The Last Acceptable Prejudice? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2005, 05:53 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 07:21 PM
The Last Acceptable Prejudice?

Some prejudices are more equal than others PHILIP JENKINS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American media, usually painstaking in their efforts to offend members of no racial, religious or gender category, consistently make one major exception — the Roman Catholic Church. So argues Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religion at Penn State and an Episcopalian, in his new book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Expressions of anti-Catholic bigotry scarcely come as a surprise. Over the years, we have come to expect that media treatments of the Church, its clergy and its faithful will be negative, if not highly offensive, and Catholic organizations try to confront the worst manifestations of prejudice. When such controversies erupt, the defenders of the various shows or productions commonly invoke a free speech defense. These productions are just legitimate commentary, we hear, so offended Catholics should just lighten up, and learn not to be hyper-sensitive. Sometimes, defenders just deny that the allegedly anti-Catholic works are anything like as hostile as they initially seem to be. All these arguments, though, miss one central point, namely that similarly controversial attacks would be tolerated against literally no other group, whether that group is religious, political or ethnic.

The issue should not be whether film X or art exhibit Y is deliberately intending to affront Catholics. We should rather ask whether comparable expressions would be allowed if they caused outrage or offense to any other group, whether or not that degree of offense seems reasonable or understandable to outsiders. If the answer is yes, that our society will indeed tolerate controversial or offensive presentations of other groups — of Muslims and Jews, African-Americans and Latinos, Asian-Americans and Native Americans, gays and lesbians — then Catholics should not protest that they are being singled out for unfair treatment. If, however, controversy is out of bounds for these other groups — as it assuredly is — then we certainly should not lighten up, and the Catholic League is going to be in business for a very long time to come.


It is easy to illustrate the degree of public sensitivity to images or displays that affect other social or religious groups — but how many of us realize how far the law has gone in accommodating the presumed privilege against offense? Witness the legal attempts over the last two decades to regulate so-called “hate speech.” American courts have never accepted that speech should be wholly unrestricted, but since the 1980s, a variety of activists have pressed for expanded laws or codes that would limit or suppress speech directed against particular groups, against women, racial minorities and homosexuals. The most ambitious of these speech codes were implemented on college campuses. Though many such codes have been struck down by the courts, a substantial section of liberal opinion believes that stringent laws should restrict the right to criticize minorities and other interest groups.


But if these provisions had been upheld in the courts, what would they have meant for recent Catholic controversies? One typical university code defines hate speech “as any verbal speech, harassment, and/or printed statements which can provoke mental and/or emotional anguish for any member of the University community.” Nothing in the code demands evidence that the offended person is a normal, average character not over-sensitive to insult. According to the speech codes, the fact of “causing anguish” is sufficient. Since the various codes placed so much emphasis on the likelihood of causing offense, rather than the intent of the act or speech involved, the codes might well have criminalized art exhibits like, oh, just to take a fantastic example, a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.


The element of “causing offense” is central to speech codes. At the University of Michigan a proposed code would have prohibited “any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status.” “Stigmatization and victimization” are defined entirely by the subjective feelings of the groups who felt threatened. In 1992, the US Supreme Court upheld a local statute that prohibited the display of a symbol that one knows or has reason to know “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The implied reference is to a swastika or a burning cross, but as it is written, the criterion is that the symbol causes “anger, alarm or resentment” to some unspecified person. These were precisely the reactions of many Catholic believers who saw or read about the “Piss Christ” photograph, or the controversial displays at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.


Other recent laws have taken full account of religious sensibilities, at least where non-Catholics are concerned. Take for instance the treatment of Native American religions, and the presentation of displays that (rightly) outrage Native peoples. In years gone by, museums nonchalantly displayed Indian skeletons in a way that would be unconscionable for any community, but which was all the more offensive for Native peoples, with their keen sensitivity to the treatment of the dead. In 1990, Congress passed NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which revolutionized the operation of American museums and galleries by requiring that all Indian remains and cultural artifacts should be repatriated to their tribal owners. As a matter of federal criminal law, NAGPRA established the principle that artistic and historical interests must be subordinate to the religious and cultural sensibilities of minority communities.


