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

she sucked the life out of the show

It being a sketch comedy show, and all.

Chasing,

Where is Sinead O'Connor now, by the way? Was that a great career move for her? And, do you think it helped SNL or hurt it at that time?

I believe it was Kevin Nealon who talked about the incident. Nothing like a wet blanket to ruin the inertia. Guess she thought it was her show. Guess Kathy Griffin thought it was her show, too.

Tom, I think you misunderstood my meaning. Of course her stunt sucked the life out of a sketch comedy show. That doesn't make her (or SNL) "wrong", necessarily, but it was a dumb move in a pretty stupid forum for it. But, as for Sinead, she's doing alright, better than most one-hit-wonders, and her reggae album was actually pretty good. I think it's pretty universally understood that she's a tad nutty, though that's of course her right, and she seems to be able to afford it anyway.

Bozzor, I really don't know much about her. Isn't she all about being offensive?

Sinead is nuttier than a fruitcake. Her career went into the toilet after the incident and she has had multiple episodes of public weirdness. Actually, I feel a little sorry for her. She is one of the most contrary individuals on earth.

She may have made the occasional album here and there, and maybe some of them have been artistically decent, but not only have none of them "gone platinum," they haven't sold enough to "go cardboard."

May the same fate befall Kathy Griffin.

bozzor @ 26.8

I haven't any use for Sinead's politics, but her Thank You for Hearing Me is one of the most moving pieces of music I've ever heard.

Sinead O Connor's latest album, ironically enough, is titled "Theology". She was on Raidio Teilifis Éireann earlier this year singing the Mary Magdaleine song from "Jesus Christ Superstar," "I Don't Know How to Love Him." In the interview after her performance she said "God and religion are two different things" and "we have to rescue God from religion because a lot of people do need God."

Sinead on RTÉ Continued interview

She got into a row over "stealing" another woman's husband then announced that the relationship with him was over soon after she gave birth to his child, her fourth. All four children have different fathers.

There was a European tour this summer but she took ill in France and had to cancel a show there. She is expected to perform in America later this week, after many sellout shows in Europe.

Thanks to www.Sinead-OConnor.com for the information. It is an unofficial fan webpage.

May the same fate befall Kathy Griffin.

I think it befell Kathy Griffin before she even got out of bed in the morning. Or perhaps at birth. Which is to say, it isn't as though she has all that far to fall from the "D list" - this incident is giving her the most exposure she's had...well, ever. This IS her high-point.

Oh, and while a singer from Catholic Ireland, ripping up a picture of the Pope, may not exactly fit the bill for SNL, let's not pretend that this isn't the same show that gave us the award-winning "Dick In A Box", either.

she doesn't really know whether people give a toss about her views till she expresses them now, does she?

I mean, there is an irish band out there who does manage to successfully fuse the political with their music.
can't think if the name just now, but they were at the US festival back in the 80's, singer had a mullet. I think they won a grammy recently even.

I think her problem was that she ceased being musically interesting to alot of people, and she let her hair grow out.

I had a huge crush on her when she was bald, but by the time she had her top 10 hit, she'd lost me. I'm sure she's never gotten over it; poor thing.

the pope tearing thing? eh...
didn't impress me that much.

I'm sure she's quite sorry that she doesn't fit your perception of what a musician should be and the parameters within which they should live or how they should spend their social capital. [/sarcasm]

Talented or not, Sinead's career has gotten quite a boost from this topic thread.

It is a little sad when indeed when someone as artistically talented as Sinead O'Connor starts to believe that anyone gives a toss about their political views. They should stick to what they are good at and not assume expertise in one area gives them divine knowledge in all areas...

Hahaha, so what does that make you? Oh wait, you're different: you think "anyone gives a toss about [your] political views" without having demonstrated talent in any area.

Leaky pot, meet kettle.

P.S. - I'm tickled that you think someone expressing disagreeing views means they think they have divine knowledge.

Talented or not, Sinead's career has gotten quite a boost from this topic thread.

Yes, Tom. Any other faded/fading liberal artistes you would like to help relaunch their careers? I'm sure they will be eternally grateful after they make their first million.

Yes, where is Country Joe and the Fish these days? Have they attacked the Pope or anybody? Robert Tilton? Work with me here, Dagda, LOL.

