…and this is a 
We won't get to hear Kathy Griffin's Emmy award speech — it's being censored. Here's what she said:
In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus."
She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!"
The off-color remark was to say, "Suck it, Jesus."
I thought it was funny. If I ever win an Emmy (do you have to be on TV to win that, or something?), I hope to remember to say something similar. It is, of course, ridiculous to censor someone for denying the influence of an invisible phantasm, but I guess the usual suspects got huffy. You know who I mean: the Indignant Sour Prune of the Airwaves, Bill Donohue.
The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech."
Hate speech? Who did she hate? She laughed at an old superstition, mocking the habit of celebrities giving credit to an omnipotent ghost for nudging a shiny statuette their way. If Donohue were serious about his religion, he ought to be more upset at the trivialization of the Lord of the Cosmos into the guy who hands out trinkets.
Comments
Posted by: Richard Wolford | September 11, 2007 2:38 PM
Just one more reason to want to bed Kathy.
Posted by: True Bob | September 11, 2007 2:40 PM
She's on my A-list now.
Posted by: Apikoros | September 11, 2007 2:41 PM
Kathy Griffin said something funny?
That alone is evidence that miracles can happen.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 11, 2007 2:56 PM
Has Donohue ever won an Emmy? I think it's just sour grapes.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 11, 2007 2:58 PM
If you feel like becoming enraged this afternoon, check out the comments made by the smug readers of the article.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=275156>1=7703
Ugh.
Posted by: ChrisD | September 11, 2007 2:58 PM
Off-color?
"...a lot of people come up here and kiss Hank's ass for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Hank. This award is my Hank now! Suck it, Hank!"
She speaks the damn truth. If the person she mentioned had been real it would not be censored.
Posted by: Siamang | September 11, 2007 2:59 PM
"Just one more reason to want to bed Kathy."
Yep, that and a possible threesome with WOZ!
Brrrrrr..... yeeech.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Are you serious?!? Damn you! Everyone knows the Hank-haters are destroying this country!
Posted by: Brownian | September 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Wouldn't Bill and his cronies would have to be Jesus for this to qualify as hate speech against them?
Cue religious ass-faces complaining about the protection from hate speech that homosexuals* "enjoy" but is denied all the good and honourable Christians because Liberals hate freedom and God in 5...4...3...2...1....
Posted by: Greg B | September 11, 2007 3:02 PM
This is one of the reasons I despise the concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech". One of the things that makes America great is that you are allowed to say things that people disagree with. There should be no such thing as "hate speech". People should recognize if for the double-speak that it is.
America is great because everyone has the same rights (allegedly) . Even the people you don't agree with.
Now, as far as hate crimes go, I would hope that if somebody beat me up they would be punished just as harshly as if they beat up somebody of a different race. To say that tossing a bible or koran into the toilet (for example) is a felony hate crime just goes against everything that America should stand for. It's destruction of property certainly. But a felony!?
Insanity. Utter insanity.
Posted by: bernarda | September 11, 2007 3:02 PM
Bill Maher's comment about Bush applies equally to Donohue: he doesn't pretend to have his head up his ass, it is really up there.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 11, 2007 3:05 PM
I've always figured if I won an Oscar or similar, I'd really have to begin as follows:
"First off: Mom? Thanks for nothin'."
... That said, Ms. Griffin's line is pretty damned good, too.
(No, I've really got nothing against my mom. But c'mon. It practically writes itself.)
Posted by: skyotter | September 11, 2007 3:11 PM
wah! wah! i have a right to not-be-offended! wah! etc.
Posted by: Michael T | September 11, 2007 3:13 PM
Bill Donahue is the type of person who makes me wish that Christianity was real, rather than superstition. Shouldn't Christians try to emulate Jesus?
If Christianity were real, I'm confident that Bill Donahue would be laughed all the way to hell at his death. I suppose I'm just as content laughing at him here on Earth, though.
Posted by: Jim Kakalios | September 11, 2007 3:14 PM
For that to count as "hate speech", Donohue must think that Jesus can't take it from the all powerful Kathy Griffin.
Which raises the question of why does Donohue have such a low opinion of Jesus?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 11, 2007 3:19 PM
Mmmm, an awards speech, you say?
"And to all the children of America: stay off the drugs, or you'll end up just like me. Finally, I'd like to thank Japan for inventing the schoolgirl. . . ."
Also: what sort of pusillanimous, superstitious hayseeds bowdlerize the phrase "Suck it, Jesus"? If you're a news organization, you report what the woman said. Suck it, Associated Press.
Posted by: Dustin | September 11, 2007 3:20 PM
Wait, there's a catholic anti-defamation organization? What's next, a Pol Pot anti-defamation organization?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | September 11, 2007 3:20 PM
Ya know, if I were religious, I'd like to think that the Big Guy has more important things to worry about than who wins an Oscar, Emmy or football game.
And if I tell the invisible pink gnome living under my house to "suck it", am I also guilty of hate speech?
Posted by: makita | September 11, 2007 3:21 PM
Of course, Kathy can say whatever she likes during her acceptance speech. Kudos to her for saying what she wants and ridiculing the fact that people thank a guy who may or may not have lived 2000 ears ago, or an imaginary friend. Moreover, I though these christian people weren't supposed to judge others, I thought that was a privilege solely reserved for their imaginary friend. I suppose I was wrong about them after all.
Posted by: Dustin | September 11, 2007 3:21 PM
I can't tell you the number of times those exact words have left my lips.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 11, 2007 3:24 PM
I loved South Park's take on Bill Donohue. I hope for a Larry Craig styled embarrassment for him at some point. But alas I think he's the real asshole that he comes off as.
Posted by: Frac | September 11, 2007 3:25 PM
I don't know the odds of it reaching her, but I just left a note of support and approval on her web page. I'm sure she's getting spammed with hate mail from the brotherly-love crowd. A few in the other direction will make for a nice change.
http://kathygriffin.net/contactus.php
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM
Greg B, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
"Hate crimes laws" are acts of violent terrorization against an entire group of people. Like beating up a gay guy so the others will get the message and leave town (notably, beating up Bob the gay guy because he cut in line for the urinal is *not* a hate crime - just a regular one). Throwing the koran into the toilet is a bit thorny, but I'd say it's a form of speech, and probably restrict the hate crime modification to violent crimes anyway. Taking the motive into account for sentencing is nothing new.
"Hate speech laws" do not exist, and are unconstitutional. Preaching that gays will go to hell, or passing out flyers on the street corner that say "Islam is of Satan" are hateful and bigoted, but they are protected.
Fundies love to deliberately confuse the two.
Posted by: Max Udargo | September 11, 2007 3:29 PM
She was great in Pulp Fiction.
