UK Christians Burn TV Licenses Over Springer Opera

[Khephra]

Christian protesters set fire to their television licenses outside the BBC's London offices on Friday as outrage spread over the public broadcaster's plans to air a profanity-laden musical.

In the award-winning London show ``Jerry Springer -- The Opera,'' viewers can watch a diaper fetishist confess all to his true love, catch a tap dance routine by the Ku Klux Klan and see Jesus and the Devil locked in a swearing match.

Michael Reid, a pastor and self-styled bishop who organized the peaceful demonstration ahead of the airing on Saturday evening, called the musical ``filth.''

``The use of foul language together with mocking Jesus Christ and portraying him wearing a nappy with sequins is highly offensive to Christians and we felt that it was totally wrong,'' he told Reuters.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-arts-springer.html

[saltpoint]

1. If I thought it would result in just one --

-- fundamentalist nutcase Christian pastor accidentally setting himself on fire in such an exercise, I'd blare the Springer opera from my rooftop with The Who's stage speakers.

----
edit: 'er' added to Springer

[aquart]

2. Why aren't we getting this HERE????????????

Why do the Brits get all the good TV???????????

[corksean]

5. Eh, this is based on the Jerry Springer Show.

Isn't that good enough?

[Khephra]

7. It's actually supposed to be a satirical musical

along the lines of Rocky Horror and Hairspray. People who hate Springer's show have said that they love the opera.

[Wilms]

13. People Hate the Springer show?

What's the world coming to.

[aquart]

22. Heard it was fabulous from an opinion I trust.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Michael Reid, eh?

The British subsidiary of Oral Roberts doing faith healing and revivals:

http://www.michaelreidministries.org/

[noamnety]

4. This is distressing

For a $225 license fee, they should at least get a remote. I think they're getting ripped off.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Pfah! Good one!

(wipes coffee off keyboard)
LOL!

[benddem]

6. I lived in England

and had a remote...but guess they don't know where the channel changer is.

[bumblebee1]

9. Two Choices

They've got two knobs on the telly. They function as a channel changer and on/off switch. Hell, the remote has different functions.

[despairing optimist]

8. Okay, okay. Springer's out. But you'll have to take Howard Stern instead.

Is it a deal?

[Lenape85]

10. I thought we only had fundies here in America

[Tweed]

16. Seriously, this seems very un-European behavior

Then again, this is the same country that gave us Oliver Cromwell.

[Briar]

24. US fundies

have been firing up UK ones (by example or by more direct means) for some time. Remember the ongoing nastiness about gay Bishops?

[eric144]

50. not many left

The very few Chriatians left are mind control victims of American cults. Anyway the BBC probably made 90% of the complaints to themselves for publicity purposes. It's pathetic the people fall for this nonsense.

Any combination of sex and religion will allegedly shock people. Transvestite Buddhas are fair game, lesbian versions of the prophet Mohammed are probably a bit too dangerous.


Jerry Springer, Ronald Reagan and GW Bush will always get a laugh amongst a certain British audience. Laughing at dumb Americans is a national sport. Louis Theroux created at least two TV series out of it.

[MADem]

11. They burn the license, but it is already PAID for

Are they going to toss the telly, too? They'd better watch out, or the Big Brother Van will cruise their neighborhood and knock on the door, ready to deliver a hefty fine for failure to display said license!!! I'll bet the tax men were taking names at that demonstration, talk about easy money!

As for the sequins, that is a little over the top, but don't many representations of Christ on the cross show him wearing something that looks suspiciously like a nappy?

They are even going after the servicemembers in their BARRACKS for failure to buy a license...the bastards!!! Serve your country, but fail to buy your TV license, and you get a thousand quid fine! Read all about it... http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/mediaandcommunity/mediapressreleases.jsp?archive=2

[Ruffhowse]

12. When does this arrive on Broadway?

Anything that pisses off the Fundies has got to have some decent entertainment value.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. SF this spring; NY this fall

"Amid the renewed controversy, “Jerry Springer the Opera” is scheduled to run for six weeks in San Francisco this spring and open on Broadway next fall."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6799532/

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

26. As soon as the box office opens, I will be there

I love the Springer show. It makes me feel normal.