Country Joe McDonald & some of the Fish are still together as the Country Joe Band and guess what, they have released an antiwar song, "Cakewalk To Baghdad." Poke Richard Perle in the eye with the cursor to listen to the song. They still tour occasionally, just got back from the UK and Joe will play a tribute to Woody Guthrie in New York at Joe's Pub in October. Next week, he will be memorializing 1,800 World War I dead from California at UC Berkeley Stadium at noon Tuesday. He is one of the judges in the upcoming Ballad of Molly Ivins Songwriting Contest. Go Fish!

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn...

LOL, that was excellent, Dagda. Well, we've promoted Kathy Griffin, Sinead O'Connor, and Country Joe and the Fish so far. How left wing is Air Supply?

Air Supply have never really gone away, but they are neither American (one Limey, one Aussie) nor very political. Currently on their endless world tour (South Africa last week, New York City (OK OK so it's Staten Island!) tonight, then off to Canada, the Middle West and finally the islands in October (Japan, Ireland, England), their picture is in the dictionary under "peripatetic." Although ye could Dixie Chick them by pointing out they were the first rock act to tour Communist Cuba in 2005! Also the first to tour Communist China, Myanmar, Kyrgizstan and other former Soviet republics[cue suspenseful fanfare] Duh-duh DUH! In fact, if yer God-forsaken country hasn't hosted a monster Air Supply show yet, 'twas only because ye weren't tryin' hard enough. They killed in Cuba, though, selling out a stadium of 175,000 fans for one show. Actually no, 'twas Hurricane Dennis which killed, for it came ashore the next day and cancelled their second show.

They play a lot of casinos, because sometimes they're "all out of love, so lost without you" but then they hit the craps tables and 7, maybe 11 minutes later, they're straight again.

Dagda, again I am in awe.

Of course not - she has a lot of plastic surgery to protect!!

Are you making a death threat, Brett?

Are you making a death threat, Brett?

I believe that's known as irony, Dag.

Are you making a death threat, Brett?

You have got to be kidding me.

Te scáolleadhaim, a Bhriot, in ainm an Dhagda an Mhór, an Dhía go han-deas. Absolvete, Brit, in nomine Dagda Majoribus, Deus omnipotens quod bonus.

Te scáolleadhaim, a Bhriot, in ainm an Dhagda an Mhór, an Dhía go han-deas. Absolvete, Brit, in nomine Dagda Majoribus, Deus omnipotens quod bonus.

That is like, so totally my favorite Enya song.

Really, Tom, I might have taken you for a Christian. Welcome to Druidry, Mo mhic.

Hehehehe, I'm no Druid, but I am a Celt.

@indica
You took the words right out of my mouth - friend request pending.

I don't think she should have gotten 'in our faces', because I don't want ANY belief shoved down my throat. I do agree with everything else you said, though.

I don't think "Suck it, Jesus" counts as a belief, though, Indica. As for shoving it down your throat, He is a gentle, loving God and would never shove it, at least not purposefully.

He is a gentle, loving God and would never shove it, at least not purposefully.

But his people sure as hell do.

Arrah, those aren't His people, foufga. They're sorta like the eejits who show up shirtless at Green Bay football games in December, when 'tis so cold they do be usin' pats o' butter as Ninja stars. They aren't really helpin' the squad win th' game, y'see, 'tis only they wantin' to be seen as more loopy than th' rest o' th' culchies. 'Tis a mild form o' dementia, an' will go away directly they leave off the pollution.

So you wouldn't support anyone who lobbies for more Christian influence in government or to keep the ten commandments in courtrooms or to stop abortion?

The statement isn't a belief but it's how she chooses to get her beliefs across.

Well, if she made a racist comment, it's freedom of speech isn't it? And it may well be funny to boot! I guess that would be fine too.

It would be exactly the same, yes. She would be responsible for whatever consequences the comment would have on her public image and such, but it would still be well within her right of free speech so long as she's not trying to cause a riot or something.

More people would probably be pissed at her had it been a racist comment, but that's besides the point really, that's just the consequence she'd have to deal with in that case.

Rukh, I agree with what you just said.

