Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Denis Leary Trashes Virgin Mary and Catholic Church in Comedy Central Special
The Boston Herald ^ | December 14, 2005 | Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Evangelical Christian; Humor; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: billdonohue; catholicbashing; catholicleague; christhater; christianbashing; comedycentral; culturewar; eatingourown; heretic; liberalbigots; libertinarians; payattentiontome; peckingparty; religiousintolerance; turnthechannel; your15minutesareup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-196 next last
To: Rebelbase

He invoked the Nazis back at Post #6.


141 posted on 12/14/2005 10:32:41 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (MORE COWBELL! MORE COWBELL! (CLANK-CLANK-CLANK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

My apologies for missing that earlier.


142 posted on 12/14/2005 10:34:31 AM PST by Rebelbase (Green bean casserole is a culinary curse upon mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

LOL

well ht does have that show on FX now...

But I have seen commercials for this special too...


143 posted on 12/14/2005 10:40:07 AM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: neocon
So if you slander a large enough group of people, it somehow doesn't count?

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.

144 posted on 12/14/2005 10:42:45 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

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.


145 posted on 12/14/2005 10:50:56 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
You've utterly misrepresented my statements yet again. Obviously, you intend to continue to do so. I won't waste my time further with you or this thread.

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.

146 posted on 12/14/2005 10:53:17 AM PST by neocon (Be not afraid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

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.


147 posted on 12/14/2005 11:01:35 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: neocon

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.


148 posted on 12/14/2005 11:02:55 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
In the end it is up to Catholics to shut this guy up.

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."

149 posted on 12/14/2005 11:10:00 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan
How best to let Denis Iscariot Leary and his Catholic-Bashing Central know how we feel?

Take away his bennies, muscle relaxers, and cocaine.

150 posted on 12/14/2005 11:22:19 AM PST by beyond the sea (Murtha: Redeployment - What .......Surrender? // “Victory is not a strategy”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
It would have to be economic means. The problem may be that not enough practicing Catholics see his crap.
151 posted on 12/14/2005 11:29:58 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

If you're actually where your name says you are, I wouldn't be counting on SP or Leary for any help . . .


152 posted on 12/14/2005 11:48:15 AM PST by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

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.


153 posted on 12/14/2005 11:51:06 AM PST by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan

I saw yours; that's enough.

And thanks for proving my original point.


154 posted on 12/14/2005 11:56:31 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan
If you're actually where your name says you are, I wouldn't be counting on SP or Leary for any help . . .

Gee THAT has something to do with this article...bagging on my name. Original too. Haven't heard THAT ONE before....
155 posted on 12/14/2005 11:56:40 AM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

~scratches head~

What exactly did that ~mean~ anyway?


156 posted on 12/14/2005 11:59:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

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.


157 posted on 12/14/2005 12:00:51 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

~raises hand~

Ummm.... I don't get it....


158 posted on 12/14/2005 12:01:34 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

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 !!!


159 posted on 12/14/2005 12:03:44 PM PST by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

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.


160 posted on 12/14/2005 12:07:21 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-196 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson