"Religious Moralism is to blame" - Carlin
"Religious Moralism" is to blame. That’s what George Carlin
said. When asked about the new "indecency laws" being presented
in congress he responded by saying he blamed religious moralism, media
commercialism and election-year politics.
So what does the 66-year-old Carlin think of the current handwringing over what
is indecent, profane, obscene, immoral, lewd or insulting?
"More of the same, more of the same. What are we, surprised?" Carlin
told The Associated Press on Friday
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it’s all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. … There’s an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. … It’s reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have.”
Mix that with TV or radio, and you’ve got a problem, he said.
“What I always remind people is, radio and television and — as it happens — newspapers and magazines too, are advertising media. … When you have commercialism involved you have the kind of fear that advertisers are very afraid of offending some potential customer. They don’t want to lose a sale. So they have this need to inspect and clean up and watch the content in order not to hurt their own sales. It’s based on success at the cash register.
He did end with this: "Society can be counted on to let
this fade."
Here
is the full story
March 13th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
That is what I would expect from the atheist Carlin. Why cant the indecency laws be about cleaning up the media so the kids are protected. All his comedy is anti-religion and anti-decency. He has that right because someone has to pay to see him. Kids arent usually allowed into his shows anyway.
I do agree the laws should stay away from Premium channels, but primetime cable should be protected.
March 13th, 2004 at 11:33 pm
Not quite. He doesn’t have that right because “someone has to pay…”. He has that right because he’s protected under the first amendment.
I agree that prime-time cable should be protected but I also feel that the government shouldn’t be the one to tell me what is decent and what isn’t–it’ll always be political.
March 14th, 2004 at 4:14 am
Censorship has always proven to be a “prime” topic in this country as well as any other state throughout history, censorship in whole is indecent.
Censorship should be the right of the broadcast network, if ABC wants to show something, then they should have every right to. If it prooves to be “indecent” in a parents eyes, then the parent should then take their own precautions to protect their own children.
It will always contain itself, if NBC decides to start rolling interracial hardcore pornography at 8:00pm Thursdays, then by all means go for it… within a month the number of viewers as well as the number of corporate sponsors will drop to nill.
By no means though, should the government step in in regards to censorship… considering that is one of the founding principles of this state.
See russification in imperial russia, particularly under the reign of Alex II, to attempt to alleviate the ongoing rebellions, media, education, and daily life were “censored”… within two years time, anti-government propaganda was at its prime.
my 2c.
March 14th, 2004 at 3:22 pm
these channels dont own the airways. It is impossible to protect children from this programming if it is on every channel, other than throwing out the TV all together. Is it fair I have to throw away my TV because You think ABC can show Porn at 8:00.
March 15th, 2004 at 9:38 pm
as my old pal from Croatia once said…”It’s ironic the amount of self-censorship as well as censorship occurs in such a country that touts its freedoms”
yeah,yeah, with freedom comes responsibility, I know. But come on, wasting so much time on an ugly nipple, or a curse word here and there, is just not responsible, its plain stupid.
March 16th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
What is the limit Do you suggest we should put on Public Radio?
March 16th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Or TV
March 19th, 2004 at 9:01 am
me personally, set no limit. Lets not worry about it, eh? Who the hell cares if they say s#$t or f#$@k on TV! If you don’t want your kids watching it, get ur ass off the couch and shut the TV off. Hey, her’s a novel idea, spend some time with your kids! geesh!
I mean really, look at this, Bono getting shit from the FCC? How freakin funny is that?
If you don’t like the food, don’t go back to the restaurant. If it is a widely held belief that the food is bad, no one goes, and the restaurant closes. Simple. No need to go waste everyones time with it and try and pass a new law banning bad food now is there?
dUg da dOrk
March 19th, 2004 at 11:04 am
Again, WHy is it fair that only ppl who support smut on TV get to watch it. I dont have kids to spend time with, but I dont want to watch garbage either. So the theory stays the same, that I should be punished because I dont like the garbage on TV.
March 22nd, 2004 at 4:49 pm
punished? so, If your walking down the street and you see something you don’t like what do you do? Whine about being punished? Or take another route? My view is, change the channel. I don’t like seing “Midget Dream Joe” or whatever its called nor do I like seeing Barbie cartoons and lets not bring up the Faye-Baker shows in the world ripping off a large population of elderly, a much worse thing in my opinion. I change the channel. I suppose you could call it silent protest. Enough folks do this and gee, where did that channel go? Nothing wrong with solidarity to shut a channel down either, but trying to use religious notions to change free speech laws is well, sucky. Some people like to watch smut, let them, its their right. Yeah, the folks that don’t like it may have to witness it, but they can change the channel, they can even pray or give the smut head a pamphlet or something. These same folks see much in everyday they don’t like, and look the other way, do they not? You know I seem to recall ‘God’ having the postion of…yo, Adam, you have the right to sin, I’d rather you not though.
In the end, its gonna be the rich folk that decide on this anyway, eh? Buy some supreme court seats and bamm!
March 23rd, 2004 at 7:47 am
I dont recall using religion in any of my arguements. Besides I am not trying to change any programming, I just dont want TV to get worse than it already is.
And Whine about being fair, I thought that this was the basis for this country. Only Religious people and Republicans arent allowed to whine about stuff.
March 23rd, 2004 at 12:07 pm
Isn’t religion, or religious convictions rather, behind this whole hysteria about what is good or bad on the tele?
My view is really still get over it, you know. There are more pressing issues than worrying about what’s on the TV, like war, starving people down the street, and real murder.
March 23rd, 2004 at 2:36 pm
I agree, those are much more pressing issues, but what are we doing about them. This is the heart of the matter, we have real problems in this country that no one wants to deal with.
What role should this country play in feeding the hungry?
What role should this country play in defending the world from terrorists?
When is this country going to really define how it sees life?
WHen is this country going to define the liberties that it wants to bestow on its people?
March 24th, 2004 at 7:28 am
red herring…
No I think dork is at least partially right.
It also has to do with election-year politics.
March 24th, 2004 at 7:46 am
You mean Congress trying to cut back on the smut on TV is election year politics.
This issue isnt getting anyone elected or removed from office. Issues like war, and economics are.