We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed, says BBC boss

[GaryTaylor]

Did you breath while you typed or did all that come out at once?

 

[Khalid]

Did you breath while you typed or did all that come out at once?

LOL:thumbsup:

 

[Ladervijd]

Breathing, pft. Even cars “breath”. Real men capture O2 and enrich it to become CO2.
Not seriously though. I actually inhale CO2 (mostly i think) and exhale don’t know what.

 

[Izdaari]

It makes sense. Mock Jesus and nothing bad will happen. Oh, there’ll be controversy, but that can be good for ratings. OTOH, mock Mohammed and you’re likely to wake up dead.

 

[Ladervijd]

It makes sense. Mock Jesus and nothing bad will happen. Oh, there’ll be controversy, but that can be good for ratings. OTOH, mock Mohammed and you’re likely to wake up dead.

Oh, on that note, reminds me, did Mohammed ever mock anyone?

 

[Izdaari]

Oh, on that note, reminds me, did Mohammed ever mock anyone?

Ha! I’m sure he did. In the Koran, even.

And Jesus did too. He zinged the Pharisees pretty hard.

 

[Moro_Rock]

well i guess the bbc isnt going to be on my tv from now on while im living in England!
Its going to be hard giving up eastenders

If you get Sky Sattelite TV you can receive apx. 14 free Christian channels including EWTN. Alternatively you can purchase a Freesat box which also needs to be connected to a dish. With Sky or Freesat you can receive Revelation TV (on Sky Ch.581 ) Revelation TV is a good Christian Channel which discusses whats going on in the world today. Last year they moved their base to Spain as they were frequently getting complaints here from the powers that be about some of the opinions being expressed and some of the topics being discussed.
Revelation TV has recently become available in the Eastern USA via a Roku Box.

 

[Ladervijd]

How do we define mockery?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mockery
thefreedictionary.com/mockery
?

About “mockery” in Bible, e.g.:
kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-Chapter-1/

1 Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

kingjamesbibleonline.org/Proverbs-Chapter-1/

22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

kingjamesbibleonline.org/Proverbs-Chapter-21/

24 Proud [and] haughty scorner [is] his name, who dealeth in proud wrath.

kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Peter-Chapter-3/

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

About “mockery” in Quran, e.g.:
harunyahya.com/en/Makaleler/15801/Mockery_is_forbidden_in_the_Qur%E2%80%99an
qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1754&Itemid=105

It seems that (not only*) Jews, Christians and Muslims are against mockery or at least not in favour of it (to an extent), though is that so always under any circumstances, and by anyone? And how would (act of) mockery constitute? “Cheap joke/laugh on someone and/or something else’s expense”, or simply when it is (deliberately) “humiliating”?
Not saying that every kind of “humour” is alright, though clever humour for (positivly) factually criticizing (for matters not concerning life and death) seems alright, or not? And what about “making a mockery of someone and/or something”, with no kind of “humour” as may be usually associated with “mockery”?

*e.g. Hindus e.g.: topnews.in/usa/hindus-upset-jim-carrey-nbc-mocking-lord-ganesh-26888
indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/11/1979/Issues/Hindus-fuming-over-mockery-of-Lord-Ganesh-on-American-TV-show
hinduism.about.com/od/lordganesha/a/Jim-Carrey-Mocks-Ganesha-On-Nbc-Show.htm
topnews.in/usa/catholics-back-hindus-protesting-over-mockery-lord-ganesh-carrey-nbc-27437

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clown
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_clown
youtube.com/watch?v=NyD3H4cnwvA

 

[AnglicanForMary]

I for one, feel awful to read that, and the undetone of the director’s words: It’s a sad admission in any number of ways, not the least as it portrays Islam as a religion that is less ‘mature’ than Christianity in its ability to handle insults, or that a Corporation believes that as long as a targeted segment does not engage in violent reprisals, its ok to belittle that segment and expect to be praised for it. What worries me, is that the BBC is implying that we Christians should be thankful that the BBC will mock Our Lord, because it knows that we must accept such behaviour on their part and condone it as “Free Speech”

 

[dolphinlove]

If you get Sky Sattelite TV you can receive apx. 14 free Christian channels including EWTN. Alternatively you can purchase a Freesat box which also needs to be connected to a dish. With Sky or Freesat you can receive Revelation TV (on Sky Ch.581 ) Revelation TV is a good Christian Channel which discusses whats going on in the world today. Last year they moved their base to Spain as they were frequently getting complaints here from the powers that be about some of the opinions being expressed and some of the topics being discussed.
Revelation TV has recently become available in the Eastern USA via a Roku Box.

EWTN sky 589, already got it

 

[Ladervijd]

I would say that any, i.e. physical, violent reprisal, or more clearly any, i.e. physical, violence (i.e. such which causes lasting injury and/or death), is a mockery, and/or violation, of law really. Exception being physical violence for actual real self-defense against physical violence, i.e. for survival and/or protection, though it should be appropriate in the context of the situation. The case being less clear cut in case of (i.e. unprovoked) threats of violence. And (a bit) different in war, albeit it could be argued that (physical) war is a violation as well of course.
Consulting at least with Jews (not only) on these things is certainly advisable. And, open dialogue being great, though not much of a point in such when anyone tries to make a point, or try to have it their way, by violence. Can be difficult to come up with “dogma/s” on these issues though, as life can be very harsh at times, and not everyone is always “playing by the same rules” (or by any rules for that matter) aside from eventual different understandings.

