Archbishop calls on RTÉ to remove 'blasphemous' clip

ohnonotgmail

statesaver wrote: »

Was it supposed to be funny ?

everyone's a critic.

statesaver

statesaver wrote: »

Was it supposed to be funny ?

Whatever it was supposed to be, it wasn't.

jmayo wrote: »

spot on stuff

100%

This is a manifestation of wokeleft leaning liberal culture dictating what passes for humour content on the national broadcaster.
The double standards rampant in such circles, where "because... priests and stuff" Christianity alone of the faiths is fair game in RTE, but if you don't like it, you're a fundamentalist bible thumper, worthy only of ridicule by the 'right on' arbiters, the edgeLord atheists, but criticism/satire of other faiths is too close to antisemitism or Islamphobia, and turn it off or something.

I love satire, when done right its lethal. Particularly love it, when you're not entirely sure its satire.
But this was nothing of the sort. It was unfunny, unsatirical, and offensive just for the sake of being offensive at a wholly inappropriate time.

James Brown

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Whatever it was supposed to be, it wasn't.




100%

This is a manifestation of wokeleft leaning liberal culture dictating what passes for humour content on the national broadcaster.
The double standards rampant in such circles, where "because... priests and stuff" Christianity alone of the faiths is fair game in RTE, but if you don't like it, you're a fundamentalist bible thumper, worthy only of ridicule by the 'right on' arbiters, the edgeLord atheists, but criticism/satire of other faiths is too close to antisemitism or Islamphobia, and turn it off or something.

I love satire, when done right its lethal. Particularly love it, when you're not entirely sure its satire.
But this was nothing of the sort. It was unfunny, unsatirical, and offensive just for the sake of being offensive at a wholly inappropriate time.

TBF, we had decades and decades of pro right wing catholic church censorship. It goes the other way suddenly it's a 'new' leftie societal problem.
'Life of Brian' was banned for the church for making light of Jesus etc..

It wasn't funny and it was also in poor taste. Any comedian will tell you you can get away with saying many things except not being funny.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

TBF, we had decades and decades of pro right wing catholic church censorship. It goes the other way suddenly it's a 'new' leftie societal problem.
'Life of Brian' was banned for the church for making light of Jesus etc..

It wasn't funny and it was also in poor taste. Any comedian will tell you you can get away with saying many things except not being funny.

But this wasn't censorship...
(of something pro right wing that might balance the years off the cassocks, rosaries and condemnations. Trying to justify it as being somehow deserved because of priests and stuff, is (ironically) unprogressive spite).
It was pointless. Needlessly offensive.
The biggest sin for me of something is to be pointless.

James Brown

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

But this wasn't censorship...
(of something pro right wing that might balance the years off the cassocks, rosaries and condemnations. Trying to justify it as being somehow deserved because of priests and stuff, is (ironically) unprogressive spite).
It was pointless. Needlessly offensive.
The biggest sin for me of something is to be pointless.

Agreed. However it was a kick back. The church or any Archbishop lost any moral high ground long ago. They carry no more weight than the average leaders of any organisation IMO.
It wasn't funny. Shock or being edgy only works if it's funny.
I remember decades or stupid paddy, ignorant black man, stingy Jew jokes on primetime television broadly accepted as the norm. I'm okay with folk being woke, but they need to be funny about it. You could argue they were poking fun at both the left and right, albeit very poorly.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

Agreed. However it was a kick back. The church or any Archbishop lost any moral high ground long ago. They carry no more weight than the average leaders of any organisation IMO.
It wasn't funny. Shock or being edgy only works if it's funny.
I remember decades or stupid paddy, ignorant black man, stingy Jew jokes on primetime television broadly accepted as the norm. I'm okay with folk being woke, but they need to be funny about it. You could argue they were poking fun at both the left and right, albeit very poorly.

I agree to a certain extent, in that no church/faith should be in a position to preach how to manage a secular society, which is what were striving towards. Even the term blasphemy has no place in a modern society.
But, at the same time, where gratituous offence is meted in such circumstances, he's dead right to advocate on behalf of his flock, as a leader should.
Chapeau on growing balls padre.