People like excuses to vent steam once in a while.

well if we're going to scream about insulting things pertaining to God, lets vent on something at least worth venting about....like say, Dubya saying God told him to go to war. IF you ask me, that's 10x more disturbing and unChristian than any red headed d-rate entertainer blabs out

No, see, we should only vent about things that don't really matter.

That's the rule.

Griffin has no problem insulting Muslims.

Well good for her then.

Not good for whatever point you thought you had, though.

I love watching the religion bashers and the defenders of the church go at it. It's kinda like watching little wars spring up.

Nice framing. I should try it. "Defenders of reason" and "assassins of logic…," how does that sound? No? How about we stick to more neutral terms then.

It is not our place as fallible humans to dictate or pass judgment. If you are a person of faith, live your faith and stop seeking retaliation.

This part is good.

Religious bashers- I can see your distaste for religion, but egging on those who are of faith accomplishes nothing

This part, not so much. REMINDER: This thread was started by a "defender of the church" on a public discussion site with the opening comment, "Aside from the blasphemous nature of the remark itself, the other things that are especially disgusting about this it is that she thought she could get away with it." Just who is egging on whom here?

Where is the honor in this?

We're just talking. When we can't even talk about these issues anymore, then we have a problem.

One argument of an atheist is they do not need religion to be moral, but is attacking another human who disagrees with you a moral action?

Uhm, what about the "defenders of the church" who have said such vicious things about Griffin on this thread? Meanwhile, who else is "attacking?"

Oh Spiffie, good to see you are on your game today.

Meanwhile, who else is "attacking?"

Thread 1.2, Thread 1.13, Thread 1.15, Thread 2, Thread 2.7, Thread 7, Thread 8, Thread 9.1, Thread 11.2, Thread 11.5, Thread 12.1, Thread 12.14, Thread 14.1, Thread 16, Thread 17.2, Thread 20.3, Thread 20.9, Thread 20.12, Thread 24.8, Thread 29, Thread 31, Thread 35.

That's just the left, should I go into the right?

You said "attacking another human who disagrees with you", not "criticizing/attacking an idea."

Just skimming through your list, I'd say that most of it lists statements against Christianity.
I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between a religion and a person.

It's a pretty basic distinction, like the difference between "a banana" and "the color green."

And how is 20.9 an attack on anything? Pointing out the existence of non-Christians is an attack on... what, exactly?

Here we go.

Ok, 20.9, my mistake. Part of my human infallibility. What about the rest Jack? Come on, you surely could have pulled more than just one mistake out of a list of 22 threads. Your slacking Jack.

and surely he will.

Care to address the rest of my comment, or would you actually like me to play the part of your fourth-grade English teacher?

Your "human fallibility" here simply suggests that your list is barely more than a grab at straws that you hope will look superficially impressive.

Yeah Dagha, no doubt hehe

So that's a "no" for addressing the bulk of my comment?

Interesting double standard you have there. Ask for evidence yet ignore the bits you can't refute.

This why I love being a US citizen, I "choose" not to address each comment, I "choose" to deal with one erroneous issue at a time, Jack.

Just skimming through your list, I'd say that most of it lists statements against Christianity.
I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between a religion and a person.

I appreciate your surprise, I guess, maybe, well, no maybe not. Christianity is a representation of people, therefore when you attack an ideology, you attack people. The people who are attacked are attacked based on their POV, in this particular discussion, due their belief, or religious stance, therefore in a case such as this religion and person are synonymous.

Did I address the "bulk" of your comment Jack? Did my response suffice, or would you like to tutor me on how to appropriately address your comments? Jack.

Your use of satire as it was so called months ago is appalling Jack. If you cannot make a point without the blatant use of an offensive demeanor, maybe you need the fourth grade tutor? Jack.

Oh, and Jack, bananas are green before they ripen, sorry missed that comment rebuttal.

This why I love being a US citizen, I "choose" not to address each comment, I "choose" to deal with one erroneous issue at a time, Jack.

Whoa. No. Way. I don't even have choices as a mere permanent US resident. I gotta get on this citizenship train. I mean, you surely had some sort of point with this comment. (...right?) ;-)

Christianity is a representation of people, therefore when you attack an ideology, you attack people.

