"South Park" Parked by Complaints

Yahoo! ^ | Thu Dec 29, 2005 | Sarah Hall

[Quick1]

Following the Dec. 7 season finale of South Park, titled "Bloody Mary," the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights slammed the network for its irreverent portrayal of church icons and sought to block the episode from being rebroadcast.

It appears the group may have met with success. A repeat of the finale was scheduled to air Wednesday night, but was seemingly pulled from the Comedy Central lineup without explanation.

In the episode, a statue of the Virgin Mary is believed to be bleeding from its rear end, inspiring faithful parishioners to flock from miles around to be healed by the miraculous blood.

[smith288]

What are you talking about?

What im talking about is my choice to hang out with an Indian, an arab and a Christian and not get in a huge fight about politics.

Its quite easy to get along with folks.... its not, however, easy to be forced to get along with folks. Loosen up...im far from even a moderate liberal but I can accept being around people different from me if I freely choose do so without giving up my identity as a Christian conservative. You on the other hand.....

[Blzbba]

"It WAS mocking the Mother of God, it was mocking the most revered Saint in the Communnion of Saints. It WAS ugly and nasty and if you found humor in it, you either clearly have no understanding of the Catholic culture, or you clearly have a perverted and bigotry riven sense of humor."



No, it was mocking the ignorant fools who worship statues.

[Blzbba]

"So, if they were to urinate on the American flag you would be okay with that since it is an inanimate object?"


It depends on how well-written the episode is. I personally don't worship the flag, so it probably wouldn't offend me.

[Blzbba]

'What if it was the "actual" Declaration of Independence or Constitution? "


LOL! The Supreme Court urinates on the Constitution all the time. I'd probably laugh.

[HairOfTheDog]

How about if we just all urinate on wagglebees red herrings :~D

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...but we also have a moral responsibility to avoid ridiculing religions in such a way as to defame them."

You wrote: "How so? If we have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, then we also have freedom to criticize other people's, or even our own, religions."

Category mistake. The point was about moral responsibility. Your answer was addressed legal freedom or liberty.

I would argue against almost any legal restraint of speech except for felonious or terroristic threats, libel, fraud, and treason.

I would also argue against any restraints on such speech-related activities as boycotts and protests directed at offensive broadcasters. Here again, it's not a matter of legal censorship, but of public free-speech response. If you don't like a broadcast you can turn it off---- OR you can boycott their sponsors and shut 'em down, and more power to you.

But I heartily agree that it can be immoral (I didn't say illegal) to ridicule and defame other persons, religious or not. Not immoral across the board, but immoral when it involves an element of humiliation, degradation, or falsehood.

There is a sin called "detraction," which means revealing something which is damages or destroys another person's reputation, UNLESS there is a sufficiently grave reason to do so.

Examples: it is NOT the sin of detraction to reveal that a pastor lost his last two appointments because he embezzled money from his congregation (because there's sufficiently grave reason for his present congregation --- or at least their parish council --- to be informed of that.) But it IS detraction to reveal this this pastor committed adultery 15 years ago. That's none of the congregation's business. Nor of the general public.

And to reveal such a thing in a humiliating, mocking, and totally public way would do immense harm to the pastor, his wife and family, and his congregation. It could also trarnish their whole denomination, and expose innocent persons to suspicion or mockery.

To hold the offending pastor up to public contempt and ridicule in order to destroy his reputation would be --- even if not legally actionable --- a gravely immoral thing.

Sliming and degrading the Virgin Mary and the Pope in the way the South Park did is clearly morally offensive. If protests and boycotts cause them to deep-six this segment permanently, then hooray! Another victory for free speech.

[Conservative til I die]

I honestly hope it wasn't pulled for that reason (we don't know for sure, as CC has declined to comment), as the best thing about South Park is that they don't listen to people that are offended.

Yes, what a virtue. Crass, insulting, and vulgar *but* without conscience. Good heroes you got there.

[HairOfTheDog]

Or are they straw men? I always get those terms confused... :~D

[Conservative til I die]

If people could simply learn to laugh at themselves, the world would be a much better place.

If you could let us know when we're allowed to stop laughing at ourselves, that'd be great. My guess it's the usual: Catholics, liberals, Muslims, and others that are approved targets. Jews, President Bush, the GOP, the handicapped, all no-nos.

[Conservative til I die]

We have become a nation of victims, complainers and whiners. Everyone has some injustice visited on them.

One man's "victimization" is another man's "injustice." It may not offend you for a variety of reasons, but it might offend others for a variety of equally valid reasons. You should be a bit more tolearant.

And sometimes there actually *is* something to complain about.

[tortoise]

the multitude of episodes that portray Jesus as a joke

What episodes? One of the recurring themes of South Park is that Jesus always wins no matter what the odds, and even when the townspeople abandon him (and get shafted for it).

That sounds like a pretty positive and Christian representation to me.

[Conservative til I die]

And who made you the arbitrator of who is and who is not a conservative?

And who made you the arbiter of what is and is not allowed to be complained about?

I sure see a lot of South Park defenders lauding free speech and giving their opinions to everyone else but seem to have a real issue with their opponents exercising the same right.

[Xenalyte]

Ping, you two!

Frankly, I'm not convinced that there ARE two of you . . . I lean toward the theory that you're both really Trey Parker, having a good one on us.

[NormB]

Question for Catholics, is it the RCCs contention that Mary never menstruated? Serious answers only please.

[MikefromOhio]

I will tell you what...

This damned forum takes this CARTOON WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too seriously.....in short they are acting like a bunch of self-important jackasses. I guess they lambast those who try to act like victims ALL THE TIME (read LIBERALS), unless they perceive themselves to be under the gun (they aren't, but educating morons is impossible), so the victim card is good enough for such people to play.

And the funniest part of this stupid "controversy" ERRRRRRR 15 minutes of fame grabbing by Bill Donohue et al, is that South Park GENERALLY lands on their side of any issue. Except NOW they can expect to get skewered and I can't wait to see it.

[MikefromOhio]

I'll try to find the comment, but balch got PWN3D on another thread :)

[HairOfTheDog]

And who made you the arbiter of who should or should not be made an arbiter of who is or is not a conservative? ;~D

[Conservative til I die]

I would be interested to know if the Catholic League has protested the multitude of episodes that portray Jesus as a joke or just the ones that make fun of Catholicism.

Let me guess, you're here to push your own religious agenda into the thread.

[Xenalyte]

If you do find it, please ping me! I would LOVE to see it.

[Conservative til I die]

And apparently the South Park apologists think that is humorous. Unbelievable.

Yeah, but remember it's edgy and it pushes the envelope.

So does me taking a stinking dump in the middle of 5th Avenue, but...