Why are Christians so sensitive? We know why Muslims are sensitive: because they're always getting slapped around by the Christian West. They've got an inferiority complex. But why doesn't success and power provide the Christian soul with a little self-confidence? Are they so delicate they're threatened by Kathy Griffin?
It's almost like they're afraid the slightest challenge might break the spell...
Posted by: MAJeff | September 11, 2007 3:30 PM
although I'm not one of her gays, I'd gladly become one after this performance.
Posted by: Siamang | September 11, 2007 3:31 PM
Greg B wrote:
"To say that tossing a bible or koran into the toilet (for example) is a felony hate crime just goes against everything that America should stand for. It's destruction of property certainly. But a felony!?"
Okay, I'm calling bullshit on that claim, Greg B, unless you can document it.
Come on, cite the legal code, chapter and verse. What exact law makes it a felony to flush my personal copy of the Koran down my personal toilet?
Posted by: BigHeathenMike | September 11, 2007 3:31 PM
I've always thought it would be great for someone to start an awards acceptance speech by saying:
"I'd like to, first of all, thank Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and all the scientists past and present for giving us, literally, everything we take for granted - from the acoustics in this auditorium to the monitors and televistions people around the world are watching on - so thanks, folks."
Kathy's "Suck it, Jesus" is pretty damn good too, though. ;)
Posted by: Warren | September 11, 2007 3:32 PM
Back in the 1980s Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL.
It's stunning how offended people became over that.
And you know, if she'd torn up a picture of Jesus Christ instead, I don't think there would have been anywhere near as bad of an outcry.
Catholics suck, the entire boy-fondling child-raping lot of them.
Posted by: Andrés | September 11, 2007 3:33 PM
Really profound people, these Christians. They believe in a supreme being that will judge the world on the basis of their sexual preferences and their vocabulary use. Oh, I feel so shallow in comparison...
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 11, 2007 3:34 PM
Thanks, Kathy! Whoever you are.
Suck on it, Bill!
Posted by: DeWraith | September 11, 2007 3:34 PM
I think our foreign counterparts are confused on what hate speech is. The religious right and other xian fundamentalists have perverted the term to mean saying anything negative that opposes a view. Actually, hate speech is more about inciting hysteria against a group that results in some form of damage (that is more or less the rough definition). For a better explanation, look up hate speech on wikipedia.
Kathy did nothing of the sort. She CAN make fun of a god and a religion. Just the xians are losing the battle to believe in their magic man so they censor their opponents every chance they get. The verbal version of killing civilians in combat.
Posted by: fardels bear | September 11, 2007 3:35 PM
Bill Donohue had better watch himself. Kathy could beat him in a battle of wits even if she handicapped herself by only talking about his choice of ties.
Posted by: Jim Lemire | September 11, 2007 3:36 PM
reminds me of the "Jesus made me fumble. He hates out team." comedy routine. Classic. And brilliant.
just tried finding a video clip of that routine, but amazingly it doesn't appear to be on the web. I can't even find the comedian's name. So much for the "Age of Information".
Posted by: Dustin | September 11, 2007 3:40 PM
Bill Donahue is kind of like Bernardo Gui, except that he isn't played by F. Murray Abraham and he hasn't written the definitive book on methods of inquisition. By my estimation, that makes him a great big douchebag.
Posted by: Skemono | September 11, 2007 3:41 PM
I've always thought that if I were at one of these televised award shows, I would say something like "If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity thought the best use of its time were to make me win this award, that deity is not worth worshiping. Hey, God? Get off your ass and get to Darfur!"
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 11, 2007 3:43 PM
Greg is probably talking about this, although I'm not sure whether the guy who flushed the Quran was charged with a felony or a misdemeanor.
Posted by: Tom Foss | September 11, 2007 3:43 PM
The FCC, apparently. I've heard "suck" edited out of songs on the radio even when they didn't have the clearer sexual implication of Kathy Griffin's awesome comment. There's a line in one of Pink's songs that goes "she thinks you suck," using the term in its colloquial sense, which gets consistently edited when it's broadcast. I think that's more than a bit ridiculous, but then I think the FCC is a terrible organization that has long outlived any usefulness it ever had.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | September 11, 2007 3:49 PM
I have it on the word of a reliable source that Bill Donohue smells exactly like expired yogurt.
Hate speech! Hate speech!
CALL THE CHURCH POLICE!
Posted by: MAJeff | September 11, 2007 3:50 PM
Wanna tell the Academy to suck it for their censorship? Here's the president's email:
dick.askin@emmyleader.org
Posted by: strech | September 11, 2007 3:54 PM
RE: The Koran thing.
What happened is he flushed the University Library's copy of the Koran down the toilet. The destruction of property was a misdemeanor, but the Hate Crime law turned the misdemeanor into a felony. I'm not sure why; I think it was a case of them not writing the hate crimes laws carefully.
I support Hate Crime laws - they're about motivation not speech and as per manslaughter vs first degree murder different motivations can and should affect the severity of the punishment - but the Koran case shows the laws can be written poorly and unjust; they certainly shouldn't turn misdemeanors into felonies.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 11, 2007 3:56 PM
Hate speech laws, even if/when consitutional, don't apply here (and there's no free speech issue either). At issue is poor taste and whether the network wishes to air the remark. E! is free to if it wishes or may edit. I would expect Griffin's tasteless remark to be edited whether its object was Jesus, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton or Richard Dawkins. A bigger star trashing a very unpopular object might not be edited, but I'm skeptical about that. The question is largely an economic one, in my view.
Posted by: strech | September 11, 2007 3:56 PM
I have no idea why I randomly capitalized things there ... I think I need some sleep.
Posted by: Scotty B | September 11, 2007 3:57 PM
Suck it, Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I don't really mean that, but you see my point. All hail FSM. May you be touched by his noodly appendages, etc.
p.s. Don't forget that the biggest Pastafarian holiday (International Talk Like A Pirate Day) is coming up next week! RAmen.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 11, 2007 4:05 PM
"who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech.""
Bill's right. You should mask your hate speech with faux-piety. I mean come on guys, have some tact!
I always thought these award shows were live. How lame.
Posted by: Chris Bell | September 11, 2007 4:09 PM
Another reminder why the left should know better than to support hate speech laws....
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2007 4:10 PM
Sinbad, I disagree with your characterization of Griffin's remarks as 'tasteless'. They were both spicy and zesty and would have added a much-needed kick in the pants to the bland flavorless mush* the FCC lets past their censors.
*I call it Rootmarm.
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2007 4:13 PM
Based on this sentence I can tell you have neither paid attention to the discussion nor have any idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | September 11, 2007 4:14 PM
I haven't got time to watch her show, but You Go Girl anyway!