But to use a Catholic analogy, are they forever dammed to ridicule, or is there a period of repentance that must pass? When will, if ever, they be forgiven and treated like other faiths.

I'd prefer it was open season on everything. That we didn't shy from criticising/rediculing/ any subject, but appropriately. I.e , don't walk into a mosque with a characiture of Muhammed, or a synagogue with a few Nazi memes.

James Brown

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I agree to a certain extent, in that no church/faith should be in a position to preach how to manage a secular society, which is what were striving towards. Even the term blasphemy has no place in a modern society.
But, at the same time, where gratituous offence is meted in such circumstances, he's dead right to advocate on behalf of his flock, as a leader should.
Chapeau on growing balls padre.

But to use a Catholic analogy, are they forever dammed to ridicule, or is there a period of repentance that must pass? When will, if ever, they be forgiven and treated like other faiths.

I'd prefer it was open season on everything. That we didn't shy from criticising/rediculing/ any subject, but appropriately. I.e , don't walk into a mosque with a characiture of Muhammed, or a synagogue with a few Nazi memes.

I hope the church never return to their normal. They have absolutely no business dictating to anyone unless it's at mass.

I think people should be taken into account. I'd suggest some Catholics and some rape victims might have been upset, but again, if it was funny, most would let it slide.
While any religious group getting violent over an opinion in whatever form shouldn't be acceptable IMO, insulting a people or group for cheap laughs isn't cool and often not funny when it's upsetting.

newmember2

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

...

This is a manifestation of wokeleft leaning liberal culture ....

FFS...here we go again...

Smee_Again

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

But to use a Catholic analogy, are they forever dammed to ridicule, or is there a period of repentance that must pass? When will, if ever, they be forgiven and treated like other faiths.

Have they confessed all their sins and asked for forgiveness? Seems to me that that should be a minimum requirement.

Kermit.de.frog

I agree with the anger over this. I don't see how it's ok for one group in society (in this case Christians) to take such degrading commentary on national TV in the name of comedy but it's clearly not ok for other religious or non religious groups.

Either be consistent or don't do it at all in my humble opinion.

blanch152

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree with the anger over this. I don't see how it's ok for one group in society (in this case Christians) to take such degrading commentary on national TV in the name of comedy but it's clearly not ok for other religious or non religious groups.

Either be consistent or don't do it at all in my humble opinion.

Imagine it was Muhammed instead of God, and consider what would have happened.

Heads would have rolled in RTÉ by now.

fantaiscool

I found the piece funny. Religious beliefs deserve no respect in my view.

Stihl waters

fantaiscool wrote: »

I found the piece funny. Religious beliefs deserve no respect in my view.

Now if only they'd make the same comedic jabs at Islam, oh wait, there would be riots and beheadings in rte if they did that, we mustn't make fun of any other religion apart from christianity, they know they're safe on that particular stand point, they haven't the balls to poke fun at Islam because you could have another Charlie Hebdo on our hands with the type of religious nutter they attract.

I'm not religious but surely the same respect (or fear) should be offered to every religion if you're not going to give them all the same treatment

uptherebels

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Whatever it was supposed to be, it wasn't.
.

If you don't know what it was supposed to be, how do you know it wasn't?

uptherebels

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

But to use a Catholic analogy, are they forever dammed to ridicule, or is there a period of repentance that must pass? When will, if ever, they be forgiven and treated like other faiths.

How long do you think it should be before the heinous crimess inflicted by the RC on the people in this country be forgiven?

WastedYouth

Smee_Again wrote: »

If they don’t want to see the clip they should just not watch it.

And how are the people who might be offended supposed to know that at some point in this programme there might be content that is offensive to them?

Should they have avoided TV completely?

Are you saying it is their own fault? Are you saying these people were “asking for it”?

uptherebels

WastedYouth wrote: »

And how are the people who might be offended supposed to know that at some point in this programme there might be content that is offensive to them?

Should they have avoided TV completely?

Are you saying it is their own fault? Are you saying these people were “asking for it”?

How does anybody know that about anything they watch?
If you are delicate, don't watch tv.

joseywhales

uptherebels wrote: »

How does anybody know that about anything they watch?
If you are delicate, don't watch tv.

