Emmy Winner Kathy Griffin: “suck It, Jesus, This Award Is My God Now”

[Elric]

“Suck it” is in the imperative mood. Griffin is telling Jesus to suck it.

Are you saying Jesus would laugh if someone told him, “Suck it”?

In the context I believe she intended it in, yes I do.

 

[homeric]

In the context I believe she intended it in, yes I do.

CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those ‘who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.’ The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion."

Telling Jesus to “Suck it” is defiant and disrespectful.

No context can justify it.

Do you agree?

 

[Elric]

CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those ‘who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.’ The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion."

Telling Jesus to “Suck it” is defiant and disrespectful.

No context can justify it.

Do you agree?

With what you just said, no I dont agree.

I dont believe her words were intended to offend Jesus or target religion, as I have already stated. She was targeting other acceprence speeches where many people, regardless of their actual beliefs, thank God and say things like “I couldnt have done it without Jesus”.

Are you suggesting that Jesus does not have a sense of humor?

 

[homeric]

With what you just said, no I dont agree.

I dont believe her words were intended to offend Jesus or target religion, as I have already stated. She was targeting other acceprence speeches where many people, regardless of their actual beliefs, thank God and say things like “I couldnt have done it without Jesus”.

Are you suggesting that Jesus does not have a sense of humor?

The question of Jesus’ sense of humor is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not prudent to direct attention away from what Griffin said and speculate on Jesus’ possible reaction. Rather than engaging in fallible speculations, focus on what we do know, as elaborated in Sacred Scripture (Second Commandment) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 2148).

Using the CCC’s instruction, I will rephrase my question:

Is uttering a euphemism for oral sex, in the imperative mood, towards Jesus Christ, respectful or disrespectful?

 

[Elric]

The question of Jesus’ sense of humor is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not prudent to direct attention away from what Griffin said and speculate on Jesus’ possible reaction. Rather than engaging in fallible speculations, focus on what we do know, as elaborated in Sacred Scripture (Second Commandment) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 2148).

Using the CCC’s instruction, I will rephrase my question:

Is uttering a euphemism for oral sex, in the imperative mood, towards Jesus Christ, respectful or disrespectful?

I think the question of Jesus having a sense of humor is very relevent in this discussion and I was not directing attention away from anything by suggesting that he does have a sense of humor or asking you if you believes that he has a sense of humor.

Now if you would calm down a bit with your seeming obsession with SS & CCC (which I dont believe is relevent, as you could see by the content of my posts), you would see that I dont believe what she did was blasemphous or that religion was the target of her comments.

Also since she does not have a penis, she couldnt have really been useing the term “suck it” in reference to oral sex as you are trying to suggest that she did. Suck what exactly?

The term could also be us as an abberviation of “suck it up” as in “suck it up, cry baby”, which would suit what she said more than any statment of oral sex.

To answer your very broad question, I dont think that in this instance there was any disrespect towards Jesus.

 

[homeric]

Now if you would calm down a bit with your seeming obsession with SS & CCC (which I dont believe is relevent, as you could see by the content of my posts), you would see that I dont believe what she did was blasemphous or that religion was the target of her comments.

Elric,

I must point out two of the Forum Rules:

#1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

Telling me to “calm down a bit” is not polite and is certainly not warranted, given that my replies have been coherent, well thought out, and impersonal.

#7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Stating that a Catholic has an “obsession with SS & CCC” which you “dont believe is relevent” is not respectful to the faith.

I would like to continue our exchange, but you must obey the forum rules. Okay?

 

[Elric]

Elric,

I must point out two of the Forum Rules:

#1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

Telling me to “calm down a bit” is not polite and is certainly not warranted, given that my replies have been coherent, well thought out, and impersonal.

When you seem to ignore what I write wren you reply to my posts and continue to ask broad, argumentitive and repetitive questions, that are not really relevent to the post you are replying to, I dont think that asking you to “calm down a bit” is rude and in this case was warranted.

It certainly wasnt a personal attack, it was more of a “hey, I answered your question a few times now. Could you please read what I wrote?”

#7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Stating that a Catholic has an “obsession with SS & CCC” which you “dont believe is relevent” is not respectful to the faith.

