Oh The Blasphemy ( That is a sarcastic title in reference to the demands that AMC remove Preacher )

Here is a clip from Preacher on AMC where the descendant of Christ ( who has been inbred to preserve the bloodline ) is revealed. It is a comedy satirizing religion and conspiracy. Of course christian groups are screaming to have it removed. We would never see similar satire of Muhammad on TV. The South Park creators , for example, wanted to air a satirical skit of Muhammad on Comedy Central, as they have of Scientology, Jesus and Joseph Smith but were not permitted to do so. Is that due to fear of a Charlie Hebdo inspired murderous incident ? Just to be clear to replies that do not get sarcasm - I do not really think this is blasphemy. On the contrary, I think it is an exercise in free speech.

Views: 107

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

John, you have not yet recovered from religion. Science requires more objectivity than this.

Tom you are a confused individual. My title  - Oh The Blasphemy - was in reference to the christian groups demanding the show Preacher be removed. I found the scene to be hilarious. I have never been religious. I was not raised in a religious home and never took to it. Not everybody here is a recovering theist. What the hell are you talking about with science and objectivity ?

I was being sarcastic too. Do you really think I would complain about blasphemy in an atheist forum ???? Jeeeeeezuuz H Christ already !!!!!!!

This is from "Preacher," a comic book satire brought to the screen on AMC as a series. I watch it all the time.

Is it blasphemy? To believe differently than others want you to believe is blasphemy.

Again - I was being sarcastic and referring to the religious organizations demanding the show be stopped.

I'm kind of surprised that politically correct sorts haven't protested this tragicomic portrayal of a mentally disabled man.

If somebody put on a show in which the descendants of Mohammad were inbred for centuries, resulting in genetic mental deformities, yes, there would be protests and threats of violence.

That Islam can't be openly satirized without fear of potential violence, murder, riot, and mayhem, is obvious.  That speaks to the uniquely violent streak in modern Islam.  I say "modern Islam" not to suggest that older versions were less violent, they were not, but rather to acknowledge that most of modern Christianity and most of modern judaism are less violent than they used to be.  I'm not sure if that is true for Hinduism, however.

I know there is a brand of political correctness that decries so-called "Islamophobia" - an accurate term, since fear of Islam is sensible.  I think that political correctness comes from a combination of overreach of politically correct academics - whose main product otherwise seems to be severely indebted graduates who are otherwise unable to find good jobs without going to professional schools - and Islamic mullahs and potentates, who manipulate the sentiment to further their oppressive religion.  I think, for the most part, most people don't care about oversensitive proclamations of "Islamophobia" but just want to not be decapitated or blown up or shot.  Which seems like a perfectly reasonable response.

Daniel, not having seen the show, I saw the clip as using mental disability to satirize xianity.

Satire being an expression of anger, it can be a cathartic release. For years, I released anger by writing S/M porn.

I agree that networks not permitting satirization of Muhammad is due to political correctness and fear of being labeled Islamophobic by the likes of the SPLC. The murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists must also be a fear factor. It is unfortunate that threats of violence have stifled free speech. I also will be surprised if PC groups don't attack the show for portraying a mentally disabled man.

I was being sarcastic. I found the scene hilarious. The question I was posing is why will networks not permit satire of Muhammad.

The beginning of the episode shows Jesus losing his virginity after the last supper which, obviously, also incited christian groups.

Wasn't the DaVinci code based on the premise of Jesus descendants through Mary Magdalene? 

Also Nazarene theory.

I guess Mohammad had a bunch of descendants. 

Yea but Dan Browne stole that idea from a non fiction book Holy Blood and Holy Grail. He settled out of court with the authors and claims it was an original concept.

There was no proof, but it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus, as all Jews of his time, married and had children. There is no reason to believe he was an exception.

There are purported " lost gospels " stating that Jesus was married to Mary. Who knows if they are accurate. We do, however, know that there were many gospels that did not make it into the new testament. Gospels with a completely different description of Jesus, some of which exclude miracles. The new testament was clearly edited and engineered by a Roman agenda.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service