Biting the hand that feeds

November 30th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Fox News reports:

Angus T. Jones, who has played the role of Jake Harper on the hit CBS show since 2003 and reportedly earns $350,000 an episode, is featured in a new video for the Forerunner Christian Church, in which he calls the sitcom “filth” that contradicts his devout Christian values.

That’s not all. The 19-year-old actor even urges fans to stop watching.

“I’m on ‘Two and a Half Men’ and I don’t want to be on it,” he said. “If you watch ‘Two and a Half Men,’ please stop watching it and filling your head with filth. People say it’s just entertainment. Do some research on the effects of television and your brain, and I promise you you’ll have a decision to make when it comes to television, especially with what you watch.”

Jones goes on to express guilt that his profession may be inflicting serious damage on its audience.

“If I am doing any harm, I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be contributing to the enemy’s plan … You cannot be a true God-fearing person and be on a television show like that. I know I can’t,” he continued. “I’m not OK with what I’m learning, what the Bible says and being on that television show.”

I wonder if Jones has asked to be released from his contract? To go on taking $350,000 from a show you denounce as filth is rather hypocritical.

Personally I’ve hardly watched it since Charlie Sheen left. It just isn’t the same without him.

Hat Tip: Bob McCoskrie

Tags:

38 Responses to “Biting the hand that feeds”

  1. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    My comments on this matter here. I note that he’s since apologised to the cast and crew, and rolled things back a bit. I’m not sure if that means he will still stay on the show. The producers are probably scratching their heads on this one, because clearly he can’t get away with saying what he said, but if he walks, they simply won’t have a show of any credibility. You can’t have Two and a Half Men reduced to the Half-Man (Jon Cryer)!

    As to the substance of what he said, I’m happy he’s found God, but he’s talking bollocks, theologically speaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    Sheen is shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It seems that he has apologised for saying what he felt. Anyway, the show is filth, so it’s not surprising that after growing up in that unwholesome environment he has gone all Christian nut-job fundie-ish in reaction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Read your comments BlairM, think you’ve summed it up pretty well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    With Sheen gone and now Jones telling the producers that he doesn’t want to be on it any more, the death knell is sounding for Two and a Half Men. Agree with BlairM’s comment – Kutcher is a mediocre replacement for Charlie Sheen and if Jones is also given the DCM, the show’s ratings will plummet.

    A pity – because the original concept / cast / scripts combined to make the show really funny. And that’s why it was top rating in every market it went to air.

    But to enjoy it, I suppose you need a sense of humour…. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    …he’s talking bollocks, theologically speaking.

    No he’s not. Not if you understand what happens in Hollyweird. It’s full of Satanists. You do realise Scientology as practised today, which is a bastardisation of what Hubbard started, is Satanic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I think he’s in the right direction, but maybe a little too much shock value.

    It’s silly to suggest he’s wrong, the show advertises that is not wholesome. But it does highlight just how accepting our society is of what he has called filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. infused (654 comments) says:

    Not the same without Sheen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    DPF – the fact that you deliberately watched it when Charlie Sheen was on it (and presumably liked the show) is the most disturbing thing of all.

    However, it does perhaps explain the quality of “offness” that permeates your occasional one-liners about the pleasures of sex and your attraction for women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    So… Bob McCoskrie went looking for integrity and a rigorous, principled philosophical standpoint on American Television… and was surprised to find it lacking?

    You’d think he’d know better.

    I don’t really understand why this is news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dave Mann (1,218 comments) says:

    I’ve never watch this ‘show’ because I try to avoid American sitcom garbage, but this idiot’s comments only serve to reinforcement view that US TV is mainly sludge at the bottom of the gene pool.

    Most probably, though, this whole ‘interview’ is a fake, thought up by some PR person to try to help sagging ratings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    “No he’s not. Not if you understand what happens in Hollyweird. It’s full of Satanists. You do realise Scientology as practised today, which is a bastardisation of what Hubbard started, is Satanic?”

    Oh goody, religious stupidity Friday. Is there a full moon tonight?

