MTV Mocks Jesus – Will Christians Riot?
Muslims went on a rampage because of some relatively innocuous cartoons of the false prophet Muhammad. Claims were made that no one would ever accept such insults directed at Jesus.
Well, guess what – MTV has engaged in blasphemy against Jesus during the holiest of Christian seasons. Will there be violence?
We already know the answer.
As Christians around the world prepare for Easter, magazine readers in Germany were confronted this week by full-page advertisements depicting Jesus, wearing a crown of thorns but descended from the cross, enjoying a television program.
"Laughing rather than hanging around," (Lachen statt rumhaengen) reads the tagline of the ad, which has drawn strong protests in Germany, where two-thirds of the population identifies as Christian.
The ad promotes MTV's plan to broadcast a cartoon lampooning the pope and Vatican hierarchy. The series, Popetown, was considered too controversial to be aired in Britain, and it caused an uproar in the one country where it has appeared, New Zealand.
Coming at a time when the dust has yet to settle from the furor over newspaper cartoons caricaturing Mohammed, the row has prompted some Germans to ask why their faith should be an easy target.
The Deutsche Welle broadcaster quoted Joachim Herrmann of the Christian Social Union party as saying that MTV would have thought twice before poking fun in a similar way at Muslims.
No, they would not have thought twice. MTV would not have dared engage in similar conduct regarding Muhammad – or Allah.
German Christians are outraged.
A German Christian magazine, Verse One, has instituted an online protest and boycott campaign.
"After the events surrounding the Mohammed cartoons we had thought there was agreement that media should show consideration for the religious feelings of believers, whether Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Christians," said Verse One publisher Birgit Kelle.
"Obviously we were mistaken."
Kelle, a Protestant, said the issue did not concern "our Catholic brothers and sisters" alone. If Christians did not defend themselves - with arguments, not force - "this will never stop."
Ms. Kelle, there was no agreement to show consideration for the believers of any religion except Islam. Christian feelings were never even a consideration, only Muslim feelings? Why? Because we Christians do not engage in murderous behavior towards those who dare dissent from our religious beliefs. Offending Muslims, on the other hand, can be fatal.
Does MTV have the right to show this insulting series, and to run this blasphemous ad? Yes, it does.
But we have the right to retaliate economically. LetÂ’s bring down MTV and its corporate parent, Viacom.
UPDATE: We really do need to go after Viacom, which is the parent company of both MTV and Comedy Central. The company's hypocrisy regarding treatment of Jesus and Muhammad is outrageous!
Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.
The comedy _ in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians _ instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.
In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of Muhammad. Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.
When the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries.
Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.
The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.
Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.
In other words, Vacom/Comedy Central is unwilling to risk offending Muslims by showing their false prophet Muhammad, but are more than willing to offend Christians by allowing Jesus to be depicted in a patently offensive manner in the midst of Holy Week, only a few hours before the beginning of the Easter Triduum! This only serves to underscore the utter moral bankruptcy of the company, coming as it does at the same time as Viacon/MTV is running the above ad in Germany.
Viacom Delenda Est!
A CLARIFICATION: I was contacted via email by someone asking why I am not angry with Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who chose to create and include the blasphemous depiction of Jesus (which also insulted the flag and the president) in the episode. I'll be honest, I'm not real happy about what they did, but I understand their purpose. They gave Comedy Central the opportunity to treat the religion of most Americans with the same sensitivity they show the religion of America's enemies. Comedy Central proved their point beautifully with its willingness to broadcast the much-more-offensive image of Jesus immediately after censoring the tame Muhammad image. There was, I must say, no other way to make the point plain to all but the most dhimmified individuals. I'm therefore willing to give Stone and Parker a pass on this one.
On the other hand, the decisions of the Viacom dhimmis to run the Jesus segment after censoring the Muhammad segment cannot be justified or excused -- especially when taken in context with the German Jesus ad (and the series it advertised) run by Viacom/MTV.
Viacom Delenda Est!
