. I suppose someone might live in a complete vacuum, although I am sure you would agree with me that no man is an island.

Foufga, the word "tolerance" has been radically re-defined in recent years in terms of our society's common understanding of it. It used to pretty much simply mean that while I profoundly disagree with something or don't like something, I am not going to take tangible action to stop it or legislate against it; I "allow" it.

Today in some quarters, "tolerance" has come to mean that not only do you have to tolerate something, you need to either embrace it, celebrate it, or totally shut up. And, as I've said earlier, this application of tolerance seems to flow one way - against traditionalists. Many traditionalists are told to shut up and tolerate, which strikes some traditionalists as very ironic. Everything is tolerated except traditional values - no one should have cause to be offended, except people who hold taditional values.

You have already stipulated why you think the holders of traditional values should not express their opinions, because to you, they are inherently "intolerant."

My point is that a person who holds traditional values should be as free to express those values as a person who does not. That is not "forcing" my values down anybody's throat. This is a free marketplace of ideas here on Newsvine, and I am exceptionally tolerant in the traditional meaning of that word. Again "tolerance" in and of itself implies that we are free to disagree. It is intolerant to tell someone who holds traditional values that they cannot express their views.

I tolerate your disagreement with me, and I expect you to do the same. I do not expect you to agree with me or applaud what I say, unless you chose to do so. And, occasionally, as you know, I have found some common ground with you - we've at least been able to civilly disagree before. That is tolerance.

Therefore, I will continue to say that I believe what Griffin actually said crossed the line. I have not asked the government to step in and legislate her speech, and I haven't asked you not to defend Griffin. I have been tolerant. But I will not embrace what she said, nor will I be cowed into not speaking or expressing my opinion on a website where we are all allegedly able to do so, regardless of our ideology.

Finally, I am well aware that those who hold traditional or somewhat conservative values are in a tiny minority here on Newsvine, so thanks to everyone here for tolerating my dissent.

Spiffie, I don't doubt that you and others come to your own conclusions or convictions. Mentors can be active and personal or they can be in the "virtual" sense of societal role models, heroes, authors, or other influencers. I suppose someone might live in a complete vacuum, although I am sure you would agree with me that no man is an island.

This is a straw man argument, Tom. I don't want to sound harsh, but this is the third or fourth time you've done this, so I'd avise you to look up what a straw man argument is and not do it again. No one believes that people live in a vacuum. It doesn't follow from that, however, that atheists can't become atheists solely by their own judgment and logic. In spiffie's model, atheists often come to their conclusions in spite of all these connections they have to others. (This was true for me.) Also: please don't respond with something like "I understand what strawman arguments are, but..."... just show me that you understand by not using them again.

Foufga, the word "tolerance" has been radically re-defined in recent years in terms of our society's common understanding of it. It used to pretty much simply mean that while I profoundly disagree with something or don't like something, I am not going to take tangible action to stop it or legislate against it; I "allow" it.

This definition isn't especially helpful, since you don't have the power to force anyone to do anything, anyways. This really just means "I am abiding by the law".

Today in some quarters, "tolerance" has come to mean that not only do you have to tolerate something, you need to either embrace it, celebrate it, or totally shut up.

There is no reason to try to impede someone's freedom to act the way they want. This means not trying to get anti-gay marriage laws passed, since a person shouldn't be hindered legally from marrying who she will. You don't have to embrace it. You have to embrace the rights of people to do what they want.

As an aside: Please don't constantly tell them that they're doing wrong (especially without a good reason). There's simply no reason to, and it's annoying. (That is not tolerating them, is it? Just think about it, regardless of the formal definition, you can't say you're tolerating someone if you're constantly telling them not to do what they're doing.)

And, as I've said earlier, this application of tolerance seems to flow one way - against traditionalists.

Traditionalists are the first not to tolerate new things, (generally) by definition.

Many traditionalists are told to shut up and tolerate, which strikes some traditionalists as very ironic. Everything is tolerated except traditional values.

No, this is where you didn't understand the argument from before. Everything is tolerated except for intolerance. That makes a heck of a lot of sense in my book.

My point is that a person who holds traditional values should be as free to express those values as a person who does not. That is not "forcing" my values down anybody's throat.

What does this look like? Give me examples of ideas you have expressed and have been shot down (by credible people) as intolerant. That would help me out a lot to see how much forcing is going on.

It is intolerant to tell someone who holds traditional values that they cannot express their views.

It's when they try to get their views passed into law that they are intolerant. Speaking your mind is fine, but trying to enforce your mind isn't.

Therefore, I will continue to say that I believe what Griffin actually said crossed the line.

What line? What does this mean? If it's the moral line, how can an atheist be held to a Christian standard? If it's the legal line, ... what? If it's the ethical line, I still don't understand. Which line are you talking about?

But I will not embrace what she said, nor will I be cowed into not speaking or expressing my opinion on a website where we are all allegedly able to do so, regardless of our ideology.