    Must remember, get popcorn…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    but he’s talking bollocks, theologically speaking.

    Well, theology is pretty much bollocks, so he’s not too far off.
    Just read reid comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Until and unless you realise Satan not God is in control of this world, you will never understand anything about it.

    Remember that Satan is called amongst other names the Slanderer and the Deceiver. He’s very good at what he does. Pulls the wool over all sorts of peoples eyes, all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Reid proving my point over and over again.
    Complete, utter, delusional bollocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Complete, utter, delusional bollocks.

    “He [Satan] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them” Jo 12:40

    It’s a shame those who condemn make their judgements based on profound ignorance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    I find it fascinating that McCoskrie continues to cite tabloid newspapers on his website, clueless about their lack of credibility and despite their reliance on cheesecake shots to generate male punter interest and revenue. And the Leveson Inquiry.
    As for Two and a Half Men, Ashton Kurcher has outstanding (…) :) personal attributes, even if they are pixillated!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    DPF
    Do you ever look at your blog and wonder why it is full of religious fanatics?
    You should be advertising christian dating sites…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Shriveled there’s a difference between someone who knows what religion is and someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. It’s not rocket science but it’s surprising how many people who don’t know what religion is, can’t tell the difference.

    Does it not occur to you that given the ability of Hollyweird to influence millions of people all the time, if Satan does exist, it would be surprising if he wasn’t involved in it?

    If you’re ignorant about what to look for, just drive google and you’ll find plenty of unmistakable signs all over the Hollyweird output. Unless you’re so profoundly ignorant you can’t even bring yourself to honestly investigate the question, because in your infinite knowledge and wisdom, you know it just couldn’t be true so you won’t even bother to look into it. Surprising how many people make that simple mistake. They’re like children who close their eyes and put their hands over their ears because they don’t want to look at something their immature minds can’t handle.

    If you’re ignorant about religion, just read the King James version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. It doesn’t take that long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    It’s a shame those who condemn make their judgements based on profound ignorance.

    lol, you can’t see the irony of talking about profound ignorance and quoting the bible to prove your point at the same time, can you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    eszett theologians have written realms on that question which comes up all the time. Look up what they say about it if you want to know the answer, I’m sorry but I can’t be bothered explaining it, this is not a ‘is religion true’ thread it’s a ‘does Hollyweird contradict Christian values’ thread.

    Rest assured if you hallucinate your point is (a) original and (b) an effective counter to the question of ‘is religion true,’ this says a great deal more about your capacity to think than it does about anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    I found Two and a Half Men to be unwatchable, even with Sheen.

    The kid’s right – it is filth. The whole show is based on sexual innuendo; one bad sex joke after another.
    In fact, most U.S comedy is like that now. The ads I see for that show with Betty White – she seems to be doing the same; one bad sex joke after another.

    Where’s the wit in comedy nowadays?
    I just didn’t laugh once, the parts I saw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    What I find fascinating is that people who demonstrate no interest in theology demand that those who do condense it into bite-sized blog comments for their edification. It’s like saying – “I never took maths at school and I think it’s stupid anyway – now explain Leibniz’s notation to me in the commments section of an internet blog”.

    I am a mainsteam Catholic – for example – and I don’t believe I have any special insight into God’s will. However, because I have a passing familiarity with history I am aware that the thinkers and geniuses who shaped our understanding of science and the natural world thought deeply about theology and considered it to be the “Queen of the Sciences”.

    Newton, Descartes, Copernicus, Pascal – all people who cared deeply about theology – and, against them, who the hell is eszett?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    ROFTL, Theology is “Queen of the Sciences”? In the middle ages perhaps.
    No scientist thinks theology is science in any shape or form.

    And classic fallacy, cato, argument from authority.
    I could list Einstein, Hawkins, Crick, Edison, Dawkins, Coyne, Feynman, Krauss, etc, etc. on the other side.

