I don’t think anyone in the UK could failt to have heard about the protests as BBC screens Springer – a TV presentation of the current West End hit. The musical has won just about every theatrical award over the last year and plays to a packed house several times a day.
So it’s popular then. People do want to see it and are prepared to pay money for it. OK, so we agree on that.
However, according to the usual bunch of moaning, miserable, self-important overly moral types – if you’re not prepared to traipse to London and fork out for a ticket for it, then you shouldn’t be allowed to see it.
Their issues are mainly twofold: excessive bad language and the fact that it takes the piss out of this Jesus Christ bloke. Reports on the number of “swear words” range from 300 to 5000, depending on which source you go to. The Sun very imaginatively came up with the highest number by multiplying each swearie by the number of people saying / singing it simultaneously. Technically correct, but hardly accurate as such.
Then there’s the issue with an actor playing a fictional character (IMHO – I’m allowed one, too) who’s portrayed as a nappy-wearing homosexual. Now, I have a few gripes about this and people who know me will be able to guess them right off, but here we go:
1) Freedom of expression. According to one person in the article linked above "There should be freedom of speech but there should never be freedom for desecration." So there should be freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t insult something that this person believes in? Not very free, then, is it?
2) The fact that they argue that if it had insulted another religion other than christianity that the BBC wouldn’t dare show it. Well, in fairness, christians aren’t as likely to engage in violent assault, rioting, threats and so forth like… ooh, I don’t know… Sikhs in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago. That just popped into my head there.
3) The BBC has had Songs of Praise on every bloody week since forever. There are other christian-friendly shows broadcast on a regular basis. The BBC is supposed to be unbiased and show all views and so forth. So isn’t this just some way towards redressing the balance? I am very a-religious. I genuinely find SoP and the like offensive to some degree. Maybe that’s too strong a term, but organised religion really gets my goat and I personally would like to protest against my license fee being wasted on a load of Thors Hird fans warbling away in some building somewhere. On the other hand, it’s a public network, a sizeable number of the viewers regard this as reasonable viewing content and so I accept this. I don’t like it, but I accept it. All of a sudden I seem more reasonable and forgiving than a raving christian outside Broadcasting House.
4) "It shows Jesus as a homosexual and that is entirely false." Prove it. Go on. Prove it. You can’t even prove the guy actually existed. Nobody knows when his birthday was, or what colour his skin was. They’re hardly going to know if he snogged another bloke or shagged him up the arse. You believe he was white, had a beard, straight as a die (in an age where bisexualism was rampant) and didn’t once think his mother was a bit of alright. Prove it.
5) If you don’t want to watch it… don’t watch it! Frankly, I channel-hopped a bit and saw maybe 10 minutes of it and it looked crap anyway. Mary Whitehouse is dead. Please stop trying to continue the interfering old hag’s legacy.
*grumble*. OK, now that I appear like an evil, Satan-worshipping nazi I’ll stop. Apologies to any regular readers I may have offended – I know some of you are church-goers – but bear in mind I’m really just trying to play devil’s advocate here. Possibly very literally!
#2 – ask any person who runs an abortion clinic in America. Or any Muslims during the Crusades. They’ll tell you how violent Christians can get. 🙁
The reason why it hasn’t been done as much for other religions is simply because most of the UK populace know bugger all about other religions. And if you want to do satire, the audience needs to know what you’re satirising!
Bloody Hell Mosh (note caps) we’re going to have to fall out over this.
You don’t believe in the bloke in sandals. I don’t either, well mostly. He was someone who tried not to much harm, like Mohemmed etc. And then they did.
It’s our job to sort the gods out!
Both good points, Andy. In all honesty the abortion clinic lunatics in the US had entirely slipped my mind. In fairness, in this country we tend not to be as mad as the Americans. Yet.
Let’s just write the Crusades off as history, eh? Nobody goes marching into the middle east telling them we know what’s best for them any more.
