Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Archbishop calls on RTÉ to remove 'blasphemous' clip
Options
Comments
-
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.
Well, you’ve been offended by things. How do I know that? Because you're a human being on this planet. There’s not one person who hasn’t felt offended by something at one point or another. So, any time you’ve been offended, should you have given yourself a talking to and should you not have been offended?0 -
Yep, I have been there, felt fit to burst with the feelings of sheer anger and grief at events in my life, but I just had to learn to deal with it so that I could bring my kids up well. I also recognise that other people are dealing with their own crap, my coping with my life shouldn't be dependent on others tip toeing around me and my feelings, in other words be resilient enough to cope with what the world throws my way as much as I can.
If I feel annoyed by something, I have a think about it, try and figure out what annoyed me and why, then figure out a proportionate response.
That could be anything from getting over myself and moving on, to get involved and try and sort it out if I can.
What I do try is to avoid having a set of easily manipulated buttons, and to have enough self awareness to try and know why I want to act in a certain way.
Offense and outrage to me are just lazy thinking, choosing to short circuiting the bit that makes us more than animals, worse it allows us to be easily manipulated and turned into a mob by deliberately allowing someone else to decide how we should feel without exercising our own judgement.
A bit of resilience goes a long way, but it is not the same as being a push over in the face of irrationality.0 -
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.
Ehh, I personally didn’t find anything about the sketch offensive if that’s what you’re implying? Check my very first post on this thread, I was more offended by the idea that Kathryn Thomas and Jason Byrne are still being paid to appear on the national broadcaster which is funded by the State. The sketch itself was just ****e. If there was anything could be considered offensive it was that whomever wrote the sketch thought joking about rape was appropriate for a national audience. I disagree, but because it’s RTE - as I said from my first post, I don’t expect much anyway.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.
Loving the no true Scotsman fallacy there horse. It’s exactly what I intended to say. What steps would I take if I found another person’s opinions offensive? It depends upon their opinions, doesn’t it? I have no prior experience of your opinions so I don’t know if I’d just ignore it or whether I’d be likely to express disagreement at all. You’re hoping for a reaction like Re-education or whatever so you can make yourself out to be a martyr, which is something I’ve observed now in quite a few of these “free speech” types - they want people to find their opinions offensive, it’s the only way they know how to get attention for themselves, because they’re not much good at anything else.
In any case I cross what line? The line that exists only between your ears? Just because you imagine the standard should be that you should be able to say what you want doesn’t mean others have to agree with you.0 -
I didn't find anything about the piece offensive. Unless an offence to humour.
But the hypocrisy of RTE to allow this when they are in full BBC Woke mode is something else
You know what it means? It means their wonkiness if totally fake, that's what it means.
They are a bunch of overpaid overcritical nobodies who as are infallible as the most brainless far right undercover twitter poster fraud.
And this coming hardly a few weeks after their Covid cock up. Total plonkers.0 -
So you just prefer to address the point that you wish that I made instead of the actual point regarding the definition of instinctive reaction versus learned reaction?
You are attempting to draw false equivalence to pivot the other point away from the fact that you stated that you feel "entitled" to prevent others from expressing their opinions, with blustering waffle about martyr's and "these free speech types", I simply enquired as to what lengths you feel entitled to go to prevent others expressing their legally held opinions, everyone is free to disagree and disregard, preventing others from speaking or expressing their legally held and expressed beliefs - not so much, I gave you the link earlier that legally covers such behaviour (hate crime legislation), I didn't think that was what you actually intended, but each to their own.
Why do you think that your attention is so valuable that people want to go out of their way to get it from you?, well maybe Facebook or Google, the love a good ould click.0 -
Advertisement
-
So you just prefer to address the point that you wish that I made instead of the actual point regarding the definition of instinctive reaction versus learned reaction?