As far as the Kiddy Diddlers of Rome go, well every day the sun comes up there are fewer of them. Unfortunately their lost souls just go off to buy another spiritual product, just as annoying and just as silly.
Posted by: Numad | September 11, 2007 4:16 PM
"Another reminder why the left should know better than to support hate speech laws...."
As other have said, the first thing wrong with this statement is that hate speech has nothing to do with this.
Posted by: Sarcastro | September 11, 2007 4:20 PM
Suck it, Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I don't really mean that...
Helloooo! Flying Spaghetti Monster! He/She/It was made for sucking!
Oh for Kibo's sake, I've fallen into an infinite regress... so WHO made the FSM!?!?!?
Posted by: Tiskel | September 11, 2007 4:20 PM
It's funny how many people are commenting on the site about how much of an outcry there would be if she said the same thing about Allah. I think it would be hillarious to see the same outcry the first time someone *thanked* Allah on one of those shows, or after winning a big game,etc.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 11, 2007 4:22 PM
"Sinbad, I disagree with your characterization of Griffin's remarks as 'tasteless'. They were both spicy and zesty and would have added a much-needed kick in the pants to the bland flavorless mush* the FCC lets past their censors."
If E! agreed and, more importantly, thought most viewers would agree with your assessment I suspect the remarks wouldn't have been edited.
Posted by: Davis | September 11, 2007 4:28 PM
The Catholic League is a tax-exempt front for right wing propaganda, and Donohue is a professional outrage machine (I stole that from someone; Digby, I think).
I have always liked Kathy Griffin, now I love her.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 11, 2007 4:38 PM
The FSM made me get flecks of tomato sauce on my new white sweater when I twirled the host around my fork the other night. I am being punished for heating up the sauce in the microwave instead of on the stove, as nature intended. Surely I will spend eternity in a big fiery lake of over-cooked Spaghetti-Ohs.
Oops. What's the topic again? Oh yeah.
Hey, it's Sinbad! Hi, Sinbad. I was wondering where you'd gone.
"Taste" is often subjective, but yes, E! is concerned about airing something that will provoke the the delight of many but ire of millions, though I have wonder if she'd said "Allah" instead of "Jesus" what the all-around reaction would have been.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 11, 2007 4:40 PM
Oops, I'm a little behind the curve on the Allah thing. Shoulda refreshed before posting.
Posted by: Sonja | September 11, 2007 4:43 PM
I didn't think Kathy Griffin was all that funny doing stand-up until I got hooked on her Bravo show, "My Life on the D-List". Now I absolutely love her! In this last season, she also makes a few comments about priests (with which Donohue may also be familiar).
Kathy asks her mother why she still hangs out with those kid-f*ckers in the Catholic church, to which her mother replies, "Oh Kathleen, some of those priests hardly even touched those kids ...".
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | September 11, 2007 4:51 PM
I would thank Zeus instead. The effect is the same, and if anyone complained, I could then charge them with "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech."
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 11, 2007 4:51 PM
Will someone please explain to me why I repeatedly have to explain to grown adults that entity A "having the right" to do something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their decision to exercise that right is worthy of criticism?
Posted by: ERV | September 11, 2007 4:54 PM
Me too! She talks about her atheism/makes jokes at the expense of Biblos a lot on the show too!Go Bravo for not censoring her there!
Posted by: Chris Bell | September 11, 2007 4:55 PM
As other have said, the first thing wrong with this statement is that hate speech has nothing to do with this.
That's my point. "Hate speech" is a concept invented to protect minorities, but it will inevitably be perverted to protect majorities instead.
This is not "hate speech" ... but it will be.
Posted by: Randy Owens | September 11, 2007 5:01 PM
Well, even if you haven't been on TV, you could still be up for an Oscar. Would that be a good enough opportunity for you?Posted by: AlanWCan | September 11, 2007 5:02 PM
Land of the free^H^H^H^H^Htimid, home of the brave^H^H^H^H^Hprudish....or something.
Posted by: SteveM | September 11, 2007 5:03 PM
"reminds me of the "Jesus made me fumble. He hates out team." comedy routine. Classic. And brilliant."
Could be George Carlin. Just saw an old performance of his on HBO last night where he asks, "...and what is it with sports people thanking Jesus for their achievement? How come you never see any of them blame Jesus when they lose? 'Jesus made me fumble' ..."
Posted by: Sinbad | September 11, 2007 5:08 PM
"Hi, Sinbad. I was wondering where you'd gone."
I've been around, but hadn't seen anything worth commenting on in a while.
"...though I have wonder if she'd said "Allah" instead of "Jesus" what the all-around reaction would have been."
I suspect that would have been edited out too, though the level and nature of the fear behind the move would have been different.
"Kathy asks her mother why she still hangs out with those kid-f*ckers in the Catholic church, to which her mother replies, 'Oh Kathleen, some of those priests hardly even touched those kids ...'."
Child-abusers of all stripes deserve big-time punishment, but I think we make priests far too easy a target. All professions with lots of contact with kids have serious issues here.
http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/08/selective-outrage.html
"Will someone please explain to me why I repeatedly have to explain to grown adults that entity A 'having the right' to do something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their decision to exercise that right is worthy of criticism?
Azkyroth, if you really intended to post this in response to what I wrote, it's a non sequitur.
Posted by: June | September 11, 2007 5:11 PM
I don't think 'suck' has an exclusive connotation of 'sexual osculation'.
There are several wonderfully funny (yet tasteful) slang uses of 'suck' such as
-- "We are sucking the big one in Iraq" (we're killing ourselves, breaking our bank, losing our mojo).
-- "The war in Iraq sucks" (it is a bummer, NG, loser, crock)
-- "Suck it up" (internalize your pain, be strong, stiff upper lip)
If KG were really inviting a divine kiss in this context, she would have said 'KMA, Jesus'.
And so one must wonder whether she meant to say
Suck it UP, Jesus. This award is my god now.'
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 11, 2007 5:13 PM
With regards to "Jesus made me fumble", I'm pretty sure it's in "Free-Floating Hostility" on the Back in Town disc.
Posted by: dhonig | September 11, 2007 5:18 PM
I was a criminal defense attorney for years. Inevitably, whenever the verdict came back "not guilty" the client would look to the sky and say "Thank you, Jesus." My response was always the same- "wrong Jew."
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 11, 2007 5:23 PM
"Child-abusers of all stripes deserve big-time punishment, but I think we make priests far too easy a target. All professions with lots of contact with kids have serious issues here."
But priests are deliberately protected by their employers when they are caught molesting children. One could also argue that with the priests' position as next-to-God in the eyes of their communities and especially the children within those communities makes their abuses that much more heinous. Other folks abuse the trust we place in them to take care of our children and maybe even to instruct them, but priests abuse not only our trust, but the trust of the children, to whom the priest is the one who will shepherd them and their families to heaven.