MORE AT: Jawa Report, Not Exactly Rocket Science, Everything Between, Flying Assmonkey, Federal Republic, Fyber Journal, Hugh Hewitt, Flopping Aces, Burden of Proof, Volokh (times three), Michelle Malkin, WAmbulance, Daimnation, Freedom for Some, Balance Sheet, MVRWC, Ed Driscoll, A Tic in the Mind's Eye, Political Pit Bull, Iowa Voice, Capital Region People, Captain's Quarters, OTB, Wall Street Cafe, SFPH, Small Dead Animals, Tammy Bruce, Freedom Watch, Coalition of the Swilling, Publius Rendevous, Junk Yard Blog, California Conservative, Protein Wisdom, Bryan's basement, Pajamas Media, Sammenhold, AListReview, Verum Serum, Pretend Pundit, Bad Example, American Princess, Right Wing News, bRight & Early, Media Blog, The Anchoress, OpFor, Where I Stand, Wizbang, Dental Blog, Sister Toldjah, PoliPundit, Gateway Pundit, Blue Star Chronicles, Jawa Report (again), Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire
Posted by: Greg at
11:13 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1078 words, total size 12 kb.
1
For a Christian you are sadly obsessed with portraying a negative image of Islam.
Posted by: Wadard at Thu Apr 13 12:18:21 2006 (mu30w)
2
Come on Wad! they self inflict their own negative image. If they really cared, they'd get off their ass' and in the same loud voice that we saw on the MoMoMoMoMohammed pictures issue-scream at their fellow rabid Muslims to stop. Of course in the name of Mohammed. ( the shame, the dishonesty, the lack of intellectual honesty, is that the rule applies to Muslims - not anyone else)
Posted by: JimBD at Thu Apr 13 12:31:46 2006 (GoE0N)
3
Portraying the truth is an obsession of mine. Ignoring it seems to be an obsession of yours.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 13 14:01:55 2006 (k6nx7)
4
I imagine there were hardy any Christians jumping up and down and saying the KKK was wrong when it was lynching blacks in the name of the Christian gods.
"Portraying the truth is an obsession of mine. Ignoring it seems to be an obsession of yours.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right"
Whoever's truth you are portraying, you are doing it with hatred and malice.
Posted by: Wadard at Thu Apr 13 14:23:12 2006 (mu30w)
5
"the lack of intellectual honesty, is that the rule applies to Muslims - not anyone else"
Right - it's intellectually honest to say on the third day Jesus rose for the dead? No. That he was born of a virgin with no help from huma male sperm? No. Both of those are faith based statements. Not that I am knocking faith - I am just pointing out just how invalid your statment is in the light of reason - the father of intellectual honesty.
And if you want to be intellectually honest then you have to admit that the cartoonists and publishers of of the cartoons in the Danish newspaper were doing it to get a reaction from Islamic people. So they got their reaction and used that to demonstrate bad form.
Complaining about bee-stings after you have kicked over the hive on purpose is intellectually dishonest. It's also a bit girly.
Posted by: Wadard at Thu Apr 13 14:33:33 2006 (mu30w)
6
1) Actually, most folks were repulsed by the actions of the KKK. And since you are obviously unaware of the history of the Klan, it might surprise you to know that they also hated folks who were the wrong sort of Christian, not just blacks.
2) All it would have taken to have discreditted teh story of the Risen Christ would have been for even one of the Apostles -- or even one of the more numerous disciples -- to have repudiated the story as being afraud. None did, even though it cost them their lives. Given that folks do not willingly die for what they know to be a lie, I think that stands as the greatest testament (after the Bible itself) to the truth of the Resurrection.
3) So what you are saying is that the Danes deserved the barbaric reaction of Muslims to the cartoons, and absolve the Muslims from responsibility because, after all, "that's what Muslims do." Let me guess -- you think 9/11 was justified because of American policy, and that the jihadi murderers are blameless because that is how their religion teaches them to respond to perceived slights.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 13 15:09:17 2006 (k6nx7)
7
Oh, and Wad, if you would like to know the source of my hostility to jihadi Islam, I suggest you look at this post.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/110653.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/117778.php
So yes, I bear them hatred and malice -- for they attacked my country without cause or provocation.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 13 15:14:10 2006 (k6nx7)
8
1) I don't know much about the KKK. I just use them as an example of one of a few self-called Christian groups who are extremist and I don't hear an uproar against them although I grant you that the significant majority abhorr what the KKK stand for. I imagine it is the same with the Muslim world - they abhorr the terrorism that hides under the name of Islam - for example, the world was one immediately after 9/11 - but they similarly don't bother themselves with the tiny minority protesting violently against the Mohammed cartoons.
