April 22, 2010 | 11:07 am

Comedy Central bows to Muslim fundamentalists

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

It’s a sad day for satire.

Comedy Central caved, and last night they bleeped out a good portion of “201,” the follow up to last week’s episode that resulted in Matt Stone and Trey Parker being threatened by religious fascists. (That’s not a term I throw around lightly; here it is accurate.) The episode ran only once last night and isn’t available at South Park Studios.

I actually thought the excessive censoring—Muhammad’s name was replaced with a bleep and was the entire “I learned something today” scene at the end—was intentional. It seemed plausible, and poignant. But that was merely incidental. Comedy Central acquiesced at the last minute.

I can only hope “South Park” isn’t going the way of “Laverne and Shirley.”

The absurdity in all of this is how self-centered hyper-sensitive Muslims—not the Muslims I know, but those running sites like Revolutionmuslim.com and those subscribing to the brand of fundamentalism favored abroad—are in all of this. They really are the only clearly defined group that gets a free pass. In last night’s episode alone, “South Park” showed Buddha snorting coke and Jesus looking at Internet porn and Joseph Smith, “the holy prophet of the Mormon religion,” trying to fly into Barbra Streisand’s gigantic nose.

“South Park” aimed entire episodes at, to name a few, little people, the crippled, those with tourettes, gays, gingers, Latinos, Mormons, Scientologists and, over and over, blacks and Jews. Once upon a time that list even included Muslims. But no more.

Which leaves me wondering: If “South Park” doesn’t have the license to satirize the hypersensitive, who does?

April 21, 2010 | 4:55 pm

Can Christian student groups bar gay membership?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’m taking Con Law this semester, so I’ve been particularly attune to the cases the Supreme Court has been hearing. This one was of particular interest to this blog:

The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Monday over whether a college’s insistence that student organizations be open to all violates the constitutional rights of a religious group that wants to exclude gays and those who do not share its core beliefs.

If religious groups must accept anyone who wants to join, said Michael W. McConnell, the lawyer for the Christian Legal Society, “a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study, and if CLS does not promise to allow this, the college will bar them” from official recognition.

But Gregory G. Garre, the lawyer for the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, said the university has the right to insist that any student group it recognizes agree to admit all students, regardless of status or beliefs. The theories of sabotage have no basis in fact at Hastings or “the history of American education,” he said.

After a spirited hour of arguments, it was hard to tell whether there was a majority on the court for either of those views.

I don’t want to play oddsmaker—I’ll be doing enough of that when I take my Con Law exam in two weeks—but I’d be surprised if the high court, with its current make up, upheld Hastings’ anti-discrimination policy. I’m not sure whether I agree with the district court that the policy doesn’t infringe on the student’s freedom of religion, but I definitely disagree that it doesn’t infringe on freedom of assembly. Hastings is, after all, a public law school.

For now I’m studying Contracts, and leaving you these post-argument comments from the interested parties.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

April 21, 2010 | 4:07 pm

Nothing has ever been sacred on ‘South Park’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Like I said last night, and many times before that, “nothing is sacred” on “South Park”—and that is a good thing. Because, as Cartman knows, if one group can get a show censored because they find something offensive, then the whole enterprise comes tumbling down.

More from CNN:

This is a show, after all, that once painted God as a gap-toothed rhinoceros-monkey, portrays Satan as a simpering milquetoast and regularly features Jesus as a superhero—the kind who’s not afraid to ignore the peaceful teachings of the Sermon on the Mount to smite his opponents. The show has mocked Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists and atheists, among (many) others.

It’s a formula that’s generally served “South Park” well, allowing it to score comic points by riffing on hypocrisy while emphasizing a message of libertarianism and tolerance, and it’s one that goes back to the show’s beginnings, points out former Dallas Morning News TV critic Ed Bark, who blogs at UncleBarky.com. After all, he recalls, the show began as a Christmas short violently pitting Santa Claus against Jesus.

In the beginning, it wasn’t so much the religion that bothered observers but the language used by the series’ pint-sized cast, he said.

“The most shocking thing back then was, you had little kids exercising a vocabulary that you hadn’t heard before [from children],” he said. “I go back to the days when [the sitcom] ‘Uncle Buck’s’ ‘You suck’ was a major point of contention on a CBS sitcom and everybody went crazy about ‘how can they have an 8-year-old kid saying this?’ And then ‘South Park’ ratcheted that way up.”

However, the show can still ruffle feathers

As evidenced by the reaction of Revolutionmuslim.com to last week’s episode “200.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 21, 2010 | 12:57 am

‘South Park’ creators make Muslim hit-list

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I guess I spoke too soon. Even the creators of “South Park,” who have never found a minority group unworthy of their satire, lack the license to poke a little fun at Muslim reactions to any and all depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

The above clip from last week’s “200” episode, with Muhammad in a giant bear costume, is what got Revolutionmuslim.com fired up. Via CNN:

he posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.

The entry on Revolutionmuslim.com goes on to advise readers:

“You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses …” before listing Comedy Central’s New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane’s production company.

Contacted by CNN, the author of the post, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, said that providing the addresses was not intended as a threat to the creators of South Park but to give people the opportunity to protest.

Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the Web site runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have “defamed” the Prophet Mohammed – citing one religious authority as saying “Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that.” U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.

The clip ends with a warning on a graphic directed at Parker and Stone, saying “The Dust Will Never Settle Down.

Seriously scary. Reactions like this make me wonder what Muslims of this ilk of other religious folks who don’t fly off the handle when the patriarchs of their faith are ridiculed in pop culture. Are we spineless as jellyfish or is it just a Muhammad thing?

As for the cartoon image “South Park” ran of Muhammad nine years ago, here it is. Thanks to both Jay and Torch for sending this latest story along.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 20, 2010 | 2:55 pm

Shuffling pedophile priests

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

A must-read opus from the AP on predator priests being shuffled around the Catholic Church’s global network:

In an investigation spanning 21 countries across six continents, The Associated Press found 30 cases of priests accused of abuse who were transferred or moved abroad. Some escaped police investigations. Many had access to children in another country, and some abused again.

A priest who admitted to abuse in Los Angeles went to the Philippines, where U.S. church officials mailed him checks and advised him not to reveal their source. A priest in Canada was convicted of sexual abuse and then moved to France, where he was convicted of abuse again in 2005. Another priest was moved back and forth between Ireland and England, despite being diagnosed as a pederast, a man who commits sodomy with boys.

“The pattern is if a priest gets into trouble and it’s close to becoming a scandal or if the law might get involved, they send them to the missions abroad,” said Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk and critic of what he says is a practice of international transfers of accused and admitted priest child abusers. “Anything to avoid a scandal.”

Church officials say that in some cases, the priests themselves moved to another country and the new parish might not have been aware of past allegations. In other cases, church officials said they did not believe the allegations, or that the priest had served his time and reformed.

Much, much more here.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 20, 2010 | 11:43 am

Resurrecting Temple 420

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

If you’ve been around this blog a little while, you’ve gotten to know the name Craig X Rubin. I mentioned the pot-smoking pastor in The God Blog’s three-year-anniversary post last month.

Far as I can tell, and despite legal problems, Temple 420 is still around, though it appears without a church home. The Contact and About pages on its Website have gone “up in smoke.” But I’m sure their spirit is loud today.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

April 19, 2010 | 11:50 pm

Do Blue Steel from “Jewlander”

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

WARNING: This video contains the kind of profane language you would expect.

This version of “Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis” has some fun with the Jewiness of Ben Stiller, who is ostensibly promoting “Greenberg,” his new film based on the most Jew-ish guy you know.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 19, 2010 | 8:41 pm

Obama ignores black churches?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s hard being the messiah—evidenced by the fact that President Obama just can’t catch a break when it comes to his church affiliations.

First there was l’affaire Jeremiah Wright; then it was an issue the Obamas hadn’t joined a church in Washington. Now, according to Religion News Service, some black Christian leaders feel like Obama is giving them the cold shoulder:

“I think he doesn’t avail himself as fully as he could of the input of black religious thinkers, and this is not a judgment upon his regard for us,” said Obery Hendricks, a professor at New York Theological Seminary.

“I’m not sure why that is.”

The Rev. James Forbes, the former senior pastor of New York’s Riverside Church, said the White House is doing a delicate dance in the aftermath of Obama’s ties—and public breakup—with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, whose fiery sermons nearly derailed his campaign.

“It has to be a consideration: How does the first black president position himself in the public eye in regards to blacks?” said Forbes, who has neither been invited nor sought access to the Obama White House. “I think his handlers would assume that they want to make him as color-blind as he can possibly be.”

Black religious leaders say they’re not asking Obama to help them; they want to help Obama. Some get calls and e-mails updating them on policy issues, including messages from Joshua DuBois, a black, former Pentecostal pastor who directs the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Still, some want more.

Read the rest here.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

April 18, 2010 | 9:12 pm

White supremacists get beat down at downtown protest

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Can’t say I’m surprised or feel any sympathy:

Two neo-Nazis were beaten and others pelted with eggs, rocks and bottles, as African-American, Latino, Jewish and immigrant-right groups joined in countering a rally by some 40 members of the National Socialist Movement in front of Los Angles City Hall.

