h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"Did anyone else find 'The Satanic Verses' to be just about the dullest thing they've ever read?"

I never bothered to find out either.

However, I understand that countless thousands of Muslims found it to be the most offensive thing that they had never read.

If they were vaguely informed about what I'd just typed and then deleted, they might have to update their opinion.

Please, please, correct me if I am wrong (and I am an atheist), but my general understanding was that the Christian belief system meant that God was the creator of all humanity. That we, all human beings, are God's children, that Jesus Christ was Our Messiah.

If that theory is *true* (and I understand that the vast proportion of Christians would say that it is true?) then we all - every human being - must have a relationship with God. This 'relationship' exists regardless of whether or not any specific individual believes God actually exists. However, this implies that God is "everyone's". Christians are merely a particular organised group who choose to show their feelings towards God (Jesus, etc) through some particular (arbitrary?) organised system of worship. Since God exists for every man, every man is within his right to criticise, or satirise God, Jesus Christ, et al.

If it is, however, *unacceptible* for people to criticise this system (as the Christian protestors outside the BBC are trying to suggest), then these protestors must be acknowledging that we are *not* people of God, and that this system is nothing more than the figment of their own imagination, and a complete and utter fabrication.

In which case, by continuing to argue that the production of Jerry Springer: The Opera is offensive and should - as a matter of moral principle - be destroyed, then surely all they are doing is conceding that everything that they believe about God is made up?

The only way this is untrue is if JS:TO was in someway inciting hatred towards Christians and their religion. But no protestor I've heard, or seen reported, has ever made this claim.

In conclusion: As an atheist in Britain, Christianity has far too much influence over my lifestyle as it is, and therefore deserves all that it gets

A couple of points,



Jerry Spinger The Opera has been a play in the West End for ages, if it was so controversial then why weren't the protesterors outside the theatre?

Could it be that Mediawatch Uk, formerly the National Viewers and Listers Association, run by Mary Whitehouse have stired this up?



Is the only reason that there has been so much response because of the Sikh play in Birmingham?

(+ vodka)

How would I feel if it was my minority that felt it was attacked?

Well I'm very passionataly pro choice, I'm also passionate about the fact that abortions should be available in a free and timely way for free*.

How would I feel if this play was shown in Birmingham?

http://www.encoreplay.com/encoreplay/shortplay%20pages/euntitled.html

Well my inital response would be anger, this would make a difficult descion for thousands of women in very desperate situations even harder. It would make women who had already made a very difficult descion experience almost impossible.

So what would I do if it was perfomed in Birmingham?

Yes I'd protest, mainly because I'd want the women who would be upset by it to know that there was another point of view. I'd try and make sure that organisations that provided support were given out in the media.

But would I want it banned?

I hope not.

*I'm a final year medical student, and yes one day I may perform abortions, I am vegatarian and killing goes against my gut insticts. It belive in Karma and re-incarnation, so one day I may be re-incarnated as a foetus who gets aborted. But I'd rather be re-incarnated as a foetus that gets aborted than a woman who can't get an abortion.

I know more than one woman who would have loved to have someone like you as a doctor, rather than the men (and woman) that they actually got.

That is not the protesters argument in this case. they are saying that should what is as near as damn it public money be spent airing this blasphemous play.

The answer is aaahYessss.

Blasphemy could be construed as permitting the idea that there might be other gods to be shown because the bible expressly states "there is no God but me"

If we went by the leeter of even the most liberal church doctrines you'd have no science fiction writting or TV on sundays. What churches do is just turn a blind eye to such things because they know they logical speaking dont have a leg to stand on getting sensible people to cow tow to such clap trap.

So now emboldened by the "sucess" of some brainless Sihk groups in Birmingham (who have done a massive diservice to inter-culture realtions for the majority of Sikhs) the christian group here has chosen what it thought might be a soft target.

However they have taken on a coporation still smarting from being drubbed by one prominent christian they arent going to take the same from this bunch of jokers.

The funny thing is that whilst trying to put forward christian values they have managed to shoot themselves squarely in the foot. Christian pressure groups of this kind will now more than ever be seen as a ineffectual bunch of losers, by the media and people at large.

Christians, well some of them used very clever people, but only when powerful people made it virtually compulsory that nearly everyone had to be christian. Since people have had more choice the ranks of this little cult are looking dimmer and dimmer all the time.

So Z the difference is that if a play gets public money it should reflect public needs and not soley those of a very narrow group. if people even women contemplating termination should have the right to read or watch it. I think the new Immelda Staunton film should be compulsuory viewing for everyone.

especially New Zealanders who keep forgetting their name.

onelove

>>"Blasphemy could be construed as permitting the idea that there might be other gods to be shown because the bible expressly states "there is no God but me""

Ah - does it?
Or does it say

'*You* shall not *worship* any other god than me'

implying that there may be other gods, but they aren't for the Chosen People?


>>"Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort."

Rather sounds like there may be other, inferior gods around somewhere.