    And btw, Newton was also an alchemist. Are you therefore going to write about the merits of alchemy? Perhaps as the King of the Sciences???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    You just don’t get it do you? And I don’t think that you’re very good at spotting logical fallacies because you’ve incorrectly identified my argument. Try wiki-ing “straw man”.

    I’m not arguing that a lack of interest in theology is a stain on someone’s intellect. I’m just rolling my eyes at you because you seem to think the opposite is true when the fact is that there are better people than you who have found theology a fruitful intellectual exercise.

    Take your dismissal of Newton, for instance. Yes, Newton did conduct alchemical research – but that’s really not that laughable given that chemistry was in its infamy. What you seem to be mocking is Newton’s interest in material science. Well, guess what? Theology has developed and been refined since the 17th century too?

    You clearly don’t have an interest in theology. That’s fine – to each their own. But your mocking the very idea of theology marks you out as a fool – like Midas’ judgment of Apollo’s music.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    From Sheen to Descartes in 24 comments. Allow me to contribute an illustration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,666) Says:
    November 30th, 2012 at 8:22 am
    I think he’s in the right direction, but maybe a little too much shock value.

    It’s silly to suggest he’s wrong, the show advertises that is not wholesome. But it does highlight just how accepting our society is of what he has called filth.

    scrubone it’s ironic given the point you’re making, what the serial number of your post is :)

    No scientist thinks theology is science in any shape or form.

    Of course not because theology doesn’t pretend to be science. The critical thing about religion some people don’t get, is that it is a separate arena to science, and they don’t mix. Science does not “disprove” religion anymore than religion “disproves” science. They are two separate arenas and only profound idiots conflate the two and pretend that either arena pretends to address something about the other. I have two scientists in the small parish I belong to, I have met plenty of other scientists over the years in the church. The only people who hallucinate that science and religion are mutually incompatible are people who are ignorant of one or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Tip for the Day:

    To anyone who lacks a sense of humour / doesn’t like a particular TV programme – Go to the thing that changes the TV programme (not one of the kids but the battery powered control) and simply press the red button that says: ‘Off’.

    Sorted. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Reid – I don’t think you have got that quite right. An enquiring religious mind will seek to understand the material world because it reveals God’s manner and methods of creation. When the natural sciences were less developed it was reasonable to assume that the methods of creation consisted of direct interventions. Scientific enquiry now leads us to the conclusion that the creation was indirect (for want of a better term).

    The only scientific discovery that could seriously put religion at odds with natural science would be some proof that the universe could have created itself or somehow necessarily exists. But while theories have been advanced they can not be and never will be tested – because they are not falsifiable. Any positive belief on them actually rests on faith in the existence of a material first cause. This is one of the most destructive criticisms levelled at “strong” atheists – though often it flies over their head for a want of philosophical training.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Cato:Take your dismissal of Newton, for instance. Yes, Newton did conduct alchemical research – but that’s really not that laughable given that chemistry was in its infamy. What you seem to be mocking is Newton’s interest in material science. Well, guess what? Theology has developed and been refined since the 17th century too?

    Some scientists back then, not all of them, had an in interest in theology largely because there didn’t really seem to be an alternative to explaining how things had come to be. It wasn’t just chemistry that was in its infancy but science as a whole.

    And theology has advanced since then? Really? You mean like Reform Epistemology? Excuse me while I snigger.

    Reid:The only people who hallucinate that science and religion are mutually incompatible are people who are ignorant of one or the other.

    The only people who claim that religion and science are compatible because they are two separate arenas are people who have a very narrow grasp of science.

    Cato:The only scientific discovery that could seriously put religion at odds with natural science would be some proof that the universe could have created itself or somehow necessarily exists. But while theories have been advanced they can not be and never will be tested – because they are not falsifiable.

    Careful. Theories about the origin of the universe are sometimes testable. The ekpyrotic theory, for example, makes predictions about the cosmic microwave background that are currently being tested. By this time next year it may have been falsified.

    One should also be wary of claiming that this is the only way that science can be at odds with religion. As I’ve remarked previously, Godel’s incompleteness theorem from mathematical logic shows that strong notions of Omniscience are logically incoherent. It may at some future point in time be possible to show that weaker notions of omniscience are also unviable using other work from logic or theoretical computer science.

