John Waters on RTE Saturday Night Show

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Mocking believers is par for the course these days. It's rather ironic that those who nonchalantly choose to mock believers are the beneficiaries of a Christian inheritance (which includes the death of 1000s of martyrs).

I thought John Waters had some interesting things to say, but he wasn't as clear and succinct as I'd hoped. I suppose trying to talk about deep questions facing man while at the same time trying to provide entertainment to the nation is a difficult task.

Lisha

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Mocking believers is par for the course these days. It's rather ironic that those who nonchalantly choose to mock believers are the beneficiaries of a Christian inheritance (which includes the death of 1000s of martyrs).

I thought John Waters had some interesting things to say, but he wasn't as clear and succinct as I'd hoped. I suppose trying to talk about deep questions facing man while at the same time trying to provide entertainment to the nation is a difficult task.

John waters at times may have interesting things to say, but he rarely can be described as being clear and distinct.

Benny_Cake

Lisha wrote: »

John waters at times may have interesting things to say, but he rarely can be described as being clear and distinct.

Yes, definitely a case of someone who appears to have swallowed a dictionary. I didn't see him the other night (never watch the Late Late), but I've found that he comes across as being extremely bitter, which isn't an attractive quality and is unlikely to win many people to his side of an argument.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Yes, definitely a case of someone who appears to have swallowed a dictionary. I didn't see him the other night (never watch the Late Late), but I've found that he comes across as being extremely bitter, which isn't an attractive quality and is unlikely to win many people to his side of an argument.

Evidently you weren't watching last night.

Benny_Cake

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Evidently you weren't watching last night.

I realise I mixed up the Late Late and the Saturday night show - if it clears things up, I watch neither. What I know of John Waters is largely from his articles in the Irish Times and I've found he comes across as rather bitter, and has done for many years. Others may disagree, of course.

Manach

Whilst normally I'd have respect for Mr. Walters and his works, when RTE enters the topic I think an organisation that is bloated & wasteful of taxpayer's money and as apart from the odd newscast, I never watch the channels (once you have boards.ie, what other source of entertainment matches it ).

cheesehead

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Mocking believers is par for the course these days.

I agree with the above statement. I felt John Waters did an excellent job, especially considering how "uncomfortable" Brendan O'Connor appeared discussing the subject matter (I'm assuming Brendan's discomfort led to the "mocking" tone he adopted).

As I was watching the Waters-O'Connor interview, I couldn't help but do a little thought experiment: Would O'Connor have had the "backbone" to adopt such a mocking tone had he been interviewing a journalist/writer of another faith (e.g. a Muslim/Buddhist/Jewish)? My guess: probably not.

But as Ecce alludes to, mocking believers appears par for the course these days, a safe way to throw fresh meat to the mob.

Doctor DooM

I'd be (genuinely) interested in examples of this mocking tone you speak of on our national broadcaster, as you'll find plenty of examples from the other side of people being rather put out at the amount of time RTE give to people who are clearly shysters spouting about angels and the like.

If they're annoying everyone, are they doing their jobs right or wrong?

cheesehead

Just saw Dr. Doom's response. In general, I don't post very often (and really shy away from responding to someone who has close to 30,000 posts - the whole idea of "never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel" comes to my mind).

That said, I'll play:

Brendan to John after Waters stated he loved Pope Benedict: "You loved Benedict? I knew there must be somebody." (laughter from the audience)

Brendan to John: (as John is attempting to give an answer about his wonder of being human) "Thinking you're the center of the universe, when in fact you're just a tiny speck. (with enthusiastic clapping from the audience)

I understand Brendan is an entertainer and is playing to his audience, but I felt Waters was sincerely (not bitterly) attempting to answer some "deep questions" (as Ecce alludes to above).

Again, I feel one must watch the interview to get a good feel of the overall "tone" of the interview. Obviously, the "tone" doesn't translate well on examples posted on an internet message board.

However, I stand by the assertion in my original post. Would Brendan have used the following line if interviewing a Buddhist/Muslim/Jew?

"You loved the Dali Lama/Imam/Rabbi? I knew there must be somebody."

Turtwig

cheesehead wrote: »

Just saw Dr. Doom's response. In general, I don't post very often (and really shy away from responding to someone who has close to 30,000 posts - the whole idea of "never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel" comes to my mind).