And people choose to make the word "Christianity" represent them. Attacking a belief only attacks people if believers in the idea decide to make it personal. If I said "Thinking that light is made of waves is just ridiculous, it's actually made of asparagus", it's entirely up to wave-light believers to consciously decide to take it personally.

in a case such as this religion and person are synonymous.

So I guess, in certain instances, you can't tell the difference.

If a person ever describes him/herself as defined by his/her religion, then that is cause for true pity.

It's entirely up to the believer to take an attack on any belief as a personal attack. No matter how helpless you think believers are, they are still (hopefully) not synonymous with a set of beliefs.

Oh, and Jack, bananas are green before they ripen, sorry missed that comment rebuttal.

I wondered when you'd get around to that.

Christians have a choice of what to believe in. Bananas can't really choose to color themselves red instead of green (can they?). So, as always, you're right, bananas thinking that someone criticizing or attacking the color green is a personal attack actually makes a lot more sense than Christians thinking that a criticism/attack of Christianity is a personal attack.

Thank you for clarifying.

Your use of satire as it was so called months ago is appalling Jack.

I vaugely remember something about you getting annoyed at satire. As far as I recall, your viewpoint was in the abject minority. I suppose I should be flattered by your memory of all that, though.

I vaugely remember something about you getting annoyed at satire. As far as I recall, your viewpoint was in the abject minority. I suppose I should be flattered by your memory of all that, though.

That got a giggle.

Short version:

Just because you disagree with the content of someone's response does not mean they are attacking you. Just because someone brings up the verified, although salacious, history of an organization that you happen to like does not make it an attack. Discussing the relative importance of the matter at hand to other matters is not an attack.

Long version:

Thread 1.2: Which was dealt with in #1.18. The church moved *known* child molesters from parish to parish, failed to report criminal activity, and otherwise prevented these crimes from coming to light for decades. This was performed on a large, international scale, enveloped dozens of disocses and multiple high-ranking Catholic officials, including Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. Perhaps "sanctioned" is too strong a word, but "complicit" is certainly accurate enough.

Thread 1.13:
I'm not sure which part of this comment you mean. Who is being attacked, unless you're here to defend Kathy Griffin and Sinead O'Connor?

Thread 1.15:
Again, who is being attacked? No one that I see.

Thread 2:
"Because it's hilarious" is seriously now an attack? *Seriously*? Come on now.

Thread 2.7:
Did she or did she not manufacture a comment of much greater length and barely tenuous connection to the poster in #2 and try to attribute motivations to him which were not apparent in the original comment? It's called a strawman. Wikipedia has a decent introductory article on the rhetorical tactic. I think it's pretty clear that's exactly what she did, and so #2.7 is precisely accurate.

Thread 7:
Ha. This one I'll give you, although to be fair, mcrutchfield is being fair, too, and pointing out that some of the very people who mocked/criticised Muslims for being violently upset over the Muhammed cartoons are now SHOCKED AND DISMAYED when the shoe is on the other foot.

Thread 8:
I gave you #7, but this isn't an attack. Pointing out a disconnect between rhetoric and action isn't "attacking" someone.

Thread 9.1:
As with both #7 and #8, pointing out the inconsistency of behavior is not an "attack."

Thread 11.2:
Is it your opinion that this is a serious, grave issue demanding the amount of effort that's gone into this thread? Is there nothing of more importance that might occupy our time? Regardless, it is at least a fair *opinion* for someone to hold that this is a nonsense issue, whether you agree or not.

Thread 11.5:
What's the attack in this one? We've spent two days coming over this event and the MoveOn ad while US troops and Iraqi civilians continue to die. This isn't a trivial distraction?

Thread 12.1:
While you may not agree, there is a (albeit small) section of scholarly research which questions the existence of Jesus himself. I would say it's hardly the majority, but there are arguments, both archaeological and textual, to support this opinion. It's not an attack.

Thread 12.14:
Again, an opinion about the triviality of this issue is not a personal attack against anyone.

Thread 14.1:
Why don't you just include every single one of Jack's comments. It would have saved you a lot of time. *Rolls eyes*

Fine, this one could be qualified (perhaps) as an "attack," but only in kind. Personally, considering that #14 implied a large number of the participants on this thread were hypocrites, I think Jack was remarkably restrained.