You don’t have a point regarding the definition of instinctive reaction as it relates to offence caused by someone else. That’s why I chose to ignore your opinions regarding learned behaviours. I don’t imagine anyone learns to be offended by rape jokes, maybe I’m wrong because I’m not one of the civilised people you speak of who might derive humour from that sort of thing.You are attempting to draw false equivalence to pivot the other point away from the fact that you stated that you feel "entitled" to prevent others from expressing their opinions, with blustering waffle about martyr's and "these free speech types", I simply enquired as to what lengths you feel entitled to go to prevent others expressing their legally held opinions, everyone is free to disagree and disregard, preventing others from speaking or expressing their legally held and expressed beliefs - not so much, I gave you the link earlier that legally covers such behaviour (hate crime legislation), I didn't think that was what you actually intended, but each to their own.
It depends upon context how far I’m willing to go. Usually I don’t have to go much further than “fcuk off”, but in some cases where a person is intellectually deficient, a slap across the back of the head and being told to cop on is usually enough to achieve the desired result.Why do you think that your attention is so valuable that people want to go out of their way to get it from you?, well maybe Facebook or Google, the love a good ould click.
You’d have to ask an attention seeker that. I imagine it has something to do with their need to be noticed.0 -
I’ve deleted my last few posts because I feel they are off-topic. No need to delete your responses if you don’t want, I decided to post them after all. Just decided to delete mine.0
-
Didnt see the clip but what was the full joke
Was it 'God raped X ' like has been reported in media or 'God has been embroiled in sexual assualt scandal' ?
Bit rich RCC getting offended. If you replaced God with Priest in either of the above you will find plenty of examples.0 -
Didnt see the clip but what was the full joke
Was it 'God raped X ' like has been reported in media or 'God has been embroiled in sexual assualt scandal' ?
Bit rich RCC getting offended. If you replaced God with Priest in either of the above you will find plenty of examples.
It was a satirical look at historical sexual abuse crimes and the leniency of Irish courts. The joke was that God was charged with the crime of sexual assault on Mary from 2000 years ago. He got 2 years with 24 months suspended.
I feel the need to say that it wasn't true. God has not been charged with this so it was a joke.
For some reason, some people are offended. I am at a loss to understand why.
Do they think that all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, creator of all things (even Waterford Whispers) God will be upset?
Do they think there is no evidence of the alleged crime? (Bible is just a story book)
Do they feel offended that the God that they follow has been insulted? (A bit like a Liverpool supporter being upset because someone said that they didn't play very well in their last match)
Or ... judging by this thread this is the real reason ...
Do they think that other Gods should have been ridiculed instead?0 -
Choochtown wrote: »It was a satirical look at historical sexual abuse crimes and the leniency of Irish courts. The joke was that God was charged with the crime of sexual assault on Mary from 2000 years ago. He got 2 years with 24 months suspended.
I feel the need to say that it wasn't true. God has not been charged with this so it was a joke.
For some reason, some people are offended. I am at a loss to understand why.
Do they think that all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, creator of all things (even Waterford Whispers) God will be upset?
Do they think there is no evidence of the alleged crime? (Bible is just a story book)
Do they feel offended that the God that they follow has been insulted? (A bit like a Liverpool supporter being upset because someone said that they didn't play very well in their last match)
Or ... judging by this thread this is the real reason ...
Do they think that other Gods should have been ridiculed instead?
They feel offended as their god and belief system was mocked and ridiculed.
They felt further offended as this was aired on a national broadcaster where anyone who wishes to view any kind of broadcast, even outside of the one that broadcast it, you are forced to pay a substantial annual fee for a very sub standard service of management, programmes, presenters and service who are paid astronomical amounts of money.
Lesser issue, the time and place of broadcasting this was in very poor taste.
They have every right to feel offended because of all this.
I say this as someone with no belief in Catholicism nor Christianity but I do respect ones right to believe in whatever they want to believe in.
You are at a loss to understand why because you lack tolerance and respect for other peoples belief systems, although judging by the tone and sarcasm of your post you would have plenty of time for your own beliefs or values. These just don’t match yours, so it’s only a “joke”.
The other thing you should realise is that the broadcaster has acknowledged their error, give them a shout on Twitter or email and tell them not to back down.0 -
Advertisement
-
nialler1978 wrote: »They feel offended as their god and belief system was mocked and ridiculed.
They felt further offended as this was aired on a national broadcaster where anyone who wishes to view any kind of broadcast, even outside of the one that broadcast it, you are forced to pay a substantial annual fee for a very sub standard service of management, programmes, presenters and service who are paid astronomical amounts of money.