No one's asking for you to embrace what she said, no more than anyone wants you to accept that the chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. I would suggest that you think about this seed in terms of a) how disingenuous a lot of actors are when they thank god for their award, and how Kathy Griffin refused to be a hypocrite (instead, turning it into a joke), b) how the word 'blasphemy' means nothing to an atheist and c) how atheists cannot be held to Christian standards.

Maybe I was off base saying you were forcing your opinions on people, I don't know, but I do know that I don't like hearing anyone ('liberal' or 'conservative') getting offended over small things. That includes this, and it includes the article where Bush supposedly made a little girl cry. Neither is a big deal, and making them a big deal seems beneath us.

Sorry if my expressing that opinion before came off as harsh.

However, from now on, let's stick to arguing the facts and not make personal comments or generalizations (like about atheist mentors or the bad paths we're on or close mindedness, the left, etc., etc.), because that's when I get really perturbed.

Take care,
fouf

Mentors can be active and personal or they can be in the "virtual" sense of societal role models, heroes, authors, or other influencers.

No man is an island, indeed, and what foufga said.

On the issue of societal role models, I'd have to disagree again that most atheists in their 20s and 30s or older had many people to look up to. Just like positive gay role models, there just weren't that many for me when I was growing up. Every Christian typically has their pastor, but who did atheists of my generation have? Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the crazy lady (even if she was local for me in Austin). The number one thing I can remember about her from my childhood is that she was decapitated, dismembered, and buried in the hill country somewhere.

I can really only think of two, both of whom I found out were atheists after I had already started questioning: Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan. Even with these examples, although I read a number of Asimov's fiction works growing up, his fiction doesn't really deal with atheism, exactly. And I've never read a book by Sagan (although I do own The Demon Haunted World; it's on my [ever increasing] list of books "to read" *sigh*).

Haha, bull @!$%#. That is the pure @!$%# of bulls. No one has 'tutored' me or whatever you want to call it. Unlike the Christian model, in which the only way someone can possibly believe is by someone else telling them what to believe, atheists can become so just by looking at and thinking about nature objectively.

This is a straw man argument, Tom. I don't want to sound harsh, but this is the third or fourth time you've done this, so I'd avise you to look up what a straw man argument is and not do it again. No one believes that people live in a vacuum. It doesn't follow from that, however, that atheists can't become atheists solely by their own judgment and logic. In spiffie's model, atheists often come to their conclusions in spite of all these connections they have to others. (This was true for me.) Also: please don't respond with something like "I understand what strawman arguments are, but..."... just show me that you understand by not using them again.

And how do we obtain such esteemed skills of "judgment and logic," foufga? Are we born with them, or must we be trained in them? Show me the man who was born looking at things objectively. Interestingly, those who have not been exposed to the dogmas of various religions almost invariably fall into crude animism, not atheism. Why don't they use their esteemed "judgment and logic" to shake themselves free of such superstitious nonsense? Because they haven't been tutored, of course. :) Since it must be carefully tutored into an individual to produce the desired effect (the one you desire), I find your vaunted objectivity somewhat suspect.

Now this "tutoring" may either be explicit or implicit, but rest assured that it has happened to us all. We can build upon the same tradition as our mentors and tutors or we can react against it--but we cannot pretend to be unaffected by it. As you said, "no one believes that people live in a vacuum." Right you are. You can "react" against whatever religious influences have been in your life. But when you claim that atheists can become such by looking at nature "objectively" with no training and tutoring, permit me a small scoff.

As far as the actual topic at hand, I think her intentions are key to deciding whether she was "right" or "wrong" in what she said. If her main intent was to parody those who make such statements with nauseating frequency and she had not thought of the impropriety of her speech, I think she was tactless. If, however, she had thoughts of the negative impact of her speech but cared little, I think she was very wrong.

Tom:

I am not asking if you believe or care about the Bible or any other book. I was asking if you think Griffin was right to make the comment. Simple question and relevant. ...
Ergo, the question: what do you think about what she said?

Haha, if you think absolutely everything in the world can be lumped into "right" or "wrong" (obvious from your assumption that your question is simple), then you are truly deluded. Is it right or wrong for me to buy a Mountain Dew from a vending machine, or to say that my favorite color is blue? I found her comment funny: neither right nor wrong.

Apparently, you have an inability to see anything outside of your rigid "right or wrong" worldview -- either that, or you're pretending to do so because you have no strong arguments.

I see. So, you've never studied Dawkins, Darwin, Hitchens, Harris, Jacoby, Shermer, or other prominent athiests and evolutionists? At your school, you have no teachers or professors who advocate secularism? Do you have teachers and professors at your school? Of course you do. Of course you have mentors who have helped to guide you along the path that you are on now. It's nothing to be ashamed of. No need to be reactive, unless perhaps I hit a raw nerve.

Translation: I can't think of any cogent points to make, so let me play "amateur psychanalyst" as character assassination in hopes that I'll get some sort of reaction.

Jean:

Why don't they use their esteemed "judgment and logic" to shake themselves free of such superstitious nonsense? Because they haven't been tutored, of course. :) Since it must be carefully tutored into an individual to produce the desired effect (the one you desire), I find your vaunted objectivity somewhat suspect.

There was a point here, I'm sure.

spiffie became an atheist when being "tutored" in a very Christian environment. You seem to be a relatively intelligent person, so I doubt you'd stoop so low as to hypothesize that spiffie only became such because an insidious atheist mentor had infiltrated his Catechism class, sowing subliminal secularist seeds of doubt in his mind.

Again, I'm sure you had some sort of point. I'm just not sure what it is.

If her main intent was to parody those who make such statements with nauseating frequency and she had not thought of the impropriety of her speech, I think she was tactless. If, however, she had thoughts of the negative impact of her speech but cared little, I think she was very wrong.

I doubt you'd have any sort of similar reaction if many award winners thanked Zeus for their awards, and she'd said "F--- Zeus."

Interestingly, those who have not been exposed to the dogmas of various religions almost invariably fall into crude animism, not atheism.

Interestingly, I doubt you can ever begin to support that point.

I'd had no exposure to religious dogma before middle school. I didn't even know that some people capitalized "God" till 5th grade. I do not remember ever entertaining any thoughts of wood spirits or wind deities, so cut the crap.

You can "react" against whatever religious influences have been in your life. But when you claim that atheists can become such by looking at nature "objectively" with no training and tutoring, permit me a small scoff.

After you're done mini-scoffing, perhaps you'd like to reread Tom's statement: I think that is a neat pat answer that you've been given by those who are tutoring you in secularist thinking to further you in your journey away from your spiritual heritage.

You're taking a much more general definition of "training and tutoring" than his wild speculation.

First, I'd like to say sorry for the bad formatting earlier. I think I deleted the / in one of my /blockquote tags.

And how do we obtain such esteemed skills of "judgment and logic," foufga? Are we born with them, or must we be trained in them? Show me the man who was born looking at things objectively.

Another logical misstep. I'm not saying people are born completely logical. I'm saying that once they understand logic, they can come to atheism by themselves. That is, they're 'tutored' in logic, not in any of the ideas one concludes when applying logic to nature.

Interestingly, those who have not been exposed to the dogmas of various religions almost invariably fall into crude animism, not atheism. Why don't they use their esteemed "judgment and logic" to shake themselves free of such superstitious nonsense? Because they haven't been tutored, of course. :)

See above. They are not being logical. (They haven't been tutored in religion or logic.)

Since it must be carefully tutored into an individual to produce the desired effect (the one you desire), I find your vaunted objectivity somewhat suspect.

Nope. Unlike Christianity, atheism's conclusions do not have to be tutored. (There is no desired effect beyond clear thinking.)

But when you claim that atheists can become such by looking at nature "objectively" with no training and tutoring, permit me a small scoff.

You need to separate means and conclusions in your mind. Because now you're confusing the issues. Which is why you laugh.

As far as the actual topic at hand, I think her intentions are key to deciding whether she was "right" or "wrong" in what she said.

Fine, think that. I still maintain that comedy is neither right nor wrong.

If her main intent was to parody those who make such statements with nauseating frequency and she had not thought of the impropriety of her speech, I think she was tactless. If, however, she had thoughts of the negative impact of her speech but cared little, I think she was very wrong.

I would refer you to Ann Coulter.

Honestly, Jack, you didn't give me much time to enjoy my scoff. How about extending the deadline a little? :)

Anyway, you're probably right, I did rather extrapolate on Tom's original statement. The real point I was trying to make was against the ideal of Enlightenment Objectivity. I caught a whiff of it in foufga's posts and decided to play the Gadamerian--basically contending that prejudices and biases (or "tutoring," as I used the term) are necessary for all understanding. We do not necessarily follow the prejudices we encounter, but we do form our categories of thought from them.

Interestingly, I doubt you can ever begin to support that point.

You're right, I have no proof of that; it simply seems to be true from crude observation. So if anyone can present evidence to the contrary, I'll retract my statement.

I'd had no exposure to religious dogma before middle school. I didn't even know that some people capitalized "God" till 5th grade. I do not remember ever entertaining any thoughts of wood spirits or wind deities, so cut the crap.

Yes, but you had a prejudice against such things, didn't you? Didn't you ever worry about what might be out in the woods at night? Or what might lie under your bed? What might those fears have become if you didn't live in a world inhospitable to such supernatural urges?

Finally, as little respect as I have for Zeus and his philanderings,

I doubt you'd have any sort of similar reaction if many award winners thanked Zeus for their awards, and she'd said "F--- Zeus."

I'd like to think that I wouldn't have voiced loud approval over a lowbrow insult to what many people hold as valuable. While I agree that sometimes the ridiculous needs to be ridiculed, I recognize that others hold my views as "ridiculous" and I wish to treat others with the same respect that I want to be treated. So mockery should, I feel, be handled carefully and always with an eye to expose erroneous thinking rather than simply to advance the career of the user and magnify his/her wit.

Yes, but you had a prejudice against such things, didn't you?

I was raised to rationally analyze, to examine instinct and built-in/acquired biases instead of simply going with the flow.

Yes, but you had a prejudice against such things, didn't you? Didn't you ever worry about what might be out in the woods at night? Or what might lie under your bed? What might those fears have become if you didn't live in a world inhospitable to such supernatural urges?