Thread 16:
Not an attack. It's a *very frequent* thread of conversation that "The Liberals" want to impose some PC fascist speech code on everyone else, and this is, again, an example of rhetoric not matching actions.

Thread 17.2:
Where is the attack?

Thread 20.3: (Winner of the sheer chutzpah award!) You have got to be joking. I'm not even sure this warrants a response. You cannot deny that this country's bedrock document, the US Constitution, fails to mention a creator or deity a single time, but makes a point to mention no religious test shall be required to hold public office. You cannot deny that the 1st amendment is very explicit about the establishment of a state religion. You cannot deny that there have been multiple scandals involving Christian leaders, especially over the last 25 years, from Jim Baker to Jimmy Swaggert to Ted Haggard to the Catholic priest pedophile cases (and these are the highlights). Point out an attack anywhere in that comment.

Thread 20.12:
Where is the attack? America is not a Christian nation, and I've already dealt with the triviality of this issue being an opinion that should be considered seriously (or at least fairly).

Thread 24.8:
Once more, pointing out discrepancies in rhetoric and action is not an attack. Try again.

Thread 29: (Winner of the unintentional irony award!) Now you're including Brett in the camp of the liberals? I'm very sure he'd be quite insulted. ;-)

That you can't detect the irony in his comment explains quite a bit, I think.

Thread 31:
I'm stunned that you included this very reasonably worded comment. You may not agree with its content, but that can't be said to constitute an "attack." In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Thread 35:
Attack?

Well, that was fun. Tune in next week! On second thought, I'm never doing this again. Get it while it lasts!

Thread #1.13, being written by Me, an older and definitely wiser God than Jesus, cannot be seen as attacking in that ,were I to attack anyone or anything, the world would end. I simply cannot control My awesome attacking power once I unleash it, so therefore I must muffle it and joke about things, rather than destroy them. It is a curse of being godly.

Hey spiffie, how'd you get those comment links to work like you did? *looks in awe at amazing post* Because I really want to know.

Every comment has a link, like yours here is #36.16. Those links are all HTML anchor tags. If you copy the link, like:

http://borys.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/12/957405-kathy-griffins-idea-of-an-acceptance-speech-suck-it-jesus-this-award-is-my-god-now#c1026332

(which is the URL for your last comment) and then use that URL in the link in a post, it will take you to the specific comment.

Newsvine is full of little touches like that. :-)

Ah! Wow, I'd always tried to click on the name at the top, never thought of clicking on the number. Newsvine rocks my world.

Finally, something we agree on!

oops husband to Mary

Hey, Mohammad's 4th wife was 7 when he married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage. It is what it is, not what you want it to be. The way people lived in the past that is.

Oh come on. Don't you know that all Christians are right-wingers? :-p

Translation: I think it's "Left vs. Right" because it's "Left vs. Right."

You've given no substantive support to your assertion. You simply repeated it.

Care to elaborate?

The Left fiercely defend the right to offend Christians and demand that Christians accept it

Yeah, freedom of speech is a @!$%# isn't it.

My question to the right, as a moderate, is what is the difference between this and just about anything Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh say?

Answer: She's a comedian, no one takes her too seriously.

Are you trying to argue that there is a right not to be offended by the speech of other people? What are your proposed remedies? What are the limits? How does the government enforce such a right?

I'm genuinely curious how you think this would work out.

I'd like to see them try to enforce it because:

Are you trying to argue that there is a right not to be offended by the speech of other people?

I'm offended by that statement too many words with more then four letters.

Chewb1zz, I just don't think it would work out the way they want it to work out. If you look at parts of Europe that have relatively strong hate-speech laws on the books and relatively weak free speech protections (compared to the US) what you see is that, sure, neo-nazis are running afoul of the laws, but also (in at least a couple cases) so are fiery, ultra-conservative Christian preachers.

I just think if we went down the road of prosecuting people for offensive speech, what Bozzor would quickly find out is that people whose speech he's inclined to like would find themselves targeted as much or more than people whose speech he does not. That's why it's worth it for everyone to fight for freedom of speech, even and especially speech they dislike.