>>"Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

Jealous of who or what? Wouldn't it have been easier to say that there *is* only one God, and the others are delusional and non-existent?


Doing a quick search on
http://www.cforc.com/kjv/
(lower part of right-hand window), I got 30 sections that matched "other gods". None of the ones I looked at seemed to say they didn't exist, just that they weren't the *right* God.

The BBC has never aired a series of * The Jerry Springer Show * it's a ITV thing.



* Three nipple cousin *uc*er * - The song at the end of the opera, this affects a Christian how?

Potholer yes the bit to moses and the jews in the Desert does say Im the only bigG you should worship, but as has often been pointed out by others this substatial books is ratehr flimsy when it comes to continutity because later it says:

John 1:18

English Standard Version (ESV)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, [Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son] who is at the Father's side, [Greek in the bosom of the Father] he has made him known.
John 1:17-19 (in Context) John 1 (Whole Chapter)
John 5:44

American Standard Version (ASV)
How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not?
John 5:43-45 (in Context) John 5 (Whole Chapter)
New International Version (NIV)
How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God [ Some early manuscripts the Only One] ?
John 5:43-45 (in Context) John 5 (Whole Chapter)
English Standard Version (ESV)
How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:43-45 (in Context) John 5 (Whole Chapter)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"How can you believe, when you [John 5:41] receive glory from one another and you do not seek [Rom 2:29] the glory that is from [John 17:3; 1 Tim 1:17] the one and only God?
John 5:43-45 (in Context) John 5 (Whole Chapter)
1 Corinthians 3:7



American Standard Version (ASV)
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:16-18 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
New International Version (NIV)
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:16-18 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
English Standard Version (ESV)
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. [Greek to the ages of ages] Amen.
1 Timothy 1:16-18 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

one love

This one's for Clive . . .

"Guards were last night protecting the homes of two senior BBC executives as complaints from Christian groups at Saturday's showing of Jerry Springer - The Opera escalated into threats of violence."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1386564,00.html

"Christian Voice, which orchestrated its campaign from its website, organised a number of peaceful vigils outside BBC offices on Saturday night. Stephen Green, the national director of the group, yesterday admitted it had been "naive" to publish Mr Keating's home number and said that it had been removed when BBC lawyers complained."

"However, he vowed to press ahead with plans to pursue a private prosecution against the corporation for the common law offence of blasphemy. "There will be nothing sacred if we cannot successfully prosecute the BBC," he said."



'Naive' my @ss.


az

Well done the BBC for showing it, loved it, taped it, will watch it again particularly when "Songs Of Praise" is on.
Particularly loved it because it is p*ssing off so many of the anally retentive God Squad who have absolutely no rights to tell me what to watch or when to watch.

Hear hear

Ah I knew they were going to pursue that blasphemy thing I couldn't see it on the news when I went looking though. Thanks for that. Bloody stupid of them if you ask me.

Oh and Doctor, if I could supply you with a blank tape and self-addressed envelope - any chance you could make me a copy of that tape, please?

Also interesting to note the Tories leaping on the 'outraged' bandwagon. Now there is a group I can legitimately ask of: have they got nothing better to do? *

>>"The Tory deputy leader, Michael Ancram, also weighed into the debate, questioning the corporation's motives. "What they are trying to do is to get people to watch it, because they think it is going to shock them. I don't think it is the duty of the BBC to do that,""

Jeez, he really *is* thick, isn't he?
*I* only became aware the thing was on in the first place due to the action of the *protesters* and the reporting of the same.
If the BBC *hadn't* reported the protests, the protesters would have whined on about being ignored.

Still, I suppose Ancram needs to do something to while away the time before losing the next election.

<>

Hey, I asked first, Clive - get in line!


az

>>" There will be nothing sacred if we cannot successfully prosecute the BBC," he said.

Fantastic.
I look forward with eagerness to them losing the case.
The sooner all sacred cows in this society take their final journey through the Golden Arches of irreverence, the better.

okay, fine. Az, when Doc sends you a copy can I have a copy of your copy?

Copies of the tape? Would love to, but I do not have a second machine to copy them too? Also wondering if a Salmon Rushdie protection thingy might be needed if the God Squad see me doing it?

<>

I second Reffgirl. Hear Hear Doc!

For what it's worth, I e-mailed MediaWatch and Christian Voice over the weekend stating a host of reasons why I didn't think their complaints were valid, and urging CV not to pursue the ridiculous blasphemy charges. I stated clearly that I was a Christian, but I expect they'll ignore me!

It really irritates me when groups like this make unreasonable comments and thus put the whole of my faith (and the majority of Christians I know are actually quite sensible!) into a very bad light. If only they could direct their energy into protesting things that really need to be protested (trade laws, third world debt and other aspects of foreign policy, for instance). Issues that I believe God does care about.

And, yes, why on Earth didn't they protest about the show in the theatre? I suspect the answer is that the groups in question are not culturally savvy enought to have heard of any shows beyond Phantom of the Opera, Les Mis and Hamlet. But I could be wrong!

David