Actually, fear of the unknown and of the dark is a biological instinct. Imagining an actual bogeyman is an imaginative urge. Simply being afraid of the dark is a survival instinct.

always with an eye to expose erroneous thinking

She was commenting on the superficial thanking of Jesus in other acceptance speeches.

Jean
Way to ignore my post
Is that a concession?

Yes foufga, upon reading your brilliant response, I immediately realized the error of my ways. . .or I was tired and went to bed (since it was late here). :) What an amusing person you are! Don't worry, I'll respond after I finish teaching my classes for the day.

Foufga, my attempt at responding to you and Spiffie in #20.56 was done civilly. You replied:

I don't want to sound harsh, but this is the third or fourth time you've done this, so I'd avise you to look up what a straw man argument is and not do it again.

just show me that you understand by not using them again.

I was not making an argument of any sort. I was showing respect to Spiffie and his convictions and merely noting that some people are influenced more directly than others. And, sorry to say it, but maybe you do sound harsh and patronizing...and, perhaps even a tiny bit judgmental.

There is no reason to try to impede someone's freedom to act the way they want.

That will come as welcome news to those who want to pray in school. ;-)

Seriously, Foufga, are you an anarchist? Of course there are times when people's desire "to act however they want" should be impeded. That happens every day in the real world, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

This means not trying to get anti-gay marriage laws passed, since a person shouldn't be hindered legally from marrying who she will. You don't have to embrace it. You have to embrace the rights of people to do what they want.

Actually, the conversation here was about Griffin failing to exercise some personal restraint or sensitivity in her remarks and whether or not a business (broadcasting company) has the right to censor those remarks.

Furthermore, nobody has to "embrace the rights of people to do what they want" when it means granting special legal status to behavior that many consider to be detrimental to society as a whole. How do you feel about embracing the rights of pedophiles to do whatever they want? How do you feel about embracing the rights of speeders on the highway? Does a big industry have a right to pollute the environment? Maybe we should grant special marriage rights to polygamists or those who favor sex with canines. In other words, just how far does your "live and let live" philosophy go?

Everything is tolerated except for intolerance. That makes a heck of a lot of sense in my book.

Except it's your definitions of what's "tolerance" and "intolerance;" what is "tolerable" and "intolerable." What do you do when your definitions clash with someone else's?

Again, I was not calling for a law against Kathy Griffin or blasphemy. I realize that you do not believe in God, therefore you do not see blasphemy as existing. However, you are a good person and you probably try in your life not to grossly offend the people around you. I am saying that Griffin - while making a valid point about entertainers who "thank Jesus" - said things that grossly offended millions of people. She may have a "right" to do that but for many of us, it doesn't make what she said "right."

Jack, my friend, you said:

Haha, if you think absolutely everything in the world can be lumped into "right" or "wrong" (obvious from your assumption that your question is simple), then you are truly deluded. Is it right or wrong for me to buy a Mountain Dew from a vending machine, or to say that my favorite color is blue? I found her comment funny: neither right nor wrong.

Apparently, you have an inability to see anything outside of your rigid "right or wrong" worldview -- either that, or you're pretending to do so because you have no strong arguments.

So, are you saying that you are right and I am wrong? ;-)

Explain to me, Jack, how asking if Foufga had ever been influenced by Dawkins et al was character assasination or attempting to psychoanalyze. I was merely wondering if Foufga had read or studied these noted athiests or evolutionists, as so many have. I was also noting that sometimes, we are affected more directly by personal role models we know, and sometimes we are affected more indirectly. There is nothing wrong with that. I am sure you yourself have someone in this world who has had a positive influence on your own thinking. Why is that such a threatening concept?

You said to Jean:

I doubt you'd have any sort of similar reaction if many award winners thanked Zeus for their awards, and she'd said "F--- Zeus."

That's a slightly skewed example, as I don't know many followers of Zeus around the world today. Personally, I would have been offended at her language regardless. However, why not make this more tangible: had she said "S--k it, Mohammed," or "S--k it, Krishna," I think a lot of people, myself included, would have been outraged. In fact, some people would have done a lot more than just expressed their outrage on an internet discussion site.

Those of you who see athiesm as a natural progression of simple logic still have to grapple with your initial input, your initial schooling: when you were "schooled in logic," what was the template that you were given with which to view the entire world? Your presupposition is that your "schooling in logic" is infallible, ergo whatever progresses from that point is true.

Now, with all due respect - and without any "concessions" - I am going to de-track this article as I simply do not have the time to continue this debate here, as it is merely a continuation of conversations we've had before and will no doubt have again in the future.

Best wishes to all, and good night.

That will come as welcome news to those who want to pray in school. ;-)

And as long as the teacher does not lead a class in prayer, I'm all for that.

had she said "S--k it, Mohammed,"

As mentioned above multiple times, she has no qualms about insulting Muslims.

when you were "schooled in logic," what was the template that you were given with which to view the entire world?

The development of a self-consistent framework based on and consistent with only the observed.

Your presupposition is that your "schooling in logic" is infallible, ergo whatever progresses from that point is true.

