Israeli TV's blasphemous show sparks outrage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sameeh55, Feb 20, 2009.

  1. Vatican irked by 'blasphemous' Virgin Mary TV spoof in Israel

    By Jack Khoury and The Associated Press

    The Vatican said Friday it has formally complained to the Israeli government about an Israeli TV show that ridiculed and blasphemed Jesus and Mary.

    In the program, host Lior Shlein farcically denied Christian traditions - that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus walked on water - saying he would do so as a lesson to Christians who deny the Holocaust.

    It was a reference to the Vatican's recent lifting of the excommunication of a bishop who denied 6 million Jews were killed during World War II. The rehabilitation sparked outrage among Jews.

    A statement from the Vatican press office said its representative in Israel complained to the government about the show, which was broadcast recently on private Channel 10, one of Israel's three main TV stations.

    The statement said the government quickly assured the Holy See that it would intervene to interrupt the transmission and get the broadcaster to publicly apologize. But it wasn't immediately clear how the government could do so since Channel 10 is a private station and is not subject to government censorship, except in matters of security.

    Calls to Channel 10 seeking comment weren't successful Friday. The
    Foreign Ministry had no comment.

    The Vatican said that in the show hosted by Shlein, a well-known Israeli comedian, Mary and Joseph were ridiculed with blasphemous words and images that amounted to a vulgar and offensive act of intolerance toward the religious sentiments of the believers in Christ.

    In the show, Mary is said to have become pregnant at 15, thanks to a schoolmate. It said Jesus could never have walked on water because he was so fat he was ashamed to leave the house, let alone go to the Sea of Galilee with a bathing suit.

    Shlein issued a short apology on his show on the evening after the clip was broadcast. "I'm sorry if my words hurt someone," he said.

    In response to the skit, leading Christian and Muslim clergymen called on Pope Benedict XVI to postpone his planned visit to Israel, which is scheduled for May.

    The clip was a sarcastic response to the Vatican's rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson, who said in an interview broadcast on Swedish state TV that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust and that only 200,000 or 300,000 Jews were killed.

    The Vatican's rehabilitation of Williamson sparked outrage that only abated after Pope Benedict XVI met with Jewish leaders at the Vatican last week. During his audience, the German-born pope issued a strong denunciation of anti-Semitism and said it was unacceptable for anyone - particularly a clergyman - to deny or minimize the Holocaust.

    The Vatican has demanded that Williamson, a member of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, recant before he can be admitted as a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. On Thursday, the government of Argentina, where Williamson had been living, ordered him expelled within 10 days. It cited an immigration problem but also said his comments about the Holocaust had profoundly insulted Argentina, Jews and all of humanity.

    The British-born Williamson had already been removed as director of the society's La Reja seminary. He has apologized for causing distress to the pope but has not recanted. He has said he would only correct himself if he is satisfied after a review of the evidence, but has said that would take time.,4670,EUVaticanIsrael,00.html
  2. Will Virgin Mary TV spoof jeopardize Pope visit to Israel?

    By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent

    Tags: Israel News, Pope Benedict

    Leading Christian and Muslim clergymen are calling on Pope Benedict XVI to postpone his planned visit to Israel, which is scheduled for May, in protest of a comedy skit seen on the late-night variety television show hosted by comedian Lior Shlein.

    In a press conference held on Wednesday in Nazareth, religious leaders denounced Shlein for a spoof entitled "Like a virgin" which depicts two characters who play Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

    In the skit, Mary is heard saying she had slept with many men and that she was not a virgin at all. The provocative segment prompted Christian lawyers to consider filing legal motions against Shlein and his television home, Channel 10.

    In response, Shlein sent a letter to one of the attorneys pledging to apologize on the air for the skit.

    Christian leaders said Shlein's jokes are "hurtful and humiliating to Christianity." Salim Kubti, an attorney and the chairman of an umbrella organization representing Christian courts, said he and a number of other lawyers are considering a lawsuit against Channel 10.

    "It's clear that Shlein is a failure and as a result is looking for any way to improve his ratings, and he is jumping on a sensitive issue," Kubti said. "These statements go beyond satire and dark humor. These are serious statements that insult the sensitivities of every Christian and anyone who possesses values and mutual respect for other religions.
  3. If the show was broadcast on Muslim TV, the Virgin Mary would have been beheaded.
  4. jem


    this is the problem with PC shit.