2) Yea, but you know and I know and everyone for 2000 years have known that it is impossible for someone to die, esp. in the manner of Jesus Christ, and resurrect. Logic tells you it is impossible, that is why the story is so compelling. No one before did that, and no one since, even the martyrs you speak of. Those martyrs died for the cause, the vision laid out for them by Jesus when he was alive - they were not your common folk plucked out of the crowd. Your evidence for the resurrection could also be explained by their commitment to Jesus the plan, not the literal truth.
3) You're putting words in my mouth. Don't stereotype me. Stereotyping is a form of depersonalisation. It's also lazy.
Posted by: Wadard at Fri Apr 14 00:03:36 2006 (mu30w)
9
Look mate, with respect to those links you posted, I feel for your suffering, I really do - like I said the world was one immediately after 9/11 - but those that did it were Al Qaeda - a small bunch of freaky people who act in the opposite manner to the way you would expect normal Muslim's to act.
Don't conflate AQ with the rest of Islam and you will be a lot happier. Your hatred will be directed where it should be ... getting your loser leadership to avenge those that fell on 9/11 by binning Bin Laden. What a bunch of fucktards? Where is your indignation? I saw those links you posted. I can't believe you are going to waste your grief by being mad an amorphous millions of muslims when you know who the fuck did it, and so does your leadership. Where is America's self respect that they let Bin Laden get away with it?
What a bleeding waste Iraq was. Instead of letting the world know that America won't take shit, you go after the guy that did 9/11, out-sourced to the Nthrn Alliance, let Bin laden off the hook, make a sad fuck up of Iraq, demonstrate to the world that a determined insurgency can stand up to the US and still grow, lose hearts and minds in the region and respect world over.
Worst of all, by not getting the guy that king hit you, you are setting yourselves up as a target for the next evil genius who wants to make his name.
America forgot the first rule of the playground.
Posted by: Wadard at Fri Apr 14 00:32:29 2006 (mu30w)
10
I imagine there were hardy any Christians jumping up and down and saying the KKK was wrong when it was lynching blacks in the name of the Christian gods.
then
I don't know much about the KKK.
Oh. Thanks.
Posted by: Hube at Sat Apr 15 01:14:08 2006 (YJyKI)
11
My original post was meant to explain that the rule of no pictures of MoMo, was to be applied to Muslims only. THEY can't have pictures, it doesn't apply to other people. But THEY ALL took advantage of some spin and created their outrage! how dare they!
(Look mate, with respect....) ahh yes, given time, eventually the True personality comes out. Have a crappy argument - get personal.
(loser leadership ) ... here it comes~!
Lets switch a few words around:
'...but those that did it were Nazi's....Don't conflate Nazi's with the rest of Germany.' We've already seen this happen before, better to nip it early, than to let it get any bigger.
(bunch of fucktards) (?) do ya wear these?
(...when you know who the fuck did it) this is like going after Hitler only and forgetting the "operation"
(What a bleeding waste Iraq was) Flunk history? do yerself a favor and edumicate yerself about WWII and do some of that there looking into death stats - by battle. Were they a "bleeding waste"...I think not, even with your here spewing.
(America forgot the first rule of the playground.) It's not a playground - it's for real.
NO CLINTON forgot the first rule:
1)Pray to God
2)He is married
3)keep it in your pants!
4)don't shite where ya eat
5)DO YOUR JOB - as President, that means: "protecting the country" at all costs. CLINTON betrayed this country by not having the Fucking balls to retaliate on other smaller attacks before 9/11. He can sure retailiate against the various Democratic women he molested, groped/raped who had accusations. All the AQ planning was done under his watch! All he wanted to protect was his historical image.
Wad, getting Bin Laden is a goal, but not the only one - the operation is what has to be taken down.
Posted by: JimBD at Sat Apr 15 07:00:23 2006 (GoE0N)
12
You know, when you said that all Muslims are terrorists, you're saying I am too. But I'm not. It hurts when you say that. I don't like war. I don't like humans killing each other. You are also saying my whole family are terrorists. My mum, my dad, my bro, my cousins you are saying they are terrorists. I live my days peacefully when suddenly a whole bunch of people dump this sh*t on you. I believe right now nothing can be solved with war. At my place there is no difference if you're a Muslim or a Christian. Most of us prefer to have peace. I just want you to know that it really hurts inside when you say that all Muslim are terrorists. Your words insult me, but I don't care. I just want to get this out of my chest.