Yet our beliefs themselves are not infallible, which differentiates us from many, many of the religious.

I was not making an argument of any sort. I was showing respect to Spiffie and his convictions and merely noting that some people are influenced more directly than others. And, sorry to say it, but maybe you do sound harsh and patronizing...and, perhaps even a tiny bit judgmental.

Nope. The only patronizing is because you keep speaking against straw men (it was an argument against Spiffie, you said he was wrong when he said atheists don't need tutors) that no one is arguing for. Which you didn't seem to understand.

There is no reason to try to impede someone's freedom to act the way they want.

That will come as welcome news to those who want to pray in school. ;-)

On first instinct, I'd say that's fine (thought I'd have to think about it, because school is a special case, as I've discussed before). Obviously, the teacher can't endorse praying.

Seriously, Foufga, are you an anarchist?

Nope. The straw man beside me (the one you keep looking at) says to tell you he is.

I have many times talked about practicality and ethics.

Of course there are times when people's desire "to act however they want" should be impeded. That happens every day in the real world, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Examples?

This means not trying to get anti-gay marriage laws passed, since a person shouldn't be hindered legally from marrying who she will. You don't have to embrace it. You have to embrace the rights of people to do what they want.

Actually, the conversation here was about Griffin failing to exercise some personal restraint or sensitivity in her remarks and whether or not a business (broadcasting company) has the right to censor those remarks.

That's another discussion that we seem to be having elsewhere. Right now we're talking about the meaning of tolerance and how far Christians should be able to go.

Furthermore, nobody has to "embrace the rights of people to do what they want" when it means granting special legal status to behavior that many consider to be detrimental to society as a whole.

Um... you mean equal legal status, but whatever.
Homosexuality is not detrimental to society.

How do you feel about embracing the rights of pedophiles to do whatever they want?

How about pedophilia is unethical, homosexuality is not.

How do you feel about embracing the rights of speeders on the highway?

In the absence of anyone else, sure. But it is generally unethical to speed (because of safety considerations for others). I do believe the law should be more practical on this matter.

Does a big industry have a right to pollute the environment?

I suppose so, yes.

Maybe we should grant special marriage rights to polygamists or those who favor sex with canines.

Polygamy = more than 2 people = not a unified relationship.
With the canine sex, you don't have the dog's consent, so it's a moot point.
You need to be able to separate these concepts in your mind. Sex is no more important than race or personality when deciding who should legally be allowed to marry.

In other words, just how far does your "live and let live" philosophy go?

See above.

Everything is tolerated except for intolerance. That makes a heck of a lot of sense in my book.

Except it's your definitions of what's "tolerance" and "intolerance;" what is "tolerable" and "intolerable." What do you do when your definitions clash with someone else's?

My definitions are defined by more words. If you want to replace the word in your sentence with the full definition, feel free.

Again, I was not calling for a law against Kathy Griffin or blasphemy. I realize that you do not believe in God, therefore you do not see blasphemy as existing. However, you are a good person and you probably try in your life not to grossly offend the people around you. I am saying that Griffin - while making a valid point about entertainers who "thank Jesus" - said things that grossly offended millions of people.

Whether or not they should have gotten offended is still an open question. Should we live life in fear of offending people? No. Should we resist telling a joke when the majority of people will laugh but some will take it wrong? No. Especially when those same people who aren't going to laugh at the joke don't seem to care about the way others feel when they say "gay is not the way".

Another logical misstep. I'm not saying people are born completely logical. I'm saying that once they understand logic, they can come to atheism by themselves. That is, they're 'tutored' in logic, not in any of the ideas one concludes when applying logic to nature.

But you haven't answered the question that naturally arises then, that of why an individual must be "tutored" at all to see things objectively. Why should training be necessary for objectivity, and how can we be certain that we have reached objectivity? How do we know we've been properly trained?

See above. They are not being logical. (They haven't been tutored in religion or logic.)

In other words, people cannot come to atheism "solely by their own judgment and logic (since all men, no matter how uneducated, possess some rudiments of logic and certainly possess judgment)," they must be tutored--exactly what I was saying. This invalidates your claim of the superiority of atheism to religion on the basis that one must receive special instructions for the one and not for the other. Now I have had limited amounts of tutoring in logic, and I must confess I never came to atheistic conclusions from them. Of course, perhaps that is simply because I haven't applied them properly to nature. I may need your tutelage for that. :)

Your concept of "logic," however, appears one of the broadest and most unspecified I've ever come across. Perhaps rather than everyone around you intentionally creating "straw-men" and random other logical fallacies, you are yourself being rather less than lucid and lending yourself to misinterpretation.

feel they can say whatever, whenever it tickles their fancy

The nerve!

there are people in our society who do not Reverence the Lord

Indeed, I don't Reverence anything muchly.

She's ridiculous, her statement absurd and I'm sure like all the other idiot's out there who failed to control that little bugger between those thirty-two bars will receive the thrashing of America.

News at 11: Kathy Griffin supporters publicly flogged in the first official use of "the thrashing of America."

#23

Please don't display your ignorance in front of our thread host.