Easy target, indeed. Big, glowing red one.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | September 11, 2007 5:29 PM
On a day like today, it's important to remember one thing:
People of faith fly planes into buildings.
Why they think they're entitled to something for that is beyond me.
.
Posted by: Janine | September 11, 2007 5:32 PM
What you ungrateful louts here refuses to realize it this; Bill Donohue has taught us a valuable lesson. Jesus is a thin skinned and delicate deity. Jesus needs to have his holy warriors like Donohue to protect his holy ass. It is way too easy for the like of Kathy Griffin to wound the great redemer with her sharp words.
Hey! The big sky daddy's boy is way too easy too bully. So, yeah, any anti Jesus speech is hate speech. He is so easily oppressed by any critical talk. Jesus needs to be protected. If only the louts here knew just how delicate Jesus is. That is why Donohue needs to be such a strong catholic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 5:35 PM
If E! agreed and, more importantly, thought most viewers would agree with your assessment I suspect the remarks wouldn't have been edited.
you really don't know how the Spanish Inquisition that calls itself the FCC works, do you?
a much more likely explanation is that E! wasn't willing to risk being fined by the FCC.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | September 11, 2007 5:40 PM
Kudos to Kathy, but it would have been cooler if she said, "Suck it, Jesus. Well, that's what my priest used to say to the choir boys."
Posted by: jeffk | September 11, 2007 5:40 PM
"Will someone please explain to me why I repeatedly have to explain to grown adults that entity A 'having the right' to do something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their decision to exercise that right is worthy of criticism?
Azkyroth, I've been asking that question for years. Good I'm not alone.
Posted by: Zeno | September 11, 2007 5:44 PM
In every media appearance, Bill Donohue demonstrates that he is the most un-Christian of Christians.
Posted by: Bechamel | September 11, 2007 5:45 PM
Um, the FCC's jurisdiction in enforcing "decency" only applies to over-the-air broadcasts, not cable. E!'s only risk was outraged viewers.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 11, 2007 5:50 PM
"But priests are deliberately protected by their employers when they are caught molesting children."
Many have been and it's horrible. Many teachers have been too (for example), by both school districts and teachers unions.
"One could also argue that with the priests' position as next-to-God in the eyes of their communities and especially the children within those communities makes their abuses that much more heinous."
True, although anyone in authority with a position of trust has similar status. Note too that the research I cited in my blog post suggests that teachers are even more of a threat to children than priests are, both on a numerical basis and on a percentage basis.
"[Y]ou really don't know how the Spanish Inquisition that calls itself the FCC works, do you?
You really aren't aware of a little something called jurisdiction, are you?
Posted by: Brownian | September 11, 2007 6:04 PM
You don't think the fact that priests claim access to a higher moral authority has anything to do with it?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 11, 2007 6:07 PM
Frac wrote:
http://kathygriffin.net/contactus.php
I just wrote her. I imagine the Jesus-bots will drown us out though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 6:10 PM
You really aren't aware of a little something called jurisdiction, are you?
nope, my bad. I thought the FCC had influence there too.
I officially take my lumps.
OTOH...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11492
oops.
perhaps you need to investigate the actions of the FCC beyond their jurisdiction?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 6:14 PM
"As the chairman of the FCC, Powell has a duty to regulate media in the public interest. "
now this is concerning how the cable companies themselves decide what to show, but if the FCC feels it has a duty here...
how is that within their jurisdiction, eh?
while you are right that it's unlikely E! would be influenced by the FCC in this specific case, you're wrong to think that the FCC doesn't and will not have an influence in cable broadcasts.
Posted by: Numad | September 11, 2007 6:25 PM
"That's my point. 'Hate speech' is a concept invented to protect minorities, but it will inevitably be perverted to protect majorities instead.
This is not "hate speech" ... but it will be."
I think you're missing both my point and the point of hate speech. Unless you're arguing that any definition can be given to 'hate speech', but that's true of anything.
Posted by: Brad | September 11, 2007 6:33 PM
I don't care, I still can't stand her. Unfunny comedian.
Posted by: craig | September 11, 2007 6:43 PM
you really don't know how the Spanish Inquisition that calls itself the FCC works, do you?
a much more likely explanation is that E! wasn't willing to risk being fined by the FCC.
E! is a cable channel, not a broadcast channel, and the FCC has no jurisdiction as far as content. The FCC cannot fine cable-only channels for swearing, etc., in the way that they can broadcast channels.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 6:44 PM
oh, here's another recent bit of news showing how broadly the FCC is involved in broadcasting, including the cable industry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/business/media/26fcc.html?ei=5090&en=d6caaaf68ecd24be&ex=1335240000&pagewanted=print
Posted by: craig | September 11, 2007 6:44 PM
whoops, sorry for my repetitive comment. I hadn't refreshed the page lately I guess, missed some comments.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 6:45 PM
you're too late, craig, read #79.
Posted by: MonoApe | September 11, 2007 7:01 PM
Her website (http://www.kathygriffin.net/) quotes her as saying:
"Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now."
Posted by: usagi | September 11, 2007 7:05 PM
He's not upset about the "hate speech"; he's fuming about the heresy. Kathy's raised Catholic ('efin IRISH Catholic). And there's no sanctions Billy and his minions can enforce. (Well, not technically true--I'm sure she'll lose bookings over it, but that's more a temporal matter than celestial, and boys like Billy love to sit in judgment and damn people to hell. See Orac on 9/8.)
I'm delighted to hear she won this year. Although flipping off the winner (Extreme Home Makeover last time) and telling them to "Suck my dick!" while storming out could have made for some fun television as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2007 7:16 PM
And there's no sanctions Billy and his minions can enforce.
did they stop using excommunication as a tool of obedience?
oh wait, you're talking about EFFECTIVE sanctions...
Posted by: ike | September 11, 2007 7:26 PM
As my mother calls me a fallen away catholic though i tell her i am an athiest there is something about catholics especially the nuns and ex nuns that commit their life to service. I have seen it. They should be, of all people downtrodden, beat up by the church but spend their life in service to other people.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 11, 2007 7:29 PM
Ichthyic -- That a bureaucratic agency would suggest that organizations in its regulatory field get together and propose a solution to a perceived problem (your first link) or lobby for additional regulatory authority (your second link) is not exactly man bites dog surprising. Moreover, neither fact in any way limits what E! could or should do in this situation.
Posted by: Steverino | September 11, 2007 7:42 PM
How is this any different then the Christian Right littering our TV viewing time with anti-gay BS>?
