Race, Sex and Religion
It’s really about race
Controversy surrounding Owens’ MNF promo touches deep social issues
Before I say anything… for the sake of some of those who have commented. Gluttony is a sin… it’s hard to pin down a lot of direct references, but I believe it falls under selfishness. Not that this has anything to do with the article below… but I wouldn’t want to be accused of only dealing with sexual immorality. Even though it seems to saturate our culture.
Moving on…
What is it about football and sex this year? I don’t even like football and I can’t seem to avoid it this year!
Personally, the skit didn’t bother me one bit. What the segment did do, however, was make me wonder if America was ready to see a naked, blonde, white woman with her arms wrapped around an outspoken, controversial, highly paid black man.
Isn’t that what this is really all about? Once we get past all the people complaining about how inappropriate the skit was for the Monday Night Football audience and how so many children will be scarred after being exposed to such a tawdry scene before their bedtime and all the decision-makers in the NFL who have raced away from this topic as if it were a time bomb, this is an issue that comes down to race.
You know… why was it so important to have a naked blond woman embracing anyone on tv during prime time television!? It was obviously an attempt to garner “sensation” and “shock value”. Regardless of the feelings of individuals about race, it doesn’t change the fact that such explicit material shouldn’t have been aired during prime time (at all, in my opinion) ! Stop trying to sidetrack the discussion. Racial feelings aside… it was still morally wrong!
“I guarantee you that if Peyton Manning had been the man Sheridan jumped on, there wouldn’t be half the controversy. If it had been Eva Longoria, the Latina co-star of Desperate Housewives, there also wouldn’t be as much of an outcry. Two minorities locked in a sexual embrace isn’t as shocking a thought in some of those red states. “
I suppose it bears repeating. Racial issues aside… it’s still morally wrong.
“Everything I’m talking about here points to one central issue — how comfortable America is with black men as sexual objects. “
Why can’t/doesn’t the issue revolve around why people have to be portrayed as sexual objects at all?
As an aside, I just noticed that the primary advertising space on the Sports Illustrated Scorecard page is currently Viagra… “get back to mischief.” I don’t think there can be any argument that their opinion is a little biased. And just in case you still disagree with me… let’s consider the reason for the existence of the SI Swimsuit Illustrated…
November 19th, 2004 at 1:43 pm
But it makes them money! If it makes money, it can’t be wrong!
November 19th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Oh that’s right. That’s in, like, the Gospel According to Media right?
November 19th, 2004 at 10:32 pm
I think everyone’s whining and complaining a little too much over this. My feeling is that if offensive television content bothers you, stop watching tv. You can’t expect everyone to conform to your personal moral beliefs. I stopped watching television some time ago and don’t miss it. I have time to read more Max Lucxado, and life is good. Now stop your whining and go to the library.
November 20th, 2004 at 10:18 am
Alison, I certainly agree that we could all spend a bit more time at the library! But I also think that to agree with “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it!” maxim is to cede a primary mode of communication to people who want to just display trash for money. The FCC is required to regulate this kind of thing for that very reason.
By the same argument, I could say… if you don’t like porn magazines and videos in the library - don’t go! Or… if you want to practice your religion, stay in your house, church, etc…
I hope that makes sense.
November 20th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
Yes, but isnt there a verse from the Bible that states we shall not put anything evil in front of us? Yes, I agree the FCC should regulate the images but are we going to stand in front of God and blame the FCC or blame us for viewing the images.
November 20th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
Here’s my rebuttle to God…I know I shouldn’t have watched it but i thought the FCC was supposed to filter the trash out. And i know I probably could have gotten a richer education, but I went to public schools so it wasn’t really my fault, right?
If you know and understand that TV is mostly “trash for money” and you said so yourself, then don’t be suprised when you see trash! Don’t go looking for a beautiful sunset at a garbage landfill, and when you don’t see one, don’t get upset!
November 22nd, 2004 at 6:51 pm
The If you dont like it, dont watch it! maxim is only logical if we pretend that we live in a world with only adults. We shouldn’t put the pursuit of pleasure over the consideration of the harmful effects on children.
November 23rd, 2004 at 11:09 am
Wow… didn’t know what I was starting! At least people are thinking about it, though.
Samuel: I’m not talking about blame at all. I’m talking about taking the initiative to change what’s on the tv. I don’t even watch broadcast/cable tv - at all. But that little square box with the clear screen that magically displays pictures isn’t evil of itself. It is much of the content that is the problem. The FCC is a government organization designed to police the radio, television and any other broadcast medium. Standards of decency should be set and enforced. Individually, we should be responsible for what we watch, but as a community in a democracy we should act responsibly to make sure that public communication is monitored for decency.
Jerry: The tv doesn’t have to be mostly “trash for money”. We - as a body of people in a democracy - have the right to stand up and say “this is unacceptable” and expect to be heard. It’s still a democracy last time I checked. Why do so many Christians think we should simply surrender major lines of communication to garbage. Rather, shouldn’t we stand up and object. If you haven’t checked, most people don’t want that crap on their tv… why should we let Hollywood and big media companies decide what’s acceptable.
Everybody: My main point was that the uproar was not about race (which was the claim of the SI writer), it was about moral decency in public communication - especially during prime time television when children are watching.
November 27th, 2004 at 10:59 am
Now we are worrying over Gluttony. I think there are a lot more things to worry about, like the divide between THE BLUE STATES and the red states, a madman who was elected president by 59 million people whom I seriously am wondering about… yeal a lot more to worry about than just gluttony. a whole lot more.
November 29th, 2004 at 1:02 pm
>like the divide between THE BLUE STATES and the red states
Be more specific. What do you mean by the divide between the ‘blue states’ and the ‘red states?’ Are there any particular issues you are concerned with?
November 30th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
I was making a point that sexual immorality is not the only issues out there. Scott deals and focuses on those issues. I was wanting him to be more aware of all the issues.
December 1st, 2004 at 10:58 am
Whew… thanks “b”. I must have missed all those other issues. If it weren’t for those kind enough to remind of the important issues like gluttony - I might have completely glossed over them. I hope to spend some time on some other important sinful issues like disorganization and unprofitable discussion.