Freedom of speech is freedom from government interference. The government won't take care of Kathy Griffin's speech lapses, the market will.

We have that Imus thingy as a blueprint. Salute to the Democrats for providing the lesson.

I think at this point all I can say is, "Bring it on." Have you seen the people who buy ads on Bravo? I seriously doubt Griffin or her sponsors are quaking in their boots.

Yup. Now you're getting America. Welcome to the club!

Spiffie, I've never seen Bravo. What kind of spots run there?

We have that Imus thingy as a blueprint. Salute to the Democrats for providing the lesson.

*cough*Dixie Chicks*cough*

Great: and I get my freedom of speech to call her a two bit tramp and a damn un-funny second rate comedienne to boot.

...and you would be right. She's pretty awful.

Of course, at least she isn't disseminating clear falsehoods like... every Christian, even. Even myself, at one time. I sincerely regret it.

Spiffie, I've never seen Bravo. What kind of spots run there?

Let's just say they play for the other team.

Oh, spots, not sports. Well, Bravo has a somewhat interesting history. Originally, it was a competitor with A&E, back when A&E was the "Arts and Entertainment" channel (heavy on the Arts). Bravo was always a little more arty--kind of like a cable PBS in some ways. Like most cable channels in the US, they've suffered "mission creep/drift," straying far from their original focus (MTV, I'm looking at you). Bravo was the channel, for instance, that carried the original run of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, for one, and Project Runway, for another. (Both modest hits, mind you, in cable terms, but mission drift nonetheless.)

Spiffie, I think I'll just stay with Gunsmoke reruns. They've been airing again; Matt's still got that 10-shot six-gun.

What the:

Sorry, but not quite. Criticizing Griffin for making an obscene and blasphemous comment is not a failure on my part to "turn the other cheek." You may be struggling with what that concept means or what the context for the teaching of Jesus is all about. And, while He's more than capable of taking care of Himself, there's nothing wrong with me or any other decent person criticizing her for debasing the culture with her trashy talk.

Perhaps you think Christians should just shut up and go away. We won't.

Booya Booya. ;-)

No, it is a case of turn the other cheek. Jesus never made distinctions. Be humble, don't force your beliefs on others. god, how many times do we have to say that??

24.2

Jesus wasn't always meek.

But he told his followers to be. No conditions listed. Well, if you take the Bible as literal truth.

Also, I didn't look at the link, but I'm like 10,000 percent sure it's about the mess in the temple when Jesus tore up that place. So... here, he didn't tell his disciples to take care of it. He did. Let him do the same here. If he really cares (and has this feisty personality you suggest), she'll be punished, either with a lightning bolt or eternal damnation. So you can rest satisfied. Right?

Foufga, you are laying on the irony a little thick here:

Be humble, don't force your beliefs on others. god, how many times do we have to say that??

"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." — Jesus of Nazareth.

I told Him to say "Damned are the self-righteous and obnoxiously pietistic for they shall eternally populate hell" but He pointed out 2,000 years ago that it was not something an uneducated Jewish fisherman would get his head around. All those big Latinate words, you know. Gods can differ (and we often do), but now I think He had it right all along. He's quite the up-and-coming deity, sure. I always knew He had it in him.

I am always amused when Christian mockers push Christians to the limits and then demand that Christians behave like Christians. I imagine they hope to avert an ass whupping that way. A tip: I wouldn't rely on that course of action as Christians sometimes do things that they must ask forgiveness for afterwards.

then demand that Christians behave like Christians

How dare they! Don't they know that Christians only need to act Christian when you're agreeing with them! :-p

I imagine they hope to avert an ass whupping that way.

You're right. We're deathly afraid of the dreaded Interweb Ass-Whupping.

A tip: I wouldn't rely on that course of action as Christians sometimes do things that they must ask forgiveness for afterwards.

Translation: Don't count on Christians actually following the model of Christ, because as long as tehy ask for forgiveness afterwards, they can do whatever the f--- they want.

You keep spreading those good ol' Christian values, pumpkin.

To anyone who wants to make me feel silly for thinking and reacting as I do to the Name of Jesus being spoken to in this woman's way
What they said.........

Two things I want to add a ditto to:

I am always amused when Christian mockers push Christians to the limits and then demand that Christians behave like Christians. I imagine they hope to avert an ass whupping that way. A tip: I wouldn't rely on that course of action as Christians sometimes do things that they must ask forgiveness for afterwards.

AND

Perhaps you think Christians should just shut up and go away. We won't.

Booya Booya. ;-)

To that I will add, Christian is not to be defined as wimpy or doormat.

To that I will add, Christian is not to be defined as wimpy or doormat.

The history of Christianity has ensured that you'll never thought of as that, but rather it's opposite.

Or rather: "The history of Christianity has ensured that you'll never be thought of as that, but rather its opposite"

Yeah, those Christians like Bush sure practice peace!

/ sarcasm

Sorry Bozzor, Jesus told you people would ridicule you and call you crazy.

No offense; but you signed up for it, so don't acted frustrated that you can't bash heads.

Foufga, you are laying on the irony a little thick here:

Be humble, don't force your beliefs on others. god, how many times do we have to say that??

