Family Guy star's mum thinks Family Guy should be cancelled

[Don in the North]

Way to be a supportive parent: the mother of Family Guy voice actor Patrick Warburton, who voices wheelchair-bound cop Joe, has called for her son to abandon the controversial cartoon. "I have highly encouraged him to quit the show, but it hasn't been very successful yet," Barbara Warburton told a US newspaper. "I have always adored people in this industry who turn down roles because of their convictions, but Patrick isn't one of those people."
Barbara believes Family Guy is "leading toward the destruction of morality", so it's no surprise to learn she's a member of the Parents Television Council, the goody-goody media watchdog that has a longstanding beef with the cartoon.
"[Patrick] says it's not his fault that parents let their kids watch the program," said Ms Warburton. "He wants to do shows and work with people that offend God. I don't want to offend God."

http://www.yourtv.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=825316&showcomments=true

what gives this lady the right to decide what this "god" deems offensive?
if "it" found it offensive, then why didnt "it" in all "its" almighty spiteful glory stop the show being aired in the first place.... or when it was cancelled after 2 seasons?
how do you know this "god" doesnt set his vcr to record every single episode becaus hes the biggest fan of one of the funnier tv shows to come out this century?

people invoking "god" to get their way in life are just pathetic.

[neoptolemos]

This is what i call an "arteriosclerotic" mind......

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

1. She gets just as much right to define what is offensive to god, and has just as much credibility on the subject as the churches who have never seen god for their own eyes.
2. "Offending god" is a poor argument on the quality of a show and its morality anyway.
3. It is up to parents to decide what their children watch, it is not her job to decide for them.
4. Family Guy is not a funny show. It's humour is not witty, it is reliant on irrelevant reminiscences.

[Don in the North]

" people invoking "god" to get their way in life are just pathetic. "

Don Of Atheos,

I think that it needs to be ascertained why the makers deem it worthy to offend the name of God in the first place before any objectivity is laid out. Is it not obvious that the makers have no affinity to God in any shape or form therefore feel that they are at liberty to say all they want regards Him? This I'm afraid is quite normal and being such is not to be expected as otherwise. It is afterall the way of the world.

one word :
satire

if you prevent people using satire against "god", holding it in some sort of immunity;
then how are you any different from the muslims who think its not ok to draw a picture of mohamad?

That said, the lady feels at odds because her offspring is associated with it and quite rightly wants them not to be, especially if she herself is a Christian. The world does not understand this and cannot because it is the opposite to God and His ways. Perhaps it is the case that her offspring is also of the world, because we all begin there, so until God changes that situation, they will do what they want. I don't think she is pathetic at all being myself a parent of some five offspring who are as yet also of the world.

parents decide what their children watch. i do not dispute this.
but
who decides what god deems offensive towards himself? can they also decide what god does not find offensive? can i stand up and say god finds religion offensive and that we should cancel all religion?
how do you know god doesnt enjoy the concept of satire as immensly as those he "created in his image"?
how do you know god isnt , for example, like a "self-hating" jewish comedian, who constantly takes shots at himself for laughs ?

my overall point being, how is this any different from the medieval war cry
"Deus vult !!"
(god wills it)

1. She gets just as much right to define what is offensive to god, and has just as much credibility on the subject as the churches who have never seen god for their own eyes.
2. "Offending god" is a poor argument on the quality of a show and its morality anyway.
3. It is up to parents to decide what their children watch, it is not her job to decide for them.
4. Family Guy is not a funny show. It's humour is not witty, it is reliant on irrelevant reminiscences.

4. = ratings and dvd sales disagree i enjoy family guy because its different with the irrelevant reminiscences, while the plot suffers i do notice this; i have to admit sometimes plots cant always be funny. take southpark for instance, they are the polar opposite of family guy, using their comedy in the form of plot development and such, sometimes it works out sometimes it doesnt. i enjoy southpark immensly, and i also enjoy family guy for its "cheap" laughs, but laughs none the less.

[basics]

" people invoking "god" to get their way in life are just pathetic. "

Don Of Atheos,

I think that it needs to be ascertained why the makers deem it worthy to offend the name of God in the first place before any objectivity is laid out. Is it not obvious that the makers have no affinity to God in any shape or form therefore feel that they are at liberty to say all they want regards Him? This I'm afraid is quite normal and being such is not to be expected as otherwise. It is afterall the way of the world.

That said, the lady feels at odds because her offspring is associated with it and quite rightly wants them not to be, especially if she herself is a Christian. The world does not understand this and cannot because it is the opposite to God and His ways. Perhaps it is the case that her offspring is also of the world, because we all begin there, so until God changes that situation, they will do what they want. I don't think she is pathetic at all being myself a parent of some five offspring who are as yet also of the world.

[MathiasOfAthens]

" people invoking "god" to get their way in life are just pathetic. "

Don Of Atheos,

I think that it needs to be ascertained why the makers deem it worthy to offend the name of God in the first place before any objectivity is laid out. Is it not obvious that the makers have no affinity to God in any shape or form therefore feel that they are at liberty to say all they want regards Him? This I'm afraid is quite normal and being such is not to be expected as otherwise. It is afterall the way of the world.

That said, the lady feels at odds because her offspring is associated with it and quite rightly wants them not to be, especially if she herself is a Christian. The world does not understand this and cannot because it is the opposite to God and His ways. Perhaps it is the case that her offspring is also of the world, because we all begin there, so until God changes that situation, they will do what they want. I don't think she is pathetic at all being myself a parent of some five offspring who are as yet also of the world.

So your solution is to censor people? Censorship... make a list of what can and cannot be said on TV and what shows can be aired with what plots, etc. And if God is offended then its illegal and the show should be removed from air... dont watch it if you dont like it.