Posted by: Steverino | September 11, 2007 7:46 PM
...aside from the fact that..SHE WAS NOT SPEAKING HATRED ABOUT A GROUP.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 11, 2007 7:51 PM
I have wonder if she'd said "Allah" instead of "Jesus" what the all-around reaction would have been.
Confusion.
Nobody thanks Allah when they win an Emmy.
Posted by: Jen | September 11, 2007 8:46 PM
Funny, since one of her stand-up specials is entitled:
Everybody can suck it.
I guess that includes Hank, Jesus, and me, too. And after spitting a gin & tonic across the keyboard watching her account of her run-in with Mary-Kate (here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhjJ5wPzA0I)--sorry, I'm not confident enough to encode it--I am feeling fully willing to suck it.
I'm starting to change my mind about KG.
Posted by: Jen | September 11, 2007 8:47 PM
Grr...even then, my link somehow runs together.
Sob.
Posted by: Honjii | September 11, 2007 8:54 PM
The fact that her comments will be censored shows how mired we still are in the dark ages, or as some people like to refer to it the age of endarkment. Sigh!
Posted by: Russell Blackford | September 11, 2007 9:04 PM
Kudos to Griffin for laughing at all those other award winners, with their sanctimonious thanks to Jesus or God or Lord Jehovah, or whatever.
But what is frightening is that Donohue and his lot apparently consider any satire directed at religious sentiment to be "hate speech" that should be suppressed. This is not a moderate position, folks. I draw two lessons:
1. This is further evidence that the Catholic Church is not a moderate institution. That isn't news to me, but I am continually dumbfounded when I see atheists and secularists talking about the Catholic Church as if it counted among the "moderates". (I have some further discussion here, in the context of therapeutic cloning, etc.: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/09/therapeutic-cloning-debate-moves-to.html.)
2. Beware of ever supporting religious vilification legislation. If it existed in the US now, there'd be people wanting to apply it to Kathy Griffin. If the litigation failed, there'd be pressure to give the legislation more "teeth". Where I live (Melbourne, Australia), the government has made a big mistake in enacting such legislation. So far, there is hope that it will operate fairly sensibly ... though only at enormous expense to anyone who is hauled before the tribunal ... but once such legislation is in place, it makes free speech a hostage to fortune. I suggest that everyone in a jurisdiction without such legislation continue to resist it and that everyone in a jurisdiction where it exists monitor the situation with concern. Even restricted legislation is the thin end of a thick wedge.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | September 11, 2007 9:06 PM
If what Griffin says qualifies as "hate speech", then every word spewed by that bloated sack of crap known as Bill Donohoe is hate speech. Hate against reason, logic, dignity, and humanity...
Posted by: cyan | September 11, 2007 9:07 PM
The most productive way to change this further censorship is by a flood of emails to
dick.askin@emmyleader.org
as MAJeff posted in #39. (Thanks, MAJeff).
Tell 'em that you are or will be contacting the sponsors of this and future shows.
Its the potential money that talks with producers, not ethics.
It doesn't matter if you think K.G. is funny or not. What matters is that in this matter, her opinion on the worthlessness of the supernatural is being censored because its thought that others whose views are similar to hers do not influence the market. Let's show them that we care that our views should be regarded with every bit as much seriousness as those of godbots, because it will make a difference in profits.
Write and send.
Posted by: Aerik | September 11, 2007 9:10 PM
You can't make me ashamed of the fact that I love to watch Kathy's show "Livin' Life on the D–List."
I remember just before her father died, she did a bit about telling her parents about being booked for Rosie O'Donnels cruise for gay and lesbian parents and their families. She said that her parents, like most Catholics, take the lord's name in vain more than anybody else. She did impressions of her mother with every variation of 'god damnit', 'oh jesus h. tap–dancing christ' and 'oh, peter paul and all the apostles' she could come up with.
It's not like they couldn't see that kind of comment coming.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 11, 2007 9:24 PM
Just to be fair...Suck it, Mohammed! Suck it, Moses!
There
Posted by: Ken Sponburg | September 11, 2007 9:28 PM
Kathy Griffin is such a sweet woman. Love her to death. Glad she stood up and said what she believed. She's one atheist who people should know not to mess with! Love ya Kathy! And I'm not gay either! You do have straight fans out there :-)
Posted by: Shawn W | September 11, 2007 9:42 PM
'Dick in a Box' won an Emmy? lol!
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2007 10:00 PM
Suck it Zenu!
Suck it L. Ron!
Posted by: Robert S. | September 11, 2007 10:05 PM
Bill should've agreed with her. After all, shouldn't he be offended that a bunch of drug-using, spouse-swapping, devil-worshiping artistes are praising his God for their entertainment awards?
Besides, Bill, blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | September 11, 2007 10:14 PM
Kathy Griffin advances on my list now.
And that is not considering meeting both her and Emmy...
Posted by: Robert S. | September 11, 2007 10:20 PM
Well said, Bill Snedden.
In fact the very belief in hell, which I'm guessing Donohue espouses, the idea that a god would send humans to an eternal punishment, even if they lead good lives - that is misanthropic and anti-human. That's hate speech.
Posted by: CJ | September 11, 2007 10:56 PM
You could start out by crossing yourself with the sign of the "A" and then thanking (somewhat) faithful replication.
Posted by: Alison | September 11, 2007 10:57 PM
What always seems interesting to me is how the religious compare criticism of their faith to criticism of some hereditary trait. "If she said something about gays" or "if she said something about african-americans", they say, "th' libruls 'd be all over it!" It's apples to oranges. You don't have a choice about your hair color, or height, or ethnicity, so anyone judging you for that kind of thing is definitely not right. However, people do have the choice to believe they were abducted by UFOs, or that the earth is hollow and an advanced civilization lives inside, or that some invisible guy in the sky makes all their decisions for them. If you choose to believe something ridiculous, then you've deliberately opened yourself up to criticism. You don't have the same case as the person who got beaten up because he was funny-looking, or passed over for a job because he had the wrong last name. Comparing yourself to them only makes you look MORE deluded.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2007 11:02 PM
Would love to see someone do this on the Country Music Awards.
Now THAT what be a "hoot".
Posted by: Kseniya | September 11, 2007 11:13 PM
Alison - good point.
I do respect a person's right to believe...
Whether or not I have respect for the belief itself, however, depends a quite a lot on the nature of the belief!
Posted by: Zeno | September 11, 2007 11:24 PM
Geez Louise. If it happened on the Country Music Awards it would be a splatterfest because of all the exploded heads. The collateral damage from the shock wave would be incredible.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2007 11:31 PM
Exactly! Or how about a Nascar racer announcing he's an atheist.
The prayer before the race makes me groan.