Um... no...? How is me pointing out the inconsistency in your position me being ironic? The ironic part is that Christians don't understand that they need to practice the Bible and ideology they push on others. Like saying a comedian can't insult the god that exists in your mind, but then refusing to ignore that same god's command to turn the other cheek. That's irony.

I am always amused when Christian mockers push Christians to the limits and then demand that Christians behave like Christians.

Why the hell would you find that funny? Do you not take your religion seriously? We take it to your grounds, and you're still not satisfied? This is why so many people don't like Christians. You can't argue with them on any level, even if you tell them to take the Bible as true like they make it out to be.

I imagine they hope to avert an ass whupping that way.

Not at all. It's just the only way there is to argue with someone who doesn't accept raw reality as true.

A tip: I wouldn't rely on that course of action as Christians sometimes do things that they must ask forgiveness for afterwards.

Um... okay? Read Romans or Corinthians or any of those, where license to do whatever (b/c of forgiveness) doesn't warrant sin? Your threat seems like lax Christianity to me.

By the way, what are you talking about that requires forgiveness afterwards? Blowing up abortion clinics? Molesting small boys? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Be humble, don't force your beliefs on others. god, how many times do we have to say that??

Yes, Foufga, that is indeed a terribly ironic statement. First of all, I never "forced" my beliefs on anyone. We are all supposedly intelligent and strong adults here. As far as I know, I'm still allowed to express my opinions here, just as you are.

Having you wave your finger and lecture me to "be humble" is indeed ironic, especially when followed with your "god, how many times do we have to say that??" statement. It's sad coming from anyone; doubly so coming from you.

Foufga, it seems you have changed greatly in the past month, becoming even more hostile and contrary to people of faith. You've become less open, less tolerant, and more dogmatic.

Of course, those are just my opinions and you being a strong and intelligent person, you are free to reject every word. Best wishes to you, regardless.

Jack, if you seriously felt that insulting Jesus would mean you would have thousands of Christians chase you down and kill you, would you do it?

No, but there are laws in place for that sort of thing. :-)

Then again, I wouldn't say such a thing in a public place in the Bible Belt. It only takes about a half-dozen strong Christians tos oundly beat me to a pulp.

The reason why many Christians get so upset about this is that they feel the message of peach Jesus gave is being ridiculed and set to the test by people just for fun, because they can get away with it.

Heh, I know it's a typo, but in the context of that sentence, it's hilarious.

Anyway, Griffin is ridiculing Jesus' message of peace? Oh, please. Get off your God-given high horse. Griffin explicitly stated the sarcastic contrast she was going for -- a contrast against award winners gratuitously thanking Jesus in their speeches.

Apparently, Christians are fine with ridiculing the gravity of the Lord's name if it sounds all nice and s---.

It's like tormenting a kind hearted lion: it could tear you to shreds in an instant, but simply will not do so. It's a cowards way to feel as if you are big and tough.

Hahaha, again with the bad analogies. "The limb-ripping claws of Jesus" is a funny image.

Yes, Foufga, that is indeed a terribly ironic statement. First of all, I never "forced" my beliefs on anyone. We are all supposedly intelligent and strong adults here. As far as I know, I'm still allowed to express my opinions here, just as you are.

Case in point: You're telling people (without any compelling evidence) to be mad at Griffin. That's forcing your beliefs on someone.

Having you wave your finger and lecture me to "be humble" is indeed ironic, especially when followed with your "god, how many times do we have to say that??" statement

That's frustration, not arrogance.

Foufga, it seems you have changed greatly in the past month, becoming even more hostile and contrary to people of faith.

It always has to be about you, doesn't it?

You've become less open, less tolerant, and more dogmatic.

I've been more than a little upset at reading a lot of unclear thinking lately. I've always been able to kindof sugarcoat how frustrated I am when people can't adequately debate, but now I have school, and that sugarcoating is time-consuming. I haven't changed, I'm just too busy to put thoughts nicely at the moment.

Also: You call me intolerant, close-minded, and dogmatic :P Seeing that I've allowed myself to be proved wrong multiple times (in even major ways), you are dead wrong. You, on the other hand, have yet to let solid evidence persuade you. I'll let you discern the irony here.

Of course, those are just my opinions and you being a strong and intelligent person, you are free to reject every word.

That's the thing, these are all opinions, and there's no reason for me to believe them. Unlike the positions of many 'secularists' or whatever you call them, who come to their conclusions from what they directly observe (in nature) and work out.

It only takes about a half-dozen strong Christians to soundly beat me to a pulp.

Only half a dozen, Jack? Dude, you should work out!

In my defense, those half-dozen Bible Belters are all packing shotguns hoisted from their Ford-tough back-window gun racks.

Even with my mad ninja powers, one can dodge only so much birdshot.

If they're busy all day thumpin' Bibles, they've no time to practice shootin'. How can ye practice shootin' if ye're busy thumpin' Bibles!?

Case in point: You're telling people (without any compelling evidence) to be mad at Griffin. That's forcing your beliefs on someone.

