Persecuted Christians In America!

[Shakeyhands]

And while you're at it Shakeyhands, why is your response to Shady primarily an ad hominem attack?

My comment on accuracy had to do with his comment that "It's amazing how accurate this thread really is." My comment was that is was as accurate as his statement that he's been voted outstanding poster for a number of years. How is that an ad hominem attack?

[jbg]

My comment on accuracy had to do with his comment that "It's amazing how accurate this thread really is." My comment was that is was as accurate as his statement that he's been voted outstanding poster for a number of years. How is that an ad hominem attack?

Maybe he voted himself to that title.

[cybercoma]

Persecuted Christian high school teacher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/paul-laduke-masturbating-teacher_n_1417900.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[jbg]

And what does this have to do with the persecution of Christians?

[cybercoma]

He's a Christian and he's being prosecuted. Oh, crap did I write persecuted the first time. Oops.

[Shakeyhands]

He's a Christian and he's being prosecuted. Oh, crap did I write persecuted the first time. Oops.

[The_Squid]

If somebody created an African-American character as dumb as Brittany on Glee, I bet you'd hear a lot of indignation.

Then you haven't watched "Community" and seen the Troy character.

[kimmy]

It has been another horrific week for America's persecuted Christians!

Following last week's mini-holocaust, where a Christian was mercilessly mocked for sending out dead bunny Easter cards, comes two fresh new claims of terrible persecution.

We go first to sunny Peoria, where bishop Daniel Jenky is telling his congregation that Obama's "extreme secularist agenda" is intent on following the path of Otto von Bismarck and his "culture war against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany."

This sort of rant is never complete without a Hitler and Stalin reference, so of course Jenky had to include one of those as well: "Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care."

Because one day contraceptives, and the next thing you know, gulags and gas-chambers.

The Anti-Defamation League is very upset, of course, because Jews are the only ones allowed to invoke the name Hitler for political purposes. The IRS is also apparently interested in Jenky's comments and is investigating whether his comments come close enough to political campaigning as to violate the rules of the church's tax exempt status.

Things are clearly very tough for Catholics in Illinois. As you'll recall just a few months back Chicago Cardinal Francis George said compared the gay rights movement to the KKK.

But it's worse than that, Christians! You may need to put on a helmet before you read any further, because this is hard-hitting stuff. Catholic League president Bill Donahue is outraged-- livid! furious! --over a segment on the Jon Stewart show which Bill declares "ranks with the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television."

Stewart noted that a certain media outlet gets bent out of shape over the "War on Christmas" every year, but hasn't had any coverage over the "War on Women". Stewart suggested that perhaps women could get more media attention for women's issues if they put little mangers down there to make it more Christmassy. And the accompanying graphic showed a naked woman, posed with a little nativity scene concealing her hoo-ha.

And the Catholic League is furious! FURIOUS!! They're mounting a boycott! They're demanding apologies! They're going to talk to Muslims and Jews and get them to help too! This graphic, showing a little manger scene in close proximity to a naked woman, is apparently the most egregious incident of hate speech that Bill Donahue has ever heard of.

Good luck with that boycott, Bill.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Hey kimmy,

Whether or not you agree with Stewart's point, there is an overriding question here: is this funny ? It's not.

It's just tasteless and it puts The Daily Show as smirking sophomore frat boys rather than the sharp political satire that made them famous. You can insult religious icons, and if you do it right then even members of that religion will giggle a little bit. Festooning a women's genital package with religious icons doesn't do that.

[kimmy]

Hey kimmy,

Whether or not you agree with Stewart's point, there is an overriding question here: is this funny ? It's not.

It's just tasteless and it puts The Daily Show as smirking sophomore frat boys rather than the sharp political satire that made them famous. You can insult religious icons, and if you do it right then even members of that religion will giggle a little bit. Festooning a women's genital package with religious icons doesn't do that.

Are you sure that's an overriding question? It seems to me like an unimportant aside. Clearly, not a very sophisticated gag... but lots of bad jokes are told all the time and few of them are declared "hate speech" or launch boycotts.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

It has been another horrific week for America's persecuted Christians!

Following last week's mini-holocaust, where a Christian was mercilessly mocked for sending out dead bunny Easter cards, comes two fresh new claims of terrible persecution.

Thank God. I hate to think how meaningless your life would be if you didn't have any new instances of Christians being "persecuted" to mock. The Lord is looking out for you.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you sure that's an overriding question? It seems to me like an unimportant aside. Clearly, not a very sophisticated gag... but lots of bad jokes are told all the time and few of them are declared "hate speech" or launch boycotts.

-k

You think that it's unimportant as to whether Stewart is achieving his primary objective as a comedian ? I pointed it out expressly because comedians will often come back with a defense of humour as to why they do certain things. Stewart himself may have done this, I'm not sure.

So, calling that out it's pretty clear that he failed to entertain us. Was it effective as a political message ? I would say not, in that it didn't say anything important and wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

[cybercoma]

Hey kimmy,

Whether or not you agree with Stewart's point, there is an overriding question here: is this funny ? It's not.

Oh but it is!