That said, I'll play:

Brendan to John after Waters stated he loved Pope Benedict: "You loved Benedict? I knew there must be somebody." (laughter from the audience)

Brendan to John: (as John is attempting to give an answer about his wonder of being human) "Thinking you're the center of the universe, when in fact you're just a tiny speck. (with enthusiastic clapping from the audience)

I understand Brendan is an entertainer and is playing to his audience, but I felt Waters was sincerely (not bitterly) attempting to answer some "deep questions" (as Ecce alludes to above).

Again, I feel one must watch the interview to get a good feel of the overall "tone" of the interview. Obviously, the "tone" doesn't translate well on examples posted on an internet message board.

However, I stand by the assertion in my original post. Would Brendan have used the following line if interviewing a Buddhist/Muslim/Jew?

"You loved the Dali Lama/Imam/Rabbi? I knew there must be somebody."

He probably would have. Unless it was a member of a group of fundamentalist folks who he'd fear would take his remarks to town and start sending him hate mail or death threats or possibly even act on them. Fear of axe wielding maniacs can be a very powerful thing.

cheesehead

That's the point Jernal - I don't believe Brendan would have made such a remark because of what you point out: the potential for violence if such a remark was passed (even if it wasn't directly stated to a member of a fundamentalist in the studio) - just passing the remark could potentially incite violence from an outside source.

I know this thought experiment about what Brendan would/would not say is off-topic from Ecce's original point, but I imagine most Coptic Christians would agree with Ecce's sentiments: "mocking (Christian) believers is par for the course these days" (or they would be quite pleased if it was just left at mocking)

robp

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I realise I mixed up the Late Late and the Saturday night show - if it clears things up, I watch neither. What I know of John Waters is largely from his articles in the Irish Times and I've found he comes across as rather bitter, and has done for many years. Others may disagree, of course.

I have heard of plenty of criticisms of Water over the years but bitterness is really out there. Writing can disguise people. Interviews tend to reveal a better portrait and you won't see bitterness in his interviews.

desertcircus

I really don't get the anger about mockery of Christianity, particularly when compared to Islam. Surely it's a positive thing that people feel comfortable enough about the sanity and reasonableness of Christian believers to poke fun at the church?

And that joke about Benedict would never work in Ireland about anyone else. The Dalai Lama gets great press, and there's effectively zero cultural awareness of the leaders of other faiths. Would he have said the same to an Irish Jew or Muslim? Probably not, because he wouldn't have the faintest idea who heads their church.

PopePalpatine

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

It's rather ironic that those who nonchalantly choose to mock believers are the beneficiaries of a Christian inheritance (which includes the death of 1000s of martyrs).

What "Christian inheritance"?

If you're talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a democratically-elected government, none of those are mentioned by the Bible. Even 160 years ago, the Catholic Church opposed democracy, and its relationship with democracy has been shaky even in the 20th century.

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What "Christian inheritance"?

Offhand based on IIRC from my academic history background, it laid the foundations for business, law and the university and provided the dynamic that powered Europe from the ruins of Empire to the most powerful political force of the past half millennium.

robp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What "Christian inheritance"?

If you're talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a democratically-elected government, none of those are mentioned by the Bible. Even 160 years ago, the Catholic Church opposed democracy, and its relationship with democracy has been shaky even in the 20th century.

Well I don't think the Sistine chapel is mentioned in the bible either, or heck I can't think of any Renaissance Italian art in the bible but is it or is it not Christian inheritance? What is in the bible has little bearing on the complex multi-origin social, cultural and scientific outcomes in Christian dominated nations.

Benny_Cake

robp wrote: »

I have heard of plenty of criticisms of Water over the years but bitterness is really out there. Writing can disguise people. Interviews tend to reveal a better portrait and you won't see bitterness in his interviews.

It's just my (subjective) opinion from reading his articles. I will say one or two things in his defence: he's an intelligent guy, and he has made a few good points on various topics when I've heard him on the radio in the past. He was often on the right side of the argument over father's rights when it was an unknown issue to most people, and while he came across as bitter on that too, it should be admitted that he probably had plenty to be bitter about on that score. I think his opinions are held sincerely too, unlike some other who come across as holding contrarian / minority views simply because they perceive a gap in the market for them (I'm looking at you, David Quinn).

In his writing, though, he paints in incredibly broad brush strokes about "liberals", "secularists", and so on. His habit of using ten words where one would suffice doesn't do him any favours either.

Morbert

I was horribly confused. I thought everyone was talking about THE John Waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Waters_(filmmaker)

I've just looked up the Irish Times's John Waters. The guy is asinine and uninteresting.

robp

Morbert wrote: »

I was horribly confused. I thought everyone was talking about THE John Waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Waters_(filmmaker)

I've just looked up the Irish Times's John Waters. The guy is asinine and uninteresting.

