What is it with my fellow GetReligionistas? It’s as if they’re completely disinterested in celebrity news. I just searched to see how we handled media coverage of the Kathy-Griffin-at-the-Emmys debacle (I was attending to other matters at the time) and see that we didn’t discuss it at all. For those who have more interesting lives, Griffin is a comedienne — and host of the 2007 gay porn awards! — who made scandalous remarks about Jesus when she accepted her Emmy for her Bravo reality series. There was so little substantive coverage of what she said that religion reporter Gary Stern hadn’t even heard about it last week:
Did I not hear about Griffin’s acceptance speech because she was offensive to Christians instead of Jews or Muslims? Or was it that no one pays attention to Griffin? Or have I just been out of it lately?
Part of it has to be that many news outlets omitted the most blasphemous part of her remarks. Here’s how The Associated Press treated it:
In her speech, Griffin said that “a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.”
She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, “This award is my god now!”
The off-color remark? “Suck it, Jesus.” As more than a few readers noted, many news outlets neglected to mention the actual text of Griffin’s remarks, making it seem like the only point was to make fun of people who thank Jesus when they receive accolades. Anyway, on Saturday The Washington Post ran a Religion News Service piece about the speech by Kevin Eckstrom. Which is what I wanted to discuss when I started this post but had to explain the whole Kathy Griffin thing first. Okay, then. The piece is substantive and looks at the fallout from Griffin’s little stunt, coming to this conclusion:
Poking fun at religion in general is fine. Taking jabs at hypocritical religious leaders is even encouraged. But when it comes to Jesus, Hollywood still gets squeamish.
I didn’t find his thesis terribly well substantiated, but the most interesting part of the article for me was this graph. Eckstrom is trying to explain why some people might have taken offense at Griffin’s remarks:
For most Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of mankind. “For us and our salvation, he came down from heaven,” the Nicene Creed says. “For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried.”
Most Christians? Yes, I imagine most Christians do believe that. Sigh. Of course, I’m not sure if that line says more about the reporter or the state of Christianity today.
 | Posted at 12:25 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (18) |
September 25, 2007, at 12:57 am
Personally I consider celebrity news an oxymoron. I’d rather see the phrase “celebrity gossip” used in the interest of not abusing the word “news”.
as well as a number of non-Christians such as Ramakrishna Paramhamsa although most Christians would object to his theology:
http://www.rkmath.org/articles/gospeloframakrishna/introduction
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 12:57 am
Welcome back, mom. I hope all is well with you and the new baby.
I read this same piece and found the citation of the Nicene Creed to be a bit awkward. He doesn’t need the Creed to substantiate a claim that Christians believe in Christ - why not quote Scripture or Jerome or Billy Graham, or just say that Christians believe in Christ without any citation? The article otherwise had nothing to do with the ancient Christianity in which the Nicene Creed was formed, or with the credal, liturgical churches that regularly profess their faith with the words of the Nicene Creed, so the citation just seemed out of place.
I agree with you that the journalist’s inability to clearly say that Christians believe in Christ, and that many Christians would be offended by the “suck it” comment, is just bizarre.
But I’m one of many people who heard about this story and asked, “Who cares?” The comments were edited and never aired, and thus the impact and relevance of this story are minimal. So some loudmouth comedienne who has made a career out of being disrespectful made a disrespectful comment about Jesus? That’s news?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 8:51 am
My goodness! Look at what is going on in that teapot!
Griffin is a self-admitted “D-List” celebrity, the only reason anyone paid attention to anything she said was because she got an Emmy while saying it. She will now, no doubt, sink back into the depths of the not-really-famous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 9:00 am
Griffin is actually a sharp, funny, quick-witted comic who makes her living lampooning a celebrity-obsessed culture that deserves every bit of trashing she can deliver. There’s a method to her admitted madness, and she gets BIG props from me for hightailing it to the war zones in Iraq & Afghanistan to entertain the troops with a conviction and dedication that seems astonishingly genuine and thoughtful.
The “Suck it, Jesus” part of Griffin’s Emmy acceptance speech was pointless and crude, but Jesus is big enough to handle it, and so are Christians, I would hope.
