Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Kathy Griffin Proves Me Right

For years, as I've watched athletes and actors repeatedly thank the gods for their exploits, I've often wondered a couple of things. First, how can any sane intelligent person can think that the supreme omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe gives a rats' posterior who scores a touchdown, or wins an oscar.

I've also wondered what the media would do if someone won an award, or a big game, and said something like "I'd just like to say that no god had anything to do with this". For despite all the whining we hear from the religious right about how oppressed they are, my contention has always been that if anyone did something like that, exactly as all the believers have done for years, except in reverse, that the media would go bonkers and people would condemn the award-winner.

Well, hat-tip to Pharyngula, Kathy Griffin has proven me right:

"Before Kathy Griffin won a creative arts Emmy last weekend for her reality show, 'My Life on the D-List,' she joked that an award would move her to the C-list.

She was right: 'C' as in censored. The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox.

'Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night,' the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday."


Wow! What did Griffin say that was so offensive?

"In her speech, Griffin said that 'a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.'

She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, 'This award is my god now!'"


Now, the off-color remark, whatever it might have been, fine edit it. But as for the quoted section above, this is a plain old bigoted double standard against atheists. This says loud and clear "It's OK to make gratuitous statements of religious opinion when you win an award, but only if it is a pro-religion statement. If you are an atheist, then shut the hell up about religion." If there is still any doubt, this should clear it up:

"The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a 'vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech.'"

Really? So having the arrogance to say Jesus wanted you to win an award, or put another way, wanted everyone else to lose, is OK, but stating the obvious, that Jesus had nothing to do with it, is hate speech. What a load of pious poopie.

Now personally, I'd just assume every actor and athlete keep their opinions on topics other than acting and athletics to themselves, atheist and believer alike. But fair is fair, and if we are going to allow this off-topic commentary, then it needs to be allowed for all viewpoints, not just the ones that support reigion. If you are going to support only pro-religious comments, then dispense with the idea that it is the religious who are discriminated against in society. You provide solid evidence to the contrary.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It has been my experience that more anti-christian comments are usually tolerated than any other anti-religion opinions, however, that said, the 'off-color' comment she made was 'suck it Jesus' followed by 'this award is my God now' ... I didn't take it as an off-color comment ... I didn't take it as a commentary on her beliefs, or confirmation that she's an atheist, or anti-religion in anyway -- it was funny, lol, lighten up people :)

ScienceAvenger said...

The only way I see your original claim to be true is if you use a very expansive definition of anti-Christian. When someone says Jerry Falwell is a bigoted ass, or makes fun of priests, that's not anti-Christian. It's anti-Falwell, or anti-priest, or maybe even anti-Catholic. When someone notes the evidence for evolution, that is not anti-Christian, it is pro-science.

Calling the Jesus story into question due to the noncredible sources, who can't seem to agree on even the most trivial of details surrounding his supposed resurrection, would be anti-Christian. So would noting that the entire reason for Jesus' supposed ressurrection, saving us from a punishment we didn't earn that he himself ultimately arranged, is an illogical mess. Or how about pointing out the morbid nature of the eucharistic ceremony, amounting, according to some, to the LITERAL ingesting of Jesus' body and blood? That's anti-Christian.

It is also not much tolerated in our Christian-dominated society at all, and for that reason. Few religious groups are tolerant of those who really disagree, and Christians are no exception. Again, look to Kathy Griffen. Do you think she'd have been censored had she said "no one had less to do with this award than Zeus", or Odin, or Vishnu? It's dangerous to support one's argument with speculation, but can there be any doubt?

I just hope against hope that some athelete will do the same thing real soon.

Xabstract said...

SuckItJesus.com Kathy Griffin Censorship Petition!

Stop the Censoring!