I just think if we went down the road of prosecuting people for offensive speech, what Bozzor would quickly find out is that people whose speech he's inclined to like would find themselves targeted as much or more than people whose speech he does not. That's why it's worth it for everyone to fight for freedom of speech, even and especially speech they dislike.

Spiffie, I totally agree with that.

The only thing is, Europe has laws regarding "hate speech" (which, by the way, do not at all apply to people speaking hatefully about Christianity). I don't think Bozzor or I are calling for speech laws here in the USA regarding Kathy Griffin. All I am saying is this: she has a "right" to say what she said and the network as a private entity has a right to censor her speech and we as the public have a right to decide if Griffin or the network are right.

Right?

Well, that's kind of what I'm asking. Bozzor has indicated that Griffin shouldn't have "thought she could get away with it" and implied that Christians won't "accept it." So what's the consequence he has in mind?

I would imagine that Bozzor means that many Christians are going to speak out against it, to reiterate that Griffin went too far, and that the broadcasters are right to use some discernment when it comes to censoring some of her remarks. The same way that the gay community rightfully spoke out against Jerry Lewis calling somebody a "f-ggot" the other day on his telethon.

The Left fiercely defend the right to offend Christians and demand that Christians accept it

I think there's something else there. Everyone should fiercely defend the rights of individuals to offensive speech. He's not making an economic argument that I can see.

Indeed, defending the rights espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration is about as fundamentally conservative as you can get. I have a feeling Goldwater would be echoing exactly what I said: both the tight-assed Christians and the tight-assed Muslims need to just get over it already. If they'd ignored the @!$%#s who made these statements the "controversy" would have died already.

I repeat: I had no idea who Griffin was before Bozzor seeded this. Would not my (and many others) continued ignorance of a two-bit rather unfunny comic been worth a little suffering in silence?

Blasphemy is not a crime, Bozzor. Extortion is.

I keep trying to point out to you that she's not likely to lose income from this. Her act includes similar material, and has for many years. This is only enhancing her reputation among her fans and exposing her to new ones. You're unintentionally helping her.

It's only plasphemy if you believe.

I seem to remember some hippy talking about turning the other cheek and not judging others lest you yourself be judged. I guess you'd be all for taking his traitorous ass outside and nailing his candy ass to a couple of handy sticks, eh? After all, he terribly offended the religious authorities and did all manner of things considered blasphemous at the time.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

If you call yourself a Christian, it is only fair that we demand that you act like one, not one of the Pharisees.

Oh, and I left one out:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I hear little love coming from the "Christian" camp. I hear talk of revenge, and wanting to make the unfunny @!$%# suffer. Note, that as usual, Christ directs the force of the law on the person practicing it, not on how it is to be enforced on others. With rare exceptions this is the basic construction of the truly fundamental Christian faith: a personal relationship with God and the tending of said relationship and its requirements without worrying too much about what everybody else is doing. Christians are called to be a shining light to the world, not a jackboot in the face.

That's because this lot is ChINO — Christian In Name Only. They go to churches where hate is taught, not love, and then go forth among all nations to sow fear and intimidation. They are the ones Christ Himself mentioned will sit at God's left hand.

See, now we're back to "banning" and I'm very uncomfortable with that term. What does "banning" mean? Do you forbid the sale of her CDs and DVDs? Do you eliminate her television show? How is this accomplished?

If you just mean "shunning," perhaps via a personal policy of not supporting her then that's fine. But "banning" carries a different denotation for me.

The Left fiercely defend the right to offend Christians and demand that Christians accept it - this is hardly the most earth shattering of conclusions to draw from this thread.

Haha, yes, because "Left" and "Christians" are mutually exclusive groups. Please, this is just pathetic.

And the "right to offend Christians" is part of the "right to free speech," along with the "right to offend lawyers" and "right to offend women."

I'm sure you thought you had some sort of point here.

My point is she should face a public backlash from Christians (and a PEACEFUL one).

Ah yes, the "b---- at the poopyhead" strategy. Well, at least Christians aren't slaughtering people for disagreeing. In relative terms, I guess it's a big inprovement.

ChINO are very common and they are the ones who truly are to be pitied. They really are not Christians at all.

Except when people try to claim that America is a Christian nation. Then, magically, these faux Christians suddenly get fill their solidarity quota.