Even so, museums and cultural institutions have gone far beyond the letter of this strict law. They have systematically withdrawn or destroyed displays that might cause the slightest offense to Indian peoples, including such once-familiar displays as photographs of skeletons or grave-goods. In South-Western museums today, one commonly sees such images replaced with apologetic signs, which explain gaps in the exhibits in terms of new cultural sensitivities. Usually, museums state simply that the authorities of a given tribe have objected to an exhibit because it considers it hurtful or embarrassing, without even giving the grounds for this opinion, yet that is enough to warrant removal. When disputes arise, the viewpoint of the minority group must be treated as authoritative. Just imagine an even milder version of this legal principle being applied to starkly offensive images like those at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. If Native religion deserves respect and restraint on the part of commentators — as it assuredly does — why doesn’t Catholicism merit similar safeguards?


Beyond the legal realm, time and again we see that media outlets exercise a powerful self-censorship that suppresses controversial or offensive images, whether or not that “offense” is intended: and again, this restraint applies to every group, except Catholics. Over the years, the film industry has learned to suppress images or themes that affect an ever-growing number of protected categories. The caution about African-Americans is understandable, given the racist horrors in films of bygone years, but the present degree of sensitivity is astounding. Recall last year’s film “Barbershop,” in which Black characters exchange disrespectful remarks about such heroic figures as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and more questionable characters like O. J. Simpson and Jesse Jackson. Though this was clearly not a racist attack, the outcry was ferocious: some things simply cannot be said in public. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led an intense campaign to delete these touchy references.


And other social groups have learned these lessons about self-censorship. Asian-Americans and Latinos have both made it clear that the once-familiar stereotypes will no longer be tolerated, and Hollywood takes their complaints to heart. By the early 1990s, too, gay groups had achieved a similar immunity. When, in 1998, the film “The Siege” offered a (prescient) view of New York City under assault by Arab terrorists, the producers thought it politic to work closely with Arab-American and Muslim groups in order to minimize charges of stereotyping and negative portrayals. Activists thought that any film depicting how “Arab terrorists methodically lay waste to Manhattan” was not only clearly fantastic in its own right, but also “reinforces historically damaging stereotypes.” As everyone knew, Hollywood had a public responsibility not to encourage such labeling.


Yet no such qualms affect the making of films or television series that might offend America’s sixty million Catholics. Any suggestion that the makers of such films should consult with Catholic authorities or interest groups would be dismissed as promoting censorship, and a grossly inappropriate religious interference with artistic self-expression. The fuss over whether a film like “Dogma” or “Stigmata” is intentionally anti-Catholic misses the point. The question is not why American studios release films that will annoy and offend Catholics, but why they do not more regularly deal with subject matter that would be equally uncomfortable or objectionable to other traditions or interest groups. If they did so, American films might be much more interesting, in addition to demonstrating a new consistency.


If works of art are to offend, they should do so on an equal opportunity basis. If we have to tolerate such atrocities as “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You” — recently revived as a Showtime special — then why should we not have merry satires poking fun at secular icons like Matthew Shepard or Martin Luther King? If, on the other hand, it is ugly and unacceptable even to contemplate an imaginary production of “Matthew Explains It All,” poking fun at victims of gay-bashing, then why should we put up with Sister Mary? Some consistency, please.


Let me end with a suggestion. By all means, let the Catholic League continue to report offensive depictions of Catholics and their church. But to put these in perspective, always remember to record these many other controversies, in which other groups succeed in enforcing their right to be free from offense. Only then can Catholic-bashing be seen for what it is, America’s last acceptable prejudice.



