Religion in TV, Movies, Books, etc.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Choir Loft
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:57 am
Location: Tampa


Post #1

Post by Choir Loft »

I submit to the reader that there is no greater example of lasciviousness, moral debauchery and meanness on television today than the program called GLEE.

While musical arrangements are at times very well done, they provide the bait for the unwary viewer to be exposed to all manner of unsocial and immoral behavior.

A case in point is a recent episode where a particularly mean prank was performed. The result was that the prankster was not punished but rewarded by the school principle.

In the guise of love are all manner of illicit scenarios played out. Betrayal, lies and irresponsible actions are but a few witnessed on a weekly basis.

In comparison, a Muslim terrorist is a saint for he at least has a moral foundation for his actions. GLEE has none at all.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
[June 21, 1788 - October 26, 2001]

- Here lies Liberty -
Born in the spring,
died in the fall.
Stabbed in the back,
forsaken by all.

Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:53 pm


Post #2

Post by Fracture »

Your premiss and conclusion are flawed.

Glee is a harmless TV show that depicts high school kids getting into troubling situations. Bad things may happen and there may not always be ideal endings in which everything gets tied up in a nice bow but its hardly the greatest example of anything on TV, let alone moral debauchery.

Have you ever heard of a show called Big Brother? It is a reality TV show that manipulates contestants into real world behavior that is worse then anything you would see on glee. To make things worse, the most manipulative contestant wins one million dollars. Watch one episode and you will understand.

As for your conclusion that Muslim terrorists are saints compared to the TV show Glee, I really can't imagine that statement being genuine. If it is genuine then maybe being a saint isn't all its cracked up to be.

Can a moral foundation that considers killing innocent people as a pinnacle of honorable behavior really be of any value? Is holding a moral code so important that terrorism can be elevated above pranks and the pore judgement of a fictional principle?

For the sake of argument, lets say some one with no moral code would do bad things 50% of the time. This amount is lessened by fear of legal repercussions so people with no morals have <50% chance to do bad things. Some one with a moral code that mandates bad things will consistently do bad things because their moral code demands it. Because the base proportion of bad behavior is 50%, some one with a moral code that mandates bad behavior should be expected to do bad things >50% of the time.

What do you think?

Post Reply