News1 min ago
What no "Angels"
Yesterday it was reported that the Robbie Williams song "Angels" was not allowed at a wedding because non christians might find it offensive. Just the latest in a long catalogue of loony Liberal prohibitions. Why do these PC loonies take it upon themselves to be offended in advance and on behalf of one group or another? I mean it's not the actual target offendee that is complaining.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The wedding in question was a civil wedding. The current situation is that you are not allowed to have any religious references in the music or readings used in a civil ceremony.
For that reason alone, Angels would not be allowed under the current law. However, in June 2005, the government announced that it would be looking into reviewing the law.
The report I saw on the BBC is rather misleading in the way it implies that the reason was for a PC reason - reading it, it does say that it was due to the ban on religious references.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4162896.stm
Moreover, the couple say that they were not aware that this law was in place. I find this extremely strange. When I got married in 2004, we had to submit all readings and suggestions for music in advance to the registrars and were told at the initial interview that all submissions were subject to the non-religious ruling. Our registrar was also at pains to tell us how stupid she thought the restriction was!
More importantly, shouldn't it have been disallowed on the basis that the couple clearly had no understanding of the lyrical content of the song? I'm surprised they didn't try and choose U2's One as a replacement...
I agree, Loosehead, it's ridiculous. i would have thought that presuming to take offence on behalf of others was more offensive (or at least patronising) to the people they claim to be protecting, than the thing they claim to be protecting them from (hope that makes sense, it's lost me). I've heard numerous tales, for example, of some of the more level-headed members of the Muslim community (i.e. the vast majority of them) saying that, actually, they really don't mind if shops have Christmassy window displays in December, and frankly find it embarrassing that some do-gooder thinks that they would.
If it's the law, then the law, as the saying goes, is an ass.
If it's the law, then the law, as the saying goes, is an ass.
I know what you mean Littleoldme, I read an article in the times a few weeks ago by a moderate muslim, it was titled "We are not so Intolerant...." and continued "that we take offence at anthing that isn't islamic, we understand that other religions exist and are tolerant of them" later he says "... these countless acts of stupidity, (like removing crosses from the walls of crematoria) just go to paint us as extremists when really we are not"
"What do you think about the more general point of taking offence on behalf of some group or other that may not in fact be offended?"
I think that it probably depends on the particular instance. Your point about the muslim and not being offended by crosses is obviously valid but I can imagine some scenarios when it's perfectly possible to anticipate X will give offence to Y. Moreover, I'm not gay, black or disabled, but I can imagine plenty of comments *I* would find offensive regardless of whether actual target ever heard it or not.
People get their knickers in a right twist over the whole PC issue. A lot of the time, you can boil PC down to being respectful of other people, but it's become such an emotive phrase. Non-PC can be boiled down to 'It's my right to offend people'.
I dunno; "PC"s a bit like me referring to 'Daily Mail Islanders' (which I have done on this very site) - it's just used to imply that one can disregard the actual argument because a big emotive phrase has been deployed. The arguments should sink or swim on their individual merits.
It's just a shame the Daily Mail Islander's arguments are always so preposterous... If only they were as open-minded as me.
;-)
I'm not gay, black or disabled, but I can imagine plenty of comments *I* would find offensive regardless of whether actual target ever heard it or not.
Very true, but then referring to a black person as a n***er, for example, or treating gay people as the spawn of Satan is fully intended to offend and upset from the start, so should be given the contempt it deserves. A cross on a wall, or a Nativity scene in a shop window is not aimed at upsetting people.
As for "political correctness", its basic, fundamental raison d'etre is still a very noble one - not discriminating against people on the grounds of colour, religion, sexuality or whatever - but it does often get hijacked by zealots. Well-meaning zealots, perhaps, but zealots nonetheless.
BTW, notice I'm not using the phrase "it's political correctness gone mad". Under my rules, that automatically loses an argument :-)
Very true, but then referring to a black person as a n***er, for example, or treating gay people as the spawn of Satan is fully intended to offend and upset from the start, so should be given the contempt it deserves. A cross on a wall, or a Nativity scene in a shop window is not aimed at upsetting people.
As for "political correctness", its basic, fundamental raison d'etre is still a very noble one - not discriminating against people on the grounds of colour, religion, sexuality or whatever - but it does often get hijacked by zealots. Well-meaning zealots, perhaps, but zealots nonetheless.
BTW, notice I'm not using the phrase "it's political correctness gone mad". Under my rules, that automatically loses an argument :-)
I got married in October 2004 and was told that I could not have any religious words, songs or phrases in the wedding (as it was a civil wedding). This suited us fine.
But note that there was no religious items - ie not just Christian, but Mulim, Hindu etc.
and yes I was very tempted to change my name to Jesus God Blessed Mary Vic!
i still can't see where the PC bit comes into the original example - its a civil wedding, and one of the rules is no religious aspects to be involved, a complete seperation of marriage and religion. This rule was made for a reason, and admittidly that reason was not to stop people playing pap love songs but the rule still exists - there is obviously room to revise the concept but I can't see any case for sounding the "Political correctness gone mad" bell just yet!
The ban on religious music and readings in civil marriages actually goes back to the Marriage Act of 1949, so it predates any of the so called PC brigade.
However, what is relgious music? We used to have a Vicar at our church who had us singing While Shepherds Watched to the tune of On Ilkley Moor Baht'At (and it does work)
About taking offence on behalf of others: it's generally the way casual offensiveness about minorities is stamped out. People spent centuries sneering at Jews (many still do) and Jews weren't able to do much about it; it's when gentiles also take offence at anti-Semitism that something is likely to be done. Blacks on their own couldn't have overcome discrimination in the USA; the point of the marches and protests was to persuade the white majority that it was wrong. Gentiles have to take offence on behalf of Jews, whites have to take offence on behalf of blacks, otherwise discrimination will persist.
It's quite scary actually, living in a society where the majority are dictated to by a loony liberal minority who think they're right and more educated and enlightened than the rest of us. It makes you wonder 'who'll be next?' It makes you wonder just how long freedom of thought is going to be allowed to continue. Liberals are the least 'liberal' people you will ever meet. From my experience they are bigoted, narrow-minded and constantly desperate to shout their opinions and shout down anybody else's.
1 to 17 of 17