This essay should spark alot of debate here, I'm just going to remain impartial in it all though, before I leave this to you all to ponder, we may all think we're right no matter what side of any arguement we fall upon but we never truthfully know at all
__________________

__________________
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:01 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:21 PM
The Media is just as prejudiced against Protestants, especially Evangelicals. But yes, Christendom is indeed the media's acceptable prejudice.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:05 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 07:21 PM
I just find it all a bit contradictory in this politically correct age, I'd almost expect someone to say they deserve it, but I don't want to down that road of discussion
__________________
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:07 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Oh blah blah blah. When Catholicism apologizes for calling homosexuals "objectively disordered" and an "intrinsic evil," then I'll start feeling sorry for it. The last acceptable prejudice within religion and politics is against homosexuals; and now the oppressors are using the tactics of the oppressed to try and justify their bigotry. If religion or politics reverted to being pro-slavery or insisting that women shut up and make babies 24/7, we'd laugh it back to the 19th century.

But you know what? Americans have a long tradition of seeking out irrational thought and ripping it apart using "comedy." And 80sU2isBest is right: the media does similar things to right-wing Christianity, and that's only because it's equally irrational.

By the above logic, I could argue that the last acceptable prejudice is against white supremacists. Those poor, poor white supremacists...we should feel sorry for them, because of all the flack they get for their beliefs!

Maybe what I'm writing here is a bit harsh, but I hope you get my point. If the Catholic Church and evangelical Christianity can sling the hate, they'd better be prepared to accept it back.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:11 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Of course you should be able to take what you give, but if you come off with Anti- Semetic remarks you'll be shot down so, so quickly and what exactly is Judaism's stance on homosexuality?
__________________
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:17 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroDude
Of course you should be able to take what you give, but if you come off with Anti- Semetic remarks you'll be shot down so, so quickly and what exactly is Judaism's stance on homosexuality?
Orthodox Judaism: Against it.

Conservative Judaism: Mostly positive, due to the Talmud's revocation of Mosaic Law in the OT and the belief that "sin" must be consciously chosen. They acknowledge that being gay is something you're born with. However, some conservative Jews are not so friendly.

Reform Judaism: For it.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:18 AM   #7
War Child
 
saltwaterkiss26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 638
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroDude
Of course you should be able to take what you give, but if you come off with Anti- Semetic remarks you'll be shot down so, so quickly and what exactly is Judaism's stance on homosexuality?
Whatever it is, they're not quite so vocal about it. At least, not that I've heard.
__________________
saltwaterkiss26 is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:29 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
The Media is just as prejudiced against Protestants, especially Evangelicals. But yes, Christendom is indeed the media's acceptable prejudice.

tell me, how is the view up there as part of the majority?

my head knows that any prejudice is wrong, and that no one likes to be stereotyped and caricatured. but my heart agrees with Melon. when i hear Christians complain about being stereotyped my knee-jerk response is along the lines of "cry me a fucking river."

i think Christians should start by objecting to those rather loud Christians who purport to speak for all Christians, and for politicians who claim that Jesus has a position on the filibuster and that Democrats are against "people of faith." save your indignity for those people, and understand the media for what it is. *everyone* is reduced and simplified on TV, and devout evangelical Christians get it no worse than gay people. or black people. or jews. the list goes on.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:35 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Orthodox Judaism: Against it.

Conservative Judaism: Mostly positive, due to the Talmud's revocation of Mosaic Law in the OT and the belief that "sin" must be consciously chosen. They acknowledge that being gay is something you're born with. However, some conservative Jews are not so friendly.

Reform Judaism: For it.

Melon
Thank you for that, I just try to indulge in all viewpoints on any matter regardless of my own stance, which is not pro homosexuality as such but I don't have any problems with it as I believe it's a natural occurance such as trees growing in my nearby park, sorry for the shite near offensive analogy ( I hate the way I've worded that ). In other words I'm striving to be ignorant of nothing which is quite hard to do seeing I'm only 17, living in Belfast and growing up with some sectarianism still on the go.


Reform Judaism

I just dislike all prejudice in all it's guises really thats me as a whole
__________________
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:44 AM   #10
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Reform Judaism: For it.

Melon
uhh 'for' it? you mean they are trying to gay people up? so they are AGAINST straight people you mean? yes, yes i think so.