    Work in neurobiology and genetics could also potentially undermine religion by explaining away people’s religious experiences as being entirely naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic, in origin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Chiz as I suspect you will be aware the question of “there didn’t really seem to be an alternative to explaining how things had come to be” when the reality is that systematic science grew out of the uniquely Judeo-Christian concept of a rational Supreme Being. They weren’t interested in science because there was no alternative explanation – they became interested in science to understand the religious explanation. One lead to another – hence the old title of Queen of the Sciences.

    But the larger point is that a shocking number of people who claim to be science oriented don’t have a good grounding in the philosophy – but still feel justified in parading their ignorance. I remember one debate where some agnostic asked Richard Dawkins if he meant “epistemic” or “metaphysical” necessity and Dawkins said: “I don’t know the words ‘epistemic’ and so on, so I’m not going to use that.” It was embarassing.

    And that’s what I mean – you don’t have to buy into religion or be interested in a systematic consideration of religion but if you take the attitude of eszett you really just recall Terry Eagleton’s summation of the God Delusion: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”

    And breakthroughs in neurobiology and genetics threaten religion no more than evolution does. Certainly, they didn’t undermine the faith of great 20th Century geneticists like the Catholic Jerome Lejeune and the Evangelical Francis Collins. In short – they don’t address the fundamental question of “Why is there something instead of nothing?” which is the driving force behind theology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    chiz, the basis of religion is faith. Last I heard, scientists don’t attempt to replicate that in the lab, despite the fact millions of us who have faith are known to exist.

    That’s what I meant by being mutually incompatible. Some people, such as you perhaps, seem to think that the scientific method is capable of encompassing every single possible element of the known and unknown universe and that it’s the only that’s possible of doing so. I’m afraid that’s where you’re wrong.

    See if all you had to do to establish Heaven was to look skyward and if Grandma and Grandad visited the grandkids every weekend despite having died years ago, there would be no need for faith and this would obviate the basis of religion. Claiming that there is no “scientific” basis for faith is not “proving” anything for there is nothing to prove. Faith by definition exists only in the absence of proof. Therefore if people think that science “disproves” religion, they’re wrong. It doesn’t and it has never claimed to.

    One of the scientists in my congregation, who happens to be world renowned but I’m afraid if I gave you his discipline that would reveal his identity which I won’t do, commented once that it’s an absolute fallacy to imagine that the world as we know it scientifically, could possibly have emerged without intelligent design behind it. Not just the arrangement of matter in the universe but the biology as well, is here as the net result of an incredibly large series of causal events and statistically speaking alone, it’s simply not credible to argue that this has all coalesced as a series of random events. Of course this is precisely what people who aren’t religious believe. I suspect this is because they’ve never bothered to think it through.

    Cato, I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    That was a really thoughtful comment Reid. The reality is that science and religion don’t compete with each other – but they do compliment each other. Remember what Pius XI in 1936 said about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – of which Earnest Rutherford was a member –

    “Amongst the many consolations with which divine Goodness has wished to make happy the years of our Pontificate, I am happy to place that of our having being able to see not a few of those who dedicate themselves to the studies of the sciences mature their attitude and their intellectual approach towards religion. Science, when it is real cognition, is never in contrast with the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, as is well known to those who study the history of science, it must be recognized on the one hand that the Roman Pontiffs and the Catholic Church have always fostered the research of the learned in the experimental field as well, and on the other hand that such research has opened up the way to the defense of the deposit of supernatural truths entrusted to the Church….We promise again that it is our strongly-held intention, that the ‘Pontifical Academicians’ through their work and our Institution, work ever more and ever more effectively for the progress of the sciences. Of them we do not ask anything else, since in this praiseworthy intent and this noble work in that service in favor of the truth that we expect of them.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Derren Brown, who’s more and more exploring psychology rather than just magic tricks, has made an interesting series of programmes on why people believe – whether it’s alien abduction, crystals, or Christianity. The episode which includes an experiment in belief in Christianity is called “Messiah” and can be viewed here.