 

[Ladervijd]

I would say that any, i.e. physical, violent reprisal, or more clearly any, i.e. physical, violence (i.e. such which causes lasting injury and/or death), is a mockery, and/or violation, of law really. Exception being physical violence for actual real self-defense against physical violence, i.e. for survival and/or protection, though it should be appropriate in the context of the situation, and “violence can breed violence” quickly. The case being less clear cut in case of (i.e. unprovoked) threats of violence. And (a bit) different in war, albeit it could be argued that (physical) war is a violation as well of course.
Consulting at least with Jews (not only) on these things is certainly advisable. And, open dialogue being great, though not much of a point in such when anyone tries to make a point, or try to have it their way, by violence, that is when it such isn’t ignored in an inclusive dialogue. Can be difficult to come up with “dogma/s” on these issues though, as life can be very harsh at times, and not everyone is always “playing by the same rules” (or by any rules for that matter) aside from eventual different understandings. Part of, or actually main, reason why military exists, not for the sake of waging war, but for peace. Yeah, may sound absurd, and it is a wider topic (i.e. balance of power) including that if there were only one military force on this planet, such may eventually unfortunately turn out to be evildoers (by which i here mean, as in elitist caste i.e. serving themselves) themselves. And even if every person on this planet would submit to (Lord) God without problems of claims thereof or such etc. and all in peace without many of existing weapons though capable of self-defense (i.e. for protection against rapists who pretended submission, though two or more vs. one being difficult), there unfortunately is the eventual possibility of extra-terrestrial threats.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Moral of the story: what do you prefer?

To be loved or to be feared?

 

[dolphinlove]

Moral of the story: what do you prefer?

To be loved or to be feared?

Believe in Jesus, its all we have to do

 

[Sam_777]

Moral of the story: what do you prefer?

To be loved or to be feared?

Love is more superior than fearing, when you fear someone that does not make you love him, like in the case of when Muslims fear Allah but not necessary love him…

But when you love someone you fear to upset or disturb that person even in smallest matters, like when Christians love GOD so by default they fear to upset or disturb Him in any means because they adore Him so much.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Believe in Jesus, its all we have to do

Believe Jesus, fear Jesus or love Jesus?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Love is more superior than fearing, when you fear someone that does not make you love him, like in the case of when Muslims fear Allah but not necessary love him…

But when you love someone you fear to upset or disturb that person even in smallest matters, like when Christians love GOD so by default they fear to upset or disturb Him in any means because they adore Him so much.

But when you love someone you fear to upset or disturb that person even in smallest matters, like when Christians love GOD so by default they fear to upset or disturb Him in any means because they adore Him so much.

Boy, I am going to put this in my wall ! WONDERFUL !!! Might I do this the whole my life !!! This is a creed for life !!!

 

[Ladervijd]

“Fear of what causes death, yet don’t let matter blind you.”

In a weird way (regarding violence), Muslims are in love with non-Muslims, for they warn them about the dangers of life, with the act of violence being the mere warning. Not that i would think it is real love (regarding violence), but apparently many women who are victims of domestic violence would rationalize, and claim, themselves convinced of such, that they are in a mutual loveful relationship with their “spouse”. And arguably, rather being (reasonably) shouted at or slapped than having love being “withdrawn”. Though, while in a romantic poetic sense i understand the point of affection being above law (and violation thereof), in reality e.g. when a court tells a man to stay away from a woman there is nothing romantic about when he continues to stalk her or such, or is there? Similarly, there is per se no love about using a partner even when it is mutual.

Also, “Jesus having died on the cross” is also something about love, pain, violence, … is it not?

 

[jakasaki]

The BBC director general Mark Thompson has claimed that Christianity is treated with less sensitivity than other religions because it is “pretty broad shoulders”.

In a wide-ranging interview about faith and broadcasting, Mr Thompson disclosed that producers were faced with the possibilities of “violent threats” instead of normal complaints if they broadcast certain types of satire.

He suggested other faiths had “very close identity with ethnic minorities” and as a result were covered in a more careful way by broadcasters.

“Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’,” he said. “This definitely raises the stakes.”

In the interview posted online for the Free Speech Debate, a research project at Oxford University, Mr Thompson said he was a “practising Catholic” who believed that the “truths of the Christian faith” were objective rather than subjective.

But he said Islam was a religion “almost entirely” practised by people who already may feel in other ways “isolated”, “prejudiced against” and who may regard an attack on their religion as “racism by other means”.

telegraph.co.uk/culture/t…treatment.html

 

[Bev17243]

“Fear of what causes death, yet don’t let matter blind you.”

In a weird way (regarding violence), Muslims are in love with non-Muslims, for they warn them about the dangers of life, with the act of violence being the mere warning. Not that i would think it is real love (regarding violence), but apparently many women who are victims of domestic violence would rationalize, and claim, themselves convinced of such, that they are in a mutual loveful relationship with their “spouse”. And arguably, rather being (reasonably) shouted at or slapped than having love being “withdrawn”. Though, while in a romantic poetic sense i understand the point of affection being above law (and violation thereof), in reality e.g. when a court tells a man to stay away from a woman there is nothing romantic about when he continues to stalk her or such, or is there? Similarly, there is per se no love about using a partner even when it is mutual.

Also, “Jesus having died on the cross” is also something about love, pain, violence, … is it not?

there doesn’t seem to be one thing in here that makes any sense.