Your opinion. He would be hardly writing for the IT if he really was. THE John Waters you refer to is much less a household name in Ireland.

Zillah

robp wrote: »

Your opinion.

This is always the most useless thing to say when you disagree with them. We're all just expressing our opinions - pointing that out achieves nothing.

robp

Zillah wrote: »

This is always the most useless thing to say when you disagree with them. We're all just expressing our opinions - pointing that out achieves nothing.

I realise that Zillah but its very difficult to engage at a satisfactory level when the original criticism has not been meaningful. One needs a reason to call someone asinine/extremely stupid in my book.

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

I realise that Zillah but its very difficult to engage at a satisfactory level when the original criticism has not been meaningful. One needs a reason to call someone asinine/extremely stupid in my book.

He has a reason. He read some of his work.

MrP

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

Offhand based on IIRC from my academic history background, it laid the foundations for business, law and the university and provided the dynamic that powered Europe from the ruins of Empire to the most powerful political force of the past half millennium.

Based on my academic history background business, law and centres of higher education pre-date Christianity.

Law - Code of Hammurbi (c. 1780 BCE) and that was based on earlier laws.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp.

Hammurbi ruled Babylon - considered to be the world's first metropolis. Are you suggesting there was no 'business' being undertaken there? No buying or selling of goods and services? Strange as the Code speaks of builders and their liability for shoddy work...

As for universities - or to be precise higher education - M L L Clarke in Higher Education in the Ancient World disagrees with you

an authoritative survey of Greek and Roman education above the primary school level from the fourth century B.C onwards. Special attention is given to the teaching of philosophy, and there are also chapters on the liberal arts, in particular grammar and rhetoric, and on professional education. School organization, teaching methods and the impact of Christianity and the Church as an educational institution are all discussed. The picture that emerges is one of an established educational system which continued for centuries with little change and survived even the challenge of Christianity.

http://books.google.ie/books/about/Higher_Education_in_the_Ancient_World.html?id=IX6tQElCXrQC&redir_esc=y

If you wish to be pedantic and state that those were not 'proper' universities as we know them then you may wish to consider this

The university as an autonomous self-governing institution first was developed as religious institutions (madrasahs) that originated in the medieval Islamic world. But, Europe did not fall far behind these Islamic developments, as Italy founded its first university approximately two centuries after the first university developed in Morocco.

http://collegestats.org/articles/2009/12/top-10-oldest-universities-in-the-world-ancient-colleges/

Islam gave us universities - not Christianity.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Based on my academic history background business, law and centres of higher education pre-date Christianity.

Law - Code of Hammurbi (c. 1780 BCE) and that was based on earlier laws.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp.

Hammurbi ruled Babylon - considered to be the world's first metropolis. Are you suggesting there was no 'business' being undertaken there? No buying or selling of goods and services? Strange as the Code speaks of builders and their liability for shoddy work...

As for universities - or to be precise higher education - M L L Clarke in Higher Education in the Ancient World disagrees with you

http://books.google.ie/books/about/Higher_Education_in_the_Ancient_World.html?id=IX6tQElCXrQC&redir_esc=y

If you wish to be pedantic and state that those were not 'proper' universities as we know them then you may wish to consider this

http://collegestats.org/articles/2009/12/top-10-oldest-universities-in-the-world-ancient-colleges/

Islam gave us universities - not Christianity.

I don't think anyone is really saying that business, law and education didn't predate Christianity but to be more precise there is widespread agreement that many aspects of the modern institutions emerged first in Christian Europe. Whether you want to accredit them to Christianity per see would require each to be examined on a case by case basis. One needs to be specific as it is locally different. For instance in Ireland the earliest urbanism almost certainly developed in the early Medieval ecclesiastical centres like Clonmacnoise and maybe Armagh but certainly not in Italy.

In regards the first universities. Every so often one hears the claim that the Muslim world bet Europe to the first universities but actually many would disagree and argue that these institutions weren't really what we now consider universities and that honour goes to Italy.

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What "Christian inheritance"?

Manach wrote: »

Offhand based on IIRC from my academic history background, it laid the foundations for business, law and the university and provided the dynamic that powered Europe from the ruins of Empire to the most powerful political force of the past half millennium.

robp wrote: »

I don't think anyone is really saying that business, law and education didn't predate Christianity but to be more precise there is widespread agreement that many aspects of the modern institutions emerged first in Christian Europe. Whether you want to accredit them to Christianity per see would require each to be examined on a case by case basis. One needs to be specific as it is locally different. For instance in Ireland the earliest urbanism almost certainly developed in the early Medieval ecclesiastical centres like Clonmacnoise and maybe Armagh but certainly not in Italy.