    The relevant bit starts about 13’00” in (though an explanation of his theories starts at about 10’45”). He impersonates a person who supposedly can convert people with a touch. He gathers an audience of atheists and skeptics and sets about “converting” them. The results are fascinating…

    Other episodes in the same series, in which he explores the belief in ghosts and similar phenomena, are equally as interesting in terms of their insights into the human psyche.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Good to see cato and reid arguing about the qualities of invisible magical fabrics but the fact still remains that the emperor has no clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Good to see cato and reid arguing about the qualities of invisible magical fabrics but the fact still remains that the emperor has no clothes.

    In order for the little boy to turn to his mother and say that eszett, he first had to look and observe what precisely it was he was commenting on.

    What are you basing your opinion on that “the emperor has no clothes?”

    Do you know what it is you are denying, in other words?

    Thank you Cato, so was yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Cato: Chiz as I suspect you will be aware the question of “there didn’t really seem to be an alternative to explaining how things had come to be” when the reality is that systematic science grew out of the uniquely Judeo-Christian concept of a rational Supreme Being. They weren’t interested in science because there was no alternative explanation – they became interested in science to understand the religious explanation. One lead to another – hence the old title of Queen of the Sciences.

    I’m not aware of any such link although I’ve certainly seen christian apologists claim it. There were undoubtedly people who were motivated to study nature because of their christian beliefs just as there were others – Laplace being the famous example – who weren’t. There were also, one presumes, some who were privately agnostic or atheistic but made positive comments about the role of religion in order to please their patrons. I’m not aware however of evidence that Science grew out of Christianity as you and others claim. The ancient Greeks and Muslims, for example, were not motivated by any belief in a supreme rational being.

    But the larger point is that a shocking number of people who claim to be science oriented don’t have a good grounding in the philosophy – but still feel justified in parading their ignorance.

    And a shocking number of theologically and religiously oriented people don’t have a good grounding in science, and some don’t have a good grounding in philosophy. Look at the nonsense from Plantinga or Moreland, for example, or William Lane Craig’s mathematically illiterate gibberish about transfinite numbers and the kalam argument.

    [...]recall Terry Eagleton’s summation of the God Delusion: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”

    A good description of how many of us feel when religious believers start to try to argue for their position – Craig’s kalam nonsense being a prime example.

    And breakthroughs in neurobiology and genetics threaten religion no more than evolution does. Certainly, they didn’t undermine the faith of great 20th Century geneticists like the Catholic Jerome Lejeune and the Evangelical Francis Collins

    I’m not sure that you should really bring up Collins as an example. He is widely regarded, in my experience, as utterly naive in his religious thinking. And there certainly are challenges. Twin studies, for example, show that religious belief has a strong genetic component. Many people become believers not because of philosophical questions but because of religious experiences – feelings of transcendance or connectedness with God, for example. Neurological explanations for those phenomenon would undermine those examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Reid:Some people, such as you perhaps, seem to think that the scientific method is capable of encompassing every single possible element of the known and unknown universe and that it’s the only that’s possible of doing so. I’m afraid that’s where you’re wrong.

    I’m afraid that this is where I’m right. Your presumption about me is right – I think that the scientific method, construed in its broadest sense as rational exploration – is the only method we have for determining what is out there and what isn’t. Faith is about making assumptions for what is out there based on nothing more than belief and emotion. If it doesn’t pay attention to evidence or rational argument and, especially if it ignores them, then why should we pay attention to it?

    Not just the arrangement of matter in the universe but the biology as well, is here as the net result of an incredibly large series of causal events and statistically speaking alone, it’s simply not credible to argue that this has all coalesced as a series of random events. Of course this is precisely what people who aren’t religious believe. I suspect this is because they’ve never bothered to think it through.

    Some of have thought it through and don’t see any problem. In my experience its the ones who think that this isn’t possible who haven’t really thought it through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote