Chef "Shafts" South Park...

[dd74]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/13/south.park.hayes.reut/index.html

I guess making fun of Scientology was the one and only final straw...

[dd74]

Oh, just in case you don't know the character:

[craigster59]

"You give a dance, you gotta pay the Band."

[bell]

"she's a *** damn sucubus"

[Mulhollanddose]

Apparently he was offended by South Park's lampooning of Scientology...I seem to recall he had no problem participating in insulting religions like Christianity.

Suck on my chocolate salty balls, Chef.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
...I seem to recall he had no problem participating in insulting religions like Christianity.

Anyone for a double entendre?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre

[gr8fl4porsche]

I heard a rumor that Comedy Central is not allowed to replay the Scientology episode anymore as a result of a lawsuit - any truth to this?

[Drago]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Apparently he was offended by South Park's lampooning of Scientology...I seem to recall he had no problem participating in insulting religions like Christianity.

Suck on my chocolate salty balls, Chef.

Exactly. Although I don't have chocolate balls, more like vanilla...salty though, of course.

[Neilk]

The Scientology episode was pretty good. I thought the Virgin Mary episode was better, but the best South Park was about the Book of Mormon...

[legion]

Dumb Dumb-Dumb Dumb Dumb

I thought the Scientology episode really got to the heart of the cult.

Stan: "I'm so depressed."

Stan's Parents "Why?"

Stan: "I don't know, but the people at the mall told me I was, and I need counseling."


Why can Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism be made fun of, but Scientology and Islam are off limits? That's not being fair. That's not being equal.

[widebody911]

Everyone's ox not only needs goring, but a nice marindade some BBQ sauce...

[Drago]

Originally posted by widebody911
Everyone's ox not only needs goring, but a nice marindade some BBQ sauce...

Again, agreed.

Man, I'm gettin' hungry!

[Jims5543]

So who do they use to do the voice? I say they take Chef out Kenny style and get a new character in there. Its a cartoon they could have as lot of fun with this and I am sure they will.

[legion]

Originally posted by Jim Cesiro
So who do they use to do the voice? I say they take Chef out Kenny style and get a new character in there. Its a cartoon they could have as lot of fun with this and I am sure they will.

I was discussing this at lunch with co-workers. They should have Chef die, as you put, "Kenny-style" in the background of another scene.

I do think that Parker and Stone are spot-on with their assessment of the situation.

I was actually surprised when Hayes did not quit immediately after the airing of the show.

[Jim Richards]

Maybe he was told to quit by the voice of L. Ron.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

How is Christianity so different from Scientology anyway? I mean, think about it:

1. Both religions promote the notion that people are somehow flawed and imperfect in their native state and claim to offer the key to the rectification of said imperfections exclusively through THEIR teaching.

2. Both religions use circular arguments to self-validate their own "correctness" (i.e. the old "the bible is right because the bible says so" syndrome. . .)

3. Both religions belive that exclusion of others not part of the religion is acceptable, if not encouraged.

4. Both religions hold the promotion of the INSTITUTION (rather than the core beliefs) as central to its teachings (through tithing, donations, contributions, whatever you want to call them), as well as mandating that children be brought up in accordance with the institution (one might call it "brainwashing from an early age"). Point is, the INSTITUTION puts itself first and the the central themes of the religion second.

Both obviously believe they stand more to lose than to gain by letting the core teachings stand up on their own and letting people draw their own conclusions about them. . .

5. Both offer no tangible evidence in furtherance of their core teachings (Christianity: we don't have any concrete evidence about the divinity of Christ, so you just have to take it on faith. Scientology: we don't have any concrete evidence about the fact that we're descended from aliens, so you just have to take it on faith).

In other words, both require you to believe in all-powerful (or mostly all-powerful) invisible beings that may or may not even exist and for which no proof of existence is given.

6. Both use hierarchies and made-up systems of "levels" to appeal to peoples' sense of wanting to elevate themselves or perhaps their competitive urges.



Seems to me at their core, they're pretty similar. But if Isaac/Chef wants to quit because boo-hoo they're offending HIS religion now and its ridiculousness while it's okay to offend others' religion over its ridiculousness, it makes no sense. Let him quit. South Park has sucked for the last few seasons anyway - too preachy about stupid Hollywood issues nobody else cares about.

[cstreit]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
How is Christianity so different from Scientology anyway? I mean, think about it:

1. Both religions promote the notion that people are somehow flawed and imperfect in their native state and claim to offer the key to the rectification of said imperfections exclusively through THEIR teaching.

That in fact is a part in some way-shape-or-form of all spirituality. Whether its Crystals making you better, worshiping trees, or Allah, Bhudda, etc...

2. Both religions use circular arguments to self-validate their own "correctness" (i.e. the old "the bible is right because the bible says so" syndrome. . .)

Sorry, I've been a Christian for 37 years and never heard THAT arguement. Perhaps you've been watching Pat Robertson and the tele-scamalists too much? Who told you that?

3. Both religions belive that exclusion of others not part of the religion is acceptable, if not encouraged.

Err... I'm having a hard time with this again. There are many references throughout the Bible stating that all should be accepted (Mary Magdalene the Prostitute, lepers, etc...) I don't recalll ANYwhere where it states that non-believers are not welcome or should be rejected. Just the opposite. UNLESS of course those people tried to prevent believers from worshipping, and then that's just typical people protecting their freedom to live, be happy, worship, pay taxes , etc...

4. Both religions hold the promotion of the INSTITUTION (rather than the core beliefs) as central to its teachings (through tithing, donations, contributions, whatever you want to call them), as well as mandating that children be brought up in accordance with the institution (one might call it "brainwashing from an early age"). Point is, the INSTITUTION puts itself first and the the central themes of the religion second.

Hmmm... Depends on who's doing the telling and what "demomination" there... Can't argue with that one. Human imperfections always shine through somewere I suspect.

Both obviously believe they stand more to lose than to gain by letting the core teachings stand up on their own and letting people draw their own conclusions about them. . .

I dunno, I did just that and yet hear I am arguing in favor...

5. Both offer no tangible evidence in furtherance of their core teachings (Christianity: we don't have any concrete evidence about the divinity of Christ, so you just have to take it on faith. Scientology: we don't have any concrete evidence about the fact that we're descended from aliens, so you just have to take it on faith).

Having never met you I have no concrete proof that, in fact, YOU exist... ...but I'm relatively sure based on indirect observations and "faith". I could be wrong though...

6. Both use hierarchies and made-up systems of "levels" to appeal to peoples' sense of wanting to elevate themselves or perhaps their competitive urges.

Every human system has "levels" required to administer. Granted some take it too far.. Hell, even the supermarket has management.. Is that bad?

But if Isaac/Chef wants to quit because boo-hoo they're offending HIS religion now and its ridiculousness while it's okay to offend others' religion over its ridiculousness, it makes no sense. Let him quit. South Park has sucked for the last few seasons anyway - too preachy about stupid Hollywood issues nobody else cares about. [/B]

I can't agree more,.

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

But Jeff, we were all just dropped here by aliens!! We're the descendants of all the people who did the wonderful jobs of cleaning public telephones and the such. Amazingly, we survived while the "real" inhabitants of this world were wiped out. (of course, those that dropped us off died of horrible diseases caused by things like dirty public telephones...)

[TerryBPP]

Not to make you a christian spokesman, but I have to ask you a question.


Do you believe that their is more than one God (ie., Budha, Muhammad, etc.)?

If not, where do all those people go when they die? Hell?

[cstreit]

Who me? I have no idea... Hell (sic), if you read the Koran it sounds awfully close to the Bible.... Coincidence? I have my doubts...

Me the spokesman? Hardly. I think religion is far to personal and frankly don't feel like it should or even CAN be pushed on anyone. The whole basis of every religion, whether Christian, Judaism, Druidism, et al. is all based on a person making a choice to act or believe in a certain way. How could you possibly make someone do that...

That's what I find so humorous about people getting so worked up about religion. I've been more beseiged and annoyed by Matel telling me I need a "He-Man" action figure and "Mens Magazine" telling me that I need to replace my 12-pack with 6-pack abs than ANY religion out there. Where's the outcry from the "Leave me alone" crowd then? People take things waaaay to seriously when they have free time.

I personally find religion bashing distasteful... ...Why begrudge someone their beliefs? Yeah, some people are affully annoying when they try to push it on the unwilling, but so is every marketing organization in the world.