Lesser issue, the time and place of broadcasting this was in very poor taste.
They have every right to feel offended because of all this.
I say this as someone with no belief in Catholicism nor Christianity but I do respect ones right to believe in whatever they want to believe in.
You are at a loss to understand why because you lack tolerance and respect for other peoples belief systems, although judging by the tone and sarcasm of your post you would have plenty of time for your own beliefs or values. These just don’t match yours, so it’s only a “joke”.
The other thing you should realise is that the broadcaster has acknowledged their error, give them a shout on Twitter or email and tell them not to back down.
so what that they felt offended. they didn't like what they seen. they complained. the end. nobody is under any obligation to care that they were offended.0 -
uptherebels wrote: »So those that don't pay for a tv license were less offended?
Yeah, sh*t I don't like happens everyday but I am not a stakeholder in it and have no control over it, I just accept it. However if something I played an active role(voluntary or otherwise) in creating offends me, then yes I feel far more offended.0 -
Well people get offended every minute on boards, it's not necessarily about religion, it could be something they care deeply about. Feminism, climate change disrespect of Saint Greta etc. And the mods are there (to care) to soothe it all over with a gentle salve. But we really pay very little to use boards, a few ads here and there to keep the lights on, there's nothing invested. Not like we bought a merc and found out the brake lights spell out "idiot driving".ohnonotgmail wrote: »so what that they felt offended. they didn't like what they seen. they complained. the end. nobody is under any obligation to care that they were offended.
A bugbear for people is they are FORCED to pay a TV licence and then force fed biased reporting, and biased programming. I think Waterford Whispers has been plenty fun in the past (including religous stuff) but there's a time and place for that type of fun, and tbh they are slipping and have become quite populist with what they poke fun at, the safe space for politically correct.
Catholicism would usually be in that safe space but I guess RTE just misjudged and we are where we are. RTE should hold itself up for scrutiny. What did it cover up in the child abuse, did it question enough?
If you (the general you) are so narrow minded as to think that religion is the cause of people's behaviour e.g. child abuse then you have a naive viewpoint of the world.
Any system can be setup to abuse disenfranchised or those without power
UK had large child abuse scandal, in fact their kids were being raped there as they (rightly?) scoffed at our scandals, while their police were afraid to confront a more powerful group than them (immigrants) and the "journalists" sat on an article outlining this for a year.... knowing kids were being raped.
Immigrant support group in Calais had a person raped, she wanted to report it, the team said don't report it, she should take one for the team (... their "church" would be shown in a bad way, if you like)
People - individuals or more frequently cogs in a bigger wheel are tolerant of horrible things in seemingly normal circumstances, when it challenges them.
RTE while very brave on the ould catholicism, hasn't shown any of the racist attacks on white people in Blanch, both verbal and physical assaults. Stick to the right on messages, never challenge powerful groups and we are right into another rapey scandal, encouraged through RTE and most media outlets cowardice and spinelessness, whilst claiming a wage as "journalists"
Ohhh such an edgy and virtous organisation... can't wait for the next meetup... when their mask slips
PS there are various organisation paid to care when people are offended by broadcast content, your basic point is wrong.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »so what that they felt offended. they didn't like what they seen. they complained. the end. nobody is under any obligation to care that they were offended.
Agree. How about the people offended by having Santa Claus in the sky shoved into our faces by the religious? Everyone can be offended by something. Nobody really cares that I'm offended by having to hear what I consider to be idiocy from religious people and I don't cry about it.0 -
nialler1978 wrote: »They feel offended as their god and belief system was mocked and ridiculed.
They felt further offended as this was aired on a national broadcaster where anyone who wishes to view any kind of broadcast, even outside of the one that broadcast it, you are forced to pay a substantial annual fee for a very sub standard service of management, programmes, presenters and service who are paid astronomical amounts of money.
Lesser issue, the time and place of broadcasting this was in very poor taste.
They have every right to feel offended because of all this.
I say this as someone with no belief in Catholicism nor Christianity but I do respect ones right to believe in whatever they want to believe in.
You are at a loss to understand why because you lack tolerance and respect for other peoples belief systems, although judging by the tone and sarcasm of your post you would have plenty of time for your own beliefs or values. These just don’t match yours, so it’s only a “joke”.