[msj]

Oh but it is!

It was pretty good.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh but it is!

Unsubtle and lewd...

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think Jon Stewart is as funny as he used to be. I think his ship has sailed.

[Shakeyhands]

Unsubtle and lewd...

I suppose if you had absolutely no sense of humour it would be considered that. I would think people might be more concerned on the factual sound bites that were presented before the harmless picture, but again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by anything at this point.

[Guest American Woman]

I suppose if you had absolutely no sense of humour it would be considered that.

So anyone who doesn't find this funny has no sense of humor? I happen to agree with MH on this - and I don't think there's anything clever about it at all.

[msj]

So anyone who doesn't find this funny has no sense of humor? I happen to agree with MH on this - and I don't think there's anything clever about it at all.

No, as SH has stated:

I would think people might be more concerned on the factual sound bites that were presented before the harmless picture, but again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by anything at this point.

This is why I posted the link to the actual clip (although perhaps only Canadians can view the link I posted).

You know, the one that is several minutes long which sets the picture within the context of the setup?

When one watches the entire clip (part 2 from the April 16 show) it is not offensive as it has been portrayed.

[Shakeyhands]

So anyone who doesn't find this funny has no sense of humor?

Correct. You, especially as a woman, should watch the first few minutes, it will add some context to it all.

You realize it's JUST a picture right?

I happen to agree with MH on this - and I don't think there's anything clever about it at all.

Ok. You're right to find it so.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Shakeyhands

[kimmy]

You think that it's unimportant as to whether Stewart is achieving his primary objective as a comedian ? I pointed it out expressly because comedians will often come back with a defense of humour as to why they do certain things. Stewart himself may have done this, I'm not sure.

The "it was just a joke" defense does not require that it be a good joke. Indeed, it is more often used in regard to bad jokes (see the Letterman/Palin thing for the flagship example.)

So whether it was a good joke or a bad one is beside the point.

So, calling that out it's pretty clear that he failed to entertain us. Was it effective as a political message ? I would say not, in that it didn't say anything important and wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

Having now watched the whole clip (thanks, msj!) as opposed to just seeing the still-frame, I would say yes, it was a very funny segment that did make a very good point.

-k

[kimmy]

Thank God. I hate to think how meaningless your life would be if you didn't have any new instances of Christians being "persecuted" to mock. The Lord is looking out for you.

Hey, there's no call for comments of a personal nature. I'm just trying to bring attention to a very important issue. Over 80% of Americans are being persecuted at this very moment!

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Correct. You, especially as a woman, should watch the first few minutes, it will add some context to it all.

You realize it's JUST a picture right?

I've watched the entire clip. As I said, I don't find Jon Stewart all that funny for the most part any more, and I think this clip is a good example as to why. There's really nothing funny or clever about it, in my mind. He makes claims that aren't entirely true,* supposedly with the objective of speaking up for women, and then there's a totally disrespectful photo - just for of laughs. I see it as total disrespect for women. A tasteful nude famous painting with a manger superimposed would have been an appropriate visual imo - rather than a photo of a naked woman spread eagle.

*I have to wonder how many people who have seen the clip cared enough to look into the "legal to beat your wife in Topeka, Kansas" claim. First of all, the law is in regards to "domestic violence," not "wives." Husbands get beat up too. Secondly, the motivation behind it was to force the District Attorney to prosecute the cases because they would remain a crime under state law, which means it's not legal to beat your spouse anywhere in Kansas. Again, the purpose of the law was to get the state to prosecute because of lack of city funds. So it's not the way it was presented at all.

[kimmy]

The image was pretty crass, but that's kind of the point. When states are introducing laws requiring mandatory penetration with a 10-inch probe, I don't see any reason to try to frame the discussion delicately.

As for the Topeka thing... the real story is apparently that the Shawnee County prosecutor's office had their budget decimated and stopped pursuing domestic violence cases, and the city responded by repealing their civic law against domestic violence to try to force the county to resume, and the standoff only lasted a month, during which at least 35 reports of domestic violence were not pursued.

So while beating your wife was never legal in Topeka, it would have been accurate to say that for a month you could beat your wife in Topeka and nobody would prosecute you for it.

The truth of the story-- city council and county prosecutor playing a game of Texas Hold'em using the safety of real women as the chips-- is really not much better than the inaccurate description Stewart used.

One wonders how things got so bad for Kansas that the law-and-order Republicans couldn't afford to give their prosecutors a budget to prosecute criminals. I guess that in hard financial times a poor state like Kansas has to make tough choices, and they had to save their money for the highest priority items, like buying those 10-inch vaginal probes and figuring out how to get creationism taught in public schools.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

The "it was just a joke" defense does not require that it be a good joke.

Indeed, it is more often used in regard to bad jokes (see the Letterman/Palin thing for the flagship example.)

So whether it was a good joke or a bad one is beside the point.

It doesn't require that IF it's a defense against the point that some things should never be said, or that the comedian had no right to mock something.

I'm skipping by all that and pointing out that they failed in their primary objective - to be funny. They can make fun of religion all they want, but their goal is to be funny in doing so. Fail.