The problem is that they are forced to pay for the production, through the TV license, therefore it seems egregious that their beliefs be mocked on a flagship NYE program, which should really be inclusive for all viewers.

Smee_Again

WastedYouth wrote: »

And how are the people who might be offended supposed to know that at some point in this programme there might be content that is offensive to them?

Should they have avoided TV completely?

Are you saying it is their own fault? Are you saying these people were “asking for it”?

It’s fairly foreseeable that one could be offended by watching TV, it’s happens a lot so yeah they could just abstain from watching.

One eyed Jack

Stihl waters wrote: »

Now if only they'd make the same comedic jabs at Islam, oh wait, there would be riots and beheadings in rte if they did that, we mustn't make fun of any other religion apart from christianity, they know they're safe on that particular stand point, they haven't the balls to poke fun at Islam because you could have another Charlie Hebdo on our hands with the type of religious nutter they attract.

Nutters are nutters regardless of what motivates them. It’s not because of Charlie Hebdo or any of that other nonsense that comedians don’t bother to take a pop at Islam, it’s for a couple of reasons really:

- Comedians themselves don’t know enough about Islam
- Their audience doesn’t know enough about Islam
- Jokes involving rape and/or child sexual exploitation just don’t tend to go down well with audiences, regardless of the religion or political ideology

Stihl waters wrote: »

I'm not religious but surely the same respect (or fear) should be offered to every religion if you're not going to give them all the same treatment

They’re not all treated the same though. There are many different denominations within Christianity alone without even touching on the other 3,000 or so religions, but only one has had more impact and influence in Western society and culture than any of the others - Christianity, and coming up with material is difficult when neither the comedian nor their audience can relate to the material in order to make out the joke, and particularly when it comes to satirical comedy the joke has to be on point. That’s why The Life of Brian is one of the funniest most biting satirical films ever made, but I don’t expect a Muslim would get the references, and therefore would miss any of the satire which makes it funny, in the same way as someone who isn’t Muslim wouldn’t get any of the satire poking fun at Islam -

Satire In The Muslim World: A Centuries-Long Tradition


What you’re arguing for is a sort of tedious wokeism in itself - “poke fun at everything equally just because you shouldn’t poke fun at one thing and leave out the rest of the things”. What would be the point? All things aren’t equal, nor is their influence on society equal, nor is their power equal, and taking pot shots at two different things as though they have the same power isn’t satire or comedy, it’s just woke bullshìt - doing something just for the sake of it, not because it deserves to be ridiculed, but because it makes the person poking appear edgy. Bit like that insufferable clown Blind Boy referring to haunted bread while suggesting that young men need to adopt feminism, that’s what Waterford Whispers have become. Just look at the stories on their website, there’s no audience engagement at all -

https://waterfordwhispersnews.com

It’s not a satirical site at this point any more. It’s just a collection of shìte trying their best to raise any sort of a reaction from their audience, same as the segment on RTÉs New Years Eve effort - it wasn’t satire, it was just low brow obvious humour. The point of satire is that it pokes fun at power in a subtle way. The RTE sketch was as subtle as a brick through a window.

fenris

WastedYouth wrote: »

And how are the people who might be offended supposed to know that at some point in this programme there might be content that is offensive to them?

Should they have avoided TV completely?

Are you saying it is their own fault? Are you saying these people were “asking for it”?

Deciding to be offended is a choice that you make, not something that is done to you.
You decision to take offense does not convey a right to impinge on, or restrict other peoples lives.
If you find Cornflakes offensive, you do not have the right to have them cleared off the shelves in Tesco, you do have the right not to go where they are stocked and also to turn and leave if you catch an unexpected glimpse of the offensive cereal.

There is a TV watershed to protect the more delicate among us who cannot regulate their own feelings yet, after the watershed it is up to the individual to police their own sensibilities/anxieties and manage the viewing of those in their care.

One eyed Jack

fenris wrote: »

Deciding to be offended is a choice that you make, not something that is done to you.