That braying, gin-soaked mule William Donohue (of the Catholic League) proved more offensive than Griffin. He’s made a career out of making Catholics look like paranoid nincompoops and I, for one, wish he’d retire permanently to the darkest corner of whatever pub he apparently frequents.
Otherwise, I have to say that I admire Griffin’s theological stance, i.e. the Deity isn’t in the business of selecting “favorites” among garish TV awards-show nominees and then magically granting them shiny statuettes.
What a shocker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 9:05 am
“I’m not sure if that line says more about the reporter or the state of Christianity today.”
The reporter. I love this line in the next paragraph: “Jesus deserves a certain level of respect.”
Well, duh. Is this the best that the Religion News Service has to offer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 10:04 am
Yet the same media outlets were more than able to quote the full text of Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rants. We don’t just smell a double standard, we read it.
A couple of other things I’ve noticed about the coverage of Griffin’s comments:
1) In response to some of the public criticism from Catholics, Griffin asked the rhetorical question, “Am I the only Catholic with a sense of humor?” On her show, however, Griffin has said that she’s an atheist. Maybe she’s a convenience Catholic as opposed to a cafeteria Catholic.
2) During her appearance on Larry King, Griffin told a story about receiving an invitation to an “A-list” Hollywood celebrity party as a result of the controversy. Yeah, Hollywood’s real squeamish about insulting Christ.
I also enjoyed the comment from the atheist:
What a [insert perjorative for female dog, enunciated clearly for the sake of rational argument, and for which I can not be held responsible without crying censorship].
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 11:37 am
A trash-talking, mediocre comedian tries to revive her career by grabbing a few headlines, and she is largely ignored. Good. She doesn’t deserve the attention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 11:48 am
The paragraph mentioning the Nicene Creed seems a bit bizarre. A reader who is ignorant enough not to know that most Christians see Jesus as the savior isn’t going to have the foggiest idea of what the Nicene Creed is. And why does the writer bring up the Nicene Creed anyway? First, it isn’t a universal test of Christian belief (my denomination, among others, doesn’t accept it, and many evangelicals would say it is trumped by sola scriptura), and, second, I doubt if the average person in the pews (at least in nonliturgical churches that don’t regularly use it) could even tell you what the Nicene Creed says, much less describe the filoque controversy or consubstantiality or other defining declarations of the creed.
The fact all this is included says to me that the writer doesn’t believe there’s much knowledge among readers of the story. As a reader, I find it insulting. It’s kind of like having a sports story that quotes the rulebook to prove that there are six points in a touchdown. Like, duh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 12:17 pm
Eric G wrote:
Awesome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 2:44 pm
GetReligion … get real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 3:47 pm
Er - who’s Kathy Griffin? This is a serious question.
If we’re talking about “Americans Foreigners (Even The English Speaking Ones) Know About Or Have Heard Of”, I regret to inform the lady she’s not on the list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 25, 2007, at 4:37 pm
Mollie, thank you for the details. I had no idea from the press coverage that Griffin said “Suck it, Jesus.” This is in contrast to knowing clearly that Sally Field used G-D when her comments about war were censored. So, as an observation on the reportage, looks from my chair like the media’s batting 50/50.
Justin (4), regarding Griffin I agree that she is funny. And you’re right, the “suck it” part of her speech “was pointless and crude.”
Still, when you say that “Jesus is big enough to handle it”
exactly what do you mean? I think you’re presuming a lot to speak for Jesus’ “bigness.” You might need to cite some Scripture to explain why it is particularly holy, righteous, or even just plain ol’ OK to be told to “suck it” and act like it’s nothing. If I told you right now to “suck it” I don’t think you’d be particularly happy about it. Or if I told a loved one of your choice (wife, father, son, or significant other) to “suck it” you might be bothered just a bit. Of course, you may believe that Jesus is a public figure of sorts and that it comes with the territory. I personally believe this is a situation where the Bible talks about people speaking evil of Christ. Then again, you may be “bigger” than me or most Christians and be able to brush it off on behalf of our Savior.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 26, 2007, at 9:39 am
Martha, you haven’t missed anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 26, 2007, at 4:29 pm
Well, as the “reporter” in question, let me attempt to explain what I was going for:
My point, perhaps inartfully made, was that Christians can take a joke, but when it comes to the person of Jesus, the rules change. People’s guard goes up, and understandably so. It’s not so different from how Muslims react to what they see as insulting portrayals of Muhammad.