I dont believe is relevent to the topic at hand, which is why I dont believe it is blasphemy.

I wasnt being disrespectful of any faith at all, it appears that you may have misread what I wrote. In fact I didnt even state that you had an obsession, I stated a “seeming” obsession.

I would like to continue our exchange, but you must obey the forum rules. Okay?

I am following the forum rules.

Personally I dont really see the point to continuing an exchange, because you keep asking the same loaded thing that isnt completly relevent to the topic which I have already answered.

If you want to ask me if I believe there is such a thing as blasphemy, then ask. If you have something relevent to what I stated (ie: who Kathy Griffin was directing her speech at or something like that), then please ask away.

 

[TomPiltoff]

The term could also be us as an abberviation of “suck it up” as in “suck it up, cry baby”, which would suit what she said more than any statment of oral sex.

To answer your very broad question, I dont think that in this instance there was any disrespect towards Jesus.

No offense, but there’s no way that’s the case. Nobody says “suck it” when they mean “suck it up”.

It definitely was disrespectful to Jesus and I can understand why Christians would be offended. I just disagree that it should be censored.

 

[Elric]

No offense, but there’s no way that’s the case. Nobody says “suck it” when they mean “suck it up”.

I have heard people use it in that way as well as others that have absolutly no reference to oral sex.

It makes more sense than the other option.

It definitely was disrespectful to Jesus and I can understand why Christians would be offended. I just disagree that it should be censored.

Why was it disrespectful to Jesus?

The whole speech was a mickey take of other peoples speeches rather than an attack on Jesus or religion. I cant understand why christipans should be offended, it wasnt aimed at them, unless they have no sense of humor.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Why was it disrespectful to Jesus?

The whole speech was a mickey take of other peoples speeches rather than an attack on Jesus or religion. I cant understand why christipans should be offended, it wasnt aimed at them, unless they have no sense of humor.

I’m sure her mindset wasn’t “I’m going to go up there and make a point about religion”, she just wanted to shock people and make them laugh.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The question of Jesus’ sense of humor is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not prudent to direct attention away from what Griffin said and speculate on Jesus’ possible reaction. Rather than engaging in fallible speculations, focus on what we do know, as elaborated in Sacred Scripture (Second Commandment) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 2148).

Using the CCC’s instruction, I will rephrase my question:

Is uttering a euphemism for oral sex, in the imperative mood, towards Jesus Christ, respectful or disrespectful?

Horrifyingly disrespectful.

And this sort of casual profanity is beginning to bother me more and more as time goes on. Words have meaning. Never forget that.

 

[Elric]

I’m sure her mindset wasn’t “I’m going to go up there and make a point about religion”, she just wanted to shock people and make them laugh.

Of course she wanted to make people laugh, that is what she does (or tries to do anyway).

But really her comments had nothing to do with religion and I dont believe she was making a point about religion. She was making a point of other peoples acceptence speeches by doing the opposite of what they do.

She couldnt do the same with other “faiths”, because people dont go up after winning an award and say things like thanking Alla or this is for Mohammad. It wouldnt sound right.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Of course she wanted to make people laugh, that is what she does (or tries to do anyway).

But really her comments had nothing to do with religion and I dont believe she was making a point about religion. She was making a point of other peoples acceptence speeches by doing the opposite of what they do.

She couldnt do the same with other “faiths”, because people dont go up after winning an award and say things like thanking Alla or this is for Mohammad. It wouldnt sound right.

I don’t buy that. If she was just mocking the way other people accept awards she would have said “I have nobody I’d like to thank” or something like that.

I personally don’t think this is a big deal, but I just don’t see any way to construe her comments that isn’t offensive towards Christianity and Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

There is a difference between shocking people and making them laugh. Miss Griffin was wrong to say what she said.

Everyone can go back and forth about what she “really” meant. Why not contact the people who censored her to get their reasoning?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Elric]

I don’t buy that. If she was just mocking the way other people accept awards she would have said “I have nobody I’d like to thank” or something like that.

Of course you dont buy it, you dont seem to have gotten the joke. She wasnt taking the mickey out of everyone who has made an acceptance speech, so “I have nobody to thank” would not have worked.

