 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: "'Speaking' directly, man to man, as a normal person would..." LOL! posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2003 at 15:08:14:
You worry about ad hominem attacks before they occur and apparently have denial problems when confronted about your refusal to talk directly. BTW, one can't help but notice that your aloof responses are quite selective, which only serves to reinforce the appearance of pettiness.>>> "Could it be that these people were invited because they were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!" <<<
"...were *Christians* ..." - So, are you suggesting that the movie might cause them to renounce their faith or recommit to it? ;^)
Seriously, if the movie didn't come off as somewhat anti-semitic why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?
>>> "Aha! There's the answer already. Because they were *Christians*." <<<
So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?
>>> "Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!" <<<
Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms? I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head. I* guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?
As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through, but IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience. But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
The writer's language is so stuffy, one is tempted to be merely amused. However, a couple questions seem worth addressing.
"...why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?"Boston has numerous "Jewish Film Festivals". Does anyone in his right mind suppose that care is taken to invite Christians, Buddhists, Pagans etc. to the preview night? Geez!
"So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?"
All screenings are exclusionary. The writer ascribes that to bigotry. Let him indulge himself.
"Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms?"
Maybe this is humor?
"I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head."
Maybe this is patronizing?
"I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?"
Under the Cross? Geez!
"As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through."
Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions? Or more recently, being the constant butt of safe (albeit toothless and spineless) jokes by the liberals?
"But IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience."
Ho hah. TLOB happened before preview audiences were used. That censorship was good ol' cowering before the powers.
"But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)"
Meaning, that it's cool to let them censor it?
Someone here has a weird view of free speech.
clark
> > > "The writer's language is so stuffy..." < < <Sorry Clark, I would take a Benadryl, but I doubt that it would clear-up my perception of your biases.
> > > "Boston has numerous 'Jewish Film Festivals'..." < < <
So, what does this have to do with our discussion here? Are you suggesting that they go out of their way to select attendees based on faith or political point of view as was done in the instance of Mel's film? LOL! If THAT'S your justification for The Passion's VIC (Very Important Christian) screening, then you'ld better work on it a bit! 8^D
> > > "Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions?" < < <
Earth to Clark! You're comparing this to the Holocaust, the attempted genocide commited in modern times by folks calling themselves Christians? Wow, if I weren't shocked by the outrageousness of your views I'd try to muster a laugh. Let's see, those poor abused Christians who were thrown to the lions, when? Oh yeah, nearly 2000 years ago!
As for Christians being the butt of *safe* jokes by Liberals, albeit toothless and spineless in your estimation, well, you only have bonafide space cadets like Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson, hypocritical womanizing evangelists like Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swaggert and crazed cultists like David Koresh & Jim Jones to thank for that!
If Christian evangelicals and other weak-minded overzealous folks would keep their own council and leave the rest of us the you-know-what alone then there'ld probably be a lot less cause for concern over entertainment and how it might be perceived by the public at large.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