The other thing you should realise is that the broadcaster has acknowledged their error, give them a shout on Twitter or email and tell them not to back down.
I don't believe this for a minute. We are over 400 posts into this thread and in not one post have I read something which would convince me that someone's belief system has been mocked and ridiculed.
I would listen and try to understand the viewpoint of someone who posted here something like "the idea of my god impregnating a young lady so that his son could live on earth as a human is something that is very precious to me so I was upset to see ... "
But no! What we've had over the last 400 posts are references to Muslims, the licence fee and gays!!! (yes every religious discussion somehow has to get around to homosexuality I think it's another religious thing I don't understand)
The Muslim references show the real reason for offence. Pure and utter tribalism.
The licence fee is a red herring of an argument. 30 seconds of a broadcast when your licence fee pays for the year. I wonder what those 30 seconds cost to produce compared to say advertising revenue for two 30 second adverts at prime time (just before the 6 o'clock news) every day for a year?? It pales into insignificance.
Was it a funny sketch? I don't know. I'd heard too much about it before viewing it. But it was only 30 seconds. Do people have such fragile beliefs that a 30 second satire of an old man representing god will challenge them? I don't believe that for a minute.
Is this sketch funny?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdR15OKolAk0 -
The life of Brian was funny, 30 years ago. Father Ted hilarious 20 years ago. This.. not so much.0
-
So RTE are going to remove it from the player now after the editorial board said it did not meet it's standards and breached their own editorial code. They have apologized again.
Seems like a reasonable outcome.0 -
joseywhales wrote: »Yes because the angelus is exclusive, the bells and the natural scenes are offensive to non Catholics
It absolutely is exclusive, it's not even Christian it's specifically Catholic.
The name The Angelus is the name of a specific Catholic call to prayer.
The bell ringing has the specific number and form of rings set out for that specific Catholic call to prayer.
The woo-ey silly visuals they show now are a cop-out, they used to at least be more honest about what the Angelus is and show pictures of saints.
Of course on the radio it's on twice a day, and nothing whatsoever about it has changed since it was introduced in the 1950s. (Yes, for the first 30 years of Radio Eireann's existence they did not feel the need to broadcast daily a specific Catholic call to prayer)
It should have gone years ago but nobody in RTE has the balls.and it is broadcast as part of a new years broadcast.(sarcasm)
30 seconds of a joke mildly satirising Christianity on a once-off programme (they ain't gonna touch this topic again with a bargepole) is equated to a minute of prime-time TV every single day, two minutes a day on radio, devoted to a specific Catholic call to prayer. You couldn't make crap like that up.I suppose if the angelus was a satirical sketch of buddha raping Ganesh then I would agree that they are on a par.
Complete non-sequitur.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 what. I'm forced to pay for far more programming on RTE which is unquestioningly promoting religion and doesn't make the slightest pretense of being balanced or inclusive.
Shouldn't the main early evening news every day be inclusive? At present it's preceded by a party political broadcast for the RCC. Imagine if RTE had a one-minute ad every day before the news "VOTE FF" and didn't even charge them for this ad?© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »If you (the general you) are so narrow minded as to think that religion is the cause of people's behaviour e.g. child abuse then you have a naive viewpoint of the world.
Whatever about the possible role of priestly celibacy preventing consensual adult relationships as a sexual outlet (disputed - many people in sexually active consensual adult relationships also abuse kids), the cover-up of widespread clerical sexual abuse and rape WAS specifically caused by religion, with the aim of "avoiding scandal" for the Catholic Church. This vastly increased the number of victims (moving rapists onto new parishes without even warning the local parish priest to keep them away from kids) and the length of time the abuse continued unchecked.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Choochtown wrote: »
Wow that priest is some fcuking twat. RTE didn't unquestioningly toe his church's line against abortion and de gheys so they are biased!!!
Lots of complaints were made to the BAI about RTE's coverage of those referendums (from both No and Yes voters) - I don't think a single one was upheld.
What he wants is what we had for years in this country - the crushing of any dissent against the official RCC line on every issue.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Advertisement
-
And as for this shyte about switching over, there are still people in this country operating off a few chanels, not on satellite feeds with hundreds of channels.
