A good BSA decision
Very pleased to see the Broadcasting Standards Authority has again not given into pressure, and has not upheld complaints about Californication – just as they also did with Southpark.
I only started watching Californication after Family First started knocking out advertisers (something they are entitled to do), as I always regard the more a show is protested about, as a good guide for whether I will like it.
And the thing is, while the show has segments many find morally objectionable, such as a dream sequence with a nun and sex with a 16 year old, they are actually part of what is a well constructed plot. The sleeping with the 16 year old actually sets up a plot line throughout the entire first series, coping with the ramifications. And the lead character regrets doing it once he finds out her age (and more to the point funding out she is the daughter of his ex wife’s fiancee.
Southpark can be similiar. Yes it has some appallingly offensive scenes and language. It is often truly disgusting (just think Mr Hankey). But it often has a message behind its episodes, and many of the messages are good ones, that even religious and family groups would approve of – such as debunking the moral panic over parents abusing their children. Of course there are some episodes, such as where Cartman tricks Scott Tenorman into eating his parents which don’t have much of a hidden message, except maybe don’t play tricks on people with an evil streak!
March 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Fantastic – perhaps if a few more BSA calls like this go the same way, Family First and their ilk will eventually start to get the message and just not watch things they think will offend them, and do the rest of us the courtesy of allowing us to make the same decision for ourselves. Californication is the funniest US sitcom since House.
(The only bit I was offended by was when he threw up all over a valuable painting…)
March 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Ah, alas. Another David Farrar exclusive on what is morally acceptable and what is not. Who needs conscious moral thought when we can just refer the matter to kiwiblog?
I only started watching Californication after Family First started knocking out advertisers (something they are entitled to do), as I always regard the more a show is protested about, as a good guide for whether I will like it.
My point exactly. Farrar, you have just proved that the work that FF do (and I don’t particularly like them) is important – to negate the attitudes of people like you. They stand for something, you stand for nothing. It may not cause you concern but it does to other people and why should those people sit by and allow such filth to appear on TV, just so you can have your laugh? Ever heard of the moral high ground; you should visit it some time.
And the thing is, while the show has segments many find morally objectionable, such as a dream sequence with a nun and sex with a 16 year old, they are actually part of what is a well constructed plot.
Oh, why didn’t you just say so? How about putting in explicit sex scenes in Shortland St, it’ll be entertaining and you can included somewhere in the sexual fiesta of nurses and doctor some subtle moral learning curve that will enlighten us all to the wonderments of todays world. Your really onto something here.
The sleeping with the 16 year old actually sets up a plot line throughout the entire first series, coping with the ramifications. And the lead character regrets doing it once he finds out her age (and more to the point funding out she is the daughter of his ex wife’s fiancee.
Again, this must make it OK. What I don’t understand is how parents can object to things such as this, when it’s bleedingly obvious that it’s about the message behind it and not entertainment/money making exercises that hollow-hearted, empty-minded production companies continuously pollute our TV screens with.
So what exactly do self-anointed liberals like Farrar believe in? Absolutely nothing.
[DPF: I have my views on what is morally acceptable, but generally I don't want to impose them on others. If people are offended by filth on TV, then don't watch it.]
March 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I thought Farrar stood more or less for personal choice and responsibility, and particularly for adults to make decisions about their lives. Also for some right-wing economic theory regarding the relationship between government and business which has nothing to do with this discussion.
Hoolian, if you don’t like something, just don’t watch it. And don’t let your kids or anyone else you’re responsible for the wellbeing of watch it. But you’re not responsible for Farrar’s wellbeing, and don’t really have a good reason for caring what he does or doesn’t watch.
The thing about the moral high ground is that it’s not usually all that high, or well-grounded.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Hoolian, if you don’t like something, just don’t watch it.”
He probably doesn’t watch it, but that’s not the issue. The issue is his right to dissent (that Mr. Farrar acknowledges) . You seem to want to deprive him of that right.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Hoolian, I’d say that “self-anointed liberals like Farrar” believe in the right to think for oneself and make decisions accordingly. On the flip side of that coin, we seem to have self-appointed moral guardians like yourself staring down your noses at people who dare disagree with your narrow-minded definition of morality. I know who I’d rather share a beer with.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“I know who I’d rather share a beer with.”
So do I. ..and it wouldn’t be those insufferably smug halfwits who attempt to shout down anyone with a viewpoint that is not in accordance with their pathetically trendy pseudo liberal post modernist line of so called thought. Hoolihan is the one demonstrating the ability to think for himself. You Sean are just repeating post modernist bullshit that is so mindlessly prolific amongst that certain sector of NZ that listening to your kind is as boring as watching fucking grass grow.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Typical – the thought police think they know what is best for society….
If people don’t like the content of Californication then they can do that really difficult thing – change channel….
I don’t particularly like Cricket – do I protest I about it or do I change the channel ?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Complaining to the BSA in an attempt to take away the free choice of adults to watch a television programme… how could that, in any way, shape or form, be “moral”?
True morality is voluntary morality, not that forced upon someone at the point of a gun. Those wishing to raise the standard of “morality” in society should lead by example, not control the choices of others.
[DPF: I don't think complaining is censoring. A complaint is just saying that you think the programme is against the law and regulations set down by the Government and industry. Having said that most complaints backfire as they raise publicity]
March 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I’m not impressed with the show, and would be happier to see less of such trash occupying “prime time” spots.
And me stating my opinion is not a call for it to be banned (the immediate assumption of most liberal types).
However the comment about me exercising personal choice and not watching it doesn’t help much if my friends or children become victims of crimes committed due to increasing acceptance and over-use of violence and sex in society.
I’ve noticed an increasing number of DVDs on the shelves that have story lines revolving around sadistic serial killers. They tend to advertise “realism”, some occasionally proudly boasting they were so gruesome they’ve been banned elsewhere. Such content cannot be healthy to society in general, as individuals who cannot and care not to “exercise personal responsibility” intervene in the lives of basically good peaceable people.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
‘He probably doesn’t watch it, but that’s not the issue. The issue is his right to dissent (that Mr. Farrar acknowledges) . You seem to want to deprive him of that right.’
Complaining to the BSA isn’t dissent, it’s using the state to force others to endure your personal viewpoint. I thought that you’d be against this, Redbaiter.
And I’d like to see textual evidence for your claim that I want to deprive anyone of anything. I have no objection to people who don’t like shows like Californication giving voice to their ‘dissent’, arguing that it shouldn’t be shown, arguing that people shouldn’t watch it, and even trying to get sponsors to withdraw support. I have a problem with them attempting to use the state for censorship when their arguments aren’t persuasive.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“I don’t particularly like Cricket ”
Oh yeah, cricket and depictions of gratuitous sex and violence.. such a helpful comparison..
March 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
So do I. ..and it wouldn’t be those insufferably smug halfwits who attempt to shout down anyone with a viewpoint that is not in accordance with their pathetically trendy pseudo liberal post modernist line of so called thought. Hoolihan is the one demonstrating the ability to think for himself. You Sean are just repeating post modernist bullshit that is so mindlessly prolific amongst that certain sector of NZ that listening to your kind is as boring as watching fucking grass grow.
Oh go pull the other tit why dont you. Quite frankly you rant more than the fucken Taliban at a bare ladies ankle. Take your moral superiority and stick it fair up you damn arse. Sean is not trying to do what you suggest, he is merely disagreeing with Hoolian, much like you are disagreeing with him and the only reason you are defending Hoolian is because you agree with him, not because he is some kind of fucking truth martyr standing against those who limit free speech. Give me a fucken break.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Redbaiter, how’s the view from up there on the moral high ground?
Strange how quickly you’re willing to have a go at nanny-state socialists who want to tell us all what to do, but when people question the idea of absolute morality, you tell me I’m a smug halfwit. What gives?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
It’s moral Blair because it is considered evil to stand by and do nothing so that evil may flourish. It’s just that we all see different shades of what constitutes evil and harm. THat’s why we should allow a range of opinions to be freely discussed.
We live in families and communities. The way many people live is destroying these, and the by-product of such freedom is a factory turning out amoral people that don’t respect the rights of others. It’s the one chink in the “program”.
So perhaps consider it self-defence.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Redbaiter, for someone notorious for posting abuse, I’m surprised you’re so precious about “shouting down” viewpoints and “depriving” people of the right to “dissent.” No one is doing any such thing in this case, of course. When you post an invective-filled tract, it’s “robust debate”, but when someone disagrees with you, they’re “shutting down dissent.” And, bizarrely, your profanity-laced sympathies lie with the morality police. You really do embody the postmodernism you rail against, don’t you?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“What gives?”
Do these people have the right to protest?
Do these people have the right to argue their case?
Do these people deserve to be slagged off and maligned for having a different view to you??
Turn if off?? For fuck’s sake. You just don’t get it do you?? They already do turn it off. This is not the issue. I am defending their right to dissent, to swim against the tide, and in that, I am being totally consistent with everything I have ever written on here.
“Redbaiter, for someone notorious for posting abuse”
Fuck you and your pissant preoccupation with what you perceive as “abuse”. Get a life. Ninety nine percent of the time I am accused of abuse by whiners like you I am merely dissenting with trendy post modernist thinking, and the other one percent, I’m not using any language or terminology that is any worse than what you’ll see in shows like Californication. What is it you want?? Get a life and get your head straight you dickwad.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
ZenTiger, that is your opinion. In a free society, you must convince others of your opinions voluntarily. Not force them to kowtow. That is what a complaint to the BSA constitutes.
The moment somebody forces their opinion of evil on others, we cross from being a free society into being a fascist one. Hitler thought Jews were evil, Pol Pot thought educated people were evil, Hoaxha thought Christians were evil. Imagine that! Why don’t we ban evangelical Christianity “for the sake of the children”?
