I am beyond horrified

  • Thread starter Thread starter nancymarie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
I don’t have any problem with Pamela Anderson, per se. It is not as if we have any sinless women around to play the role of Our Lady. Our Lord struck up a conversation with a woman who’d been married 5 times, was living outside of marriage at the time, and therefore had to be out getting her water at noon instead of at the time the other women would be at the well. Besides, I can imagine the kind of gossip Our Lady had to endure when she was found pregnant before ever having lived with a lawful husband.

It is the “irreverent twist” bit that makes the skin on my neck stand up. That’s usually code for *“we’ll be banking on shock value and the possibility that our viewers may secretly hate religion to sell this one!” *It is the promise that the viewers can expect to love the offering solely because it would make every religious person they know spit bullets.

That’s a good offering to avoid. May it be a dismal ratings failure.
Click to expand...
EasterJoy, I couldn’t agree more. I’m not a fan of shock value, it’s a cheap shot.
 
Maundy said:
We are having some success, here is an updated list of people to contact

Go here to complain to Russel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the list…
Does it make sense for non-Canadians to complain as well?
 
themeginthemoon said:
EasterJoy, I couldn’t agree more. I’m not a fan of shock value, it’s a cheap shot.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Humans taking themselves too seriously can stand to be the topic of comedy, but irreverent for the sake of irreverent doesn’t cut it. I can even imagine that a clever and imaginative writer might find some amusing moments by doing a “back in time” comedy that contrasts the actual Nativity with some of the silly or sentimental versions of the story that have been passed off as “real” by people wanting to profit off of Christmas. I’m sure that there have been versions that were meant to be taken seriously that would have had the Holy Family rolling their eyes! 😃
 
TrueLight said:
Let’s not start with the ageism.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the obvious observation that Our Lady did not have an evil mother.

If Pamela Anderson has the grace to let the fact show that she is not frozen in time, let’s not make fun of that, not to mention laying off of women who happen to date men younger than they are. There isn’t an inherent immorality in that.
 
Yes, if you’re Catholic you can protest it. It will be airing on the comedy network as well in the US. Let them have it from every angle. We have power.
 
Maundy said:
Yes, if you’re Catholic you can protest it. It will be airing on the comedy network as well in the US.
Click to expand...
Hm? Are you sure about that? I haven’t seen any indication that the show will air in the US.

If you are sure, could you tell us on what channel, and at what date and time?
 
It looks like I may be WRONG about that. Happily wrong.

Me being a bit unfamiliar with TV networks assumed the Comedy Network was an American network but I think it is rather a Canadian version of Comedy Central. So I think this blasphemy will be confined to Canada.

Unless of course we can get them to cancel it. E-mails are easy to delete but I’m going to emphasize calling CTV in the last few days before the program, it airs Thursday night.

CTV Contact Information:
programming@ctv.ca

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9, Station ‘O,’
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M4A 2M9

Telephone National: 1-866-690-6179
Telephone Ontario: 1-800-668-0060
 
Maundy said:
Me being a bit unfamiliar with TV networks assumed the Comedy Network was an American network but I think it is rather a Canadian version of Comedy Central. So I think this blasphemy will be confined to Canada.
Click to expand...
I think the Comedy Network is owned by Comedy Central, or at least they are owned by the same company. From what I understand a fair amount of Comedy Central programming makes its way to the Comedy Network.

But isn’t that how it seems to go? The US exports its trash programming to Canada, but the reverse doesn’t seem to occur. Maybe because we already have such a glut of garbage, there is no room for more? :o

I’m a little curious about the amount of “Canadian content” in the upcoming show. Apparently one of the reasons Peters chose Anderson is because she is Canadian. Does Canada still have a law requiring that broadcasters provide a certain number of hours of “Canadian content” programming?
 