Where are you getting the nonsense from that finding something offensive is a choice?

fenris

Why is it nonsense?
It is a choice, you decide to be offended, you can decide not to be, it is an active decision.
Making that decision does not convey any extra rights on you as a citizen, that in turn allow you to reduce the rights of others.
Nothing is being done to you beyond whatever you have done to yourself in reaction to your decision to be offended.

Just to pre-empt the inevitable what-aboutery, this is no the same as hate crime, see link below for an overview of the difference.

https://www.iccl.ie/news/iccl-welcomes-proposal-to-outlaw-hate-crime-sounds-note-of-caution-re-free-speech/

One eyed Jack

fenris wrote: »

Why is it nonsense?
It is a choice, you decide to be offended, you can decide not to be, it is an active decision.

Because it’s not an active decision, it’s an instinctive reaction.

fenris wrote: »

Making that decision does not convey any extra rights on you as a citizen, that in turn allow you to reduce the rights of others.
Nothing is being done to you beyond whatever you have done to yourself in reaction to your decision to be offended.

Who’s talking about extra rights or reducing the rights of others? It sounds like you’re parroting one of those free speech idiots without actually thinking for yourself, and trying to wedge their spiel in here where it doesn’t belong. People have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, it’s both the benefit and the cost of living in a democratic society. If someone or a group of people are offended by something, they have a right to express their opinions, same as the person who causes the offence in the first place.

The New Years Eve show is meant to be light entertainment, not a political platform, and people have a right to expect to be lightly entertained, as opposed to being subjected to a political message when that’s not what they were tuning in for. You’d have a point if someone were tuning in to Prime Time and being offended because it was a political discussion on current affairs. There’s a reasonable expectation that the programme will be a political discussion on current affairs. That same expectation doesn’t exist for a programme that was supposed to be light entertainment.

John Hutton

Mac Grianna has apologised

I wish to apologise concerning my participation in the Waterford Whispers News item on the NYE show on RTE 1 on New Year's Eve. Truly I am deeply sorry for the offence, distress and hurt caused. It was wrong for me. It was wrong of me.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0105/1187823-rte/

Fair play to him for apologising, we all make mistakes

Stihl waters

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nutters are nutters regardless of what motivates them. It’s not because of Charlie Hebdo or any of that other nonsense that comedians don’t bother to take a pop at Islam, it’s for a couple of reasons really:

- Comedians themselves don’t know enough about Islam
- Their audience doesn’t know enough about Islam
- Jokes involving rape and/or child sexual exploitation just don’t tend to go down well with audiences, regardless of the religion or political ideology





They’re not all treated the same though. There are many different denominations within Christianity alone without even touching on the other 3,000 or so religions, but only one has had more impact and influence in Western society and culture than any of the others - Christianity, and coming up with material is difficult when neither the comedian nor their audience can relate to the material in order to make out the joke, and particularly when it comes to satirical comedy the joke has to be on point. That’s why The Life of Brian is one of the funniest most biting satirical films ever made, but I don’t expect a Muslim would get the references, and therefore would miss any of the satire which makes it funny, in the same way as someone who isn’t Muslim wouldn’t get any of the satire poking fun at Islam -

Satire In The Muslim World: A Centuries-Long Tradition


What you’re arguing for is a sort of tedious wokeism in itself - “poke fun at everything equally just because you shouldn’t poke fun at one thing and leave out the rest of the things”. What would be the point? All things aren’t equal, nor is their influence on society equal, nor is their power equal, and taking pot shots at two different things as though they have the same power isn’t satire or comedy, it’s just woke bullshìt - doing something just for the sake of it, not because it deserves to be ridiculed, but because it makes the person poking appear edgy. Bit like that insufferable clown Blind Boy referring to haunted bread while suggesting that young men need to adopt feminism, that’s what Waterford Whispers have become. Just look at the stories on their website, there’s no audience engagement at all -

https://waterfordwhispersnews.com

It’s not a satirical site at this point any more. It’s just a collection of shìte trying their best to raise any sort of a reaction from their audience, same as the segment on RTÉs New Years Eve effort - it wasn’t satire, it was just low brow obvious humour. The point of satire is that it pokes fun at power in a subtle way. The RTE sketch was as subtle as a brick through a window.

Jesus that's quite a load of shìt you've written there, good stuff from you

uptherebels

joseywhales wrote: »

The problem is that they are forced to pay for the production, through the TV license, therefore it seems egregious that their beliefs be mocked on a flagship NYE program, which should really be inclusive for all viewers.

So those that don't pay for a tv license were less offended?

fenris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it’s not an active decision, it’s an instinctive reaction.

No it is not an instinctive reaction, it is a decision, possibly a learned response result of a decision to fallow a particular dogma but a decision none the less.
If it was instinctive then it would not require indoctrination to teach the response, e.g. avoiding touching something hot or keeping back rom the edge of a cliff.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who’s talking about extra rights or reducing the rights of others? It sounds like you’re parroting one of those free speech idiots without actually thinking for yourself, and trying to wedge their spiel in here where it doesn’t belong. People have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, it’s both the benefit and the cost of living in a democratic society. If someone or a group of people are offended by something, they have a right to express their opinions, same as the person who causes the offence in the first place.

I think you real issue is that people may think for themselves and that their conclusions may be different to yours.

"Free speech idiots" "wedging in here where it doesn't belong", does that indicate that only speech that you agree with is free and anything to the contrary is "offensive" and should be ridiculed? - that is taking someone else's rights away to protect your sensibilities or world view.

That is the opposite of your last sentence above, which I agree with, express your opinions but do not seek to prevent others from expressing their legally held opinions. Just because we may disagree does not make you or I an idiot who should be muzzled.

One eyed Jack

fenris wrote: »

No it is not an instinctive reaction, it is a decision, possibly a learned response result of a decision to fallow a particular dogma but a decision none the less.
If it was instinctive then it would not require indoctrination to teach the response, e.g. avoiding touching something hot or keeping back rom the edge of a cliff.

It doesn’t require indoctrination, and the response is instinctive, they’re not related.

fenris wrote: »

I think you real issue is that people may think for themselves and that their conclusions may be different to yours.

"Free speech idiots" "wedging in here where it doesn't belong", does that indicate that only speech that you agree with is free and anything to the contrary is "offensive" and should be ridiculed? - that is taking someone else's rights away to protect your sensibilities or world view.

That is the opposite of your last sentence above, which I agree with, express your opinions but do not seek to prevent others from expressing their legally held opinions. Just because we may disagree does not make you or I an idiot who should be muzzled.

No, the real issue is your opinion that finding something offensive is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctive reaction. All it actually indicates is that the concept of “free speech” itself is not immune from ridicule. It’s saying nothing about whether or not I agree with an opinion expressed or whether I find it offensive or not. In order for that to happen I’d have to give a shìt, and I don’t in circumstances where I think the person is an idiot.

Everyone is entitled to seek to prevent others from expressing their opinions, legally held or otherwise, and it doesn’t require anything more than seeing the person expressing the opinion as an idiot. Everyone has that right, regardless of your opinion.

fenris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t require indoctrination, and the response is instinctive, they’re not related.
No, the real issue is your opinion that finding something offensive is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctive reaction.

The definition of instinctive behaviour is that any behaviour is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.

So it is fair to say that in order to decide that an image of an old bearded lad dressed in sheets being hustled along by a Garda with a caption about an arrest, is firstly relevant to your learned indoctrinated beliefs, then secondly judge that the association is not true to a level that you find personally offensive, requires a fair few steps beyond being instinctive.

Compare those steps with deciding to not keep your hand stuck in a fire, then you will have the difference between learned and instinctive down.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to seek to prevent others from expressing their opinions, legally held or otherwise, and it doesn’t require anything more than seeing the person expressing the opinion as an idiot. Everyone has that right, regardless of your opinion.

That is where most civilised people will diverge from your stated position, are you really sure that is what you intended to say?

If so, what steps would you take to prevent others expressing their opinion that you consider to be a heresy against you belief?
A nice comfortable fire, complete with stake?
A little trim off the top?
Holiday in Siberia?
Re-education with optional organ donation?

Express what you want within the law, take or leave what others express within the law.
You cross the line when you actively seek to prevent others from expressing their opinions.