Catholic Outrage

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:14 pm

Brendocon wrote:I'd read through this thread, but I've got a feeling it's a repeat. I may just wait for the DVD.

apparently the orginal is never going to get released, they're planning on a special edition version tho...

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:21 pm

Legion wrote:apparently the orginal is never going to get released, they're planning on a special edition version tho...

Yeah, but who casts the first stone in the special edition?

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:25 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Legion wrote:apparently the orginal is never going to get released, they're planning on a special edition version tho...
Yeah, but who casts the first stone in the special edition?

that's a closely held secret, although there's been some blurry CGI of Mohammed been leaked, but that's a whole 'nother outrage...

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:29 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:You keep repeating the same thing:

I should not be allowed to do things that your religion forbids.

So who's stopping you? I just said that if you do not ascribe to a religion, then as long as you do no harm to others, you should be allowed to believe and do as you wish.

If you were a Christian, then I would say Christian law applies to you. If you were a Muslim, Islamic rule would apply. But you are neither, nor do you live in a Christian or Muslim nation. Likely, you are British, and so, you should follow British rule.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria... and let's not forget the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These regimes all operate under Islamic laws.

They institute some Islamic laws, but they do not live according to the teachings of the Koran. If they did, you wouldn't have these corrupt princes and sheikhs hoarding their wealth and selling their souls to make particular oil deals. I have visited many presumably Islamic nations, and have come to find that the ruling class follows only one set of rules: their own. Money is what most of them worship, as is the case with most leaders of the world.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:51 pm

Yaya wrote:
Emvee wrote:
Yaya wrote:I know of no country whose legal system is based on Christian doctrine, and very few, if any Muslim countries who have Islamic law as the foundation of their legal system.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria... and let's not forget the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These regimes all operate under Islamic laws.
They institute some Islamic laws, but they do not live according to the teachings of the Koran. If they did, you wouldn't have these corrupt princes and sheikhs hoarding their wealth and selling their souls to make particular oil deals. I have visited many presumably Islamic nations, and have come to find that the ruling class follows only one set of rules: their own. Money is what most of them worship, as is the case with most leaders of the world.

Wrong again.

Most Islamic countries have a two-tier system of courts with secular courts for crime and Sharia courts to decide matters of inheritance and marriage. Some, like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey have an almost completely secular legal system. Those mentioned above - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Sudan, and to a lesser extent, Nigeria - do not have secular courts and all cases are brought before Islamic clerics in Sharia courts.

You know, that kinda sounds like they might have Islamic law as the foundation of their legal system. I notice you sidestepped the question of gay marriage in the States, the prohibition of which is clearly based on Christian doctrine, I assume you must have missed that part of my post. Are you denying that the US has laws based on Christian doctrine?

I eagerly await your reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:09 pm

Im still shocked to think that without religon we are all thiefs,rapists and murdering scum.

But with Religon your not...

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:48 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote: Wrong again.

You know, that kinda sounds like they might have Islamic law as the foundation of their legal system.

Islamic law, by the Quran, should apply to all human beings equally, regardless of race, religion, gender, or political status. Notice I stressed political status.

In theory, you are absolutely correct about how things are intended to be set up in these aforementioned nations. But I can tell you the laws of Shariah are not implemented consistently when it comes to those in power. It is made an unfair system, with rules applying to some and not to others. and hence, why I say there is no true Islamic state. If it were, the laws should apply to everyone, including the princes.

There is not a nation on earth that functions soley of religious doctrine, even those who tout that they do. Such nations leaders are fraught with hypocrisy and injustice.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:53 pm

but you an communicate with even the worst leaders on earth, you cannot communicate with gods/religon etc...

Hence why corruption is not relevent in the equation.

So far Religon is a controll method and more open to corruption then anything else. what else does it do wrong?

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:02 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya has mentioned that he supported the censorship of a program that had something negative to say about Jesus. Now, while I would support the church coming out saying that it would ask its members to abstain from watching it, the censorship effected all non-believers as well. Among those non-believers is myself.

Aside from being a violation of freedom of speech, it is also a case of the beliefs of the religious taking away the freedom of choice from people who do not share their beliefs.

Thanks for expalining your 'credo' - I think I understand your point better now.

So, did they actually cancel the program because of the protest? I didn't know that...

Now, the thing is - if say, said channel was doing a derogatory program about a racial minority, or a country,and the ones offended by it were to hold a protest and they cancel it, that's also the same violation of freedom of speech.