You see that your argument has no weight and can just as easily be used against you as in your favour. The only alternative is to let adults make their own decisions. Besides, I hear very little from Christians and conservatives railing against real adultery. Why the concern over imaginary, dramatised adultery that harms no-one in real life?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Agree with Redbaiter and Hoolian. The moral climate is going downhill and one wonders what the BSA would ban? The problem is we live in society and such programmes are part of the fabric of our social decline. Our church youth group informs me that it is now well accepted for 14 year old girls to go to parties,get drunk,take drugs and have sex.
The just turn it off argument is OK for some but what about those that don’t turn it off and are influenced by it? We are becoming more immoral and the ones being hurt are our children and young people.
The BSA should reconsider.
And DPF just seems to me to becoming more immoral in his postings this year. “Fomenting happy mischief” sounds a lot like Loki- Norse god of mischief.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Redbaiter, for someone notorious for posting abuse”
Fuck you and your pissant preoccupation with what you perceive as “abuse”.
Now if thats not proving someones point for them, I don’t know what is!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I think Glenn can rest his case.
Redbaiter – Of course FF have the right to protest and argue their case, but they don’t have the right to tell me what to watch, which is exactly what they would do if it were up to them.
When it comes to gratuitous sex and violence, you sound remarkably like the socialists you rail against. Oh well, I guess someone has to draw lines somewhere, so it might as well be you.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
BlairM you say you are a christian- how about sounding like one? Christians can never be boilerplate liberals if we take biblical notions like “sin” seriously.
Freedom must always have limits. Otherwise it just becomes license.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The just turn it off argument is OK for some but what about those that don’t turn it off and are influenced by it? We are becoming more immoral and the ones being hurt are our children and young people.
Its called freedom of choice. If you ban everything that is objectionable to anyone, you’d end up banning everything. What you consider objectionable, others may consider comedy. Eg: I laughed my arse off at the Danish cartoons of Mohamed but I doubt many if any Muslims did the same.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Redbaiter, out of curiosity, what would your view have been had the BSA decision gone the other way?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Redbaiter
Cricket is often played on Sundays, people go along when they should be in Church. Some people who are there drink Alcohol and wear very few clothes… It’s dangerous for society – people should be in Church all day and alcohol should be forbidden on Sunday…..
I think you get my point, what’s offensive to some is not automatically offensive to all. It’s great being an adult because you get choices – that is as long as some nanny isn’t trying to make us all conform to their own standards.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Scott – judge not lest ye be judged. I take sin very seriously in my own personal life, but your sins are none of my business. That is between you and God.
I don’t quite see the difference between a fictional dramatised account of a man sleeping around, and lurid stories of purportedly historical accounts of incest and rape as depicted in the Bible. Why is the story of Lot and his daughters acceptable and Californication not? Why can Isaiah get away with rude allegories detailing the size of Babylonian penises, but poor old David Duchovney can’t tell a story for us on tv?
People become moral not by banning their favourite tv show, but by becoming convicted of their own sin. Nor is it a sin to watch a television show. If you really think that Californication makes people more likely to go out and cheat on their partners, you’re mad as a snake.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“Our church youth group informs me that it is now well accepted for 14 year old girls to go to parties,get drunk,take drugs and have sex.”
There is always going to be a small percentage of girls that do this. The best we can do is make sure our daughters are not one of them and our sons are not one of the horndogs who takes advantage of these girls.
While it may be “accepted” that this does happen (to say otherwise would just be denial) it doesnt mean we actually find it acceptable.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Californication (aside from being, as DPF, quite humorous and containing some of the best acting in a mass-produced Holloywood series I’ve seen in a long time – notably from the young girl playing Duchovney’s long-suffering daughter) is an old fashioned morality tale cloaked in a risque plot.
Duchovny’s descent into binge drinking and meaningless sex is fueled by the emptiness he feels at the break-up of his nuclear family. This was caused by his infidelity – thus the entire series is essentially Ducovny’s self-flaggelation in response to his moral failings.
Ducovny’s ex-wife still clearly loves him but refuses to countenance returning to him unless he can offer both excitement and stability and fidelity. Their daughter (an excellent young actress, by the way) treats him with pity and an air of contempt rather than thinking he’s a “cool dad”, thus further emphasising the hollowness of his descent into booze, drugs and meaningless sex.
Duchovny wasn’t aware of the age of the girl with whom he has sex, nor her relationship to his wife’s fiance. Throughout the series this mistake causes him considerable grief. Indeed none of the family are happy that the family unit has been shattered.
*spoiler alert*
In the final episode, Duchovny’s ex-wife runs out of her own wedding, taking the daughter with her. They leap into Duchovny’s car and the family, reunited and happy for the first time, drive off into the night.
Personally, for a series that handled a man’s descent into a self-inflicted mire with light-handedness and humour, I found the conclusion cloying, obvious and disappointing. But the morality tale is clear – no matter how many beautiful women you sleep with, how many drugs you take, or how much booze you consume, you’ll never feel fulfilled until you’re part of a stable nuclear family.
In fact if the moralists looked past the tits at the tale behind it, Californication could become must-see TV at church men’s groups.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
BlairM,
Besides, I hear very little from Christians and conservatives railing against real adultery. Why the concern over imaginary, dramatised adultery that harms no-one in real life?
Then you’re not listening, which is not surprising given your take on this.
This ruling is just the latest in a long line of BSA judgements that suggest pretty much anything goes on TV, but if you run a warning then it’s all OK. Some people may have no problem with anything at all being screened on free-to-air TV, but I think there are boundaries. And Californication trampled all over them like teenage boys watching this show will women they sleep with.
It’s one thing to show such material on subscriber channels — as was the case with Californication in the US — but it’s entirely different for a teen to be flicking through free-to-air channels at 9.32, having just missed the warning, and seeing breasts flying all over the screen.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Gosh, the horror of teens seeing breasts on television. It might lead to dancing. We can’t have that.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I agree with Zen on this. To those who say “just don’t watch it”, where is the line? I mean should ANYTHING go on TV now and anyone can just watch what they think appropriate for themselves? This is prime time, people; there’s the internet for those who want to indulge in watching immoral rubbish.
Yes, but this doesn’t help people who are trying to become moral does it? If someone is overweight and has put themselves on a diet to only eat good things and they look in the TV Guide and it says, “pssst – there’s a chocolate cake in your cupboard; you don’t have to eat it or even look at it, but it’s there if you want it”, is it going to be easier or harder for them to diet?
It’s better not have the temptation in the first place.
I really have to wonder at the people who make this rubbish that our young people watch under the guise of entertainment.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
BlairM,
Nice rebuttal of the points made. Well done.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
This reminds me of when the boobs on bikes parade was on in Auckland and I was criticizing it in the smoko room at work. The boss came in and he thought it was OK. He said he’d seen some grandmotherly-like woman talking to a reporter on TV. The boss thought she looked like a bit of a prude but the woman said she was very much OK with her 12 year old grandsson seeing the topless women and it would be good for him, which the boss thought was very funny.
About here, I stifled the urge to ask the boss if he would have been OK with this same 12 year old boy asking out his 12 year old daughter the next day after he’d got all hornied up. It’s all OK until it affects your life or family directly (and it does affect you eventually – if affects the whole country).
March 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Yes goddamn it Fletch, ANYTHING should go on television. It is a box that people can choose to own… or not. They can turn it on… or not. And if they do turn it on, they can choose the channel they watch. Nobody is making you watch it!
OMG, if you are really so feeble and vulnerable to cheating on your wife that a TELEVISION PROGRAMME is going to send you off down the Viaduct looking for fresh meat, banning the television programme is NOT going to help you! Yes it would be lovely if we could lock our children up in padded cells until they are ninety, unable to sin against God or man, but maybe, just maybe, we should love and respect people enough to make their own decisions in life. Including television.
And again, why dictate television viewing? Why not just say “Don’t cheat”?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Blair, ANYTHING? Like bestiality and the like? Or snuff movies? Or kiddie porn? You don’t draw the line at that?
The problem is, is that I *do* think that what people watch affects them. This can be seen in porn addicts who watch so much porn that they become inured to it and can’t get turned on any more so that it’s difficult to have sex with a partner. They have to watch stuff that’s more and more sexually over the top to even get a hard-on.
You can’t take this stuff in and think that it doesn’t affect you in any way; of course it does.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Sex, sex sex, must get sex into it. Wait, I see a television commercial- There’s this nude woman in a bath holding a bit of your string. That’s great, great, but we need a doctor, got to have a medical opinion. There’s a nude woman in a bath with a doctor–that’s too sexy. Put an archbishop there watching them, that’ll take the curse off it. Now, we need children and animals. There’s two kids admiring the string, and a dog admiring the archbishop who’s blessing the string. Uhh…international flavor’s missing…make the archbishop Greek Orthodox. Why not Archbishop Macarios? No, no, he’s dead… nevermind, we’ll get his brother, it’ll be cheaper… So, there’s Archbishop Macarios….
March 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Fletch:
Damn right – every time I see ‘adaptations of the works of Mr William Shakespeare I feel an urge to go out and frak a donkey (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), torture the first lippy broad I see (Taming of the Shrew), slaughter some kids (Richard III), commit pack rape and cut out my victim’s tongue so she can’t nark. perform a human sacrifice, and serve my enemies a pie made of human flesh (all Titus Andronicus).
When is the government going to save me from myself?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
And every time I watch Dr Who, I want to get into my Tardis and have a shag with Billy Piper, see that is just wrong, the new girl is much better.
Fletch, porn addiction is like alcoholism, and one must be predisposed to such inflictions to be ailed by them. The ‘Go Ask Alice’ we’re-all-jumping-out-of-windows approach to censorship is just a little too simplistic.
[DPF: You too?
]
March 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I’ve never watched the show. Not because I’m religious or because it offends my sense of morality. I’m a stone atheist and a lot of religion gets up my nose.
But here’s the thing. What I object to about shows like Californication is that I think they are just deliberately trying to ‘shock’ or generate some sort of vicarious thrill to try and pull increasingly jaded eyeballs to the pathetic spectacle that is free-to-air TV.
Moreover, they are doing so while pretending or implying that it’s all very ‘challenging’ and meaningful, when in fact they have repeatedly picked the softest targets in the world – Christian religion and Judeo-Christian morals in our post-modern world – two things that are gasping their last in the West anyway.
And all this to deliver the perfectly ordinary morality tale described by Rex. No wonder the ending struck him as cloying and obvious. Of course it is – the writers did not have a clue beyond the initial, mundane concept spiced up with basic T&A. – and so they had no really ‘challenging’ idea as to how to finish it. The only thing they had was the whole modern sex schlock. Maybe the guy could have thrown himself under a train!
It’s not just boring, in that it was being done in movies 30 years ago – when it actually was taking the risk of offending a lot of people – it’s that it is cowardly. The people who make these shows know damn well that they are riding the perfect tube here – just enough Christians left to cause a stink and raise the PR level while not coming even within a light year of being dangerous in their reactions. It really is pathetic.
Same as the recent dirge of Iraq war movies. The people who made them really did think they were being challenging and asking the questions that cannot be asked and blah, blah. The public, even the standard US-sneering crowd around the world, simply thought they were boring. American soldiers as torturers, rapists and murderers? Saw it on the news last night – yawn.
How about this storyline:
Episode 1.
Priest attempts, via discussion, to convert young, burka-covered, immigrant Muslim girl to Roman Catholicism.
Lifting the burka reveals a face of such tragic beauty (think National Geographic Afghan girl) that he falls in love with and they start having sex.
Episode 2
The ultimate coitus interruptus occurs due a mob of rampaging Muslim relations descending upon the church, bent on killing both the priest and the girl.
The couple are saved by a group of pacifist vegans and wiccans throwing themselves in a ring around the church.
The defenders are wearing t-shirts bearing the image of Mohammed covered by the Peace Sign as a desperate attempt to put across their deepest beliefs in empathetic outreach – only to find that the sight of these further enrages the mob.
Episode 3 (and continuing)
The fight is ended with the arrival of a US Navy SEAL team who kill the mob, capturing only the leader. A number of the SEAL’s also die when they throw themselves at a suicide bomber who is attempting to kill the last of the vegans.
It turns out that the leader is Osama Bin Laden and the whole thing was a setup with one of his female cousins to lure him from his cave.
The priest turns out to be Robert Fisk, who has signed a deal with President Bush for an execution exclusive with Osama!
Now that I would not mind seeing. It contains any number of ideas that might challenge our everyday assumptions and raise key questions of morality, as well providing ongoing plot-lines for any ‘transgressive’ artists who wish to pursue them.
Perhaps the real point is that by the time ever such a thing were made I would be watching it via iTunes or BitTorrent.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Aye Craig, there’s the rub. This is never about what affects the minds of the people who complain. Nobody has come out and said “I don’t want Californication on TV because it makes me want to cheat on my wife with a stripper.” It’s always about what it does to OTHER PEOPLE, these unknown masses too stupid to figure right from wrong, whose minds are warped and bent to evil at the slightest televised suggestion.
Who are these people? Do they exist? Surely they must, or people wouldn’t complain. Would they? ;o)
Fletch, I’m pretty sure any tv channel that showed bestiality or child porn would struggle for both viewers and advertising, making it unnecessary to ban.
Tom – I agree with you! I’ve never watched Californication either actually. Auteurs have been trying to spice up bad writing with sex ever since the publication of Pamela. For that reason, it doesn’t particularly interest me. But I am not going to question the taste of those who do choose to watch it… (alright, maybe I’ll look down my nose at them a little…)
March 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I love the irony(?) that Duchovny in real life is a self confessed Porn addict, apparently his DVD collection is huge. Good Man.
He’s a perv and stars in good TV, be it with Aliens and Smoking Men or with Nuns in compromising positions?
Still, last time I looked it was a free country and one simply had to turn off the telly or watch something else. Personally evey time that bloody dancing with the stars comes on, I feel compelled to ring advertisers advising them I will no longer be using their product – but that’s free speech isn’t it?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Actually a very valid point has been made about sex on TV. Anything ( and I mean anything at all) that might cause men to masterbate should be banned. Woman don’t masterbate so no need to protect them.
Masterbation is evil, it’s a waste of precious sperm and as we know it’s a sin to spill semen unless it’s in the body of a legally wedded wife.
Shit down all TV now ! For the sake of our morality.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Burt I hope there is a rather large tongue in your cheek (rather hard to tell with words alone if you are taking the piss)
March 31st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Tom Hunter,
That’s an interesting storyline you propose, but you’ve forgotten one crucial rule: Islam is a sacred cow and nobody can offend it. For those of you who watched the episode with the nun, what reaction would there have been if that was a burqa-clad Muslim woman in a mosque?
Anything goes, right BlairM.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“breasts flying all over the screen”
was that in Python? I missed that one, did anyone get hurt by said breasts flying all over the screen, sounds a little uncomfortable – was their chafing?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Paul
You bet it’s a piss take. Anybody who thinks woman don’t masterbate is clearly delusional – or still believes what the church told them 30 years ago. Take your pick on which one it is
I’m really pointing out that morality (and people claiming to have the high ground on morality) is relavent to a period in time. EG: It would be considered child abuse today if you send a 12 year old boy to bed in boxing gloves so he couldn’t play with himself. In the past it was considered to be an acceptable way to stop him from being taken over by the devil !
March 31st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Paul
Re: the boxing gloves – they were tied to the headboard as I guess some boys discovered that leather (as used for boxing gloves) had it’s own appeal
March 31st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Re: the boxing gloves – they were tied to the headboard as I guess some boys discovered that leather (as used for boxing gloves) had it’s own appeal”
oh ok, that makes sense now
cos I’m sure that boxing gloves wouldnt have stopped me when I was 12/13
March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
burt,
I’m really pointing out that morality (and people claiming to have the high ground on morality) is relavent to a period in time.
Question: Does that mean that in 10 or 15 years it’ll be fine to show explicit sex on free-to-air television?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Don’t mention boxing gloves and bed in the same sentence in this blog, D4J will get horny and that can only lead to bad things
March 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
What truly scares me about this debate is the people who want TV to teach others about morality. Commercial television is an absolute whore, flashing new cars and plasma TVs at us and whispering seductive messages in our ears abut how women will be irresistibly drawn to us, or we’ll be the most popular member of our group of friends respectively, if only we’ll succumb.
If they can get away with it, they’ll shoehorn the products into the programs (aka “product placement”) and of course the actors we identify as the characters they portray will then pop up in the break flogging detergent.
Meanwhile those advertisements will feature a woman talking about inserting a vaginal pessary to treat her thrush or elderly cyclists espousing the benefits of fibre preparations on the smoothness and regularity of their stools. There was once a commercial which suggested that our first contact with intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe would be on the topic of tampons. All of which I found more insulting to my intelligence than anything Duchovny and co served up.
And yet we expect the same people who accept money to foist this upon us to have any morality at all when it comes to programming?! We can argue all we want about what TV should be like but the reality is that it lost all sense of public purpose long ago. It exists only to make money for its owners and to feed the massive egos of those who appear on it.
Unless we learn – and teach our children – to be discerning users of television, we will simply passively absorb all this and worse. So I’d respectfully suggest to those offended by the likes of Californication that imbuing one’s young with a level of discernment is the only way to deal with your concerns, and that spluttering about declining standards is already a lost cause.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Scribe
The way people some people dress today would have resulted in them being locked (possibly burnt at a stake) 100 years ago…. So who knows. Sex on free-to-air TV is already acceptable in some cultures. Of course NZ is a Christian nation and that is why it’s impossible to find a park within 5 k’s of any church on a Sunday
March 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Question: Does that mean that in 10 or 15 years it’ll be fine to show explicit sex on free-to-air television?”
why not
its about time we got some free
tv will all be through a decoder eventually so you can block it
March 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“Don’t mention boxing gloves and bed in the same sentence in this blog, D4J will get horny and that can only lead to bad things’
What a twisted comment by a sicko depraved pervert.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
DPF
So, if I understand your argument, some tv programmes have ‘appallingly offensive scenes and language’ and are ‘often truly disgusting’ but, because they have a message behind them and ‘many of the messages are good ones’, then it’s acceptable.
Blimey. That’s a very big claim to make, isn’t it? It sounds like you are saying the ends (most of the time) justify the means and that’s a very slippery slope to be on.
It astounds me that some NZers think this sort of thing is cool, funny or even acceptable. It’s just some American entrepreneurs having fun (oh, and making lots of money, I nearly forgot the most important point) at everybody else’s expense and in the process spreading to the rest of the word a contemporary ‘culture’ or sense of humour or view of life that is toxic.
You appear willing to lap it up.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
What’s the worry about breasts? I don’t see the whole of France being perverted by the topless bathing done there by women. in fact i think it desensitises young men needing to get a desperate perve at womens breasts and allows them to accept naked womens bodies as normal unlike all of those frustrated Catholic school boys.
And as for Californication, great show, was nowhere near as offensive as was promised. I too was dissappointed with the finish. i have a feeling they did that so they’d have no reason to write a second series because they couldn’t be bothered with all the moral high grounders shouting at them.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
SSaSttL,
People like me would have much less of a gripe if this sort of programming was on pay channels or shown through decoders on which certain shows can be blocked. The fact that this is on free TV is a huge reason why I think it’s unacceptable.
Like Boobs on Bikes and the Hell pizza condom mailout, it’s taking the choice out of the equation to a large extent. Channel surfing means people can just stumble across things that would offend them with no warning whatsoever.
People can trot out all the rubbish about how it’s sending a message about this or that, but at the end of the day it’s glorifying sexual promiscuity. And statistics show how good that is for society.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
labrator,
There wasn’t much criticism from the moral high-grounders in the US because it was shown on a premium subscriber-only channel. In Australia, the network execs apologised for the offence the show caused. Here, the CanWest folks gave people the finger, like they usually do.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I think some of you have missed a small point. It only a TV program so just turn the fucking TV off or change channels. Who the hell said it was real life.
If you want to read the bible or watch some one (in soft porn as in TV) shagging a chick well it is your choice.
Who gave anyone the authority to tell me what I can or cannot watch. Oops forgot this commie gummit.
Get a life. Blair M is spot one. Make up your own mind on what you watch and if your feel like telling me what to watch, well get fucked.
By the way I watched about 2 minutes of this debated TV entertainment and turned off because it was not to my taste.
I suggest a few others follow the same logic.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Scribe: I agree with your idea that this should be able to be blocked via digital means if people’s moral code object to the content being accessible by their families. Perhaps it will be an option on freeview?
However prohibition has never really worked and the best advice for children to not be damaged by the internet and television is to have both only available in the family room. That means no tv or internet in the bedroom/study. The internet has considerably worse things on it then Californication could ever offer up and there are no sure fire ways of avoiding that content other than being well raised enough to not require it. I haven’t seen anybody object to the internet yet here.
Interestingly, the introduction of a .xxx top level domain name (like .com) exclusively for porn has been stopped numerous times. This would have enabled a system very similar to what Scribe has suggested allowing filtering by domain name (anybody offering porn over a non .xxx domain name could be reported and quickly have their registration cancelled).
March 31st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
My view has always been that individuals have agency, we have the ability to decide for ourselves what we want to view, and that ratings are an accurate measure of viewing preferences. (Parents need to be responsible for what children view and that responsibility should not be abdicated to the state or to broadcasters, and be imposed on the rest of us.) If shows like Californication and South Park have viable audiences, it is what it is, and a reflection of culture, good or bad. The market has spoken.
I do not buy into the (usually leftist) argument for public broadcasting that says we are all hapless victims of American television companies and we don’t really know what’s good for us. Although, I note that a lot of “conservatives” do, making a collectivist “for-the-good-of-society” argument from atop their high horse and ultimately imposing their own prejudices and hang-ups on the rest of us.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
labrator,
the best advice for children to not be damaged by the internet and television is to have both only available in the family room.
Good call. It’s a suggestion I’ve heard for adults, too, who have addictions to pornography/online gambling or other unhealthy habits.
Raffles,
Californication is one programme, but it’s part of a much larger trend that is allowing more and more sex and violence into our homes. Would you be just as laissez-faire about showing explicit violence on TV, Raffles?
My hunch is yes, and then when someone kills a friend of yours mimicking that programme, you wonder how society came to be so violent. Or why New Zealand has the second highest teen pregnancy and teen STD and teen abortion rates in the western world. These things don’t happen randomly.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Scribe suggests:
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Have you seen Japanese TV lately?! Yet I don’t think Japanese teenagers are going round hitting one another in the testicles simply because television has suggested the idea to them.
NZ’s high rates of STDs and teen abortions are more likely to be a result of poor or non-existent parenting, particularly amongst a sub-class, but we’re too politically correct to acknowledge it let alone address it. Oh, and the hypocrisy of the moralists who want to reduce STDs and abortions but at the same time disapprove of young people’s free access to sexuality information and safe contraception.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Now if thats not proving someones point for them, I don’t know what is!”
Listen- here’s what you’re saying (‘don’t watch it’) back at you- You don’t like Redbaiter’s language then don’t fucken well read my messages. Or else, all who subscribe to the moderation system here have no business complaining about similar moderation of television programs.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Redbaiter, if you have the time to answer, I would like to know what would your view have been had the BSA decision gone the other way, please.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Rex,
NZ’s high rates of STDs and teen abortions are more likely to be a result of poor or non-existent parenting, particularly amongst a sub-class, but we’re too politically correct to acknowledge it let alone address it. Oh, and the hypocrisy of the moralists who want to reduce STDs and abortions but at the same time disapprove of young people’s free access to sexuality information and safe contraception.
NZ teens have had free access to sexuality information and safe contraception for years and years, yet the numbers keep going up. And the claim that contraceptive sex is safe is a farce; 7700 women who had abortions in 2006 were using contraception and even health organisations acknowledge condoms only provide some protection against many STDs. Some of those STDs will render the women infertile, but that’s probably not going to bother them anyway. Free love, baby.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“Redbaiter, if you have the time to answer, I would like to know what would your view have been had the BSA decision gone the other way, please.”
Thank you for your courteous request. There’s a lot more I would have liked to add to this thread, but I just have not had time today.
As for the answer, I do not agree that the BSA should even exist. It is I think a government agency, and one we could easily do away with. As for its findings, I think compliance is voluntary, or tho I could be wrong about this, however I do not agree that governments should stop TV stations from broadcasting anything. I agree that the solution is to turn the TV off.
At the same time, people who are offended by gratuitous violence or sex or any damn thing have the right to condemn or complain if they so desire. You don’t have to agree with them, but you have to protect their right to swim against the stream.
I happen to agree with the moral sentiments expressed by many of the complainants. I think it is good that they are not so intimidated by post modernist loud mouth pseudo liberals that they are afraid to state their viewpoint. They are free to approve or disapprove. As you are. As I am. They are free to make moral judgments. As you are. As I am. They are free to advocate for their cause. As you are. As I am. That is as it should be.
They are free to despise you if they so choose. as I might despise those who I consider to be destroying our society. I have the freedom to express my contempt, and to make my judgments. The real question is do they or I or you have the right to use legislation to force others to comply with our moral standards (outside the realm of property)? The simple answer is no.
Another thought occurs to me tho. Socialists are great believers in the will of the majority. They could hardly complain then if the will of the majority was to regulate what TV stations broadcast, and therefore they should not complain when those who seek such an outcome advocate for that result, and seek to attract a majority to their cause.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:10 am
Thanks for taking the time to respond Redbaiter. You said it better than I could, but it seemed that the distinction was definately between convincing people of a viewpoint and compelling them to adhere to a viewpoint.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:10 am
Redbaiter:
Positive karma for a calm, well-argued comment — and one I happen to mostly agree with. Just as an FYI, the Broadcasting Standards Authority isn’t an opt-in body like the Press Council but was established under the Broadcasting Act in 1989 (I think).
In the end, I have to note to irony that so many of the folks who got so up in arms over Californication were exactly the same people who (successfully) appealed to have the R16 rating of The Passion of the Christ lowered. (Which, as RB points out, is a legitimate course of action under current censorship legislation.)
So, to some minds, showing their children a film that contains endless scenes depicting eye-wateringly graphic torture and humiliation is OK. You’ve got to understand the context, you see. A television drama that contains the degraded and degrading sexual fantasies of a pathetic Casanova– and need I add that the nun fellatio that so outraged the moral campaigners was NOT shown but implied. Not so much.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Yes. There’s a standard international rationale that because the airwaves are public (and limited), that Governments have a stronger interest in regulating them (if the people are going to let you use their airwaves, they’ve decided there are some standards that will apply). It’s a rationale that doesn’t apply to printing presses and newsprint and they’ve historically (in recent times anyway) been less regulated.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
What is with you hypocrites?
The slightest glimpse or mention of tits, bums, willies, hairy backs or god forbid fannies and you all turn various shades of prune, but if said “12 year old” happens to glimpse someone’s head being shot off or other hideous depictions of violence that is on our telly every night of the week, then that’s fine.
Worse, every night in NZ thousands of little boys play to most hideous violent computer games where one gets points for running people over for fucks sake.
We need more tit, muffs, willies, bums and acts of sex on telly. Sex is fun, it is fun on one’s own it is fun with someone you love it is fun with more than one, all manifestations of the sexual activity (whatever you are into) is fun, but no no no, not according to the conservative christian right who pervade this blog. It’s evil and violent crime (according to the silence is fine).
If we actually had the balls to stand up to you lot, we’d have more sex on telly, that actually reflects REAL LIFE without christian dogma getting in the way, then life would be a lot more fun. I mean I don’t know about you guys, but one would expect to have sex or some sort of sexual contact x hundreds or thousands of time during their life, but one would never ever hope to witness a person being shot in the head, and I really do hope I never get to witness an Execution (as one performs on computer games).
Get all hot and bothered about this by all means, It just goes to show how screwed up society has become under the religious right zealots, when death, violent murder and the active participation in ‘virtual’ acts of hideous crime via computer games is OK and a couple of breasts engaged in the most normal act in the world is bad.
You tossers!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Another thought occurs to me tho. Socialists are great believers in the will of the majority.
They’re not the only ones, either.
They could hardly complain then if the will of the majority was to regulate what TV stations broadcast, and therefore they should not complain when those who seek such an outcome advocate for that result, and seek to attract a majority to their cause.
True, but it seems that at the moment the majority don’t object to shows like Californication. It’s wrong to complain about somebody trying to attract majority support for a cause, but I don’t think it’s wrong to inform them that their attempts have failed and treat their requests accordingly.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Actually, ‘the majority’ did if my memory serves. Wasn’t Californication (and Saving Grace which also raised the ire of Family First and church groups) dumped into a graveyard slot after a few weeks due to low ratings?
Apparently, the hoi polloi aren’t quite as easily lead by their blasphemous gonads as some folks would have us believe.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Sex/porn addiction is real and destructive and is established by putting rubbish like this into a young susceptible mind. Christians oppose this not out of some control freak desire to make life miserable; just the opposite in fact. Promiscuity causes a breakdown of loving relationships and spiritual/moral corruption. Soulless corporations have commoditized our natural, healthy desires just to sell us more shit. In fact the breakdown of the family and establishment of a metrosexual consumer culture is great for their profits — nobody is saving for the future or their children anymore; we are all just partying our days away and aborting the inconvenient byproducts of our selfish indulgence.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am
ropata: nobody is saving for the future or their children anymore; we are all just partying our days away and aborting the inconvenient byproducts of our selfish indulgence
What do you mean nobody? I am saving for my children, I don’t spend my days partying away and have never been a party to an abortion. So whichever “we” you are talking about there, please don’t include me in it. Apply it to the people that have made those choices.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Good for you Pascal. Obviously I’m making generalizations about the cultural climate that shows like Californication seek to propagate. I’m trying to make a point, putting disclaimers everywhere is just a distraction.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Ropata is right on the money. The “anything goes” mentality on television is a symptom of the general decline of morality in our population. Once upon a time young men were married by the age of 24, 25 and had started a family. Now all young men(with the exception of Pascal) want to do is have sex with as many partners as possible.
Our families are very weak because marriage is very weak. It is about time that the men of this nation grew up and took on adult responsibilities rather than delaying maturity for as long as possible.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Also I am amazed by those who claim that they have the right to watch what they like. The freedom to watch whatever they want trumps anyone else’s freedom. Those who want a decent society with decent standards for example.
Philosophically where does this right come from? Certainly not from Christianity — we have freedom and worth because we are created in the image of God but always there are limits and boundaries.
Does it come from evolution? If we have evolved then all we are products of a mindless process that did not have us in mind. We are no more than highly evolved amoeba really. We don’t even have free will — our genes tell us what to do.
So what I am getting at is that many people on this blog, in my humble opinion, have far too high an opinion of their rights. Where does the right to do whatever you like come from? Why should television be as sleazy as possible just because it pleases you?
Where is the sense of consideration for others? Where is the sense of wanting to protect our teenagers and children from sleaze that will damage their minds? Where is the simple love of our neighbour?
[DPF: You can protect your teeangers and children without stopping adults from watching funny shows they like. Grab a Sky box, and set it to require a pin to view any show unsuitable for minors]
April 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Sex we need more sex on TV.
Unhealthy christian repressed oppression and only creates repression.
We need more sex on TV, we need more sex in our lives and we need sexuality normalised, so that magazines don’t pimp it to pre-pubescent teens under the guise of ‘naughty’ or ‘edgy’ advertising.
I would love to know your guys views on my comments above about the supposed hypocrisy, that we allow death and murder every night on the tv (what could be more destructive to the ‘family unit’ than a murdered loved one), yet sex is bad?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:52 am
“because we are created in the image of God”
Says who? Which God?
Good god!
April 1st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Scott and Ropata,
Nice posts above. Particularly liked this, Scott: So what I am getting at is that many people on this blog, in my humble opinion, have far too high an opinion of their rights.
And rights without responsibilities, don’t forget.
Paul,
I would love to know your guys views on my comments above about the supposed hypocrisy, that we allow death and murder every night on the tv (what could be more destructive to the ‘family unit’ than a murdered loved one), yet sex is bad?
I think they’re both very damaging. Here’s something I posted yesterday on this responding to Raffles:
“Californication is one programme, but it’s part of a much larger trend that is allowing more and more sex and violence into our homes. Would you be just as laissez-faire about showing explicit violence on TV, Raffles?
“My hunch is yes, and then when someone kills a friend of yours mimicking that programme, you wonder how society came to be so violent.”
April 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
DPF — sadly we are not in agreement. There are technical solutions but the overriding problem is still that some of us just do not agree that television should be so sleazy. Once upon a time we believed in moral boundaries and right and wrong. We believed those came from God. Some of us still do.
[DPF: I'll believe in God's moral boundaries so long as he communicates them directly to me. Otherwise I set my own]
April 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
In reply to Paul — “Sex we need more sex on TV.Unhealthy christian repressed oppression and only creates repression.”
Okay then. Actually — and having lived both lifestyles — I can tell you that the promiscuous and sinful lifestyle hurts people.
Those of us who actually work with troubled teenagers can testify to that. The pain caused by abortion, abandoned partners, women left alone with the baby, young men who kill themselves when their girlfriend leaves them, etc, etc, etc — is there for all who have eyes to see.
The Christian God is a good God who loves us and because he loves us gives us rules for living. There are only two rules — love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself. If we did that all the problems described above would disappear.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
Cheers Scribe.
Come on really Sex? I agree the violence is bad, but sex is good. Sex in all of it’s manifestations (including the biblical ones) is good. It is fun and should be seen as such. If we had a healthier attitude to sex instead of this brown paper bag approach we would have a happier less repressed society. I’m not advocating a topless Minnie Mouse (but how hot was Mrs Rabbit in Roger Rabbit), our kids need not protecting just bought up in a sensible manner.
How sensible was it of my parents to give me a book the vicar had given them stating that if I played with my willie I would be committing a sin and I would go blind. Oh yeah that was really sensible stuff. There was not intention of creating a rounded human being but christian repressed dogma – and we were of that very liberal Church of England lot. Funny of all the schools I taught at the one with the most problems with it’s students and their sexuality was of course the Catholic school – coincidence?
I have a very strong constitution, but when I see someone being shot in cold blood (pick your channel and day of the week), I tend to get a little annoyed and don’t feel so good. Sorry if you are a little uneasy with the naked body and sexual activity, however the act of sex creates life the pulling of a trigger (NRA and it’s christian soldiers) takes life – I thought only God could do that.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
“young men who kill themselves” This is not a consequence of Sex, this is a consequence of a troubled child.
And for most of the other things you mention, I agree, except that they are the result of our unhealthy attitudes to sex and sexuality. It’s all wrong. Sex is good and fun. Sex is not dirty and immoral and not to be talked about.
If more people talked about sex and sex was a normal part of life there would be less abortions and smaller teen pregnancy rates.
Sex is not bad, violence is bad. Sex is good. Willies are good, Breasts are good, people are good. Guns are bad.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Paul,
Come on really Sex? I agree the violence is bad, but sex is good. Sex in all of it’s manifestations (including the biblical ones) is good.
I partly agree. Sex is indeed good, and that’s what the Church says about it. In fact, the idea that “repressed Christians”, as you call them, are opposed to sex is a huge myth. The Church just says that there’s a right place and a wrong place for sex, relationally speaking. Therefore, sex “in all of it’s [sic] manifestations” isn’t necessarily good. That’s not saying it doesn’t “feel” good in the moment, but the long-term ramifications of promiscuity, as Scott outlined above, are almost always negative.
I have a very strong constitution, but when I see someone being shot in cold blood (pick your channel and day of the week), I tend to get a little annoyed and don’t feel so good.
So you no doubt complain to the BSA about that, because you recognise it’s harmful to society. Don’t you? Or are the others right when they say “get over it, just switch the channel”?
April 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sex is good when it is between consenting adults who know what they’re doing.
And Paul. “Mrs Rabbit”? Please. Her name was Jessica.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Ropata: Obviously I’m making generalizations about the cultural climate that shows like Californication seek to propagate.
I noticed that. What I was pointing out to you is that those actions are decisions made by individuals. As you and I have the right and the desire to set a certain standard for our lifestyles, so other people have the right and the desire to set different ones. We cannot force them to bow to our will. There lies the ways of Labour.
Scott: Where is the sense of consideration for others? Where is the sense of wanting to protect our teenagers and children from sleaze that will damage their minds? Where is the simple love of our neighbour?
It is relatively simple. What you want is a world where your morality determines how other people should live – people who do not believe in the Christian God. That is an authoritarian view that denies people their own choices in life.
The other view is that you allow people to make their own choices about how they want to live their lives.
Scott: The Christian God is a good God who loves us and because he loves us gives us rules for living. There are only two rules — love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself. If we did that all the problems described above would disappear.
Sure He is. (You should really use a capital when invoking His name) However, my Muslim friends do not share that belief. My Buddhist friends do not share that belief. My agnostic friend does not share that belief. What gives me the right to determine for them how they should live their lives and what allows me to force them to live according to my Gods scripture?
Nothing.
I can tell them about Him. I can share what I believe. But I can never command. Therein lies the difference mate.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Yes, God save us from Christians who think they can make society moral by legislation instead of persuasion and prayer.
It is precisely the freedom of choice that humans have that makes the choice to be moral valuable. A man who is not given the choice to be moral is not moral at all, simply caged.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Unfortunately, as there is often, there has to be a middle ground here. If you were to follow the path that breasts shouldn’t be shown on television, then you tread a dangerous path back to the inglorious middle ages where people were killed because if their differing beliefs (a better metaphor would’ve been great here). If you tread the other path where anything can be shown well you’d have to accept that there is a demand for kiddy porn out there which I hope everyone here can agree is wrong. It comes back down to human rights. You have the right to do anything as long as it doesn’t harm others in doing it. Viewing kiddy porn harms others because you’ve created a demand for the abuse of children. However, I have sympathies with Paul here in regards to NZ being rather sexually uneducated. So, there’s no right answer here, both sides have a point. My opinion is there was nothing terribly wrong with Californication and the 9:30 time slot was appropriate.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The difference between showing sex between adults on television and showing bestiality/kiddie porn/snuff movies is quite simple: the last three are illegal, the other – thankfully – is not. Society as a whole is clearly against child porn/bestiality/snuff, otherwise there would be pressure groups set up to change the laws. We are, on the whole, comfortable with sex, despite the prim lip-pursing of some of the more vocal “moral” watchdogs. So while people seem to be quite blase about seeing some illegal acts on telly (the murder, robbery etc that makes up so many of the crime shows that litter the listings) many seem to be all too uncomfortable about seeing a perfectly natural (ie, instinctive, as opposed to God-ordained) activity. Rather odd, I would have thought. And Pascal – your last sentence should be required reading for all Christians.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
In reply to Pascal-”It is relatively simple. What you want is a world where your morality determines how other people should live – people who do not believe in the Christian God. That is an authoritarian view that denies people their own choices in life.”
No I am just arguing a point of view the same as you are. However the God of Christianity is responsible for the Western civilisation you enjoy and all the freedoms that come from that. They would be impossible under Islam — try showing Californication in a Muslim country.
Indeed the simple fact of the matter is that morality comes from somewhere. You are arguing for a depraved and sinful and licentious morality. I am just arguing for simple decency. You want your view — I want mine. Mine comes from Christianity, that is my licence to argue what I am arguing.
I could easily ask where is your mandate? Who appointed you the apologist for sleazy American programmes?
You want your morality to prevail — I respectfully disagree.
Finally every nation will have a religion of some sort or another. I am arguing for Christianity.
Presently we are unfortunately moving away from Christianity. But don’t think we will suddenly go to a science-fiction rationalist kind of nation. I suspect we are just on the way to reverting back to a kind of barbarian paganism.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
In reply to BlairM — “Yes, God save us from Christians who think they can make society moral by legislation instead of persuasion and prayer.It is precisely the freedom of choice that humans have that makes the choice to be moral valuable. A man who is not given the choice to be moral is not moral at all, simply caged.”
Were you not the fellow arguing for the legalisation of bestiality last week? I’m sorry my friend but you seem to have lost your moral compass.
First of all I am not a politician — so I’m not making any legislation. I’m arguing for a sense of decency and moral boundaries. All I have is persuasion (and prayer).
Secondly freedom of choice is not the highest moral value. You are gaining your arguments from secular liberalism, not Christianity. The highest moral values,are love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself. If we love our neighbour then we should not encourage them to sin by arguing for sexually promiscuous programming. All we are doing is allowing temptation to be put in front of our neighbour.
I honestly believe that you need to speak to other mature Christians about these matters. Because quite frankly your opinions and arguments do not appear to honour God.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Scott: I could easily ask where is your mandate? Who appointed you the apologist for sleazy American programmes?
A slight misconception there. I do not watch sleazy American programmes. It is against my personal morality. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is a distinct difference between taking away the right of people to watch what they will (Within the boundaries that society accepts) as you are advocating and simply ignoring those things you disagree with.
As multi-religious societies we need to accept that some people will not share a belief in our Christian God. We can tell them about Him, we can share our experiences and ways in which He enriches our lives; but we cannot turn around and say that a show like Californication should be removed from the television because we do not want to watch it.
I see it as the difference between a positive faith and a negative faith. If that makes any sense at all.
If we love our neighbour then we should not encourage them to sin by arguing for sexually promiscuous programming.
Maybe your neighbour does not consider it to be sin?
April 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Could not help including this cross-thread comment from one of our favourite lefties, Paul:
Francis, the religious right are in full flight within the “A good BSA decision” thread. “The Christian God is a good God who loves us and because he loves us gives us rules for living” Come on what is that if it isn’t religious speak?
and from this thread the following:
Paul, so much of what you write, indeed what so many left-wing white men write on this blog on so many issues, seems permanently anchored in a distant NZ past. It’s like reading some back copy of The Listener, circa 1975.
The constant rapping about our sexually uptight society, where liberation will bring about fewer abortions and lower teenage pregnancy rates.
This may come as a surprise to you (I imagine many things do) but NZ society has ‘liberalised’ to a huge degree since those days and, as I said earlier, Christianity and the whole Judeo-Christian morality base seems to have frayed to almost nothing.
As a teenager I accepted and promoted all the sorts of arguments you put forward. But the fact is that despite smashing down those aspects of the societal domination of Christianity and following the path you propose we actually seem to have the same problems, possibly in an even worse state than before. The only thing these ideas seem to have changed is that sex is now blatantly exploited for commercial purposes – something often deplored by modern feminists, and yourself it would seem.
Now, as an atheist, I have no great desire to bring back the days of the fire brimstone preachers. But it seems to me that anybody still tweaking moral conservatives should at least be humble enough to admit that their suggestions don’t seem to have worked either in 30 years. Let me guess, your ideas have never really been tried, or perhaps these ‘unhealthy’ attitudes to sex are a little more stubborn than you or Margaret Mead imagined.
And yet you persist in bringing this fierce joy to the game of ‘let’s kick the Christians around’ – as if they still dominated our society or even had much of a voice anymore.
On that note we should see if we can get a few Imams on here to comment about this. I’m sure that you would battle for your principles with equal fierceness (perhaps even more, given the greater degree of conservatism faced), and that you would do so with the same degree of derogatory wit.
No?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Wow, Scott, could you be any more patronising and condescending?
Firstly, it is precisely secular liberalism which allows you the free practice of your beliefs, so I wouldn’t be so down on it if I were you.
You seem to believe that you are not arguing for the use of force in society. You are.
You seem to believe that I am arguing in favour of the morality of certain actions of which you disapprove. I am not.
You seem deeply confused overall at the difference between the laws of God and the laws of the State, and moreover, between God’s will and your own.
You speak not like one who thinks for himself and searches out God for himself, but parrots the “wisdom” of those corrupted by their own self-righteousness. There’s mature Christians – those who realise they will never fully know or understand God in this life, and Christians who have grown overripe from thinking they know enough. I do not take counsel from the latter type and neither should you.
To be honest, I don’t want to waste time with a theological debate here, but you need to think before being so arrogant and sure of what you believe about morality. Any fool can label something a sin and claim God is on his side.
And you still haven’t explained why we should allow people to read about Lot having sex with both his daughters, but they can’t watch Californication, which depicts nothing remotely as extreme!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Was the program about Dover Samuels ?
Oh no that’s right – it’s only an outrage when it’s not a Labour party MP !
April 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Ryan Sproull, cheers I knew it wasn’t Mrs Rabbit, but I was in a rush, and well they got the point.
She was hot though. I can see this thread taking on a whole new line, who is the hottest cartoon characters.
I’m putting a dual vote for Betty and Wilma.
Not sure what God had to say about coveting the Wife of a fictional cartoon character, but I’m sure I’ll be informed about it soon enough.
Tom I am glad your atheism has bought you along morally, however, as far as kicking a christian a day, well if they are going to put up arguments about boobs on TV being too much, line the buggers up.
As for Atheism, isn’t that a little too presumptuous to Know that there isn’t a divine being. Surely you must be adhering to the agnostic “whom am I to decide if there is or isn’t a divine entity”, much less arrogant.
I will agree that these ‘unhealthy’ attitudes to sex are too hard to budge, but nothings impossible. We need to normalise the place of sex and sexuality in society instead of marginalizing it. the brown paper bag approach doesn’t work, at least lets try another approach.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
[DPF: I’ll believe in God’s moral boundaries so long as he communicates them directly to me. Otherwise I set my own]
Is the Bible direct enough — he has a few suggestions on moral boundaries in there. Or do you want a personal email?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
There is always a tension between Personal freedom vs. Community wellbeing; individualist hedonism is often very shrill and demanding and cloaks its selfish aims in the language of “rights”, all the while ignoring responsibility and the wider social impact of their pursuits.
Aside: I’m still waiting for the Southpark episode mocking Mohammed. But that’s cool, keep blaspheming Christianity, you courageous defenders of freedom!
April 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
What is more selfish, Ropata, than trying to prevent people from doing things because you personally don’t like it?
And try episodes 1003 and 1004 for some full on Mohammed mockery.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Farrar replied to Hoolihan in comment #2: “[DPF: I have my views on what is morally acceptable, but generally I don’t want to impose them on others. If people are offended by filth on TV, then don’t watch it.]“
‘then don’t watch it’….well what about ones’ children? We know they cannot make the decision to turn the box off (do they ever without being told over and over again!?) so must we watch what they watch to ensure we avoid the objectionable shows? Well lets be realistic, the show is not on particularly late so that is no out-clause for DPF. Responsibility of the broadcaster, and society at large must prevail. As Bill O’Reilly (a renowned right-winger on Fox) recently said, “free speech with responsibility is what made this country great.”. A lot of truth in that for the liberals out there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
OMG, somebody call CYFS! Honestly, if you can’t make your children do something as simple as turn off the television, you really don’t deserve children at all.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
In my book the purveyors of pornography are no better than pimps or drug dealers; parasites on society, inciting and exploiting our basest urges, and profiting from irresponsible, self-destructive, moral weakness of the public. And like the drug dealer at the schoolyard gates they will always be trying to expand their customer base. Why make life easier for these bottom-feeders?
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
@Scribe: Unfortunately no, the bible isn’t direct enough. Sure it’s got some great messages but alot of it was edited for political purposes (Constantine et al.) and some of it was even written 400 years after the death of Jesus.
@Paul: Why is it arrogant to be an athiest? Surely it would be more familiar for those of the religious persuasion as being an Athiest requires faith that there are no gods. Agnostics have to admit they don’t know either way.
@Seán: Californication was on at 9:30 PM. You should be able to get your children to bed by then.
@Ropata: If it’s our basest urge then what is wrong with encouraging it? There is nothing wrong with pornography in general but there is bad pronography. Just like there are good drugs and bad drugs. Just like alcohol appeals to one of our basest urges. Should we ban alcohol? If people were better sexually educated perhaps the need for bad pornography wouldn’t exist. Not all pornography purchasers are sexual deviants, like not all drug takers are addicts or thiefs, like all alcohol consumers are not alcoholics, like all athiests aren’t sinners, like all christians aren’t moralists.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
lab
[for Scribe] I don’t think you’ve read it have you? Your ‘facts’ about the Bible are laughable
[for Paul] Atheism requires a faith commitment to believe that a Universe arose from nothing, the complexity of Life emerged from chaos and randomness, and the incredible human mind ‘evolved’ to fathom these mysteries, for no apparent reason
[for Sean] Kids don’t always obey their parents. Shocking as it may seem. Why should Sean’s kids grow up in a culture debased by this sort of crud on TV and everywhere?
[to Me] That’s a lame attempt to justify the spread of vice into mainstream NZ. As usual the poorest and most vulnerable members of society suffer the most from the indulgence of the comfortable class.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
In my book the purveyors of evangelical christianity are no better than pimps or drug dealers; parasites on society, inciting and exploiting our basest urges, and profiting from irresponsible, self-destructive, moral weakness of the public. And like the drug dealer at the schoolyard gates they will always be trying to expand their customer base. Why make life easier for these bottom-feeders?
Note the subtle difference there ropata. Opinions are like arseholes and some stink. That’s why we allow freedom in society – so you can go to your singalong club and feel superior to your neighbours, and I can watch porn. You don’t stop me from watching porn and I won’t stop you from being a religious bigot. Is that a deal, or are you still going to push it?
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Once again BlairM you have lost your moral compass. So I am rebuking you, if you find that patronising and condescending so be it.
So far, claiming to be a Christian, you are supporting blasphemous American television programmes, bestiality is okay and no limits at all about what is shown on television. I am arguing for decency and reasonable moral limits, you are arguing for depravity and immorality. It’s not difficult from a Christian point of view. Yet there are even atheists on this thread with far more moral sense than you are displaying!
But once again — have you spoken to anyone else about this? Are you under the authority of your pastor and Elders? Do they know your view? Why not discuss these issues with them?
God is the God of the whole earth — he will judge everybody. You need to ask yourself why are you supporting sin?
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I don’t support sin Scott. I’m not sure where you get these imaginary sins of creating a work of fiction or watching a television programme from.
No, I am not “under the authority” of flawed and sinful human beings, and any Christian who does so is a fool – and inviting themselves to be led into stupid and unreasonable theology as you yourself have displayed.
You need to ask why you are so arrogant, morally superior, pharasitical, and subject to an interpretation of sin that comes from man and not from God. You should humble yourself before God as a sinner like everybody else – that’s what Christianity is.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I had a certain respect for your comments so far Ropata but your last comment was somewhat out of character displayed so far. Constantine needed Christian support to maintain the Roman Empire, that’s pretty political. You might want to look up how many times the bible has been “translated” and by who and what gospels were left out. They’ve recently found (example) “new” gospels that were supposedly destroyed. I assume you’re familiar with many societies through out history book burning subjects they didn’t like.
If Sean can’t get his kids to bed before 9:30 in the evening he’s a bad parent and should seek assistance. Perhaps he should detune all of the sinful TV stations and buy only DVD’s that he wants his children to watch. I don’t think he was implying he couldn’t get them to bed so I didn’t assume that of him.
As for being lame for saying that not all things are created equal, well I don’t see how that implies that I’m encouraging vice. As you said sex is a base urge you didn’t say sex is bad. Addiction is a vice and people can be addicted to many things including sex. Preventing anyone from enjoying the good parts before they get to addiction is foolhardy and self-righteous. The more informed and open society is about vice, the less likely we are to fall into it and the easier it is to admit you need help for it. Alcoholics anonymous is doing well but I don’t see any publically accepted and populate sexual addiction courses.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
In reply to BlairM — “No, I am not “under the authority” of flawed and sinful human beings”.
I presume this means you just go your own way and do not listen to anyone in your church. Every Christian needs to live in community and living in community means accountability. This means we must all be under authority and be accountable to somebody. I suggest you reconsider and pursue authentic community — as modelled in the New Testament.
You resort to bluster and personal attack — “You need to ask why you are so arrogant, morally superior, pharasitical, and subject to an interpretation of sin that comes from man and not from God.”
Once again I ask you why you are supporting sin?
In a previous post you said, “That’s why we allow freedom in society – so you can go to your singalong club and feel superior to your neighbours, and I can watch porn. You don’t stop me from watching porn and I won’t stop you from being a religious bigot. Is that a deal, or are you still going to push it?”
I think that tells us all we need to know.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ropata: Kids don’t always obey their parents. Shocking as it may seem. Why should Sean’s kids grow up in a culture debased by this sort of crud on TV and everywhere?
Wait – so if a parent is unable to lay down the rules and ensure their children are not watching those programmes the television stations are at fault and need to begin banning television shows deemend unacceptable by a minority?
A bit of a stretch ropata. Any parent worth their salt will have educated their kids and have instilled in them an understanding of authority. If dad or mom says “Nobody in this household will watch Californication because … [insert reason]” then that should be the end of it. And if the children disobey they will suffer the consequences through whichever form of discipline that parent chooses to use.
The answer is not to ban television shows that other people want to see.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Scott, you still haven’t explained where you get your imaginary sins from and why sins are sins just because you say they are. Is that something you got from being “under authority”? Why don’t you try thinking for yourself for once? God gave you a brain – use it! Don’t just parrot your own version of morality because it makes you feel superior to other people. Again I invite you to humble yourself before God.
It’s interesting that you bring up the New Testament, because the early Christians would, for hundreds of years, often debate the morality of certain actions and seek consensus, guided by the Holy Spirit, on these matters. It’s a shame that you and your ilk no longer follow this model. You have eschewed it for a model which asks the question “how pious can we make ourselves?” and “how many new sins can we invent?” and when challenged with actual logic, simply label it “from man and not from God” as though your irrationality has some special insight and others do not.
Shame on you and all Christians like you. You are a disgrace to an ancient faith.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
labrator, I suggest you read sources other than ‘The da Vinci Code’ or whatever when making claims about the Bible. Try the Catholic Encyclopaedia instead. These ‘new’ gospels have been feverishly propagated since time immemorial. They don’t make the cut.
You missed the main point about general cultural milieu in your narrow focus on the specifics of Sean’s family.
The more informed and open society is about vice, the less likely we are to fall into it
And that I think is the major point of disagreement I have; yes education is great, but shows like Californication and many others enter the realm of PROMOTING vice. That is highly objectionable. I am glad that television is on the decline, it has been shown to *lower* the IQ of its devotees.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Blair, there is certainly biblical support for freedom and liberation, but there is also a great deal of condemnation of sin. So what is sin? Jesus said the greatest commandment is to “love God and love thy neighbour”. Sin is a violation of love, using people and loving things, deception and vandalism of the Creator’s image for humanity. Sexual sin in particular affects identity and emotional wellbeing. Intellectual rationalizations aside, it is also the primary reason for people to abandon faith in God.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I don’t think, from what I’ve heard about it, Californication actually PROMOTES vice!
Surely a show where a man commits adultery with a 16yo and suffers the consequences thereafter is not a promotion of cheating on your wife with a 16yo?!
On the other hand, I can’t see any bad consequences or moral lesson from Lot having sex with both his daughters. Judah all but gets away scott-free with using his own daughter as a prostitute. And did Ezekiel really need to make Egyptian penises sound so appealing in his prophetic allegory?
These are honest questions that opponents of “immoral television” have yet to respond to, I suspect because the answer makes them sound silly.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Blair: the audience will be largely composed of men seeking titillation, moral lessons hardly enter the equation when the whole show is about fornication.
The Bible contains stories of evil deeds: that’s a long way from approving them. The overall theme is of fallen humanity lurching from (sinful) disaster to grace to catastrophe, and God reaching out and trying to save mankind from themselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
It’s my personal preference to not trust anything from Catholics. That’s not intending to be offensive, just from personal experience. “They” haven’t done anything to elicit my trust in “them”. Didn’t read ‘The da Vinci Code’, thought the movie was lame. Non affiliated encyclopedias are generally a reputable source of information. Claiming that the bible is the direct, unadulterated word of god is an il-informed notion to maintain. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. If people want to interpret it directly and/or literally that’s their right but I want something more concrete as was my point to Scribe.
Decade after decade we hear about the breakdown of society but somehow it just keeps on surviving. Is it that society has the capacity to correct itself and deal with issues and learn? I think it was the catholics that kept the bible in Latin to prevent the peasants from educating themselves on the Lord’s word. We survived that. Like alot of people have been advocating, society will choose whether programs like Californication survive. Education is responsible for our depravities and this comes from parents and community. Blaming society is blaming yourself. My major concern at the moment is how the world is going to cope with the demands being placed on it by third world countries wanting to become first world countries. Without massive technological advancements the world can’t even handle China achieving first world status. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond for examples.
Back to the point though: I personally don’t think Californication promotes vice. In fact I thought it had a really pro-family message. All that Duchovnys character wanted was his family back after realising that sleeping with anyone he wanted, drinking alot and being abusive wasn’t making him happy. I don’t see how that can be interpreted as promoting vice. Without a christian overtone it actually recommended alot of things that christians encourage. I think American Idol is more responsible for advocating some of the seven deadly sins (pride/envy) than Californication is of promoting vice.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
So you didn’t watch it then? Because it was no more titillating then your average womans product commercial. In fact if anything, it dashes young mens dreams of sleeping with any woman they like, drinking endlessly and hoping they’ll be happy! It’s a morality tale prime for contemporary society. If you choose to judge it on hearsay, then you need to be more careful. Atleast the people at the BSA watched it and made an informed opinion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“the audience will be largely composed of men seeking titillation…”
That’s just silly – and even if true it doesn’t make it wrong.