Erm…
As for other religions, the incidents in Birmingham in recent weeks involved a play about Sikhs written *by* a Sikh, although it wasn’t a satire.
I can’t disagree with most of what you say there, but two points to bear in mind:
First of all, not all of us Christians are humourless right-wing reactionaries. Some of us would actually quite liked to have seen the show if it hadn’t been for the fact that at the time it was on we were working up enough Dutch Courage before belting out some cover versions for a fellow blogger’s 30th birthday in Dukes 92.
Secondly, though, be a bit careful about your assertions regarding the /existence/ of Jesus: it’s pretty much accepted by historians (secular and church) that somebody calling himself Jesus was wandering around the middle east at about the time the Bible claims he was, kicking up a bit of fuss and annoying the religious leaders: we accept things as historical fact on the basis of far less physical/written evidence than exists about Jesus. The issue isn’t generally with his existence, rather it’s with if this guy was who he (or other people) claimed he was.
I’d heard about the controversy blah blah blah but to be honest couldn’t even be arsed to set the video
Apathy rul
Late comment here. Just discovered your blog. You speak the truth; rationalise the issues, and that is just not on in Theology. As for proof of the existence jesus, there is none and one cannot cite the bible as proof because the documents therein were purposely written/edited to establish among other things, that jesus was the centre of a cult that (although there is again no lineal connection) evolved into that elitist and often dangerous lot known as the christians.
Like Chris, been there, done that, saw the light again (i.e. realised I was being led like a sheep). It’s one of the reasons I have such an issue with organised religion – it’s just another way to stop people thinking for themselves. Also, much as I appreciate that many people involved do so with the best of intentions, there’s far too much corruption involved.
Religion is one of the biggest causes of angst, violence and so on in the world. Greed probably comes a close second (just ask the monkey running the US who’s trying to nick all the oil in the Middle East). I just don’t like someone trying to tell me what I can and can’t watch because of what *they* believe.
More fair comments, Chris, and you’re right regarding the fact that we do take a lot of things for granted history-wise.
Apologies if the original post does sound as if I’m blaming every christian on the face of the planet for the actions of what was, in reality, a small “splinter group” of hardcore loonies. Sadly, as ever, the minority of idiots who start mouthing off do end up helping people like me undeservedly tar a whole group with the same “humourless, right-wing reactionary” brush.
I could say that some of my best friends are christians, but that’s like saying one of my closest mates is black. It *always* comes out sounding completely trite 🙂
Nothing like a bit of controversy on a Sunday morning… 🙂
Sadly, it’s not really a splinter group as such – a few loonies started the thing, but it spread by taking advantage of the fact that Christians take a lot of things on trust, and know that they won’t bother to check the “facts” presented in the email, and it was forwarded around by pretty “normal” people within the church. One thing modern Evangelicalism has taught the congregation is to basically act like sheep, which works well from the standpoint of unity, but it does kind of deprive people of the ability to think critically and freely. As a result, many modern Evangelicals are able to hold entirely contradictory beliefs in their head (“God gave us free will!” vs “God predestined everything” etc) without apparent problem simply because they don’t think about things – I know, because I used to be exactly like that myself; thankfully, I’ve recovered the ability to think for myself now 🙂
There’s a bit of a victim culture within Christianity, and the belief that the ch
There’s a bit of a victim culture within Christianity, and the belief that the church is being specifically targetted by an evil media which seeks to undermine all the Good Things that the church stands for – and to be fair, it’s not an /entirely/ misplaced belief at times – is fairly widespread. So, when something like this comes around, everyone puts on their indignant hats and cries persecution once more.
Of course, if they want to cry foul about /real/ persecution, they should maybe try practising Christianity in a country where it’s illegal: when you daily run the risk of imprisonment or being put to death for your beliefs, then you probably have a right to complain about persecution. But a TV station showing a 2-hour satirical musical? Come on, give me a break.