And believe me, it's hard to say something that doesn't offend someone somewhere. With people of power, they'll just sue your *ss,
With religions or minorities, it takes a lot to actually get people on the streets protesting, but that's all they can do to express their opinion

I know what BF said about 'freedom of speech has no boundaries' - and I agree with the concept, but it's pretty much impossible to uphold. Therefore, I say that borders must be set down - in fact some are already set down. You won't hear a narrator call someone names on CNN or Fox news.... So, why can't be a rule about when people actively urge others to exterminate a religion/minority? Or a rule about not abusing things others hold dear?

It's the 21th century already. Let's try to behave civilised in the media.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:18 pm

There was no call to exterminate a religion or the people who follow it. There was a program that said some controversial things about Jesus. Things that the scholars that worked on the program had researched in great detail. They may have been wrong in their findings, but the program, presented for the purposes of entertainment, but they were to be presented in a "for your consideration" type format.

As I've said, I'm not a violent person. I don't want to hurt or kill people with different opinions that my own. I don't think that because you believe in God that you should be cast out from society. I just want people to stop telling me what I can't see, hear, touch, taste, or do without a legitimate testable reasoning behind it.

I am sorry that certain television programs offend people. There are a great many things on TV that offend me. Mostly, it's people trying to justify discrimination appearing on shows like The O'Reilly Factor or saying that entertainment should be censored because God does not approve of it. I cope with it by not watching it. Bill O'Reilly wants to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals? Fine. It's his opinion. I disagree with it. But I do not want his right to express it taken away from him. The same goes for people like Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swagart. Their opinions differ from my own in MANY ways. The only way that concerns me is that they believe that it is their right to take away mine.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:48 pm

BB Shockwave wrote:Therefore, I say that borders must be set down - in fact some are already set down. You won't hear a narrator call someone names on CNN or Fox news.... So, why can't be a rule about when people actively urge others to exterminate a religion/minority? Or a rule about not abusing things others hold dear?

Finally! Finally some one understands and agrees with me on this. These words come to me like a breath of fresh air gusting through a tightfitted coffin in the middle of the Sahara desert.

It saddens me that like religion, the concept of free speech also has its extremists, who take the idea way, way beyond practicality.

The ideas of limitless free speech, the kind that Professor Smooth hopes for, will only lead to chaos and anarchy. If such an idea truly came to frution Professor, how long do you think the world would last?

Think about what you are hoping gets implemented. No offense, but you are living in a dream world. Here you say religious people hold to the make believe, yet in the same breath you propose a system that is doomed to fail, flawed from the very beginning.

Again, at the risk of suffering at the hands of Best First's dripping sarcasm, this is not a world of unfeeling robots. The World of Professor Smooth would be a cool world to live in. No one would feel pain, everyone would love each other.

But alas, such a world does not exist.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:24 am

BB Shockwave wrote:So, why can't be a rule about when people actively urge others to exterminate a religion/minority? Or a rule about not abusing things others hold dear?

Yes to point #1, no to point #2. Abu Hamza was locked up for inciting his followers to kill Jews and Christians, but he wouldn't have been locked away if he had said Jesus was a "bit gay". Case in point.

Yaya wrote:It saddens me that like religion, the concept of free speech also has its extremists, who take the idea way, way beyond practicality.

The ideas of limitless free speech, the kind that Professor Smooth hopes for, will only lead to chaos and anarchy. If such an idea truly came to frution Professor, how long do you think the world would last?

Anarchy? Looked around the internet lately?

Anyone can write what they want on the internet, as we've seen. We even had that Mohammed cartoon on here the other week. Did the world end? Oops, no it didn't. Don't be so melodramatic. People are always going to get offended about certain things, but protecting deities from criticism is ridiculous. As long as evangelists are allowed to spread the Word, we're allowed to take the piss out of it. End of story.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:10 am

Is anybody else sick to death of the extreme examples? Can we avoid looking at things at their most stark and perhaps bring it back down to earth?

Yaya, it's not complicated. You have beliefs that I don't agree with. I have beliefs that you don't agree with. You're not going to come into my bedroom and stop me from screwing. I am not going to go on television and suggest that Jesus was a cross-dressing nazi.

In the case of the Jesus program, you are missing a blindingly obvious fact. The program was not devised to piss off, defame, humiliate, and offend Christians. It was intended to entertain people.

Rarely, in the grand scheme of things, do people go out of their way simply to offend others. It's just a consequence that is completely unavoidable. There will always be people who are offended. I'm sure that when people who protest tax-money being spent on Christmas celebrations and Christmas trees were being renamed "Holiday trees" because they were offended, you disagreed with them. You were probably offended yourself. So, whose offense takes priority?