This isn’t a sleazy bar; this is primetime popular television. [and other Canadian context]
Click to expand...
I’m not fully aware of what’s going on in Canada (or American television, for that matter, since I don’t watch TV); forgive me … I guess you gotta protest and educate from the basics, “the ground up.” Hang in there! I guess we should count our blessings: We’re not so marginalized at this point that we’re imprisoned, fined, or executed for our faith …

Edit: Well, I know those freedoms are beginning to be taken from us, as in Canada I’ve heard priests are fined for teaching about homosexuality, and Christian adoption agencies around the world are likewise punished for resisting giving children to people who gay-identify, and health practitioners can be fired for refusing to kill. Definitely a war going on …
 
Well then maybe we should design a forum specifically to annoy Russel Peters/CTV. This forum attracts millions of viewers as well. I believe that God has given us a tool(this forum - to help Christians world wide. There are millions and millions of Christians, so I urge the orgainizers of this site to take it to a whole new phase.
 
quilting_bee said:
A thing doesn’t have to be personally insulting for me to grieve the fact that it can lead humans astray. A piece that is proud of being irreverent is too proud.
A movie or sitcom often consists of lttle more than a stream of consciousness string of insults, sarcastic remarks and sexual innuendo. That passes for comedy - that’s entertainment. How far is that from what our Good God wills for us?
At what point does “irreverent” become anti-religious?
It doesn’t hurt God at all when we behave sacrilegiously - it does hurt us. It hurts humanity. God has made this whole world for us - it is a banquet of beauty, a feast for the eyes. And yet we eat out of trash cans.
Click to expand...
The matter is not one of being personally insulting, but purely that the film hasn’t premiered and there’s nothing specific, in my view, to get too worked up over. That’s why I think it better to call it when you see it, or at least have a review.
 
LoyalChristian said:
Well then maybe we should design a forum specifically to annoy Russel Peters/CTV. This forum attracts millions of viewers as well. I believe that God has given us a tool(this forum - to help Christians world wide. There are millions and millions of Christians, so I urge the orgainizers of this site to take it to a whole new phase.
Click to expand...
I think it likelier that will do a better job to promote the programme (e.g., the DaVinci Code effect). Russel Peters is used to criticism for his racial jokes.

There are far uglier things going on in the Christian world in terms of social discrimination and anti-Christian prejudice in the media; I really don’t think this is worth the time.
 
DaddyGirl said:
(fyi, there was a thread started on this topic last week)

I advise you get your facts straight if you’re going to send this out…

Pamela Anderson is not a “porn actress”…she and her husband made a private tape that was stolen from their home and released illegally. She sued the video company and won.
The second of two said tapes was of her and her boyfriend from many years earlier…also obtained and put online illegally…and that issue has gone to court as well with Anderson and her ex-boyfriend trying to block it.
.
Click to expand...
Stolen Honeymoon is one of the best selling adult movies in history and it features Pamela Anderson. Yes they sued the internet company and then entered into a private agreement with them and re-released the video.

mademan.com/mm/10-best-nude-sex-scandals.html
 
Another good letter was published in the National Post today.
financialpost.com/todays-paper/More+naughty+than+nice/5787141/story.html

I am of Anglo-Indian ancestry and Catholic. And I’m just a little bit older than Russell Peters. I could be his older sister. My daughter is a member of the Bach Children’s Chorus, which was selected to appear on A Russell Peters Christmas. She was unable to participate in the chorus on the day the special was filmed, since that taping fell on Thanksgiving Day.
*
At the next chorus practice, a friend told my daughter that there were “strippers” in the Christmas show. I subsequently learned that they were women dressed in Victoria Secret style underwear. And now I read that Pamela Anderson will play Virgin Mary, and that this show is being touted as “more naughty than nice.”

Our choir administration was led to believe that this show was going to be a family-oriented Christmas special. It is obvious that family-oriented it will not be.

Shock value seems to be the new cheap thrill. Doesn’t the 2,000-year history of Christmas deserve to be portrayed as more than a run of cheap thrills? If Mr. Peters and CTV are looking to break stereotypes, then why keep making programming for the boys with beer bellies?

Anything tasteless to do with Christmas just doesn’t cut it as entertainment in my house. My family and I will not be watching this “Christmas special.”

Cathy Naus, Toronto.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top