Posted by: Brownian | September 11, 2007 11:53 PM
Steve_C, I've had just about enough of your in-your-face anti-country music and anti-NASCAR hate speech.
Why do you hate freedom so much, commie?
Posted by: The Countess of Accountability | September 12, 2007 12:02 AM
He's not a commie - far from it! He's The King of Dismissiveness!
Posted by: usagi | September 12, 2007 12:40 AM
Perhaps too heavy for the venue and the thread, but I was actually recalling the glory days of the Catholic Legion of Decency. Guys like Billy used to be able to make performers unemployable. Now, not so much.
I'd be curious to watch some enterprising young documentarian see how many Catholics coming out of a church activity could actually identify Billy. He's welcome to be as annoyed as he wants to be about whatever, but I can't stand the authority and deference he's accorded for no apparent reason other than he's upset about things a lot and that usually makes good television.
Posted by: Steven Carr | September 12, 2007 1:39 AM
Slogan for Catholic schools 'No child's behind left'
Does that count as hate speech?
Posted by: Steven Carr | September 12, 2007 1:45 AM
This was very predictable.
There have been a couple of atheist books written in the past year with the inevitable results :- Hollywood actresses are no longer thanking Jesus for their awards.
I'm sure that if Dawkins had known what would happen, he would never have started on that book. I hear that he is crying now that he has seen what his words have lead to.
Is it too late to recall all the copies?
Posted by: J Myers | September 12, 2007 1:52 AM
Alison, I agree with your sentiment, but not your formulation: I don't think anyone has the slightest choice in what they believe. If a beliefs are simply things we think are true, they're not ours to specify--they are what we arrive at after our minds have worked over our experiences and knowledge (both consciously and subconsciously). That's the mystery about BD and his kind--what cascade of neurological misfires causes them to come down where they do? These people really believe some remarkable absurdities, which doesn't mean that they decided what reality would be; it means their faculties compel them to infer from their experiences that this ghastly nonsense is actually true, like it or not.
Posted by: J Myers | September 12, 2007 1:56 AM
Steven (#118), it's not hate speech, just plagarism ;)
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 12, 2007 2:31 AM
The Catholic League has posted Griffin's agent's, Tim Curtis, email at the William Morris Agency: tc@wma.com
Posted by: Brownian | September 12, 2007 2:57 AM
Thanks Norman. From the CL's site: ACADEMY TO CENSOR KATHY GRIFFIN; SHE STILL NEEDS TO APOLOGIZE
Do they really expect her to apologise to a dead guy?
Posted by: 386sx | September 12, 2007 3:12 AM
Do they really expect her to apologise to a dead guy?
No they want her to apologise to all Christians because she said that Jesus didn't help her to win her award and that, "Suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now." They aren't asking her to apologise to Jesus, AFAIK.
If she apologises then Jesus will feel all better and she will be forgiven, but if she does not then she will be remembered by Jesus as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.
Posted by: Brownian | September 12, 2007 3:20 AM
Wait, wait. Pope John Paul II made several apologies for Catholic wrongdoings, including one in 2001 for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204.
Given that Cathy's blasphemy falls somewhere lower on the list of things one should apologise for (one would hope that telling Jesus to 'suck it' is less bad in God's eyes than rape and murder, but no two True Christians™ seem to be able to agree on who or what God hates most, but merely that He hates), she should be granted at least six centuries before she has to tell Jesus that she's sorry.
After all, it seems rather hypocritical that Catholics would expect an atheist to conform more strongly to their sense of morality than their own church.
Posted by: Sean | September 12, 2007 3:47 AM
I am still chortling over the thought of such a comment being made at the Country Music Awards. (comment 111) I work in a small room with two guys who prefer their music twangy and thus two out of three work days is 97.7 Biiiiiig Country.
O. M. G.
My faded memories of country had been beer drinking and relationship issues. Those still crop up, but for those who are not as cursed as I, praising Jesus is now a dominant theme.
I really enjoy the o/~ Jesusssss taaaaake the wheeeeeel o/~ caterwauling. An entire song devoted to the concept that the singer is incapable of running her own life, is thus giving up, and expects God to take over. So inspirational.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | September 12, 2007 5:22 AM
Re Norman's comment, I sent a supportive letter to her agent this morning and I hope that some others will as well to give a bit of balance.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | September 12, 2007 6:55 AM
"dick.askin@emmyleader.org"
Dick Askin?
What an unfortunate name.
Stuart
Posted by: True Bob | September 12, 2007 8:07 AM
Stuart,
Dick Askin - no worse than Dick Armey. hunh hunh
And rock on Steve_C. Country 'music' already does suck it, and NASCAR fans would faint if they saw a RH turn.
Posted by: Graculus | September 12, 2007 8:37 AM
There are several wonderfully funny (yet tasteful) slang uses of 'suck' such as
Erm, no. Unless it specifically refers to something other than penis, it's a fellatio reference. Try Those phrases using "suck" as a transitive verb. English is a fairly rude language, all told. (Yay English!)
My response was always the same- "wrong Jew."
If I were Jewish I would so steal this.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 12, 2007 9:26 AM
Graculus, yeah, that's pretty much what my parents said. Pretty much everyone uses "suck" in a casual way as a generic negative, but it was always discouraged at home on the grounds that it was rude and disrespectful. When I was old enough to be told why, I understood: the cock is implied, always.
In another generation or two, that may no longer be true. IIRC, "nice" used to mean something quite vulgar.
Posted by: Alison | September 12, 2007 9:44 AM
J Myers, you definitely have a point. Dawkins explained nicely why children accept the beliefs their parents teach them, and there's no question that people who are indoctrinated early don't necessarily have a choice. However, as adults, we CAN make that choice. Most of us atheists grew up with some of that religious indoctrination, but realized that it was wrong and left it. Children now are being born into and raised by families who practice non-mainstream faiths, but not so long ago, those faiths were becoming popular because of adult conversions. Holocaust denialists count adults among their new members all the time, adding to the unfortunates whose parents taught them this foolishness. The point is, while a belief might well be something you can't help but have because you've been taught from birth that it's true, it's not something that cannot be changed. The whole point of challenging irrational beliefs is to change them, and it works often enough that continued challenging is justified.
The hurdles to changing a belief may seem insurmountable, creating the illusion that they aren't a choice. I see the apologetics and mental gymnastics required to maintain faith in the face of contradictory evidence as even further evidence that it's a choice. You could even liken it to a heavy smoking habit, alcoholism, or drug addiction. It provides a feeling you think you need. It's really, really hard to quit, so you either don't try, or come up with an ever-expanding litany of why you can't. There are repercussions from quitting - you lose your comfort source, you completely change the routines of your life, and you may have to remove yourself from parts of your social circle. Just like religion. But people quit smoking, drinking, and using addictive drugs all the time, too.
It may not seem like a choice, but it is. And as a choice, it is open to criticism in a way that your genetics or family background or sexual orientation or intelligence are not. I wish there were a fast and efficient way of getting this across to the people who think that comparing criticism of religion to racism, sexism, etc., bias against inborn traits, is a good analogy. Sadly, the same mechanism that allows them to believe despite evidence prevents this.
Posted by: Dave K | September 12, 2007 11:57 AM
Kseniya wrote:
"When I was old enough to be told why, I understood: the cock is implied, always. In another generation or two, that may no longer be true."
Actually, it's already true, and it represents a big generational divide. In my own speech, and in the speech of the great majority of people younger than me (I'm 41), "suck" in the usual colloquial sense ("You suck" or "This sucks") has absolutely no sexual connotations whatsoever. It's just an informal, slangy word, with no more sexual connotation than "stink" in "You stink". Yet most people just a few years older than me, and quite a few my age or even a little younger, get very uncomfortable with that use of "suck", because to them it inevitably and directly implies fellatio. I remember the first time somebody got upset at me for using that word, because it had literally never occurred to me that it referred to sucking a penis, though once they pointed it out I could see that that was probably the origin of the expression. It just doesn't have that meaning for me, and I'm pretty sure the same would be true of the vast majority of teenagers and young adults today.
Posted by: Dave K | September 12, 2007 11:58 AM
Kseniya wrote:
"When I was old enough to be told why, I understood: the cock is implied, always. In another generation or two, that may no longer be true."
Actually, it's already true, and it represents a big generational divide. In my own speech, and in the speech of the great majority of people younger than me (I'm 41), "suck" in the usual colloquial sense ("You suck" or "This sucks") has absolutely no sexual connotations whatsoever. It's just an informal, slangy word, with no more sexual connotation than "stink" in "You stink". Yet most people just a few years older than me, and quite a few my age or even a little younger, get very uncomfortable with that use of "suck", because to them it inevitably and directly implies fellatio. I remember the first time somebody got upset at me for using that word, because it had literally never occurred to me that it referred to sucking a penis, though once they pointed it out I could see that that was probably the origin of the expression. It just doesn't have that meaning for me, and I'm pretty sure the same would be true of the vast majority of teenagers and young adults today.
Posted by: Dave K | September 12, 2007 11:59 AM
Kseniya wrote:
"When I was old enough to be told why, I understood: the cock is implied, always. In another generation or two, that may no longer be true."
Actually, it's already true, and it represents a big generational divide. In my own speech, and in the speech of the great majority of people younger than me (I'm 41), "suck" in the usual colloquial sense ("You suck" or "This sucks") has absolutely no sexual connotations whatsoever. It's just an informal, slangy word, with no more sexual connotation than "stink" in "You stink". Yet most people just a few years older than me, and quite a few my age or even a little younger, get very uncomfortable with that use of "suck", because to them it inevitably and directly implies fellatio. I remember the first time somebody got upset at me for using that word, because it had literally never occurred to me that it referred to sucking a penis, though once they pointed it out I could see that that was probably the origin of the expression. It just doesn't have that meaning for me, and I'm pretty sure the same would be true of the vast majority of teenagers and young adults today.
Posted by: CortxVortx | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM
Re: #38 "... CALL THE CHURCH POLICE!"
"Oh, Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo uttered the 'ate speech!"
(Oh, and a slice of strawberry tart without so much rat in it...)
-- CV
Posted by: Bob Lombardo | September 12, 2007 12:02 PM
Right on Kathy, the idiots are playing right into your hands. I for one can't wait to see your next show. donahue sure gave you lots of ammo with his stupidity.
I guess he didn't want pat robertson (lower case intended on these names, they don't deserve it.) to attack him, so instead he censured you.
Funny how they wont censure coultergiest for all her vitriol and hate speech, guess you have to be a fundy right wing-nut type to be able to get away with that stuff.
Anyway, we LOVE you Kathy
Posted by: lily straton | September 12, 2007 12:36 PM
it was tasteless to say it such a manner, do you think maybe Kathy has lost all perspective on what people think is the most holy person ever on earth.
this is the Christian West after all, founded on Christian princepals
but Kathy and anyone else who remotely thinks like her are delusional
frightening - look what they did to John Lennon because at least he had the excuse at the time to be from rabid Liverpool where there sense of quick speak is all jabbing quips - that was somehow a mistake it seemed
this on the other hand is shocking for it's in your face - and people are posting how sexy she is - you're all a joke and the last laugh is for those who mock the living God to get a worthless award for a television show which on the whole is just a waste of the viewers time.
they think all the religious are all nutters
john lennon returned his MBE (knight of the british empire) he was not going to go along with the wicked plans as such as he could see them
blind following the blind
Posted by: CortxVortx | September 12, 2007 12:47 PM
Re: #138
Wow, lily, wonderfully incoherent rant!
-- CV
Posted by: True Bob | September 12, 2007 12:50 PM
I'm pretty much with you, DaveK. I was stunned by how vociferously my step-mom reacted when I said something sucked.
Posted by: zer0 | September 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Fucking shit #138... where you too busy getting mouth fucked in catholic school to learn about periods?
Seriously, you need to take a moment out of your busy day of playing the ball washer to the big invisible man in the sky and crack a text book.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 12, 2007 12:55 PM
"Thanks Norman. From the CL's site: ACADEMY TO CENSOR KATHY GRIFFIN; SHE STILL NEEDS TO APOLOGIZE"
See, they're never satisfied. "Fairness" and "equal treatment" will never be enough for them. They want total immunity and deference. They, quite frankly, can suck it. And I hope Kathy tells them that.
"you're all a joke and the last laugh is for those who mock the living God to get a worthless award for a television show which on the whole is just a waste of the viewers time."
Har har. She won the award before she mocked the "living god". And really, if the Emmys are so beneath you, then why complain about what the winners say?
And also, is God really so insecure that he can't stand not being given credit for every little thing?
Posted by: Kseniya | September 12, 2007 1:05 PM
Yes, if you mean the God of the people who think so. ;-)
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 12, 2007 1:18 PM
lily straton wrote:
We don't think think all the religious are all nutters. For example, in your case we know you're nuts.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 12, 2007 1:36 PM
First of all, it's actually Member of the British Empire. Second, John Lennon was also the one who said "Imagine no religion", "God is a concept by which we measure our pain", and the following:
What are you trying to prove?
Posted by: Bob Lombardo | September 12, 2007 1:49 PM
Right on Kathy, the idiots are playing right into your hands. I for one can't wait to see your next show. donahue sure gave you lots of ammo with his stupidity.
I guess he didn't want pat robertson (lower case intended on these names, they don't deserve it.) to attack him, so instead he censured you.
Funny how they wont censure coultergiest for all her vitriol and hate speech, guess you have to be a fundy right wing-nut type to be able to get away with that stuff.
Anyway, we LOVE you Kathy
Posted by: cooler | September 12, 2007 2:15 PM
There is a new documentary called Zeitgeist, the first part claims that Jesus christ never existed, the last parts deal with 9/11/ conspiracies, the first part is pretty good for atheists, the last part you would probably need a pretty open mind to get into , but its interesting. This video is going crazy on google, its getting like 40k views a day, worth a watch.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331
Posted by: Fatboy | September 12, 2007 2:39 PM
Re: DaveK from #133, #134, #135
I'm with Kseniya on this, and I'm 28. Maybe we're going through the transformation right now, but I'm not going to let my daughter say it (well, as much as I can stop her from saying anything vulgar).
Posted by: True Bob | September 12, 2007 2:45 PM
Fatboy, my next door neighbor wanted the same thing. Then one day, his daughter said, with exasperation, "I just want something to SUCK!". She wanted a popsicle.
Expletives die off as they lose their uniqueness, their punch. I hear 'bitch' all the time, as 'to complain' (bitch bitch bitch), but I also hear 'beeyotch', on the good ole telly. Losing its impact.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | September 12, 2007 2:57 PM
How dare she mock the Caucasian Jesus!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 12, 2007 4:36 PM
I wonder if I'll be able to get this URL through the spam filter: www.suckitjesus.com.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 12, 2007 5:10 PM
And that's why they call him... "Blake!" :-)
Posted by: Janine | September 12, 2007 6:16 PM
Concerning #138. Wow! I think Lily's brain was gilded many years ago. What was the point? Was lightning was going to strike and we would fall on our collectives knees to place ourselves prostrate to the big sky daddy?
It was good for a laugh.
Posted by: Janine | September 12, 2007 6:17 PM
Concerning #138. Wow! I think Lily's brain was gilded many years ago. What was the point? Was lightning was going to strike and we would fall on our collectives knees to place ourselves prostrate to the big sky daddy?
It was good for a laugh.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 12, 2007 7:09 PM
Lily Straton.
Godbot.
What the hell is a living god? Has a heartbeat? Takes a daily crap? Needs to eat less sugar?
Oh wait. Jesus is the living god? Wait. Didn't he die on a cross supposedly? She should be calling Jesus, The Dawn of the Living Dead God.
Brain eating zombies are cool.
Posted by: paul | September 12, 2007 7:16 PM
Some years ago a rock singer named Carol Pope won a music award in Canada. Here is how she started her acceptance speech:
"First, I would like to thank my Creator..... Max Factor."
Posted by: Brownian | September 12, 2007 7:57 PM
I can drink a helluva lot of beer without any ill effects, but people like Lily make me want to projectile vomit.
Is it because her writing shows her to be a semi-literate dingbat? No.
It's because people like her are small-minded, selfish little brats whose concern is not bringing any message of salvation to us heathens (as patronising as that is), but witnessing for the sole purpose of currying favour with Jesus and God to win a place in heaven. It's apparent from the glee and relish they demonstrate at the thought of unbelievers burning for eternity in hell.
I first became an atheist when I realised that any god who would reward self-absorbed, sycophantic, tattle-tales like her wasn't worth worshipping. ("Je-e-esus, Kathy Griffin said a bad word about you plus she won't stay on her side of the ca-a-ar! When we stop for ice cream don't give her any!")
Suck it, Lily. You disgust me.
Posted by: crf | September 12, 2007 8:38 PM
She didn't follow the protocol.
Before you make speech at the MTV awards, you're supposed to ask yourself: What would mullah Omar do?
Posted by: Dawn | September 12, 2007 8:52 PM
Garsh Lily of #138, lighten up.
I'm a christian myself and I thought she was brave and funny for what she said. Doesn't reflect what I think on the matter but I can sure admire her humour and outspokeness.
Posted by: Pacati | September 12, 2007 9:37 PM
All over the web it says, "Kathy Griffin to be censored." She's already censored.
I've hit at least 40 websites trying to find out what the "off color remark about Jesus" was.
"Suck it, Jesus."
Thank you. I was starting to wonder what was going on.
Posted by: xJane | September 12, 2007 10:11 PM
actually, before they even started handing out awards, they showed us a clips reel of past "pithy" and "humorous" comments (which winners were encouraged to be). One guy said, "I'd like to thank God. Because he really gives a damn who wins Best Animation!" The (honestly, probably mostly atheist) audience went wild, it was awesome.
Posted by: arensb | September 13, 2007 3:09 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that much humor in the line "Suck it, Jesus! This award is my god now". Not that I have anything against blasphemy (and I liked the "no one had less to do with this than Jesus" line), but the "Suck it" part seems to have shock value and little else.
Posted by: Brian F | September 13, 2007 4:33 PM
The shock value is (a) part of her public persona and (b) arguably necessary to get people's attention. Though I'll admit that she would have gotten almost as much attention had she left the last bit off, it elevates the occurrence from only slightly humorous to hilarious.
But then again, I'm all about the disrespectful humor, so....
Posted by: Dan | September 13, 2007 5:41 PM
What in the bloody hell is this retard trying to say? Is it something about Little Timmy being trapped in a well? The "Christian West?" WTF?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 14, 2007 1:14 AM
Kind of hard to tell what she meant by Christian West. That part about princepals might be a clue. Perhaps it is the place where little children get to be pals with princes of the church.
Posted by: jackie | March 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Kathy can say what she wants Now, but come Judgement Day she'll wish she hadn't, yes I'm Christian , MY GOD has better things to do than to get upset by her , after all He's will be taking care of her when the time comes, no I don't slam other Religions, God gave us all free will,if you want to follow someone who's dead thats your perogative , I'd rather stick with a sure thing.
A LOVER OF JESUS AND PROUD OF IT.>
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 8, 2008 12:54 AM
A LOVER OF JESUS AND PROUD OF IT.>
How hung is he? Is he any good?
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2008 1:12 AM
hehe... look what the cat dragged in.
Someone strayed in on a google search.
I love STAR WARS and PROUD OF IT!
Posted by: Janine | March 8, 2008 1:34 AM
You can say what you want for I know you will be eternally punished when the time comes.
Nah, you are not slamming anyone. You have your surrogate do it. You sad little person.
Posted by: Michael X | March 8, 2008 1:41 AM
"I'll stick to a sure thing." Said the muslim to the christian.
"Well, we'll all know what's what on judgement day." Said the catholic to the protestant.
"I love the one true god!" Everyone says past each other.
For a race endowed with google searching, we don't seem to be using to learn about anything...