Posted by: Malaysian D00d at Sat Apr 15 20:36:12 2006 (1jO6P)
13
I don't say all Muslims are terrorists -- but all too many are. I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists -- but do believe that Muslims have not doen enough to root out the terrorists among them.
But I ask you to consider what we have recently seen -- tame images of Muhammad provoke riots and killings, and alleged desecration of the Koran does the same. Disgusting images of Jesus provoke complaints and no violence, and the documented destruction of Bibles confiscated from Christian travelers by the Muslim government of Saudi Arabia barely raises an eyebrow (and certainly doesn't set off a diplomatic row).
If you cannot see the difference, then you are blind.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Apr 16 00:46:31 2006 (aD2ef)
14
Of course I see the difference...
But you are looking at the middle eastern part only... Look at other countries. Look at my country. Do we have regular religious killing here? No. I NEVER heard of it here. Don't look at the middle eastern countries only, as the Muslims there got influenced from the people who make them think it's right to kill innocents in the name of God. No. It is never right to kill innocents in the name of God. They are not killing in the name of God at all. They are killing in the name of terrorism. Bad men go to hell.
Plus the western media's extremists are handling most of the news coverage there... Them Arabs just don't speak up... actually it's not as bad as it seems really.
No offence but the western media isn't new for this indirect defamation, it did the same with the blacks too about 10 years ago if you know did research you will find out. Go check out Michael Moore's documentaries.
In my view, maybe the Muslims act like that when their religious symbols are insulted or made fun of because it is not normal for the western media or any media to make fun of Islam's religious symbols. It is a shock for Muslims, and they're scared they will not be able to do anything about it and more mockery will come, so that is why they reacted in such a way. But it absolutely doesn't give them the right to kill anyone. They should talk about it in a civilised manner. You know, in the Koran it says "If you see bad, change it with your tounge, if not, your hands, if you cannot do anything more, denounce it in your hearts." (or something like that) These guys probably went straight for the 2nd choice (with their hands they weilded guns and starts shooting the crap out of people).
When the cartoons thingy happened, do you know how other more peaceful countries reacted? Look what my government did. No one was "radically" angry. They simply told the Danish government that they don't really find the jokes very funny and requested an apology. When the Danish said they "had freedom of speech" my government simply boycotted all of the Danish products. The other more peaceful Islamic countries also did the same. Now, Denmark is facing an economic problem and starting to make apologies. When you see this, you know we don't like to see our religious symbols being made fun of. Maybe it's because we love them very much. It's like when someone makes fun of your mum, do you just smile and walk away? No. You defend them. But sometimes you defend them too emotionally. Because you see, it's OKAY for your religion to portray images of Jesus, but it is NOT OKAY for us to portray images of the prophets or God and we can't let them be portrayed. Maybe you don't have such stuff in the Bible but in the Koran we do. So knowing that, the governments of the world should know that it is offensive to do so. It's not like there's no more other stuff you can broadcast or print.
Posted by: Malaysian D00d at Sun Apr 16 15:59:01 2006 (LIHSq)
15
1) That you think governments should apologize for the actions of private publishers in engaging in private speech shows that you have no conception of press freedom.
2) That you think I should feel in any way bound by your religious strictures on depictions of your (fales) prophet shows you have no conception of religious freedom. But then again, given Malaysia's record in this area, I'm not surprised.
3) That you think Michael Moore has any credibility shows that you have no clue whatsoever.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Apr 16 22:08:24 2006 (bXnDM)
16
Press freedom has its limits, in fact everything does.
Religious freedom also requires you to have respect for other religions. Isn't that the way it works? Or do we make fun of each other's religion to be fair? Just for the record, it was the western media that started the mocking.
Lol the Michael Moore thingy I don't really know but really, the thing about the blacks is real. You know that. You say that I have no clue, if you're right, then that means you have just witnessed someone being influenced by the TV. Like most of the people living where the media controls the people. Don't say I don't know what I am talking about. You are influenced by the media too. I see you take the news very seriously. I don't, because I'm just a hardcore gamer. I don't give a damn who I'm playing with as long as he's leet. Seeing repetitions of certain events in the TV can mess with your mind.
