Cripple Figt Comments

Jun 27, 2001, 10:49 PM ET19 posts by 12 postersalt.tv.southpark
19 posts
Joe Klemmalt.tv.southpark

Today, we have a new episode of South Park.

S P O I L E R

S P A C E

Upon hearing that the episode will feature Big Gay Al as a scout leader, I knew that there has to be a spoof of the gays in the Boy Scouts news story.

As for the rivalry between Timmy and Jimmy, no offense, but Timmy is WAY cooler than Jimmy.

A lot of silly things happen here tonight. Among them:
	-The boys being in troop 69 (perfect for Al)
	-Timmy's attempt to get rid of Jimmy by giving him an orange coat with parka.
	-How, when showing Spielburg, they mention two of his least popular films.
	-Timmy's plan to successfully get rid of Jimmy (not going to spoil that).

After the episode, I have three questions about it:

1. Who voiced Jimmy? If it was Trey, then he did an excellent job spoofing himself with Jimmy's impersonations?

2. Was Marc, Al's piano player, supposed to modelled after Marc Shaiman, the man behind the musical score of SP:BLU?

3. Why didn't Kyle appeared in the episode? Unless it's due to him being in Jewbillee, I have no idea why he doesn't appear in the episode, with Butters, the second coolest non-four main kids boys (Timmy being number one). taking his place.

Joe Klemm Worried that next week's episode will be another "boys fall victim to an object (i.e., Ritalin, seriousness in the Catholic religion)" episode.

LooseChanjJoe Klemmalt.tv.southpark

"Joe Klemm" wrote in message news:[email]...

Another bit of eeirieness, my scout troup was 369.

in

That was my first thought. Isn't the Boy Scouts a *Christian* organization anyhow?

Failure is not an option. It's bundled with the software.

No, Boy Scouts makes no religious requirements. I think that there may have been some spat a while back about athiests, but I know that Jews, as well as Muslims, are admitted.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:_2x_6.54847$[email]...

organization

Definitely not, at least not back in the Middle Ages when I was in scouting. One of the merit badges a scout could earn was a religious one, and it came in three flavors: Catholic, Protestant & Jewish (this is the 1950's).

God knows (no pun intended) how many flavors they offer now, if it's still offered at all.

LiamD

The Boy Scouts have some sort of oath about a believing in a "higher power" or something like that, don't they? I believe that's as specific as they get about religiion. I don't know what they would do if some kid said, "No, I do not believe in the existence of a higher power," but they do ban atheists and agnostics from being scout leaders.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

You can be denied your Eagle if you can't or won't say that you believe in a higher power, but you can still participate and earn everything else.

Erin A. S. Doherty easchust-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu andromeda-at-northwestern-dot-edu ICQ #34659939

In the Cub Scouts, one of the "achievements" (equiv. to merit badges in the Boy Scouts) was about religion, and the requirement was to "take an active part in your church *or synagogue*." So apparently they did not exclude Jews, and I don't imagine they would've started.

Granted, for me this goes back to 1960, but I remember it clearly. I wonder if the language has been revised to include Muslims or other faiths now common in the U.S.

-- Mark Tangard  ----------------------------
------------- "Life is nothing if you aren't obsessed." --John Waters
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CoforumMark Tangardalt.tv.southpark

organization

When I was in the Scouts, the oath included the line "to do my duty to God and my country." I'm not sure if they've changed it since.

Bao H. LammyCoforumalt.tv.southpark

When I was in the Scouts, the oath included the line "to do my duty to God and my country." I'm not sure if they've changed it since.

"Bao H. Lammy" wrote in message news:[email]...

One could say that being a homosexual isn't clean or reverent, but that determination is based upon religious beliefs itself. It's a thorny issue, on the one hand if you respect someone else's belief that homosexuality *is* clean & reverent, but you and your peers don't, do you let them into the club? Would excluding them be disrespectful of their beliefs? Would including them be disrespectful of your own? It goes round and round.

BTW, is there any religious group (well other than the Church of the Holy Erect Penis Firmly Inserted Into Anus[I believe Poppy is a founding member :-P]) that *specifically* feels homosexuality to be fine and dandy? Not just begs off with some vague don't ask don't tell it's all up to them doctrine?

Failure is not an option. It's bundled with the software.

BTW, is there any religious group (well other than the Church of the Holy Erect Penis Firmly Inserted Into Anus[I believe Poppy is a founding member :-P]) that *specifically* feels homosexuality to be fine and dandy? Not just begs off with some vague don't ask don't tell it's all up to them doctrine?

Presbyterians get the closest AFAIK: http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-homosexual.htm

LooseChanj wrote:

I don't know that any church makes an unreservedly bold statement like that as part of its official doctrine, but I seem to recall that the Unitarians have the most benign public attitude. Then again, local practice (as opposed to official doctrine) is becoming quite a bit more important than previously. For example, Episcopal parishes in and around San Francisco are positively gushy with acceptance, but that isn't nearly as true in the same church in other areas. Seems like the only consistent views come from the churches that hold extreme negative positions (Catholic, Southern Baptist, Islam, etc.)

-- Mark Tangard ---------------------------- ------------- "Life is nothing if you aren't obsessed." --John Waters
jefMark Tangardalt.tv.southpark

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:40:04 -0700, Mark Tangard wrote:

Twenty years ago or so there was a chapter of the Venusian Church in the suburbs of Seattle (!). As a reporter -- and the only token hippie/ex-Bay Area guy on the staff (so to speak) -- I was sent to cover an event there. (I guess my editor figured anyone who'd covered the Sexual Freedom League in Berkeley could handle a buncha horny Venusians.)

While the group seemed to me be mostly an excuse for religiously swapping wives and lovers, I also got the impression any consenting adults could do whatever they wanted and it was perfectly okay.

It's probably important to remember that groups such as these are routinely politically and socially persecuted, labelled "cults" and frequently find themselves the targets of self-righteous, crusading hypocrites, especially during election (I said eLection -- with an L!) season. ("Hey, anyone know where I can buy my dad an election?" :-) ) That's how Christianity got started until it became a "dominant" religion. Now it chases other "cults" around. (I said cuLts! With an L!) :)

JJ

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" writes:

Wasn't there a kid who filed a lawsuit against them because he claimed he was an aetheist? From what I recall, I got the distinct impression his folks were behind that for some goofy reason.