[Vektor]

15. Where do I get my tickets? n/t

[tokenlib]

17. Kicked for Khephra

Damn, this was a good story.. Strange and yet serious.

[NYC]

18. I suspect they can request a copy of the license.

I doubt tearing it up invalidates it. It would still be on file.

[NYC]

19. Khephra.

[koneko]

20. Kick!

:kick:

[koneko]

21. Kick!

:kick:

[miss_kitty]

23. kick for Khephra

[0007]

25. RIP

[Tab]

27. This thread was Khephra's last contribution to LBN

Wherever Khephra is, I don't know if I can kick it that far, but I'll try.

Thank you, Khephra.

[Cooley Hurd]

28. Kicking for Kef, as well...

Damn... this is just too sad.:cry:

[KittyWampus]

49. Really? PERFECT! LOL!

first real laugh since yesterday.

:D

[leesa]

29. Of course they watch the Springer show for just this reason...they love

the fighting, profanity and hate. Did it occur to the twits to just not watch it???

[go west young man]

30. Kicking for Kephra!

GOOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!!

[gardenista]

32. kick for Khephra

[Miami Liberal]

33. kick

[patdem]

34. Keph

:kick:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

36. If a network here shows it

I will call them and complain. The same for their advertisers.

[Runcible Spoon]

39. and perhaps you'll post their kids' names, photos, addresses online too?

c'mon alicia, we're counting on you :eyes:

[tx_dem41]

40. Where in the article did it state that the website posted...

kids' names and photos and the managers'/governors' addresses?

"The BBC also forced the closure of a Web site revealing the private telephone numbers of two senior managers and its governors after its decision to transmit the award-winning London show ``Jerry Springer -- The Opera.''"

Did I miss another reference, or were you just making that up?

[Runcible Spoon]

41. referrring to poster's previous defense of the "right" to post such

information.I would have posted on that thread, but it's locked. And don't be so disingenuous, you were right there on that thread.
updated for clarity.

[tx_dem41]

47. I just reviewed that thread, as well as the Independent article

...that was in the original post. No where in that article did they mention the website posting kid's photos and names. Also, no where did Alicia defend such a practice.

So, I have to conclude that your statements are disingenuous. Can't we have a debate over civil liberties without making stuff up??

[Runcible Spoon]

51. If Alicia wants to take me up, fine.

but I'm not going to debate what she said/implied with you. No matter how much I find her opinions unsavory, I don't think it's fair to engage her White Knight of Honor. She can speak for herself, and does quite often.

Suffice it to say that some on that thread supported the website's "freedom of speech" to publish "personal details" about the BBC staff, leading to threats and phone calls:

"Some of the threatening calls were made to the executives’ children warning that “something awful is going to happen”. Others, which have been passed to the police, were described as “serious threats against the person, quite frank and detailed”"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1431444,00.html

If that website hadn't published this information, do you think these callers would have been able to make these threats? As someone who has had her private number changed several times to ward off harrassment, I can understand why these people feel threatened.

I'll use freedom of speech to defend a tawdry "opera" before I will use it to defend the right to enable fanatics to harass people's children.

[tx_dem41]

53. I didn't support...

the "right to publish personal details about the BBC staff, LEADING to threats and phone calls. You're making a leap of logic that clearly was not made by me. In fact, everyone on that thread said that threats were over the line, including the DUer-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned.

What several people on the thread did STATE, was that protesting at someone's house (on pubic property), regardless of one's conduct was wrong (and a few even said illegal since they supported the suppression of the site). Having witnessed several such organized, well-behaved, effective protests against politicians and CEOs of companies who were into wrongdoing, I would never go that far as to say they are flat-out wrong and especially, illegal.

As to your question:

"If that website hadn't published this information, do you think these callers would have been able to make these threats? "

My answer, I don't know. But, to find the website criminally or civilly liable, one would have to prove intent. How one would do that I don't know. But, freedom of speech (in the U.S.) demands such proof.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. CEOs who are into wrongdoing are different

though I wouldn't advocate picketing their homes. But the BBC executives are not breaking the law, or harming anybody; only from a few religious people's point of view are they doing any 'wrong'. And again, I remind you that phone numbers play no part in a peaceful protest. They are, however, part of a campaign of harrassment of someone's family.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

61. The classic double standard

Protests that you think are OK, are OK. Protests you oppose should be stopped.

Many of us find mockery of our religion worthy of protest.

Of course phone numbers and protests at homes are peaceful. It's only when threats or worse are involved that it's wrong.

And, trust me, it's not a "few" religious people who object.

[Runcible Spoon]

66. "peaceful"...

I don't know about that. I have enough of a time trying to not feel violated by Jehovah's Witnesses on my stoop, let alone a bunch of fundies camped on my lawn. It is a violation of privacy, I don't see why trespassing laws wouldn't apply in the US. The difference is, people who are offended by the programming can just turn the channel. These people can't "turn off" the protesters. Is Jerry Springer on your lawn performing his opera for days and calling your house telling you to watch?

[tx_dem41]

68. The protests at homes I referenced did not infringe on private property.

And, one does have the right to make a phone call. Even to a "private" number. One does not have the right to harass or threaten.

[Runcible Spoon]

72. I'm referring to protesting BBC staff's homes..

which is a position defended by some here. I wasn't even responsing to you. SHEESH. You a little starved for attention???

[tx_dem41]

75. I don't see how BBC staff's homes are any different...

from the CEO and politicians I referenced in my post (other than the fact they are in the UK...but this discussion has transcended country's borders). Remember, that in the UK, BBC senior members (Board of Governors and Director/General) are public officials, appointed by the Government and accountable to the Parliament (i.e. people). And, I will surely defend the same right for Americans to protest the homes of public officials (you know that whole right to peaceful assembly thing).

I answered your post, because it addressed something I posted in another post. Didn't mean to step on your toes, though.

And, in the spirit of civility, aren't you supposed to be studying?
:-)

[Runcible Spoon]

81. so public officials can't own private property??

here or in the UK? What a wierd world. I guess we can just hop on down to Crawford and sit there as long as we like. You still haven't:

a. proven that BBC execs are "public officials" or

b. public officials can't own private property and thus trespass laws don't apply

I'll take legal stances from either UK or US law. And yes, I'm supposed to be studying!!! This is just so much more fun than discourse analysis and cognitive lingusitics.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

84. The sidewalk is public property

How many times do we have to say that?

No one here is supporting any crime whatsoever.

And the BBC is both publicly funded and uses the public airwaves.

[tx_dem41]

88. Of course, we can hop on down to Crawford and sit there for the rest of..

...our lives, as long as we do it outside of the gates of the Bush ranch! That's what the First Amendment and this country are all about. And, believe me...public sidewalks in front of a house are NOT private property. Heck, your taxes paid for them!

As for the BBC execs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Governors_of_the_BBC

I posted this in another thread. Sorry, I thought it was bouncing around this one.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

69. I can stand out on the public sidewalk

Or dial a number as long as I don't keep doing it and harassing. If I trespass, that is another matter. And I don't advocate that.

Sorry visitors bother you. That's not my issue. My issue is freedom of speech.

[Runcible Spoon]

76. All right Alicia, it's put up or shut up time....

"I do support protesting at the people's homes"...

I just checked Black's LAw Dictionary and what you are advocating is CRIMINAL TRESSPASS: "entering or remaining upon or in any land..by one who knows he is not authorized to do so...and he enters or remains therein in defiance to of an order not to enter or to leave...by the owner or other authorized person".

A home is private property! So do you or do you not advocate criminal trespass????

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. No it's not

I am advocating staying on PUBLIC property, not private. Your post either deliberately misrepresents what I have said or betrays a major error on your part.

The sidewalk in front of a home (not the one on your land) is public land. I can walk on it all day should I choose.

[Runcible Spoon]

82. you said "at their homes"

would you stay off of the lawn?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

85. I would stay off their property

At isn't on their land.

I don't trespass.

[Runcible Spoon]

90. OK good.

now that is clear. Before, it wasn't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. What protests against people's homes did I say were OK?

I said they shouldn't be done at CEOs houses either. But what I want to point out is that there is no 'wrongdoing' here. This is not Enron.

You think it's acceptable to harrass someone at home? To harrass their family? What else are their phone numbers going to be used for?

Take a deep breath, and consider your Christian values again. You're letting your religion down.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

87. Wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder

Religious people are offended. If you don't consider what occurred wrong, you just need to understand that others do.