The Detroit-based Nazi group had received a permit for the Saturday demonstration and was protected by police, which called a tactical alert as the confrontation heated up.

Wearing swastikas and shouting “Sieg Heil,” the demonstrators aimed their slogans and placards mainly against illegal immigrants, though interspersed with racist and anti-Semitic outbursts.

Even so, their aims weren’t always clear. One of the beaten demonstrators carried a sign reading “Christianity=Paganism=Heathen$” with an arrow pointing to a swastika. He and the other beaten man were treated and released.

An estimated 500 counter-demonstrators arrived from all over the region and pursued the neo-Nazis as they retreated toward the parking lot where they had parked their cars.

Like at their anti-immigration rally in Riverside in October (pictured), the neo-Nazis were grossly outnumbered by counterprotesters—a reminder that free speech works, even when it does afford hatemongers a public platform.

The LA Times has a bit more here.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

April 18, 2010 | 5:29 pm

My beard’s super powers

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Would you trust this face?

Maybe not. But according to a study published last week in the Journal of Marketing Communications, people are more likely to trust that face than this one or, heaven forbid, this one.

The study:

The study showed participants pictures of men endorsing certain products. In some photos, the men were clean-shaven. In others, the same men had beards. Participants thought the men with beards had greater expertise and were significantly more trustworthy when they were endorsing products like cell phones and toothpaste.

But, oddly, men with beards were slightly less effective than smooth-cheeked fellows in underwear advertisements. Apparently we don’t want Zach Galifianakis selling us boxers.

The researchers say the implications of their findings could extend far beyond advertisements. For instance, male politicians might want to consider not shaving because the “presence of a beard on the face of candidates could boost their charisma, reliability, and above all their expertise as perceived by voters, with positive effects on voting intention.”

I had always heard you can never trust a man with a beard. But that axiom came from friends who couldn’t establish a five-o’clock shadow with three week’s notice.

What’s not helping my trustworthiness, however, is being journalist who is studying to be a lawyer.

7 Comments — Leave your comment

April 17, 2010 | 4:33 pm

LA Supervisor confronts heckler at Museum of Tolerance

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s called the Museum of Tolerance, and I’ve never before seen it accused of anything anti-Semitic (except possibly by the Jewish neighbors who opposed its expansion). But Thursday night quite the scene unfolded during a speech by L.A. Opera director James Conlon, titled “Music, Memory and Morality: How and Why Wagner Matters.” It apparently almost lead to fisticuffs between LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and a protestor:

In his speech, Conlon discussed the composer’s well-known anti-Semitic personal beliefs and argued that audiences could appreciate Wagner’s music even if they despised his racism.

Near the end of Conlon’s speech, protester Peter Gimpel stood up from his seat in the back row of the auditorium and blasted the conductor with a rambling list of accusations. He claimed that the conductor and the festival are glorifying an anti-Semite and revising history.

He also singled out Barry Sanders, the leader of the festival, whom he compared to Adolf Hitler by calling him “Mein Führer.”

Gimpel refused repeated requests from the museum’s director, Liebe Geft, to sit down, and continued to harangue the conductor for several minutes. At one point, Yaroslavsky, who was sitting two rows away, stood up and shouted back at the protester.

“You’ve had your say,” Yaroslavsky said, adding that he would personally eject Gimpel from the auditorium if he didn’t stop speaking.

When Gimpel refused to acquiesce, Yaroslavsky angrily left his seat and approached the heckler.

Yaroslavsky’s seats for UCLA basketball games are a few rows away from mine. And all I can say after reading this story is that I hope he threatens to personally remove from Pauley Pavilion any USC fan who tries to sit in our section.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 15, 2010 | 5:41 pm

National Day of Prayer held as unconstitutional

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s not often big news comes out of Wisconsin. But today we had this religious tidbit:

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

“In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray,” Crabb wrote.

Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.

President Barack Obama’s administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued a proclamation last year but did not hold public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.

Crabb wrote that her ruling shouldn’t be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are exhausted. U.S. Justice Department attorneys who represented the federal government in the case were reviewing the ruling Thursday afternoon, agency spokesman Charles Miller said. He declined further comment.

Somehow super conservatives are spinning this opinion as an orchestrated attack by Obama on the day of prayer. Amazing. (WorldNetDaily has a more sober conservative take on.)

It’s that last paragraph that is the most important part. Crabb is a trial judge—meaning this battle is long from over.

4 Comments — Leave your comment