What do you want to prove anyway? That x religion is better than y religion? That Muslims and Christians can't get along? If not, why do I have American relatives in the US? I don't care really. My grandma is Chinese. My grandfather is Indian. In my family, there are Chinese, Indians and more races. That goes for religion too. We celebate all our religious celebrations. Chinese New Year, Aidilfitri (Muslim celebration), Christmas and more. That's right. We celebrate all of them together. We have no problems with it at all. We talk about our religion, discuss it, but we never had a fight about it. You can think whatever you want. There's no need to defend or offend. This is just my comment.
Sorry if my words are incorrect. Peace bro
Posted by: Malaysian D00d at Mon Apr 17 01:19:00 2006 (1iCmB)
17
Yes, press freedom has limits -- but they are limits related to obscenity, libel and national security, not "you offended my religion." If someone wants to print a cartoon of Muhammad depicting him as a terrorist (a historically accurate portrait, according to the Koran and the Hadith), then they have every right to do so without limit. Similarly,they had every right to run photos of the infamous "Piss Christ" work of "art". The appropriate response is boycotts and other forms of economic/moral pressure, not government censorship or acts of violence by barbarians.
Religious freedom does not require me to have one ounce of respect for any religion other than my own (or even my own, for that matter). It requires that I tolerate your practice of your religion right up to the point that it harms someone or violates their rights. Printing a picture of the false prophet Muhammad comes nowhere close to that line. If it did, then the Koran and other Muslim works would need to be banned for statements denying the divinity of Jesus -- we Christians find that lie quite offensive and disrespectful.
Your comments on race and racism in this country are absurd, and depict a reality that has not particularly exsted for most of my lifetime (I'm 43). And as for my position on race and racism -- I am a white man teaching in a school that approaches 80% minority. As my wife and I can have no children (medical issues -- a long story), I love my students as if they were my own.
And as for my attitude towards Muslims, I have great gratitude for most of them. Most Muslims are decent people. In fact, I owe much to the Muslim doctors who have saved my wife's life more than once, most recently three weeks ago -- her medical team consists of an Indian Muslim, an iranian Muslim, a Lebanese Muslim, and another Muslim of indeterminate ethnic origins. I greatly love and respect my Muslim students. My issue is with the rabid mob that seeks to impose islamic restrictions on me in the name of "respect", and those who would attack my country and do us violence because we do not follow the strictures of Islam. And my issue (theologically) is with a faith I believe to be false.
For wat it is worth, man, I suspect that you and I would get on well -- and so I return your salutation of "Peace" with all sincerity.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Apr 17 12:53:37 2006 (I52YI)
18
After reading that, I feel a lot better. Now that I have read your post above, it looks like your views are pretty much the same as mine (seriously).
Thanks for shedding some light on the racism part in your country. Sir, honestly I had no idea. I'm only 17.
I'm glad we had this discussion. It's good to have a better understanding of cultures and religions. I feel much better now. Sorry if I said anything offensive as it certainly is not my intention.
Until the next controversial post, goodbye and make peace not war (obviously).
Posted by: Malaysian D00d at Mon Apr 17 20:08:25 2006 (6jJrf)
19
You are seventeen? Gee -- you could BE one of my students! Had I realized your age, I might have taken a different tack un how I responded, so I'm glad i didn't know. You impressed me with your attempts to grapple with the issues, and I assumed you were about a decade or so older.
I enjoyed this -- know that you are welcome here always.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Apr 17 21:45:17 2006 (r/X6b)
20
Oh my God, 17y.o Malaysian Dood beats the shit out of hate-mongerer RhymesWithRight with a collop of kindness, a rapier of reason and a smidgen of courage, and turns him into a teddy bear. Go the Malaysians.
Amazing, although a Muslim he uses the tools that Jesus taught (probably not that surprising since Jesus is a prophet in Islam - but I don't know what teachings he handed down to Islam) to subdue a right wing religious extremist and bully twice his age and hands him his arse in the nicest way I have seen.
Posted by: Wadard at Sun Jun 4 12:04:10 2006 (mu30w)
21
Don't get too full of yourself, my young friend. :-)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 4 12:32:39 2006 (E9VZb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
38kb generated in CPU 0.0071, elapsed 0.0156 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.01 seconds, 50 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
