Christians 'are easiest target for TV satire'

Comedians and dramatists delight in "pouring scorn" on Christianity but are "timid" about mocking Muslims, a broadcasting watchdog chief said yesterday.

Islam was accorded far more respect on television and radio than other religions because satirists were "cautious" and "self-censoring" when faced with the prospect of causing offence to Muslims, said Lord Dubs, chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

"In portraying Muslims they have held back, they have censored themselves, they are timid," the Labour peer said. "I have seen them pour scorn on Christianity more than on other religions. Christianity is an easier and more acceptable target followed, to a lesser extent, by Jews and Hindus."

His remarks come on the eve of an announcement by the BSC that it is to impose one of the stiffest penalties it can draw on after Channel 4 re-broadcast a remark by Jamie Oliver about "Jesus —ing Christ".

The BSC had already upheld a complaint that the comment, made by the celebrity chef in an episode of the fly-on-the-wall series Jamie's Kitchen, was offensive to Christians. The regulator was angry when the offending remark was aired again in an unedited repeat of the programme.

A spokesman for Channel 4 said the repeat went out later than the original programme, at 10pm rather than 9pm, and it had been thought that the audience at the later time would not be offended.

In a rare intervention of this kind by the BSC, Channel 4 will be forced to broadcast the commission's new adjudication on air and have it published in a newspaper.

The commission is subsumed from today into the new super-regulator Ofcom. Lord Dubs admitted that the BSC had also shown bias in favour of Muslims. "We have tried to treat the religions equally. I doubt we have succeeded. I think we have shaded a bit on the side of Islam," he said.

The Right Rev Richard Holloway, the former Bishop of Edinburgh and a member of the BSC board, said Oliver's remark would never have been aired had it been about the Prophet Mohammed.

"There is much more sensitivity to disturbing Islam," he said. "It is partly because the Muslim community does not have a tradition of humour about religion, although Christian leaders will stand up for things that are fundamentally important."

Often as not, the object of this pseudo-rebellion is a strawman, a pop-culture caricature of some alleged oppression rather than the thing itself. This is the real origin of pop-culture's contempt for Christianity.

Very interesting thoughts. Being on the cultural dividing line of a "Brady Boomer" and a "Baby Boomer" myself, I have often wondered what triggered the mass insanity of the 1960's. I remember sitting in my parents living room as a very young child, watching that horrible show "Laugh In!" To a little boy, that show was very disturbing. A twisted mass of sensory overload and cynicism. It was a metaphor for what was happening to America at that time.

When I asked my older friends what was going on, I always recieved the same pat answer: "It's the WAR man!" But that wasn't totally true--it was not Vietnam threatening these people. Many I knew had deferrments to the draft, or were female and ineligible. It was more of a mass induced psychosis and a rebellion agains "The Establishment"--which meant Christianity.

Each generation must struggle for its soul, and seek what it worships and values. That goes on today, in many nations. By every definition of a cult, Islam is one.

In the 1960's--America went through a Liberal rebellion against God. It continues today. To me, the mass insanity that gripped the US in the 1960's was almost entirely similar to the madness that took Germany after 1933.

Definitely an unwritten rule - I thought it was a more polite thing to tell him than "shut up, newbie."

(Actual practice is probably more like "wait until at least your second or third year here before you start mouthing off." Helps us tell the difference between a troll and a smart-alec freeper.)

"The ITC also noted that the program began immediately after the watershed." Channel 4 said it had been imperative to show a "frank and candid portrait of Jamie Oliver" and to let viewers see "the reality and pressures of the challenge facing him".

So if he was a child rapist they'd show that too? I'm not accusing him of a "Michael Jackson", but simply pointing out the absurdity of the Channel 4 execs.

The Right Rev Richard Holloway, the former Bishop of Edinburgh and a member of the BSC board, said Oliver's remark would never have been aired had it been about the Prophet Mohammed.

If that had happened, one of your local Wahhabe clerics would have issued a "Fatwa" against Oliver and he would have been murdered.

"There is much more sensitivity to disturbing Islam," he said. "It is partly because the Muslim community does not have a tradition of humour about religion,

Yeah, I guess that's a pretty fair statement. They just got no sense of humor.

That's too bad. Maybe we can help them out with that by bringing back a traditional American form of humor, the "ethnic joke", but this time, instead of targetng Polish people, it would be directed at Muslims.

Let's see... how many Muslims does it take to comandeer a 747?

gorzaloon,know anymore that one was pretty funny. Lets start a muzzy joke thread

That was a spur of the moment. But one guy on here calls them "Moonbats", and that one broke me up!

I think that article might have a point...there is just not much about them that seems very funny since 9-11.

I am surprised they are not going wild about hijackers who hide behind their religion...I thought they were supposed to kill people who made it look bad, right? Well, here is what happened:

September 10, 2001: "Islam is a respectable religion based on Judeo-Christian roots, practiced by a billion people around the globe".

September 12, 2001: "I thought we had a LEASH LAW in this town!!! Watch out, Jimmy, you almost stepped in that pile of Islam!"

Poles are among the bravest people around. They might fight tanks with cavalry, but they don't kill innocents. Cowards kill unarmed innocents.

Let's see... how many Muslims does it take to comandeer a 747?

Not many if Odd-god is on their side. Interesting that images of the Prophet cannot be published-Probably do not want us to see the bat wings, cloven hooves, and barbed tail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.