Isaac Hayes had no problem cashing check after check when the Christian religion was parodyed. He only had a problem when they parodyed Scientology. (and did it VERY effectively, btw)
If he really didn't care about the money, he would give back the money he was handsomely paid. But he DOES care about the money.
And all of South Park is protected free speech - as it SHOULD be.
The guys a scientologist those people are seriously unglued. Read mind control cult NOT religion.
For decades the cult of scientology wanted status at the IRS as a religion. The IRS wouldn’t give it to them. Enter 2 goons who show up at IRS headquarters without an appointment and after barging into the office of the head mucky mucky come out an hour later with what they wanted. Status as a religion. They blackmail ex members, use death threats to keep ppl in line… scary cult.
When i was reading the article, i thought 'man it was years ago they started picking on christians, etc., why now does he have a beef?' And then it said he was a scientologist. Explains it all.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Anonymous said...
I wonder how many Scientologist know that L. Ron Hubbard was a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer?
The Navy Officer Corps was almost entirely made up of members of the Masonic Order.
*NOTE* I am not saying religious people cannot be GOOD people, or that religions don't often have good things in them. I just honestly think that the central teachings of religions are all as crazy as each other. (I include Judaism when I say this)
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Anonymous said...
This is an interesting discussion, concerning religion. I would like to make a few comments on the subject.
All of the older religions depend on old, or very old documents that are the basis for the structure. As the Christian fundamentalists insist on a quite literal and infallible view of their documents, they seem to conviently forget the problems of cross language translation, social context at the time and perhaps even more important, the pick and choose politics of what writing from the period has been chosen for them to use for doctrine. They also are not prone to consider the problem of intrepretation of meaning. It is sheer arrogance to insist that only one groups interpretation of meaning is the end truth. You should also notice that the same problems occur with governing documents. Ours in particular.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Apparently, it's not just Muslims who get upset when people target their sacred beliefs.Soul singer Isaac Hayes has quit cartoon 'South Park' after an episodes lampooning religion.
The star who has provided the voice for character Chef since the show's inception, has become upset at recent shows that have attacked spirituality.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," Hayes said in a statement after he announced he had been asked to be let out of his contract.
"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honoured," he added. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
A recent episode of the programme sent up Tom Cruise and Scientology, which is also Haynes' religion . . .
However 'South Park''s co-creator Matt Stone declared that . . . "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology," . . . "He has no problem - and he's cashed plenty of cheques - with our show making fun of Christians."So, he's insensitive to others. At least he stands for something besides the dollar.
9 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formQRS,
You said it right in the article.
Isaac Hayes had no problem cashing check after check when the Christian religion was parodyed. He only had a problem when they parodyed Scientology. (and did it VERY effectively, btw)
If he really didn't care about the money, he would give back the money he was handsomely paid. But he DOES care about the money.
And all of South Park is protected free speech - as it SHOULD be.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The guys a scientologist those people are seriously unglued. Read mind control cult NOT religion.
For decades the cult of scientology wanted status at the IRS as a religion. The IRS wouldn’t give it to them. Enter 2 goons who show up at IRS headquarters without an appointment and after barging into the office of the head mucky mucky come out an hour later with what they wanted. Status as a religion. They blackmail ex members, use death threats to keep ppl in line… scary cult.
read on
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
he didnt Bitch when they lampoomned Christianity , Judiasm, Mormons, or WalMartians. Guess this is alittle to close to home.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
WalMartians?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
QRS,
South Park did an episode parodying Wal-Mart.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=8&id1=809&id2=124
Good episode, btw.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
When i was reading the article, i thought 'man it was years ago they started picking on christians, etc., why now does he have a beef?' And then it said he was a scientologist. Explains it all.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
I wonder how many Scientologist know that L. Ron Hubbard was a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer?
The Navy Officer Corps was almost entirely made up of members of the Masonic Order.
That's a religion all by itself.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Question.
How is Scientology particularly more crazy than any other religion?
I am serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
*NOTE* I am not saying religious people cannot be GOOD people, or that religions don't often have good things in them. I just honestly think that the central teachings of religions are all as crazy as each other. (I include Judaism when I say this)
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
This is an interesting discussion, concerning religion. I would like to make a few comments on the subject.
All of the older religions depend on old, or very old documents that are the basis for the structure. As the Christian fundamentalists insist on a quite literal and infallible view of their documents, they seem to conviently forget the problems of cross language translation, social context at the time and perhaps even more important, the pick and choose politics of what writing from the period has been chosen for them to use for doctrine. They also are not prone to consider the problem of intrepretation of meaning. It is sheer arrogance to insist that only one groups interpretation of meaning is the end truth. You should also notice that the same problems occur with governing documents. Ours in particular.
Thursday, March 16, 2006