Replies

One of America's booming businesses is the indignation industry that manufactures the synthetic outrage needed to fuel identity politics.
George Will Jan 5 2006.

I don't understand why anyone would be afraid of this show. Surely true believers are confident enough in their faith that a silly drama or comedy (I really don't know which it is) isn't going to influence them.

Did George Burns and 'Oh God' bruise the sensibilities of evangelicals thirty years ago? I don't remember any protests, but maybe someone can point me to source documents saying otherwise.

I don't understand why anyone would be afraid of this show. Surely true believers are confident enough in their faith that a silly drama or comedy (I really don't know which it is) isn't going to influence them.

Hold it.

First, who's afraid of this show? I don't see any indication that anyone is afraid. What I see is an indication that the people who spend their lives worshipping Jesus think He should be treated with respect. What I see is some people wondering why any business would be stupid enough to launch a project that revolves around an insulting portrayal of 80% of their audience. What evidence do you have that my assessment is wrong?

Second, why is it that Christians are the only group that's considered hysterical when they don't like being given the finger? Why is a dislike of being given the finger seen as evidence of fear and "synthetic outrage" when we exhibit it, when only an idiot would expect Jews to sit for a Junkie Rabbi or Bhuddists to sit for the Bhudda telling a monk that drug dealers are good kids?

Surely true believers are confident enough in their faith that a silly drama or comedy . . . isn't going to influence them.

You raise a good point, not unlike the argument that, if one does not like what's on the boob toob, he can ditch it or change the channel. As a true believer I'd like to respond to that notion.

First of all, my concern is not only for what might influence me. Firm as I am in my convictions, my concern extends also to what might influence my neighbor. I don't want my neighbor to suffer philosophical, political, theological malfeasance any more than I would want to carefully steer his feet toward a fresh pile of cow manure.

Secondly, this kind of inflammatory, mediocre programming is an abuse of mass media. There are too many better things that could be placed on the screen, starting with reruns of Gilligan's Island.

Thirdly, I've had enough of blow-hard Hollywood and mainstream media bullshit. (Pardon my English.) The best recourse is to point out, publicly and clearly, the inflammatory abuses generated by those who think it is of some benefit to rub the public's nose in a stinking pile. Human decadence is a natural occurrence. It is a disservice to mankind to see it broadcast.

Surely true believers are confident enough in their faith that a silly drama or comedy (I really don't know which it is) isn't going to influence them.

By this sort of reasoning, Jews shouldn't object to a network showing a "documentary" based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," since the Jews know it's not real. Or people with common sense shouldn't object to a network showing "Farenheit 911" or "Bowling for Columbine," since the people they insult and defame know it's not true.

The problem isn't with the "Believers" being insulted, as much as the damage it causes them when those who are NOT informed get their information from a false or biased source.

Mark