    In my mind this should be between the individual and God.

    If Jesus is God - and I believe he is - I do not think he needs the Pope to deal with this.

    But this does seem to be a tit for tat P.C. b.s. game of diplomacy.
  5. If Jesus is God - and you believe he is - then we don't need the government telling gays that they cannot be married.

    Jesus will deal with it, right?

    Maybe marriage should be between the individual and God, not between the state and the individual.

    Same for women's right to choose...

    Let Jesus take care of the consequences...

  6. I do not know if you are aware of the fact that the Virgin Mary is regarded as a chaste and virtuous woman and is the most respected woman figure in Islam. She, by far, rank ahead of all Muslim women in the Islamic relegion. Any Muslim who attacks the virgin Mary is considered "Kafer"
  7. jem


    I would agree with you, if as a citizen I did not believe that a child inside the womb is a person. Since we can save a 22 week old foetus - I believe that killing a foetus after 22 weeks is an act of murder. From a societal standpoint I am open to a discussion that an abortion before that time should be allowed.

    My personal belief is different. Therefore my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance on abortion.

    Even bill maher said you can be against abortion and not be religious. I am against infanticide - are you?

    I am against gay marriage for similar reasons. Why should the state be in the marriage game in the first place?

    But it has been and it is between a man a woman. It is a definition 1000s of years old.

    What the heck should some minority get to impose their will on the majority - it should be up to majority vote? If you change it to two men or two women. Why not 4 men and a women? I see no compelling reason to say to men should be protected by the constitution but no 3 women and a man.

    Morals may be informed by Relgion but they are separate. Gov't may be influenced by religion and morals but we also have a constitution - which was itself influenced by morals and religion.

    But I want to know how the hell any tolerant person thinks they have a right to tell me that I should be tolerant of their beliefs and yet they should not be tolerant of mine.
  8. I am not trying to change your personal beliefs one bit, I am tolerant of them as long as they stay personal to your own whatever you want...but when you try to impose those beliefs on me via a political process, then we have a problem.

    I am suggesting that your personal beliefs should not be the criteria for what other people do in the privacy between themselves and their doctor, or between themselves, a consenting adult, and God or non God.

    I have no problem with 4 men and 1 woman, or 1 man and 4 women, as long as all the individuals involved are consenting, and in a position to actually decide for themselves. Typically in America we put some age limit to what is mental capacity to make such decisions, but objections can be raised legally when the competency factor is an issue. Some kids have gone to court to prevent their aging parents from marrying someone, claiming their parent is incompetent to make an informed consensual decision. Some children go to court to get emancipation before the established age of consent, etc.

    If you will notice, I am mentioning consenting adults and consenting adults only, which rules out an adult and an animal (pet dog, etc.) because the animal doesn't have the power of adult consent, or an adult and a child who is not developed sufficiently to achieve a level of reasonable decision making. Competency is implied.

    1,000 year old definitions are meaningless in a society that is filled with people who are capable of thinking and deciding for themselves as adults what they do with other consenting adults. We simply don't need 1,000 year old definition any more to tell us what to do. We have sufficient education so that people develop to a point where they can and should be free to make up their own minds.

    We either agree that consenting adults get to do what they want with other consenting adults...or we have the government treating consenting adults like children blocking them from getting married to other consenting adults, having power over their own biological process, etc.

    "I am against infanticide - are you?"

    I am not going to dignify that question with a response.

    Figure it our for yourself Einstein.

    So, how long have you been beating your wife again?

  9. 2 words sum up the jewish religion

    'The Haaaaaawlecost!!!!! The Haaaaaaawlecost!!!'
  10. jem


    your logic sucks.

    First of all every persons vote is informed by their beliefs and morals.

    When a gay person votes for gay marriage he is voting his belief system.
    What makes the gay belief system more worthy of vote casting than someone else's belief system. Just about every vote has a moral component.

    Your concept can just as easily be flipped on you.

    Abortion is barbaric killing of an innocent life.

    I wish you would leave your murderous views at home instead of voting on them.
    You argument is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how law and society are formed.

    The majority rules unless the constitution says the minority needs to be protected. The majority is encourage to vote the beliefs and morals.
    #10     Feb 21, 2009