Posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
What does it do to "public civility" when a major studio brings out a movie based on a book, both of which allege that a (real) religion is based on an abject lie and that a (real) organization, part of that religion, goes around the world killing people who might reveal the "truth"?
Do you think slander and lies on a massive scale for profit contributes to "public civility"?
IMO, if people want more "public civility," they can maybe start by not telling vicious, ugly lies about others, hmmm?
The controversial summer blockbuster made from the best-selling book? This isn't Pauly Shore's next movie.
Why can't atheists conspire if they are accusing the Christians of doing so?
So anyone involved in this film is an atheist? That's it, that's the ticket.
Is there anything about "the Da Vinci Code" to prove all religions are false?
Or could the Islamic cult use the seeds of doubt ("Christ was just a man, He was never crucified, etc.") to step in and say "this is what we've said all along, get on the RIGHT path and become muslim..."?
After the break-up comes the "rebound".
Definitely not, less then Pippin.
The big guy upstairs says he's wrong
Really? Did he issue a statement on McKellan's comments that I missed?
The film hasn't opened yet. It is EXPECTED to be a big blockbuster but then so was Ishtar.
The Swift Boat Veterans had a "controversial best-seller" too. I wouldn't expect a movie based on it to outsell Star Wars.
So anyone involved in this film is an atheist?
Ian is. The author is certainly opposed to Christianity.
I don't claim that everyone involved in this film is atheist. Would you claim that everyone involved in the production/promotion of The Passion was a Christian, there is no doubt that film had an agenda too.
I do question those who find it "worthy" ro promote this film over others (especially in light of the weak reviews).
I'm glad I only blew $2 to see it in the theater.
Slander on a massive scale is punishable by massive fines - as it should be.
There are huge numbers of religious people in this country. They certainly have the funds to mount a real lawsuit. I know this is costly, time-consuming, irritating. I don't know any other way. Only by mounting such an action, will the distinctions between free-speech and slander by clarified.
I know I have the right to publicly dispute any and all claims made by the Bible without fear of prosecution. I know I don't have the right to claim that a religious organization (or anyone) goes around killing people unless I can prove it.
It already IS a present reality, but you don't recognize it in it's secular form. When Trent Lott utters his blasphemous political opinion by liberal's standards or when some poor schmuck uses the word niggardly accurately there is Hell To Pay, and it ain't coming from the Christians.
"He's also a militant homosexual...."
"Didn't know that."
Watch the first X-men and whenever the script talks about "differeces" and "people different from normal people" just replace that with their true underling message to accept homosexuallity.
In particular in the scene when the mother asks her "closeted" x-man son "to just tried to act "normal"
Although I disagree wholeheartedly with the content, the cinematography is a case study in propaganda filming. Lighting, angles, etc. are all used to create a sense of majesty even as people are being stripped of their rights, and so effectively so, that they clamored for more.
The same techniques are used by propagandists today, from TV news to Hollywood (and other) movies.
It is one of those films that you can only praise in the proper context as too many people will automatically jump to the conclusion that you're a nazi (Joe are you now or have you ever been a nazi?).
No. I have never been a nazi, and have no desire or inclination to be one.
As abhorrent as the nazis were they did leave items of historical significance. That film is one of them.
And those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I am afraid we have reached the point where segments of our society are susceptible to that sort of programming, regardless of the 'message' behind it. Knowledge of and vigillance against those techniques is the best defense.
It's called political correctness.
I hate it...and do everything I can to ridicule it, curse it, expose it as one of the great dangers to our society.
There are ALWAYS such segments. That's the tough part, the part which separates the men from the boys.
Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality. He said plenty about greed, about hypocrisy and especially about judging others - but absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
I'd be a lot more worried about "Judge not lest ye be judged" than I would about something he didn't even see fit to mention.
Well badly cooked/spoiled shellfish tends to be toxic since they are bottom feeders. At this particular moment in history God was on to something.
I'll grant you that point - it makes sense. The ban about homosexuality made sense at the time too, since nomadic & agricultural societies needed to have as many children as possible. The one I have trouble grasping is the ban against wearing cloth made out of more than one material. Yes - according to the Bible, if you wear a cotton/polyester blend you are an abomination before God.
Again - many people seem to pick and choose which sins THEY think are important, while totally ignoring those THEY think are unimportant.
Nope, that's not the piece.
Yeah, but what about the Koran, Ian?
So.....he MIGHT not be the most unbiased authority on the Bible.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.