As far as not allowing people to defame Christians in the media goes, this obviously not a courtesty that Christians in the media are willing to return. Every time I see guys like Pat Robertson on television they're saying that group A (gays, jews, muslims, atheists, etc) are evil. On some occassions, they have publically hoped for government officials to die. Do you have a problem with these people? Do you think they should be allowed to say what they say?

If you were in charge of defining "freedom of speech/freedom of expression," how would you do it? Please, enlighten me.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:14 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Is anybody else sick to death of the extreme examples? Can we avoid looking at things at their most stark and perhaps bring it back down to earth?

I would love to bring this back to earth! But unfortunately, its the extreme examples, the actions of religious fanatics, that people like Impactor like tout as the quintessential examples of religous folk and the evil that religion has spread. I am merely fighting fire with fire. I'll stop with the extreme examples if you do, how about that?

Yaya, it's not complicated. You have beliefs that I don't agree with. I have beliefs that you don't agree with. You're not going to come into my bedroom and stop me from screwing. I am not going to go on television and suggest that Jesus was a cross-dressing nazi.

I'm okay with this. I don't care what you do behind closed doors or what your heart inclines to. And I am in agreement, I should not force any belief on you nor you on I. My problem stems from the underestimation that words cannot cause harm to others. This is the fallacy, the point where I begin to differ.

In the case of the Jesus program.... It was intended to entertain people.

Yet, it did the opposite to many. If was hurtful to them. Television, radio, all media that spans worldwide must have checks and balances. Hence the idea of censorship. Censorship is a necessity for such powerful entities. That's why it exists.

Look, I'm not Christian. Even still, I can understand where the source of their displeasure and hurt comes from. It comes from seeing something that one holds so close to their heart defiled, debased for the sake of entertainment. Find other ways to entertain yourself, don't do it at the expense of billions of people's foci of worship, respect, and love.

So, whose offense takes priority?

Like any physical attack, there are degrees of severity with words as well. Broadcasting your mother with a cow for the world to see would certainly take priority over someone calling her an asshole on the street somewhere. Neither is good, both should not occur, yet definitely one is worse than the other in scope and severity.

Every time I see guys like Pat Robertson on television they're saying that group A (gays, jews, muslims, atheists, etc) are evil. On some occassions, they have publically hoped for government officials to die. Do you have a problem with these people? Do you think they should be allowed to say what they say?

I have a major problem with these people. They should not be allowed to so vehemently and with such derision spew forth their slanderous propoganda for the world to hear anymore than a nonreligious figure. In fact, considering their position, they are more prone to inciting harm to others than the average schmoe. So in answer to your question, I feel they are a danger and should NOT be allowed to say what they say. Again, Jews, Muslims, etc. are human beings with feelings. What Pat Robertson says regarding other groups is baseless and merely a product of his own hate for these groups. Nothing constructive will ever come from his time on the air and the day he ends up shackled in prison will be a glorious day for the world.

If you were in charge of defining "freedom of speech/freedom of expression," how would you do it? Please, enlighten me

This is a very complicated question and a message board answer of a few lines would hardly do it justice.

Nevertheless, included in this provision would be the concept that anything said with malicious intent that would with obvious certainty result in the hurt or offense of others would be disallowed. Particulary those things that are clearly degrading to any human being, irrespective of religion, class, race, etc. One thing that the population of the world has in common is that we are all human beings. This means that, because we are in many regards the same, no matter who we are, some things will be hurtful to everyone. For example, unjustified namecalling would not fall under the right of freedom of speech because there are very few who would not feel the least bit hurt or angry. What good would come of it?
Because we are social beings, we must give up some individual rights for the good of all. As long as we live on this planet, we will never have complete freedom. It's just not practical.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:35 pm

Somebody? Anybody? He wants to make NAME CALLING illegal! Back me up here, guys! Bueller?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:47 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Somebody? Anybody? He wants to make NAME CALLING illegal! Back me up here, guys! Bueller?

You're American, like me.

Tell me then, if you walk up to a policeman and call him an ass, in Illinois, what's going to happen to that chap?

Bueller? Bueller?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:49 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:Somebody? Anybody? He wants to make NAME CALLING illegal! Back me up here, guys! Bueller?
You're American, like me.

Tell me then, if you walk up to a policeman and call him an ass, in Illinois, what's going to happen to that chap?

Bueller? Bueller?

There is no law against calling a policeman an ass. Legally, he can't do squat. Now, it's possible you'll get some hardass who does not understand this, but going by the letter of the law, name calling is not a crime.