In quoting from the Nicene Creed, i was attempting to show why they get defensive — they dont regard Jesus as some kind of good teacher or holy man, but one who was divine, suffered, died and was buried to atone for the sins of mankind. I was trying to invoke classical Christian language to convey the seriousness with which Christians take the person of Jesus Christ.
As for the “most Christians” part, if I had said “all Christians,” you all would be asking how i could possibly know what “all Christians” believe. In fact, I know many people who call themselves Christians but might not agree 100% with the statement that Jesus was the savior of mankind. Just look at some liberal Episcopalians, or progressive Presbyterians, or even lapsed Catholics. They call themselves Christians, but might not totally agree with that core element of classical Christian teaching (also expressed by the Nicene Creed). So, I was trying to strike a balance down the middle.
But please, keep the cheap shots coming …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 26, 2007, at 4:46 pm
Well, sigh, Molly, sigh. It seems you, sigh, missed the news about the Rev. Peter Phan. You know, the former head of the Catholic Theological Society of America? You know, sigh, the theology professor at Georgetown?
Oh well, it seems this, sigh, Catholic theologian, got in a bit of trouble with the Vatican for asserting that there are avenues to salvation outside of Christianity.
I think, sigh, when you have the head of the CTSA arguing that point, you’re on fairly safe ground when you say “most” Christians believe Jesus is the savior of mankind. Clearly, it’s not “all.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 27, 2007, at 12:17 am
Mr. Eckstrom is completely correct that “most” Christians believe their Church’s “leader/founder” (or whomever) is the savior of mankind. Even though it strikes more theologically orthodox folks as “odd” to see it in print - it’s a reality. He walked that tightrope just about right.
As for “It’s not so different from how Muslims react to what they see as insulting portrayals of Muhammad,” did I miss the rioting in the streets? The burning of this third-rate actress’s photograph in the streets, just as the third-rate writer Rushdie was burnt in effigy?
To the point of Griffin herself, I’ve seen a few episodes of her show and she’s moderately funny when she tears down the Hollywood glitterati. Also, “Suck it” is a catch-phrase of hers. And I’m not sure if she was joking, but apparently she caused a big ruckus last year at the Emmy’s when she didn’t win, standing up and yelling obscenities at the winners as they walked to the stage. Charming. And VERY classy, don’t you think?
Final thought: She’s hardly “D-list” anymore, considering she’s on an Emmy-award winning show, has been on 360 with Anderson Cooper and on Larry King (see photo above) numerous times, and apparently makes numerous appearances on the View, too. (I’m a guy, and don’t watch that show, so I’ll take her word for it.) My point? She’s part of the Glitterati, and her views “matter” - at least to the same crowd for which Rosie O’Donnell’s view “matters.” So her slurs are important to note by the media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 23, 2007, at 11:54 pm
You know, if she had insulted Allah (the god of Islam), or Buddha (the god of Buddhism), or Krishna (one of many deities in the Hindu religion), all heck would break loose. The media would be virtually flaying her, and she’d be ostrasized. But because she trashed Jesus the Christ, her comments are viewed as satire and she’s given a pat on the back.
The reason I’m so upset isn’t simply because she insulted my Lord, Savior and God. See, Jesus isn’t simply my Master, Redeemer and God. He is my Brother and my Friend. And I’m extremely protective of my family and friends, even when one Member of those two groups happens to be the Creator of the world.
You know, for someone who claims to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church (which claims to be the only true church of Jesus Christ), she really should know better. But then again, what can we expect from someone whose career has been built upon trashing others and calling it “comedy”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 24, 2007, at 12:32 am
Just discovered that Kathy describes herself as a “militant atheist.” (Wikipedia.com) Well, that would explain her disdain for Jesus Christ. Wouldn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0