In regards the first universities. Every so often one hears the claim that the Muslim world bet Europe to the first universities but actually many would disagree and argue that these institutions weren't really what we now consider universities and that honour goes to Italy.

My reading of Manach's post is that is exactly what he (she?) was saying - Christianity 'laid the foundations for...'

No - it didn't. It built on the foundations others laid down.

Manach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My reading of Manach's post is that is exactly what he (she?) was saying - Christianity 'laid the foundations for...'

No - it didn't. It built on the foundations others laid down.

Fully respecting your own academic history background the IIRC my (he) initial comment had mentioned this was in the context of Europe: so this IIRC is in that context. So this incompases the Medieval universities, the continent monastic trading networks and that Canon law being the basic of equity (BTW, I'll have added a legal academic background soonish ) and is one of the foundations of modern civil law.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

Fully respecting your own academic history background the IIRC my (he) initial comment had mentioned this was in the context of Europe: so this IIRC is in that context. So this incompases the Medieval universities, the continent monastic trading networks and that Canon law being the basic of equity (BTW, I'll have added a legal academic background soonish ) and is one of the foundations of modern civil law.

By ignoring and dismissing non-European influences (and Christianity is technically a Non-European religion) and insisting on such a narrow time frame you are creating an incomplete and therefore false picture that is akin to saying Italians invented pasta when what they did was adapt noodles.

What does the fact that you will soon have a legal background got to do with anything?

Manach

By focusing on a specific topic area (legal as in law, as in history of which that I would have studied ), within a defined area (and technically the borders of what is Europe have fluctuated widely) within areas that I know of and within a timeframe of since the fall of Rome can hardy be said to narrow frame of reference shows a concise answer to the original posters offhand remark on the Christian foundations of Europe which is a less than accurate reflection of European roots.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

By focusing on a specific topic area (legal as in law, as in history of which that I would have studied ), within a defined area (and technically the borders of what is Europe have fluctuated widely) within areas that I know of and within a timeframe of since the fall of Rome can hardy be said to narrow frame of reference shows a concise answer to the original posters offhand remark on the Christian foundations of Europe which is a less than accurate reflection of European roots.

No it does not.

It is deliberately creating restrictive and narrowly focused parameters that enable you to disregard any data that does not support your thesis.

Just to take your 'fall of Rome' starting point - this allows you to disregard the influence of republican and imperial Rome which in turn means you are disregarding the (pagan) Greek influence on Rome and the Persian influence on the Greeks.

What you are doing is akin to discussing the Irish republic but ignoring any influence on that republic by the British Empire, which, if it were to be fully explored in order to create an accurate picture would necessitate examination of the lengthy relationship between us and our island neighbours.

You seem to want to convince us that Christendom was some isolated region which spontaneously discovered law, commerce, 3rd level education under the auspicious of the Church without any outside influence being brought to bear.

You are spin doctoring and you know it.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No it does not.

It is deliberately creating restrictive and narrowly focused parameters that enable you to disregard any data that does not support your thesis.

Just to take your 'fall of Rome' starting point - this allows you to disregard the influence of republican and imperial Rome which in turn means you are disregarding the (pagan) Greek influence on Rome and the Persian influence on the Greeks.

What you are doing is akin to discussing the Irish republic but ignoring any influence on that republic by the British Empire, which, if it were to be fully explored in order to create an accurate picture would necessitate examination of the lengthy relationship between us and our island neighbours.

You seem to want to convince us that Christendom was some isolated region which spontaneously discovered law, commerce, 3rd level education under the auspicious of the Church without any outside influence being brought to bear.

You are spin doctoring and you know it.

What? I am really struggling to see in what of Manch's post your basing this conclusion on.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

Offhand based on IIRC from my academic history background, it laid the foundations for business, law and the university and provided the dynamic that powered Europe from the ruins of Empire to the most powerful political force of the past half millennium.

robp wrote: »

What? I am really struggling to see in what of Manch's post your basing this conclusion on.

'Laid the foundations for...'

The foundations of law and business were laid down in Europe looooong before Christianity existed - unless he wishes to exclude Greece and Rome from the ever changing region that was 'Europe'.

As was the concept of higher education...

The idea of a university as we know it is Islamic and was adapted for use in Europe.

Christianity cannot have 'laid down the foundations' for concepts that already existed and to claim it did is patently and demonstrably false.