Posted on 12/14/2005 5:20:00 AM PST by TaxachusettsMan
Catholic League Not Amused By ‘VILE’ Leary Special
By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - Updated: 12:15 AM EST
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has put Worcester homey Denis Leary on its Naughty List and the religious group is demanding that Comedy Central ax future showings of his “vile special” “Denis Leary’s Merry F#%$in’ Christmas.”
“Hate speech dressed in humorous garb is still hate speech,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. “Leary is obviously bedeviled by some disorder but nothing excuses this crap.”
In the Yuletide yukfest, the “Rescue Me” star has a skit about lesbian nuns and a song by “Our Lady of Perpetual Suffering Church Choir” about a hooker. But what really has the Catholic League ready to launch a holy war is Denis’ take on the origins of Christmas.
“Merry Christmas,” says Denis. “Tonight we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus, whose mom, Mary, just happens to be a virgin — even after she apparently gave birth to Jesus.At least that is what the Catholic Church would have you believe.
“Tom Cruise is taking a lot of (bleep) for belonging to a religion, Scientology, that believes aliens came to this planet 75 million years ago. That is nothing. I was raised Catholic. We believe Mary was a virgin and Jesus ended up walking on water, creating a bottomless jug of wine and rising from the dead.”
Leary then gives his trenchant take on the virgin birth which, trust us, did not jingle the Catholics’ bells!
“We understand Denis Leary is edgy and this is his schtick, that Boston tough guy appeal,” said Catholic League spokesgal Kiera McCaffrey. “But going after the Blessed Mother is the kind of thing that really gets our backs up.”
But the Comedy Central suits think the religious Grinches should lighten up.
“This is satire,” said channel spokesman Tony Fox. “Comedy Central is an adult network and we think Denis Leary has the right to speak freely about what he thinks is funny. We don’t cave to pressure and we’re not pulling the show off the air. That’s not something we’ve ever done.”
No indeedy. Denis’ special is schedule to air again Dec. 17, 19,21, 24 and, of course, 25.
File Under: Season’s Bleatings.
He invoked the Nazis back at Post #6.
My apologies for missing that earlier.
LOL
well ht does have that show on FX now...
But I have seen commercials for this special too...
Actually, it doesn't count. Not in court at any rate. It may count from a social perspective, but you were referring specifically to legal exceptions.
The famous "blood libel" wasn't really a libel because it was directed at Jews in general, rather than particular Jews? You can't be that stupid.
I have to say, this is a prime example of the kind of hysterical overstatement that undercuts the credibility of the currently in vogue claims that Christians are somehow a "persecuted majority." Leary's routine on Comedy Central wasn't a blood libel, for crying out loud, no matter how many horse-hair shirts you put on.
The point is not whether or not this is a violation of law - it probably isn't. But it is uncivil...
Ok. It is legally permissible, but (in your view) uncivil. And you combat incivility by pointing it out and demonstrating civility, agreed?
[I]t is not acceptable for Jews or Muslims to be insulted in this way, because it is well known that some form of retaliation will be forthcoming, either by a media outcry or by public demonstrations (which have, it must be noted, turned violent on occasion). As a Catholic, I would like to be given equal respect.
Well, in the current climate, retaliation in the case of Muslims seems as likely to take the form of physical violence as civil protest.
But since you are now distancing yourself from the advisability of violent retaliation, and are suggesting instead that Catholics are somehow not on an equal footing with Muslims and Jews in their right to engage in civil protest, perhaps you'd like to explain why you believe this to be so. What's to stop you or any other Catholic from countering Leary's words with other speech, with demonstration, or with directed objections? (And remember, you started this discussion with not-so-veiled suggestions that the appropriate response was not civil protest or countering speech, but the chilling of Leary by the prospect of retaliatory force.)
The point was made in the context of a critique of the position of free speech absolutism. If speech is never to be "chilled" by the self-censorship imposed by the bounds of civil behavior, then neither, by the same Amendment, is religious expression. Knowing that it is acceptable to be ridiculed - as Leary as has done - for one's religious beliefs makes it likely that one to practice self-censorship in the expression of those beliefs, i.e., "chilling" said expression. If "chilling" insulting speech through encouraging self-censorship is impermissible, it is equally wrong to chill religious expression through a similar mechanism.
Cutting through this gobblygook, what you seem to be saying is that if Leary is free to speak, then Catholics are free to speak in opposition. No problem. And no violence, express or implied.
Now, what does that point have to do with all this stuff you keep spouting about how speech is properly chilled and kept civil by fear of being physically assaulted?
Moreover, I have cited numerous examples - and could cite many more - which taken together constitute a pattern of persecution. I should think it obvious that persecution has a chilling effect on religious expression.
If Christians are so persecuted, how come the loudest voices in the marketplace are those of Christians who are claiming to be persecuted?
I'm not amused at your attempts to equate encouraging civil behavior with issuing fatwas, calls for theocracy, etc.
My point wasn't to amuse you. It was to disagree with you. I don't find defensible the notion that speech one finds offensive should countered with physical violence.
Well, it is closer to defamation, if we are at law. But why must we be at law? Community standards are the problem. Neither blacks, nor Jews, no homosexuals may be subjected to such public ridicule. And he sure does not do it for free. He is playing to an audience that laps this stuff up and pays to hear more. In the end it is up to Catholics to shut this guy up. But we are at handicap, because the people who operate this "show" share his sentiments and because the American Church is not unified in the way that it was fifty years ago.
Perhaps others will read them carefully for what they actually say, rather than attempting to impose an interpretation upon them which they do not support. Perhaps not.
When all is said and done, it remains unreasonable to expect Catholics to put up with these continual insults in the name of "free speech". I will use my resources as I see fit to prevent them from recurring.
Old westerns don't have mass audiences. Leary's stuff does not have as large an impact as "Birth of a Nation," but his audience is not small. Since he is not alone, a lot of poison is being spread.
Ok. Although I will note that your posts 67 and 69 are freely available for those "others" to read carefully. Sometimes, is just means is.
Am I to take it, then, that you are not proposing that Catholics simply counter Leary's speech with speech of their own? And if so, by what alternative means do you propose "to shut this guy up."
Take away his bennies, muscle relaxers, and cocaine.
If you're actually where your name says you are, I wouldn't be counting on SP or Leary for any help . . .
You must not have been reading all the posts from your buddies.
And, by the way, if you're seeing any butt, feel free to kiss it.
I saw yours; that's enough.
And thanks for proving my original point.
~scratches head~
What exactly did that ~mean~ anyway?
I am still trying to figure out if it had any OTHER meaning than just a cheap swipe at my screen name....
I don't think it does.
~raises hand~
Ummm.... I don't get it....
There's one person on here who is definitely not smarter than I am.
It would be one "Rebelbase"
You see, it's ARGUMENT not ARGUEMENT - as in your little graphic.
When you're trying to be a smart ass, Princess, make sure you're really smart,
otherwise, all you end up doing is showing that you're just an ass !!!
ohh it's a regular passtime to those that disagree with me.
Instead of coming back with an argument, they would rather swipe at my name. They sometimes say stupid things like "You aren't really in Iraq" or "come on now, we KNOW you were never really in Iraq".....
I'm used to it.
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.