Imagine this being the Sinclair network and guess how many DUers would be against this protest then.

[tx_dem41]

64. The CEOs I was referencing weren't breaking the law either....

in one case it had to do with investments the company was making in East Timor re: oil drilling that helped to prop up a "bad" government. Nothing illegal about that. His neighbors, fellow CEOs, had probably never heard about East Timor, and it was a good exercise for them to learn about investments their own companies were making.

In another case, it was a politician that was taking a stance that was counter to what people in his community (including his neighbors) thought he was for. It was quite effective to bring this information directly to his "people".

Since you wouldn't "advocate picketing their homes", can I assume that you would agree that it (respecting private property and maintaining good behavior) is legal in the US?

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. I would expect they would need a court order to stop it

but that the court order would be granted if it happened to any significant degree.

The legality should not be the primary issue for a Christian. The morality should. And harrassing a family is against Christian morals.

[tx_dem41]

77. The day that protest automatically is interpreted as harrassment..

is the day we all ought to pack up and head out for a new land, because this one won't be worth anything.

And, as for your thoughts on Christianity, I am an Atheist, so that argument doesn't really work in my case. I am an Atheist and a Civil Libertarian with equal passion.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

79. The history of protest

Includes many inconveniences for those who deserve being protested against. I am sure the racists of the south hated the inconvenience of freedom marches down their streets as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. And their families deserve this how? (n/t)

[AliciaKeyedUp]

93. They made these actions, they dragged their families into it

Not protesters. I didn't see anyone complaining when I think was Cheney who was besieged at his home some time back.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

54. Sorry, helping my son with homework

The executives of the BBC have no right to expect a bubble of isolation around their lives. What they do at work counts in the rest of the world.

I'm so happy you find my opinions "unsavory." I tend to find them quite tasty.

I made it clear I support neither threats of violence or actual violence. I do support protesting at the people's homes. They made the decision, they should be prepared that people might not like it.

No one who opposes this should threaten or harm anyone. But calling the home and saying they oppose this is a legitimate form of protest.

The public airwaves are a public responsibility. And those who are obligated to steward them should not expect their decisions allow them freedom from protest.

Imagine this was Sinclair Broadcasting and let me know how many here would agree with you.

Despite the cheap attempt at putting words in my mouth, no one is advocating intimidating children.

[Runcible Spoon]

63. there are issues here I think can't be resolved with the info we have

1. whether or not the info is/was available other than the Christian Voice website. I suspect that high-profile executives would want to guard such information, and thusly that info would not have been published in public domain like a phone book. Hence, I think the website would have some culpability in what its readers do with exclusive information. Since we don't precisely know how this info ins available, it remains unknown. I have my suspicions, though I agree that "likely" is not absolute. That is up to the courts, I suppose.
2. What is "public" vs. "private"? In England there is a law in the works to address protesting at private homes:
"
5.5 Proposal 5 - Protests outside homes

5.5.1 The Home Office propose to create an offence of protesting outside homes. The offence will be committed where a person protests outside someone's home in such a way as to cause harassment alarm or distress to residents. The provision is designed to complement a power under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which was introduced as a response to animal rights protesters protesting against employees of companies engaged in the bio-science industry. Section 42 empowers a police officer to give appropriate directions to protesters if he reasonably believes the protester's presence is to persuade someone to do something which they are not under any obligation to do and the person's presence amounts to or is likely to cause harassment alarm or distress."

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/document.asp?documentid=2821&languageid=1

INterestingly, this law was proposed to counter animal-rights protestors, though application in this circumstance would certainly be justified. I don't have the time to research whether or not this has gone into effect, but it seems to have Blair's support and momentum.

3. What is "threatening"? Well, I would certainly view a bunch of people on my lawn as threatening, especially if I had been getting threatening calls as well. I don't generally support anyone's right to enter private property unwelcomed for any reason, whether it be to protest WTO or Springer operas. I don't pretend to know the legal subtleties for this in the US, and only note that UK thought it was an important enough issue to address. Of course, I think these "free speech" zones are abhorrent misuse of law enforcement authority in the US, but then again that only applies to public spaces. I don't see why trespassing laws wouldn't prevent protesters from entering private land.