__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:44 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Oh blah blah blah. When Catholicism apologizes for calling homosexuals "objectively disordered" and an "intrinsic evil," then I'll start feeling sorry for it. The last acceptable prejudice within religion and politics is against homosexuals; and now the oppressors are using the tactics of the oppressed to try and justify their bigotry. If religion or politics reverted to being pro-slavery or insisting that women shut up and make babies 24/7, we'd laugh it back to the 19th century.

But you know what? Americans have a long tradition of seeking out irrational thought and ripping it apart using "comedy." And 80sU2isBest is right: the media does similar things to right-wing Christianity, and that's only because it's equally irrational.

By the above logic, I could argue that the last acceptable prejudice is against white supremacists. Those poor, poor white supremacists...we should feel sorry for them, because of all the flack they get for their beliefs!

Maybe what I'm writing here is a bit harsh, but I hope you get my point. If the Catholic Church and evangelical Christianity can sling the hate, they'd better be prepared to accept it back.

Melon
Melon, what do you consider "slinging hate"?

You've "known" me for a long time now. We've had plenty of political and religious arguments.

We haven't discussed it much, but you know my stance on homosexuality. You know I think it is wrong. But can you name one single time that I have ever condemned you for it, or made fun of you, or denigrated you at all?

Or does the simple act of believing that homosexuality is wrong qualify as "hate-slinging"?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:45 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


*everyone* is reduced and simplified on TV, and devout evangelical Christians get it no worse than gay people. or black people. or jews. the list goes on.
Watched any sitcoms or dramas lately, Irvine?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:47 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want


uhh 'for' it? you mean they are trying to gay people up? so they are AGAINST straight people you mean? yes, yes i think so.








But seriously, people can all have their opinion, if you think homosexuality is wrong, fair enough, most mild, reasonable people will not spout "hatred" of sorts even if they have that view point they will and should however be permitted to present their views in a civilised manner, again the same with many arguements is true, you really can't be objective rather than subjective in such issues
__________________
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:53 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Melon, what do you consider "slinging hate"?

You've "known" me for a long time now. We've had plenty of political and religious arguments.

We haven't discussed it much, but you know my stance on homosexuality. You know I think it is wrong. But can you name one single time that I have ever condemned you for it, or made fun of you, or denigrated you at all?

Or does the simple act of believing that homosexuality is wrong qualify as "hate-slinging"?
But you also know that the media does not refer to the individual level. It refers to the group as a "whole." And the "group" is always reflected by its loudest, most hysterical members.

Do I lament that Christianity has become synonymous with small-mindedness and hatred? Of course. I only need to look here in FYM to know that Christians are capable of more and better. Even amongst the more conservative members here.

But then there's the question of "sins of omission." I think that too many Christians *let* the loudest and most hysterical members speak for them, and don't speak out against them. Catholicism, in many ways, is the worst offender of them all, as American Catholics notoriously disagree with their hierarchy, but instead of making those disagreements known, they just sit quietly in church.

I don't know what to refer to myself these days as. I have 13 years of Catholic education and much of it is still a part of my life, no matter how much I could try to escape it. But I guess I'm not the typical American Catholic. I will speak out when I see something wrong, and I see "dissent" as "patriotic." And respect is to be earned, not demanded. "Benedict XVI" had best remember that.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 08:58 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Watched any sitcoms or dramas lately, Irvine?
No, Irvine is right. Take a "gay positive" show like "Will & Grace," for instance. Will is neurotic, insecure, and sometimes self-loathing, with his most "stable" relationship being with Grace, a straight woman. The "hint" from the start is that Will and Grace would be perfect for each other, had the "gay" not been in the way.

Jack is a walking stereotype. Flamboyant, and, as a result, dumb and slutty. As if they are intrinsic to each other.

From a philosophical POV, "positive" portrayals aren't all what they're cracked up to be. I can make a similar argument around another "gay positive" show, "Queer as Folk."

In short, everyone is reduced to a stereotype in the media.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com