Why is it that you completely disregard the fact that there are a lot of people who do not do things just to be cruel, obnoxious, or irritating? Why would you walk up to a cop and call him an ass? Chances are the cop has either done something ass-like or the person doing it is just a twit.

You see something you don't like, why don't you just look the other way if it's not effecting you. I don't walk into your church and start telling the preacher what to say. Believe me, there are a LOT of things that should offend me being said in churches, mosques, and synagogues(sp?).

How about a little common courtesty? There are over one thousand television channels. Many of which are religious channels that do nothing BUT offend people of different faiths. How about a little of that "turning the other cheek" that gets so much lip service?

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:48 pm

George Carlin makes me laugh.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1407.html

The part about the 10 Commandments starts around the 13:10 mark.

EDIT: Sorry-NSFW. Or Christians.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:15 pm

Professor Smooth wrote: There is no law against calling a policeman an ass. Legally, he can't do squat. .

And yet, almost certainly he would get arrested. He would trigger something in the policeman, the emotion of anger, and likely get arrested. Now in your world, the policemen would just laugh and walk away. What are the chances of that happening? Again, there's the ideal situation and then there's reality.

We should not be arguing about how people should be. We should remember how people are.

You see something you don't like, why don't you just look the other way if it's not effecting you.

Because it does affect you, only less directly. If blacks are consistently portrayed as thugs on TV, regardless of whether a black person watches TV or not, chances are many will think all blacks are thugs because of this. If Muslims are consistently portrayed as terrorist on TV who strap bombs to their heads, it still affects the average Muslim that doesn't watch TV. Should he protest this despite not having a TV? Of course he should, because it does affect him.[/quote]

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:19 pm

being black, or being religous are two different things, one isnt a choice.
Choosing what TV channel you view on the other hand is.
simple.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:30 pm

constantly portraying Muslims as terorists is vastly different to questioning a theology, but it through mocking is obvious flaws or rigerous academia.

One is encouraging stereotypes, the other is encouraging thought.

its not hard to distinguish.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:06 am

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote: There is no law against calling a policeman an ass. Legally, he can't do squat. .
And yet, almost certainly he would get arrested. He would trigger something in the policeman, the emotion of anger, and likely get arrested. Now in your world, the policemen would just laugh and walk away. What are the chances of that happening? Again, there's the ideal situation and then there's reality.

Actually when I was walking through San Francisco I saw this woman unloading on a cop in the street, like she was calling him every name she could think of and then some and the cop was all like, "Maam, go home please." and I think I was a little surprised by this, but it does happen, and shows that people can exercise some restraint when provoked. Let's all say it together "sticks and stones..."

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:59 am

I think Yaya's living in a world completely seperate from the rest of us... must be a nice world to him, as it appears he's right in it all the time.

Yaya wrote:We should not be arguing about how people should be. We should remember how people are.

Sorry. I just find it funny that in this instance the point you're arguing against is the point you're actually making.

People are what they are. You can't say that Smooth is wrong, as in Da EmVee's example above, there are people who can show restraint. I'm not saying you're wrong, there are definitely people who would get incredibly pissed off. I'm just saying that Smooth isn't wrong, either, and the entire argument is completely pointless as from this point on, it's all down to POV. You can put forward all the hypothetical situations you want, you're just arguing for argument's sake now and I, for one, find it incredibly entertaining.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:01 am

the important thing is not to make us more like robots.

however anything the provokes negative feelings should of course be outlawed.

mmm, happy robots.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:31 am

What if we turn out like LAW tho?

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:18 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:There was no call to exterminate a religion or the people who follow it. There was a program that said some controversial things about Jesus. Things that the scholars that worked on the program had researched in great detail. They may have been wrong in their findings, but the program, presented for the purposes of entertainment, but they were to be presented in a "for your consideration" type format.

Well that's a big difference... The christians in the US must be a tad lot easier to anger then here.

I mean, last time they aired a german-israeli movie (forgot the title) that was about an archeologist finding a videtape in Jerusalem ,left behind by a time-traveller who wanted to find out if Jesus exists... next thing, he's hunted by assassin catholic priests

(ridiculous as it sounds). Of course in the end it turns out Jesus didn't exist...

I guess if they'd air that movie in the States...

Best First wrote: the important thing is not to make us more like robots.

however anything the provokes negative feelings should of course be outlawed.

mmm, happy robots.

We should make intelligent robots like Asimov thought out, to lead us, rather then having idiots like Bush do it.

of course they'd come to the logical conclusion that humanity is helplessly flawed and'd exterminate us.

Maybe we should make them anyhow.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:34 am

can we call them Sentinels and make them looka bit 80's?