[Astor]

If only the creators of Family Guy would now grow a pair and rag on muslims as much as they seem to enjoy ragging on every other religion. Satire is not nearly as amusing when it consistently avoids attacking the biggest target imaginable.

[Niles Crane]

Damn. I thought the mother wanted it cancelled because it isn't funny anymore.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

Damn. I thought the mother wanted it cancelled because it isn't funny anymore.

[Himster]

Family guy is the least offensive of all these cartoons, I mean come on, this complaint is just so shallow.

[SigniferOne]

[SIZE=6]what gives this lady the right to decide what this "god" deems offensive?

What gives you the right to decide what this lady should deem offensive?

people invoking "god" to get their way in life are just pathetic.

We know very clearly that God is on the side of the modest, the prim, the proper, and the noble-minded. Is that clear enough for you? Family Guy is not only not high-minded, which is bad enough, but it mocks everything that IS high-minded. It is nihilistic and destructive, end of story.

[justicar5]

What gives you the right to decide what this lady should deem offensive?



We know very clearly that God is on the side of the modest, the prim, the proper, and the noble-minded. Is that clear enough for you? Family Guy is not only not high-minded, which is bad enough, but it mocks everything that IS high-minded. It is nihilistic and destructive, end of story.

He (As described in the bible) is on the side of the war criminal, the rapist, the murderer and the thief, all acts encouraged in the bible (as long as the vicitm isn't one of the 'chosen') such a creature, even if he wasn't a work of fiction, has as much say in what makes decent behaviour as Hannibal Lecter.

In this instance, she can encourage him all she likes, but censoring? No, otherwise let the mullahs censor mohhamed cartoons , and remove 'in god we trust' and 'under god' from moneyt and the oath of alligence, so as not to offend atheists/polytheists/buddhists.

[Dubh the dark]

That is so funny, does she actually have to watch FG because her son is in it

I hope they make a episode about her madness..someone save our morals!! Eek!

[SigniferOne]

In this instance, she can encourage him all she likes, but censoring?

The definition of censoring is using force, or the threat of force, to suppress information of expression of opinion. Understand? If the Communist countries use police, or if Islamicist fanatics make fanatical threats and force something to be not dispayed, THAT'S CENSORSHIP. If I ask you to stop making inane and hateful comments in the future, as indeed is the case, I'm not censoring you. And neither is this lady censoring anything by gently asking her son.

In any case, it is clear that this man is not the kind of man to put principles above his greed and pocketbook, just like the characters he depicts, surprise! So I don't think we can expect any noble and proper action there.

[justicar5]

The definition of censoring is using force, or the threat of force, to suppress information of expression of opinion. Understand? If the Communist countries use police, or if Islamicist fanatics make fanatical threats and force something to be not dispayed, THAT'S CENSORSHIP. If I ask you to stop making inane and hateful comments in the future, as indeed is the case, I'm not censoring you. And neither is this lady censoring anything by gently asking her son.

In any case, it is clear that this man is not the kind of man to put principles above his greed and pocketbook, just like the characters he depicts, surprise! So I don't think we can expect any noble and proper action there.

he DOES put principals above his mothers respect, he ridicules a mass murdering monster who his mother worships, risking her love to use satire against a monster... like take the piss out of Franco or Mussolini, any creature that ordered leviticus and deutoronomy is a complete monster beyond redemption, unless you can forgive the holocaust ofc, the only rational theistic stance regarding YHWH is maltheist.

[Dubh the dark]

We know very clearly that God is on the side of the modest, the prim, the proper, and the noble-minded. Is that clear enough for you? Family Guy is not only not high-minded, which is bad enough, but it mocks everything that IS high-minded. It is nihilistic and destructive, end of story.

Sig, how do you know that?

Or am I missing your sarcasm here?

[SigniferOne]

Sig, how do you know that?

That's what the Bible is all about.

[Dubh the dark]

That's what the Bible is all about.

You mean the book that Constantine had put together, picking some gospels, ignoring others such as;

The Gospel of Mary
(8 chapters)

The Protevangelion
(16 chapters)

Jesus Infancy Gospel I
(22 chapters)

Jesus Infancy Gospel II
(4 chapters)

Gospel of Nicodemus
(22 chapters)

Epistles of Jesus Christ

and Abgarus
(2 chapters)

Laodiceans
(1 chapter)

Hermas: His Visions
(4 Visions)

http://www.notinthebible.com/mary.html

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/othergospels.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm

[Don in the North]

What gives you the right to decide what this lady should deem offensive?

you are missing the point i make, she doesnt deem it offensive, she claims god deems it offensive.

We know very clearly that God is on the side of the modest, the prim, the proper, and the noble-minded. Is that clear enough for you? Family Guy is not only not high-minded, which is bad enough, but it mocks everything that IS high-minded. It is nihilistic and destructive, end of story.

the modest the prim the proper.
so why are there paedophiles in religious structures such as the catholic church?
are they what you call modest, prim and proper?

what about the atheists that are modest, prim and proper. is god on their side, dispite the bible specificly implying that he was a jealous, spiteful and vengeful "god"?


if god didnt like satire he wouldve put in the bible (oh wait a minute i just remembered he didnt write the bible... man did!), as mohammad put in the koran; thou shalt not depict me in a negative light.

yet he didnt, so how do you, or anyone else, have the right to say what this "god" likes or dislikes about modern and contemporary satire that involves god?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

We know very clearly that God is on the side of the modest, the prim, the proper, and the noble-minded. Is that clear enough for you? Family Guy is not only not high-minded, which is bad enough, but it mocks everything that IS high-minded. It is nihilistic and destructive, end of story.

fine, you think that. But do you think the state should enforce your opinion and suppress someone's freedom of speech?