Foufga, you are not a robot and neither am I. Some things make you happy, some things make you sad, some things make you angry. When someone calls one of your friends bad names, I don't suppose you like it. When someone insults something you cherish, it angers and frustrates you. I've seen it.

Furthermore, I am not "telling" anybody to be mad at Griffin. I said I was and straight up simply asked you - regardless of her "rights" to say something, do you personally believe it was a good or right thing, according to your own beliefs or values?

That is not "forcing" anything on anybody - it was inviting you to share you opinion.

Knee-jerk pat answers that ignore the real questions are not particularly helpful, regardless of one's ideology.

Oh, and Dagda is exactly right: Christians cain't shoot straight atall, what with all the Bible thumpin' going on. There's no time to practice shootin' out behind the trailer when we gotta git on up thar to the Wal Marts and yell at the whoremongers. So, Jack, ya got nothin' to worry 'bout 'cuz ain't no good Christian gonna be shootin' up yer hind end. Course I ain't said nothin' about no bad Christians, cuz mebbe they ain't doin' so much of that thar Bible studyin' an' thumpin' an such, so ya never know what them kind is gonna be up to. So if'n ya hear some Picasso-faced redneck start to pluckin' on a banjo or stuff like that, ya better be keepin' an eye out fer trouble. An' besides that, everbody is a-knowin' that Christians don't drive Ford pickemup trucks. Naw, we're Chevy folks.

You've ignored all the salient points many of us have brought up. I don't know how to help you see that.

And don't start on this "you're going down the wrong road" @!$%# because 1) you have never proved it's the wrong road, 2) it's my life, and the only thing I want is everyone to have theirs, 3) I think through what I do and am not told what to do, and 4) I let myself be persuaded by logic, so you can't say you're the thinker and I'm the trite one. I'm really waiting for facts. Look back through my posts and try to think about what I'm saying from a neutral perspective. See what I'm trying to say. That will make many of us respect you more than repeating things like you have been.

Foufga, see #20.44, and we can sort of bring these various loose ends together here.

Also, try speaking less for "us" (whoever that is) and just speak for yourself. You don't have to be the spokesperson for all of the athiests in the room; I'm sure they want the chance to bash me on their own, and I don't want to deny them that opportunity. ;-)

You're right, because you're so important that we're all out to get you.
Not all of us have purpose-driven lives.

Also: Did you see 20.47? Because I've answered it like three times now.
Further: I say "us" because you generalize "liberals" and "the left". If you join us in your mind, I might as well make things easier on you by saying "us". Please don't blame stuff like that on me.

I responded up above again in the comment 20 section, which will hopefully tie the various loose thread and comments together. Niether you nor I have the time to chase rabbits all over this topic thread, eh?

If you seriously felt that insulting Jesus would mean you would have thousands of Christians chase you down and kill you, would you do it?

I would, but only in Texas. Nothin' better than makin' thousands of Christian martyrs out of one murder. And oh the irony of havin' thousands of Christians vote to give the death penalty to thousands of Christians who killed Me just so they could feel more Christian.

Plus, being divine, I wouldn't really die. I'd lay low in Senegal or maybe Killybegs until after the trials and executions then come back and have a good laugh. Arrah I love a good laugh almost as much as I love a pint o' plain.

Dagda, I'll give this to you ...

You are way funnier than Kathy Griffin.

I am that, and 'tis no lie. So suck it, Jupiter!

as evidenced by your gazillion posts in this thread?

What system do you employ when you count?

In the decimal system, you have 10 posts so far on this article. Yeah, I guess that's a bit less than 1 gazillion. So, yeah, you are right, greck is wrong. You are indeed ignoring her. Happy now? Yay!

you forget that the nature of each backroads post is sooooo definitive and self evident that it's value is exponential in terms of "not ignoring"
one backroads post not ignoring is like a quarter bazillion, I guess I just rounded up to the nearest fake astronomical figure.

Thanks for the count. I need you to run some errands for me now.

No, I'm not ignoring her. If I was, I wouldn't have responded.

greck, you're clearly fussy. Did I step on your Kathy? A fan club president by any chance?

backroads, my friend, your obsession with Kathy seems a bit unhealthy to me. If I were you, I'd untwist those panties and get myself to a shrink, like, now. What is it that keeps you coming back to comment about Kathy and argue about her with other folks despite your claim that you just ignore her?

Really, pal, sounds to me, like you might actually have a sub-conscious obsession with her. She's a strong woman and sometimes men (like you I presume?) like being dominated by a strong woman, if not in person, then, in thoughts. If that is the case, I guess what's unhealthy is your self-denial that you are obsessed about Kathy.

nope, I think she's obnoxious and rarely funny.
This particular incident I think is one of her better thought out and clever moments, but still not winning me as a fan.

I was just enjoying pointing out the inconsistency between what you think you are and you actually are. Especially since your posts are so consistently definitive and not backed by evidence, as though because you say it, that's what people should believe.

nice try though.

I don't mind if someone goes out their way to defend her, although I do find it amusing that some go out of their way to deny others the right to mock her. Is there a limit to the number of comments someone can make? It appears so with some.

Rather like those rigid environmentalists. No disagreeing with them.