Your embellishments of the Biblical definition of sin would be disturbing if they weren’t so commonplace. One of the best things the Apostle Paul ever said (and the most twisted by preachers) is ““I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for you brethren, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying ‘Do not go beyond what is written’. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.”
Adultery is a sin. Watching a fictional production on adultery is not. How about we stop making excuses for adulterers by blaming tv instead of them huh?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
labrator,
Outlandish claims about new Gospels are more reputable than the combined scholarship of centuries of Christian thought, because you don’t like the institution? Pardon me if I ignore you.
So you didn’t watch it then?
No, and I hope it does turn out to be as truly enlightening as you claim.
BlairM,
I wasn’t ‘embellishing’ the biblical definition of sin, I was trying to summarize it. But I don’t want to go down the path of competing bible quotes and splitting hairs. I dispute your notion that voyeurism is morally neutral. I agree that adulterers are responsible for their behaviour, but the cultural climate is also a significant factor in the choices people make.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
So much to respond to, so little time. A couple of things.
Labrator,
It’s my personal preference to not trust anything from Catholics. That’s not intending to be offensive, just from personal experience.
Care to share any experiences/stories as to why the largest Christian denomination in the world and the only Church with unbroken history back to Christ isn’t trustworthy?
Because it was no more titillating then your average womans product commercial.
I watched it, and your comment is either deliberately misleading because it was directed to someone who didn’t watch or you watch different TV channels to me with some pretty raunchy commercials.
BlairM,
Adultery is a sin. Watching a fictional production on adultery is not.
That would depend on whether or not you were watching it for perverse reasons.
No, I am not “under the authority” of flawed and sinful human beings, and any Christian who does so is a fool – and inviting themselves to be led into stupid and unreasonable theology as you yourself have displayed.
Scott has already responded to this in part, but I’ll just ask this: What/who directs your moral compass? And that’s a lot of people you’re calling a fool. Which is your right, obviously.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@Ropata: You’re playing with words. I’ve said that the bible isn’t a direct record of gods word as Scribe implied to DPF. You haven’t proved or stated otherwise. I’ve provided an example of missing text to show you how it has been edited, you’ve not given me anything other than insults by calling me laughable, suggesting condescendingly that my entire source of religious wisdom is the ‘Da Vinci Code’ and now choosing to ignore me because of something I haven’t said. Obviously the politeness of discussion I’m offering to you is a one way street. How very unchristian of you.
@Scribe: No, not really. It’s my personal opinion and I should clarify it does not apply to someone who is a Catholic. I’m talking about the ethos that the Catholic church has carried on (apparently with an unbroken history back to Christ). That church has alot of skeletons in it’s closet but I don’t disrespect the faith of individuals.
Re: Californication, are you using titillated in terms of arousal? I certainly wasn’t aroused by Californication. I’m not sure what other context you would want to use the word but I can not believe for a second that someone would watch Californication (over the multitudes of other sources) for sexual titillation. It is my opinion that there are some pretty raunchy ads and music videos to boot played at a time of day where children with less formed minds are less able to deal with. Californication was played at an appropriate time for its content and the BSA were right to allow it to be aired.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Labrator,
I’m talking about the ethos that the Catholic church has carried on (apparently with an unbroken history back to Christ).
Care to elaborate?
That church has alot of skeletons in it’s closet
Yep, every church does. Regardless of how a church or institution or organisation is founded, humans manage to stuff it up and that creates skeletons in closets.
Re: Californication, are you using titillated in terms of arousal?
Titillation was a word you used, so I can’t say what you meant by it. I took it to mean that it was no more risque or scandalous or explicit than some women’s product commercials. You’re right to say that a lot of ads and music videos are quite outrageous, but don’t get me started on the Advertising Standards Authority as well. The BSA enough for now
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
You’re a good sport Scribe. Not the place for a debate on churches suffice to say I’m pleased to see them modernising on several fronts. You don’t need to defend the Catholics
I didn’t use the word titillate, ropata did. I’m not sure what context he meant it in I have to assume arousal as he referred to it in regards to “lots of men”. ASA? Lol, that would probably break 150 comments!
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
WTF?! What would be a “perverse reason” for watching a tv show?! You are compounding silliness with even more silliness!
I use logic, my own brain, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to seek God and understand Him. I’m really not sure how else anyone would do it. The alternative is to just blindly follow someone elses opinions without thinking for yourself. That strikes me as very dangerous. You can listen to others of course, but the assesment as to whether they are correct must be made by you.
I think 1 billion followers of Islam and a horde of atheists are fools too. Being agreed with doesn’t make you right.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ropata
I agree with the points you make.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Interesting Lecture given by the esteemed Lord Russell in 1927
Why I Am Not A Christian
by Bertrand Russell
Just a thought.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Lab,
Sorry. I thought titillation was your word. My mistake. And I’m always up for a good religious debate
BlairM,
WTF?! What would be a “perverse reason” for watching a tv show?! You are compounding silliness with even more silliness!
Watching a TV show or movie for the express reason of getting your rocks off is sinful, Blair. Oh, hang on, you have your own sins in your religion. Can you list them for us?
And congrats on having a direct line to the Holy Spirit. I wish I was that lucky.
Being part of organised religion doesn’t mean someone has to “blindly follow someone elses opinions without thinking for yourself”.
You can listen to others of course, but the assesment as to whether they are correct must be made by you.
That’s called moral relativism, Blair, and it fits in perfectly with everything you’ve said earlier on this thread.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“Watching a TV show or movie for the express reason of getting your rocks off is sinful”
Is it now? How do you work that one out? What bizarre twisted theological reasons can you come up with to make a sin out of using one’s own body for pleasure and enjoyment? Certainly none from the Bible. I believe there’s a washing ritual in there, but the Apostles were pretty clear that Gentiles didn’t have to worry about it. Come on, make me an argument here. Don’t just state something’s a sin because it makes you feel better about yourself.
“And congrats on having a direct line to the Holy Spirit. I wish I was that lucky.”
I didn’t say I had a direct line – that would be very helpful. But by faith I hope He can help increase my knowledge of God.
“That’s called moral relativism, Blair”
It’s called nothing of the sort. If you don’t make decisions for yourself then who is making decisions for you? You may as well get your mother to dress you every day if that’s your attitude to your own free will.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Blair,
What bizarre twisted theological reasons can you come up with to make a sin out of using one’s own body for pleasure and enjoyment? Certainly none from the Bible.
Wow, which Bible are you reading? Sounds like it would be pretty popular is Christians got hold of it.
Using one’s own body for pleasure is certainly sinful; sex is not (if properly practised inside marriage). It’s fine if you don’t agree with that, but don’t try suggesting that Christianity and/or Scripture say masturbation/fornication/lust etc are OK.
Don’t just state something’s a sin because it makes you feel better about yourself.
Talking about sin certainly doesn’t make me feel any better about myself. It makes me uncomfortable, because any deliberation about sin includes a recognition that I am a sinful person.
Re: moral relativism. Killing is wrong, is it not? That’s an objective truth. But what about killing someone who’s got a terminal illness? Is that OK?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
OK discussion stops here.
“Using one’s own body for pleasure is certainly sinful” Fuck off. Ones body is a temple of pleasure to be entertained with whenever one chooses too.
Masterbation is good, drug taking is good, alcohol is good, sex is good, tattoos are good, haircuts are good…
“what about killing someone who’s got a terminal illness”, are they edible at the end of the process – I’m told we taste like chicken and one german gentleman took it to it’s somewhat strange conclusion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
and I was criticised for even suggesting at my blog that this place was frequented by the religious right (not that there’s anything wrong with that eh Seinfeld)
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Paul,
Thanks for your reasoned comments, as always.
I’m not surprised that people don’t agree with me; happens all the time. I’m just saying that if someone’s a Christian, they should recognise that those acts are sinful.
Agnostics/atheists can make their own decision on what’s right or wrong. But — and I’m generalising here — they avoid using words like “sin” because that’s a judging word. No one’s allowed to judge their actions, but they can judge others as “religious zealots”, “hypocrites” and “repressed Christians”.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Scribe, I was hoping at least for some verses. Instead you come up with the Denis Denuto argument. Is it “the vibe of the thing”, Scribe? Come on, you can do better than that. The Bible doesn’t mention masturbation at all and you know it. It has washing rituals in Leviticus for the emission of semen and that’s it.
If you can’t come up with an argument that something is a sin from scripture, you have two choices. The first is that you let a bunch of “Godly men”, to whom knowledge has presumably been “divinely revealed” make the decision for you and you slavishly follow whatever they come up with. This is essentially the Catholic approach, and the approach of more fundamentalist Protestants. The second is to make up your own mind by using some sort of logical argument. But since this is what you have criticised me for doing, this would be hypocritical of you.
As for objective truth, don’t get me started on that – I don’t want to pick a fight with the atheist objectivists as well!
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
BlairM,
Here are three I found.
* Matthew 5:28- Looking lustily at a woman means you are commiting adultery in your heart.
* 1 Corinthians 6:19,20- Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and so you should glorify God with it.
* 1 Thessalonians 4:4,5- You should learn to control your body in a holy and honourable way, not in passionate lust like the heathens.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Local Christian bloggers Alan Chesswas and Frank Ritchie recently interviewed Craig Gross – Porn Pastor and XXXChurch Founder.
“Put up Thy Sword” has some excellent links. Pornography is not just a diverting dalliance; for many Christian men lust is a soul-wrenching battle. It destroys lives.