The consequences? Increased publicity, more ticket sales at her shows, and the attention she craves? Yeah, she's really hurting.

I can just hear her now. "Ow. Ow. Quit it."

Yes, meanwhile she's makin' thousands o' dollars a night and livin' th' life o' Riley. Exercise more free speech, Bozzor: she wants a condo on th' Riviera and a Lamborghini.

Yeh, such as people would forget she ever said it, an' get on wi' their lives. Wouldn't want that, would ye?

Bozzor:
So I'm getting this... You basically want Kathy Griffin to know 1) that you and your friends don't like what she said. And that 2) there are consequences. Now. For her, the consequences (as per above) are generally good. Also, Kathy Griffin will never read this discussion. So I don't really know what you're trying to accomplish here.

Well he sartainly used up a great deal o' th' unlimited resource known as Cyberspace. At this rate, it may run out t'ree whole days before eternity.

Could be. But then again, if Jesus were here to defend himself, I don't think even Kathy Griffin would be dumb enough to insult him on TV, lol.

That's true. I wonder how many of the people that are mad are upset because they feel they've been insulted. In short they're defending themselves, not Jesus.

if Jesus were here to defend himself, I don't think even Kathy Griffin would be dumb enough to insult him on TV,

Not necessarily, my friend. It would depend on their lawyers. If Kathy knew Jesus wasn't rich enough to afford a good lawyer, she wouldn't be afraid of insulting him. It's all about the lawsuits.

@Matthew B

I wonder how many of the people that are mad are upset because they feel they've been insulted.

Good point - it would be a kick in the pants for anybody who gets all emotional when some drugged-up celeb thanks Jesus for her Grammy.

Good point - it would be a kick in the pants for anybody who gets all emotional when some drugged-up celeb thanks Jesus for her Grammy.

On this point, we definitely agree, Glinda.

Yes, that Jesus! What a stickler for turning the other cheek He was! Hahahaha! Christ, I'll never forget it! One day He and Thor were out roughhousing and Thor just kept hammering him trying to make him say "Odin" but no! He just kept turning the other cheek, turning the other cheek, turning the other cheek. Who knew He had 432 cheeks?! We were all just aghast, put Me right off My ambrosia to see it. But in the end Thor had to give up, Jesus just wouldn't say "Odin." Gotta admire His moxie.

Dagda, have you ever read The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul by Douglas Adams? Thor and Odin have quite the time in that book.

Jesus was actually a compassionate conservative.

Jesus is not an oxymoron! How dare you say that! :-p

That's 2 things that don't exist in on thread, compassionate conservatives and jesus.

no he did not. Wishful thinking is not proof of existence.

I don't think the New Testament is the work of someone's imagination...

No, it was the work of many people's imaginations.

Read the history of the New Testament sometime, Bozzor, along with a book called "The Gnostic Scriptures" translated by Bentley Layton. It makes clear the politics of the early church influenced what became "gospel" and what was deemed "apochrypha" or "unbelievable." You'd be surprised at some of the truly Christian ideas which were deemed heretical.

"Camel" was (likely) a mistranslation (originally 'thick rope'), but equally fitting still :)

Jesus is not Internet-friendly. I keep tellin' Him to "keep up with the times, Son of Man, maybe take a juco course," but no! He'd prefer to sit back playin' dominoes with Krishna and Windigo and Loki, while They all wolf-whistle at Venus in a bath-towel and She after takin' her mornin' shower. Crikey She could use a boob-job though. 2,500-year-old diddies would make most men atheists, I tell you. So annyway, that's why He will not answer ye here. Why don't ye send Him a prayer if ye want t'talk to Him?

Why don't ye send Him a prayer if ye want t'talk to Him?

Good advice, Dagda. ;-)

Yes, I'm pretty sure the author is drowning his sorrows in the ad-revenue money that will be rolling in. Praise Jesus!

Actually, I'd say the author of this article is not that efficient coz he had to make a few comments in this thread to keep it going. If you want to learn how to get comments without putting in one single comment of your own, learn from this guy.

Hey, wow, that's a great thread! How did I miss it before? Thanks for the link, MH, hehehehhe.

@mubarak

Thanks for an example of why we need to learn not to feed the trolls.

I see what you did there.