Anywho, will check back later; must study. Thank you for the civil discourse.

[arwalden]

46. Of Course These People Know...

what the difference is between legitimate protests and outright harassment. They just don't care!

[against all enemies]

37. Is it true that Tony Blair is a Christian nut case like Bush?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

38. Ah, the wild dance of humor and earnestness. Thanks, Kephra. n/t

[amazona]

42. oh lord wish I could see this

"Jerry Springer-- The Opera" was playing while I was in London. I was dying to see it but my friend was horrified at the very idea. It sounds like we missed a real hoot!!!

Jesus Christ wearing a nappy with sequins? That has to be hilarious. Who could take that seriously?

[Runcible Spoon]

45. all this shrill righteous protest will just shoot it to cult stardom

can't wait to get the DVD!





There is a road, no simple highway,
Between the dawn and the dark of night,
And if you go no one may follow,
That path is for your steps alone.

Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.

But if you fall you fall alone,
If you should stand then who’s to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.

Rest in peace, Khephra

[AliciaKeyedUp]

55. Yes, mocking religion is popular in some biazarre quarters

I can guarantee there will be fallout on the other side.

[Runcible Spoon]

67. what kind of fallout exactly?

:scared:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

70. Protests, complaints, activism

All of which I support.

[Divine Discontent]

57. what mature adult could find it amusing?

to blast and ridicule someone else's revered leader & teacher, is not only reprehensible, it goes against decency that DU members embrace.

[Runcible Spoon]

71. so I guess we should stop blasting * bc he is revered to Freepers?

I think Christ was a fascinating figure and certainly the best role model in Christianity. But no religion is so sacrosanct it cannot be parodied or challenged. I'm sure there are some Saturnalians that hate how trees, yule logs, etc. have been adopted by other religions or secularized. Don't you support free speech?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

80. You advocate free speech and oppose its use

Just as this Springer show is free speech, so is protesting it.

[Runcible Spoon]

83. ummm I opposed what people were saying about protesting ON

private property, or somehow saying that "public officials" can't own private property. Christ, SHOPPING MALLS have been held to be "private" areas and thus protest is squelched, and not some people are trying to advocate phone calls and camping out on a family's property.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

86. I can call any number I wish

And no one here is supporting any law breaking.

[Runcible Spoon]

91. don't blame me because you didn't specify

"at their homes" as meaning "on the sidewalk outside of their homes" until VERY RECENTLY.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

94. This is the second thread, don't blame me if you are lagging behind

I have stated it repeatedly. Sorry if YOU didn't understand.

[tx_dem41]

89. Knowing this wasn't addressed to me.....

I will wade in anyway since you seem to imply that I said that "public officials" can't own private property. Where have I said that? It is possible to protest "at a home" and stay OFF of private property. A taxpayer-funded public sidewalk is the perfect place to do that. Or in the case of the Crawford ranch, on a taxpayer-funded road outside the gate. Or in the case of the White House, outside the fence on the tax-payer funded walkway.

[stevedeshazer]

43. Kick

I will always love him, even though we never met personally.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. AHHHHHHHHHHH

so the UK has freak out fundies too?

Gosh, I'm sorry guys.

[VolcanoJen]

48. My heart is breaking... kick for Kef!!

The front page of LBN needs Khephra... can't imagine LBN without Scott.

:-(

[Cooley Hurd]

62. I know, Jen... What a sad day...

LBN and Kef were synonymous...
:cry:

[Skittles]

52. I keep thinking, knowing it will be the last time I see Kef in LBN

I just can't stand it

[stevedeshazer]

59. We'll see him here forever

At least I will. :(

[montana_hazeleyes]

56. Kick for khephra

It's so hard to believe he's gone and this will be his last thread.;( :cry:

[Divine Discontent]

58. my condolences

it appears a DU'er has passed on, apparently this is getting out somewhere.

my kudos to him for his work on DU

[Whoa_Nelly]

65. For Khephra

You are forever with DU and forever on the Internet.

http://tinyurl.com/4ljdg

RIP, Scott
:hug: for Mama K.

softly :kick:ing

[Moderator]

95. Continuing a flamewar from a locked thread

If anyone wished to discuss this topic in a civil manner, you can post something in another forum. Since this was posted Friday, it is no longer LBN.