I personally don’t think this is a big deal, but I just don’t see any way to construe her comments that isn’t offensive towards Christianity and Jesus.

Thats because you dont understand what she was doing.

She wasnt having a shot at christians or Jesus or religion in general, she was making light of how some people do acceptance speeches by doing the oppisite of what they do.

There was a bit more to her speech than simply “suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now”.

 

[YinYangMom]

She wasnt having a shot at christians or Jesus or religion in general, she was making light of how some people do acceptance speeches by doing the oppisite of what they do.

Here’s the problem with that argument. I’ve watched the various award ceremonies over the years and guess what? The people who thank God or Jesus and their moms, really **do **have a strong faith in God or Jesus and their mom. They are not hypocritical as your argument seems to suggest.

Kathy wasn’t mocking those people for being hypocrites. She was mocking those people for voicing their faith in such a public manner. The manner in which she chose to place that dig was rude, obnoxious and disrespectful. However, I concede, that’s what makes Kathy popular and how she earned the award in the first place. She has made her claim to fame on that style. For her to have not been that way in her acceptance speech would have been a surprise and out of character for her.

 

[LarryBoyFan]

When I first heard of this, I wasn’t surprised. That’s her style, she always has a biting, sarcastic wit. I’m not a fan anyway. This was a little too much though.

Doesn’t that fall under taking the Lord’s name in vain?

Personally, I think it was a publicity ploy, it got national attention. I don’t know why celebs would rather have negative attention than positive, but whatever.

 

[homeric]

When you seem to ignore what I write wren you reply to my posts and continue to ask broad, argumentitive and repetitive questions, that are not really relevent to the post you are replying to, I dont think that asking you to “calm down a bit” is rude and in this case was warranted.

It certainly wasnt a personal attack, it was more of a “hey, I answered your question a few times now. Could you please read what I wrote?”

Telling your interlocutor to calm down is condescending and often a sign that you are losing an argument. It is a form of fallacious argument called ad hominem, where you suggest your interlocutor is not in control of his or her emotions. There is no evidence in our exchange that I am not in control of my emotions.

I wasnt being disrespectful of any faith at all, it appears that you may have misread what I wrote. In fact I didnt even state that you had an obsession, I stated a “seeming” obsession.

To come to a Catholic Answers forum and suggest that someone has an obsession with Sacred Scripture and the Catechism is antagonistic to the faith. It is also ad hominem because it suggests your interlocutor has a psychological disorder. Adding the adjective “seeming” does not mitigate the severity of the attack. It is a cowardly way of avoiding full responsibility for the ad hominem attack you are making.

 

[Elric]

Telling your interlocutor to calm down is condescending and often a sign that you are losing an argument. It is a form of fallacious argument called ad hominem, where you suggest your interlocutor is not in control of his or her emotions. There is no evidence in our exchange that I am not in control of my emotions.

Umm, what argument?

You keep asking questions that have already been answered. That isnt an argument/debate/exchange of opinions. Its repeatitive.

To come to a Catholic Answers forum and suggest that someone has an obsession with Sacred Scripture and the Catechism is antagonistic to the faith. It is also ad hominem because it suggests your interlocutor has a psychological disorder. Adding the adjective “seeming” does not mitigate the severity of the attack. It is a cowardly way of avoiding full responsibility for the ad hominem attack you are making.

Are you done?

Again you seem to be ignoring what you are replying to, this time you are accusing me of things that I didnt do.

Now did you actually want to discuss the actual topic of the thread, or continue with this pointless exchange?

 

[homeric]

Now did you actually want to discuss the actual topic of the thread, or continue with this pointless exchange?

You claim that the meaning Griffin intended to communicate with her statement “Suck it” was “Suck it up.” There are three problems with your claim.

First, I have never heard anyone say “Suck it” as an abbreviation for “Suck it up.”

Second, when I consulted the Urban Dictionary, more than 200 users agreed that “Suck it” is a pejorative remark commanding oral sex.

Third, why not say “Suck it up” if that was her true intent.

You also claim that because Griffin is a woman she could not have been referring to oral sex. This claim is erroneous because Griffin’s statement is “Suck it” and does not include the word “my.”