So some people are stuck with watching RTE for NYE, most especially with lockdown restrictions.
Utter rubbish. Everyone watching RTE has at least Saorview. TG4 and VM1 both had their own new year's eve shows on.But of course a lot of the more cosmopolitans amongst us look down on those people as being backward and probably call them something like boggers. :rolleyes:
Freesat covers the whole country and has done for years, for the cost of a dish, a box and a payment of zero a month you get hundreds of channels, there is no reason for anybody to be cut off from any media they want no matter where they live - unless they choose to be.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
No, it was caused by organisation. A hierarchy where lay folk were lesser than priests created a power for priests. This led to negative selection, where those hungry for power over people were attracted to the role and then excercised this power on the most vulnerable. The *organisation* then closed ranks and covered up that which showed the organisation in a bad light.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Whatever about the possible role of priestly celibacy preventing consensual adult relationships as a sexual outlet (disputed - many people in sexually active consensual adult relationships also abuse kids), the cover-up of widespread clerical sexual abuse and rape WAS specifically caused by religion, with the aim of "avoiding scandal" for the Catholic Church. This vastly increased the number of victims (moving rapists onto new parishes without even warning the local parish priest to keep them away from kids) and the length of time the abuse continued unchecked.
You can see any number of organisations do this. I mentioned the immigrant thing, it's the same human (inhuman actually) reaction.
The media (e.g. RTE) were corrupt too in not reporting it, the Gardai knew too and done nothing. This is exact same reaction as to the rape gangs in Birmingham - Media knew, UK police knew, both took easy route and let kids be raped.
Basically any organisation can be corrupt e.g. swimming organisations, corporations too like BBC and the Jimmy Saville thing. It's the entropy that has to be constantly guarded against. I take your pint on the celibacy but it's more than that. It's a power trip perhaps more so than the gratification.
Religion is not needed but it has a vulnerability in the power it has over peoples lives.0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »No, it was caused by organisation. A hierarchy where lay folk were lesser than priests created a power for priests. This led to negative selection, where those hungry for power over people were attracted to the role and then excercised this power on the most vulnerable. The *organisation* then closed ranks and covered up that which showed the organisation in a bad light.
You can see any number of organisations do this. I mentioned the immigrant thing, it's the same human (inhuman actually) reaction.
The media (e.g. RTE) were corrupt too in not reporting it, the Gardai knew too and done nothing. This is exact same reaction as to the rape gangs in Birmingham - Media knew, UK police knew, both took easy route and let kids be raped.
........................
True words not said enough.0 -
The catholic religion in itself does not automatically give rise to child sex abuse. Anyone who argues this is a bigot.
Good to see RTE have finally done the right thing. Hopefully we will see a bit more respect in future.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »The catholic religion in itself does not automatically give rise to child sex abuse. Anyone who argues this is a bigot.
Good to see RTE have finally done the right thing. Hopefully we will see a bit more respect in future.
This is the shower that put the bodies of innocents in a sewer, so to hell with "respect".0 -
-
John Hutton wrote: »Yeah, the nice old, religious, grannies watching the NYE countdown in isolation in the their houses did that
Ridiculous
Whats ridiculous is showing "respect" to the organisation that did so.0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »Religion is not needed but it has a vulnerability in the power it has over peoples lives.
Swimming coaches or boy scout leaders didn't have ~75% of the population believing they'd burn in hell if they didn't bow and scrape to them and their organisation. What they did was bad but what the RCC did was many many times worse.John Hutton wrote: »The catholic religion in itself does not automatically give rise to child sex abuse. Anyone who argues this is a bigot.
Just as well nobody said that then isn't it.
But the RCC had a unique position of power over Irish society, and they completely and utterly abused that power in every manner they could to enrich themselves and bend the laws of the State to conform to their doctrines, therefore forcing even non-Catholics to comply.
Then the abuse scandals and cover-ups took it to another level of depravity entirely.Hopefully we will see a bit more respect in future.
Respect must be earned.
There is zero reason to have any respect for the Roman Catholic Church.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
I think peoples religious beliefs deserve a degree of respect, evidently the rules of RTE do too
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement