Religious leaders unite against planned Jesus cartoon

[Ian David]

By James Hibberd James Hibberd – Tue Jun 1, 11:47 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – It's not on the air yet. It's not shot yet. There's no pilot yet. There might not even be a script yet.

But Comedy Central's plan to develop an animated project about Jesus Christ has the biggest names in the TV watchdog business forming a protest supergroup to preemptively smite the show.

Brent Bozell (president, Media Research Centre), Tony Perkins (president, Family Research Council), Michael Medved (talk radio host), Bill Donohue (president, Catholic League), Rabbi Daniel Lapin (American Alliance of Jews and Christians) and Tim Winter (president, Parents Television Council) are joining forces to form the Coalition Against Religious Bigotry.

Comedy Central's "JC" is in development, which means it's still a couple of steps from getting the green light as a series. The project is about Jesus trying to live as a regular guy in New York City and wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father." Because Comedy Central recently censored "South Park" for its portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, some Christian leaders see the prospect of a Jesus cartoon as proof of an offensive double standard.

More:
http://ht.ly/1TDlX

Hat-tip to: http://twitter.com/Monicks/status/15335470766

[Forkboy]

1. That list reads like a Who's Who of fuckfaces.

[Walk away]

4. exactly! .... ..nt

[Ian David]

11. No shit. See also: Queer allies

The little-noticed alliance between gay marriage opponents and alleged terrorist sympathizers

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to legalize homosexual marriage in the Bay state re-ignited the culture wars. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, perhaps the preeminent liberal Jewish organization in Washington, DC, applauded the ruling. Religious-minded conservatives, however, were horrified. They are determined to stop the gay rights movement in its tracks. At what price?

<snip>

But they sounded not like religious figures but rather crass politicians who lack any kind of moral compass. Rabbi Barry Freundel, of the Rabbinical Council of America, who wouldn't say much publicly, remained on the board. Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine and head of the Institute on Religion and Public Life, simply dismissed the AMC connection as the nature of alliances. So did Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition, which seeks to unite Jews and Christians.

"What I see is that I am supporting an idea and if others with whom I don't agree on a variety of other topics also support the idea," Rabbi Lapin told the Forward after the original expose was published on JewishWorldReview.com, "then they are supporting my idea. I'm not supporting theirs . . . When America allied itself with Russia to defeat Nazi Germany in no way was America endorsing the contemptible politics of the Soviet Union."

About six weeks later, a bunch of young men killed 3000 innocent civilians when they plowed hijacked planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

More:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/marriage_terrorists.php3

[ZombieHorde]

14. Yet ironically, most of us would not want to fuck their faces. nt

[Mojambo]

2. Based on who opposes it I REALLY hope this gets made.n/t

[sandnsea]

3. No one likes their "god" ridiculed

go figure.

[Goblinmonger]

26. I might put the emphasis on

no one wants THEIR "god" ridiculed.

[sandnsea]

29. That's what I meant

I put god in quotes because I don't think Muhammed is considered GOD in Islam.

It is just hilarious that freepers who ridiculed the middle east for being upset over a cartoon, and outraged the Comedy Central used censorship, are now coming apart at the seams over a Jesus cartoon.

At least the people who support a first amendment free for all are consistent.

[madrchsod]

5. if it`s well written it could be hilarious....

[Deep13]

47. That's big "if" of course.

Family Guy was hilarious when it was well written. Now, not so much.

[BurtWorm]

6. I almost lost it when I saw moran dude on a cross!

:spray:

[NoNothing]

7. Comedy Central has the right to have a double standard

But I agree that it is cowardly of them.

[Ian David]

10. Well, it's the free market at work, you know. There's money to be made mocking the chrisTian-right.

[NoNothing]

12. Yes, that's true

My point is, I think there's also money to be made mocking Islamists, but that is not done because of fear of violence.

[darkstar3]

40. Sorry to interrupt your pity party,

or not, but I have 3 things to say:

1. They're called Muslims. "Islamists" is a right-wing dog-whistle word.
2. If you are blessed when people persecute you, why whine about it?
3. There's money to be made in mocking just about any group. That's the thing with stereotypes, as Carlos Mencia proved. This means quite simply (and I say this not just to you) that you're not special, that you're not being singled out, and that's there's no need to haul your cross all over the internet just because someone satirizes a belief.

[Igel]

52. "Islamist" is a fine word.

It captures a useful distinction. "Islamist" is a subset of "Muslim." The word's been around for a few decades, in response to the perception of a distinct subgroup of Muslims.

I've known Islamists that hated being called that because it meant drawing a distinction between themselves and other Muslims. If I say something bad about Muslims, I have lots of objections and it's oddly called "racism" or possibly more aptly "bigotry." If I say something bad about something specifically Islamist, I have objections only from Islamists. I like fine-grained distinctions. They're often very useful for avoiding stereotypes and over-generalizations that are indistinguishable from bigotry.

I've also known Muslims that drew the distinction themselves and wanted to make sure that I knew that "they" were different from "us." "They" had a variety of names, but "us" was always "Muslims." Since then, "Islamist" has come to be the most common word in English for "they," and has found a translation into Arabic, as well, to capture the distinction that even many Muslims find useful.

Words find uses. Uses find words. Such is the nature of lexical innovation and semantic shift. Even when we borrow a word like "Islamist" from that right-wing dog-whistle language of cretins and fascists, French.

[darkstar3]

54. That would be all fine and dandy if it were true,

but that's not the way the word is used in American culture, nor was it how the word was used above. Furthermore, by trying to draw this line, you're getting into No True Scotsman territory.

Islamist is a word designed specifically to sound like racist, fascist, and other -ists or -isms that society finds unacceptable. It is the right's chosen replacement word for Muslim because it illicits the same internal response that those other -ist and -ism words provide. Right-wing sites, right-wing bloviators, and right-wing coworkers use this word so much that sometimes I wonder if they even know the word Muslim anymore. It may have originally been meant as a No True Scotsman divider between Muslims and other Muslims, but that's most certainly not the way it's getting used.

[Angry Dragon]

8. I have never understood what these people are so afraid of

They state that they have the most powerful force in the universe as their friend and have a great desire to protect it.
Makes no sense.

Do they not believe what they say they believe, are they really unsure and just hedging their bets??

Are they so afraid to have someone question them on their beliefs and they can not defend their position??

If I had the answers to everlasting life and salvation I would offer it freely and welcome all questions so I could answer them and eliminate all fears.

And people, it is just television, it is not faux news, where the truth really lives.

[ladjf]

9. If the "Religious Leaders" were true believers rather than entrepreneurs

they wouldn't be concerned about the Jesus cartoons.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Who had 9 in the No True Scotsman pool?

I went with 11 this time.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

31. I didn't get the Scotsman memo

At the last EAC meeting.

[Goblinmonger]

32. We tried to tell you that you'd miss something

by being a pig and going back to the dead-christian-baby buffet for thirds, but would you listen? Nooooo.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

35. Hey, give me a break, I'm just a selfish atheist

I'm just glad that our eucharist isn't limited to a single stale cracker and a sip of wine.

[laconicsax]

44. Pfft. I didn't even know you guys were having another meeting so soon.

Who won the raffle?

[trotsky]

36. Dammit, I had 25.

Didn't think it would come up so early on a thread like this.

[ladjf]

41. I have no idea what your post means. nt

[Goblinmonger]

45. I'm shocked

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=no+true+scotsman

[brendan120678]

13. As much as I may be opposed to some of those folks listed...

I also think that such a cartoon would be in poor taste.

Unless, of course, JC's upstairs neighbor is Mohammad and his 9-year-old wife.

[MindPilot]

15. LOLZ!!

That would be just perfect!!

[laconicsax]

16. I wasn't aware that it was offensive to depict Jesus.

Islam has a prohibition on depicting Muhammad, but to the best of my knowledge, Christianity can't get enough grave images of their lord and savior. It's almost like they're trying to have it both ways--getting pissed off if they're not allowed to display their guy while getting pissed off if someone else tries to display their guy.

These good Christians wouldn't be such blatant hypocrites, would they?

[brendan120678]

17. You don't see the difference between...

depicting in reverence, and depicting in parody?

[laconicsax]

20. Both are free speech.

Why should a parody or satire be offensive while an http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/">anti-Semitic snuff film is praise-worthy?

It isn't a double standard with Islam, because among the nutjobs, there's no difference between reverential and satirical depiction--both are considered offensive for the same reason.

[Igel]

53. Islam's prohibition has been oft broken.

It's easily possible to have art museums with special exhibitions on the representation of Muhammed in Islamic art from 1000 - 1500 AD with an emphasis on (insert country or group of countries here).

The prohibition is dominant in a very conservative form of Islam. Usually it's had the upper hand when the countries it was dominant in didn't have the upper hand. Cause and effect, one would think.

Still, nobody likes to be disrespected, esp. when the disrespect makes no point.

Even worse is when they're disrespected while other expressions, which would make a point, are eschewed as being disrespectful.

Yes, I rather like making a point with free speech. If racial epithets were banned by law, I would applaud the newspapers who, on the next day, had racial epithets as their headlines. Not because it would offend people, but because it would be flipping the bird at the thought police and petty dictators. The last thing you want to do when somebody demanding control calls for submission is submit. Submit? Like hell. (Now, it's a CFP, my response is a bit different. Submit like hell!)

The hypocrisy cuts both ways: We don't want them to display "their guy" when they're showing respect, but we do want "their guy" shown when mocked. Moreover, we have no objection to acceding to demands that we respect one group (or else the peaceful, non-violent group might riot, burn, and kill--possibly even us) while mocking those who demand civility (even though, or perhaps because, we expect no riots, arson, and if there's a killing we can count on pretty widespread condemnation on moral, not pragmatic, grounds from his correligionist).

[humblebum]

18. i think the "New Atheists" have shot off about 6 of 10 toes up to this point.

This will be about #7. Definitely not the way to get public recognition.

[laconicsax]

21. I must have missed the part where this was a "New Atheist" project.

Or was that just an assumption on your part?

[humblebum]

22. I guess it would depend on who is considered to represent New Atheism. nt

[laconicsax]

23. And clearly, you consider anyone who parodies Christianity to be a "New Atheist"

:eyes:

[trotsky]

24. The "New Atheists" control the media!

And we secretly choose the president, and run the CIA too! BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!

[laconicsax]

25. I thought that was "the Jews"

:shrug:

[trotsky]

37. Dude, that is so old school Christian persecution complex.

Get with the program.

[Goblinmonger]

28. Wow, dude, let it go.

You have no proof this is the "new atheists" (whatever the fuck that means today), yet you pull that old chestnut out.

As is indicated above, either we are the most hated minority in the US and are a small voice shouting loudly to overcompensate for no power or we rule the world. Can't have it both ways depending on what makes your point on a give thread that atheists are evil.

[pokerfan]

42. I'm a Gnu Atheist

[darkstar3]

43. Oh wow...

THAT was frakken geeky.

;)

[skepticscott]

30. Seems like you're as incapable as the rest of your ilk

of telling the simple difference between atheism and anti-theism. Figure it out and get back to us.

[humblebum]

33. Sometimes there is no difference. nt

[trotsky]

34. And sometimes there's no difference between you & Jerry Falwell. n/t

[skepticscott]

38. Atheism is not the same as anti-theism

and the fact that both both are sometimes exhibited the same person doesn't change that, despite what you you may think. Would you like the difference spelled out to you in small words?

[Goblinmonger]

39. That's exactly what a "new atheist"would say just to confuse people

Or some crap like that. I don't really fully understand the rules of what a "new atheist" is, but I know that if it is something that someone doesn't like, they use that label.

[Deep13]

46. Making people realize that it is okay to think about their god in ordinary terms...

...including amusing situations is very effective. One of the cardinal rules of dogmatic thinking is that no one is allowed to make jokes about supreme leaders or dieties. Laughing at jokes about ones dogma makes it a lot less dogmatic.

As noted above, the so-called "New Atheists" do not appear to be behind this. This project, however, is already getting public recognition.

[humblebum]

48. I like the way you use the term "Making" people realize...

that seems to be a key element of some groups who would force their ideas and ideals on others. If they were so great to begin with, you would not have to "make" people accept them. And you say that the new atheists are not behind this, but it is as yet unclear who all constitutes New Atheism. According to my research it is more of a loosely linked movement than one cohesive group. It is the Atheist Alliance International, American Atheists, and all other atheist groups from various campuses and states and nations, etc. Recently, for example, there was The Rise of Atheism Convention in Australia, attended by thousands. This is what I consider to be New Atheism. So yes, I think it is fair to say that this program is at least influenced heavily by the new atheists.

[trotsky]

49. MUAH HA HA HA HA HA

YES THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF US AND WE'RE COMING TO MAKE YOU CONVERT TO ATHEISM NEXT!!!

Shit man, you're like right out of a Chick tract or something. And just as hard to take seriously.

[Deep13]

50. That is a completely hypocritical argument.

Religion exists by making people accept the impossible, often by indocrination as is the case here or at the the point of a sword as in the Middle East. All I am suggesting is that presenting another point of view is an effective way to respond to dogmatism.

BTW, the people in the hate groups who are trying to pressure the network into cancelling the project do not have to watch it. Rather, they are demanding that no one be allowed to watch it even if they are not part of their religions.

I notice you have gone from "New Atheists" being behind the project to it merely being influenced by them. It's not the same thing. Being influenced by a cultural movement is not the same thing as the leadership of that movement calling the shots.

[humblebum]

51. I'm sure when they do a bit about the history of atheism on the History Channel

it will receive rave reviews. Not pretty.

[Ian David]

19. The Rabbi vs. Comedy Central & how a cartoon about Jesus Christ is like (or not like, imo) the gulf

The Rabbi vs. Comedy Central and how a cartoon about Jesus Christ is like (or not like, imo) the gulf oil disaster
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37493777#37493777

The moron thinks The Man Show is still on Comedy Central.