We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Dec 29, 2004 Last Post: Dec 29, 2004, 08:45 am		20
	Archive through Dec 30, 2004 Last Post: Dec 30, 2004, 12:37 pm		20

Posted By: Sindatur Dec 30, 2004 - 09:15 am

Keep in mind too, that while the FCC does go overboard at times, listening to a small overly vocal group, most of the censorship we are talking about is self imposed, as a knee jerk reaction, because of the fear of what the FCC "might" come down on them for.

So, it is actually a double edged sword.

Posted By: fanuilh Dec 30, 2004 - 10:02 am

Lastone:

RE: What if your freedom of speech attacks my freedom of religion?

This is a false dilemma. Freedoms are granted, in the US, anyway, by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Freedoms in other countries (if there are any) are granted by other means (not the US Constitution, that is). There is no way in which a individual's freedom of speech can endanger another individual's freedom of religion. A person can make derogatory comments about Judaism, and that has no effect whatsoever on anyone's right to practice it. They are free to continue to practice their religion, go to temple, observe their cultural holidays. Only the state can infringe.

RE: What’s the matter religious idiots in the U.S.A. can stuff up but we don't like it when dang foreigners do it?

Grammatically this sentence is a mess, which makes it difficult to figure out what you were trying to say, really. Which "religious idiots in the U.S.A." are you referring to, and what did they do that equates to charging the pastors with a violation of a patently unfair law that restricts freedom of speech, thereby having a chilling effect on freedom of speech throughout the country?

The Bible is also an historical document which tells us what happened in ancient times. Please find and cite for us passages in the Bible which encourage Christians to slaughter anyone who is not a Christian. Not historical events, not stories, not repetitions of what some leader or other in Biblical times ordered -- I want you to find and cite, chapter and verse, any part of the Bible that orders Christians to kill people who do not believe as they do. Find and cite, chapter and verse, any part of the Bible that equates to Qura'n verse 2:191: "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." Find and cite, chapter and verse, any part of the Bible that equates to Qura'n verse 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

"Those who believe not in Allah" is anyone who is not Muslim. That includes you. And me. And most of the rest of the people on this board. And a significant portion of humanity.

As I indicated earlier, I am not in the least bit surprised you are defending the law. You are a socialist. You do not believe that individual rights are of any import. You believe that the "rights of the state" are paramount.

Fortunately for the rest of us, socialists are well in the minority. Your freedoms are being taken away from you and you have no problem with that, and will continue to have no problem with it until they take away from you something that you actually value. By then it will be too late.

Pat0124 and others:

Saving Private Ryan was not shown in its entirety (or at all) on some channels because of the horrific violence in the scene on Omaha Beach. I have seen the movie. According to veterans who have seen combat it was a distressingly accurate depiction of the experience (minus the smells, of course). I can attest to the scene being nothing short of horrifying. It was part of the story and important to the story line, but coming as soon as it did after the Janet Jackson debacle, many network heads were unwilling to give anyone else a reason to claim an obscenity of some sort had been foisted upon them. The movie was broadcast here, in its entirety (I believe some colorful language was edited out) but there were warnings given before and during the broadcast so that no one could say they didn't know what was coming.

Posted By: fanuilh Dec 30, 2004 - 10:20 am

Ho, wait a second. Something just dawned on me.

Lastone, you are committing religious vilification against Christianity. You yourself have broken the law. I have saved your posts in Microsoft Front Page as screen shots, and they are archived in SFV's database even if you delete or edit them.

If I were to report you to the authorities in your country and they decided you needed to be dealt with as the pastors were, that would only be fair, wouldn't it?

This is not a threat. It's a question. What's your response?

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 30, 2004 - 10:38 am

I have no problem with a broadcaster showing a warning after a commercial pause to let viewers know what is coming.

When it came time to show Schindler's List on TV I can't recall anyone being offended by it. In my view Schindler's List is a much more disturbing movie because the violence goes to a different level. That human beings would choose to abuse other human beings in this fashion is something we might never quite understand.

I think it was important to show Private Ryan the way it was filmed, we should instead explain to the kids that yes this as happen, yes that was the way it happen, yes these men did this to one another because of such and such reasons, will it ever happen again, we pray that it never does but it did happen. That was more than 60 years ago, for many young kids today it's like a million years ago. We should let them see it and explain to them why it happen. Maybe they will grow up wiser then our grand parents or we ourselves are right now?

But no, we won't do that. That would involved talking with our kids, and we can't talk to our kids!! Much easier to complaint and have it block and scream that we are offended.

Kids are smart and sharp. The one thing they really one from us adults is love and that we can explain things to them. Let's not yell that they are disturbing us when they ask a question. Sure you had a hard day at work, but you know what my dad use to have hard days at work also, but he would never be too tired to answer me and my brother's questions. I feel sometimes that adult these days want kids but just don't want to raise them, let TV or Nitendo or Britney Spears do it for me.

Posted By: Magus Dec 30, 2004 - 12:37 pm

I have no problem with a broadcaster showing a warning after a commercial pause to let viewers know what is coming.

Yes. I like that part of the system. I also like rating systems that would help inform viewers of what they're watching. And, while I hate it, I can understand some editing of movies that are shown on TV, but only to an extent of time limitations or very slightly for minor content. I also like the idea of V-Chips and parental controls that limit what younger viewers may or may not watch, as how the parent sees hat it should be.

My question is this: With all of these safeguards and information available to the public, notwithstanding certain groping and flashing Superbowl moments, why are people up at arms about this? Worse comes to worse change the channel or turn the TV off.

And, a little off topic, I have a story about Schindler's List.

I was in sixth grade, seems like a lifetime ago. Our teacher told us that she liked Schindler's List and thought that we all should see it.

well, I asked my parents and we rented it. I started atching it, but didn't really like it. It wasn't really, at the time, my kind of movie. I left about halfway/three quarters of the way through it.

Well, our teacher asked us maybe a week later if we had seen the movie. Only I had. She asked how I liked it and I told her that I really didn't care for it. She says, and after all of these years I remember it exactly:

"Well, I guess that shows your maturity level."

WHAT???

Just because I don't like a movie meens that I'm immature? I was the only person in the class who even bothered to watch it and she thinks that I'm immature? There are adults who don't like that movie! Personal taste in movies doesn't count towards immaturity!

Just recently, about maybe 6 months, I saw it again. This time I watched the whole thing and, being older, I think I appreciated it more. It was a good movie, but still not quite my cup of tea.

I guess I'm still just an immature little boy.

Posted By: Pat0214 Dec 30, 2004 - 12:52 pm

Oh Magus!!! you just have to grow up I guess :-)

But you see that was something I was talking about before how adult do not know how to talk with children. She should of ask you why you did not like it instead of making a stupid comment.

Oh well maybe it's asking to much!

Between you and me, I saw it once and that was more or less enough for me also. It's a well made movie with a subject that is important to talk about and remember. Just not the type of movies I enjoy.

Posted By: Lastone Dec 30, 2004 - 03:47 pm

http://speculativevision.com/forum/messages/263/6129.html#POST55772

“If I were to report you to the authorities in your country and they decided you needed to be dealt with as the pastors were, that would only be fair, wouldn't it?

This is not a threat. It's a question. What's your response?”

My initial response! If you bothered to read the legislation I would not need to respond.

My second thought is that you have not understood anything about this discussion. Since you are still talking about reporting this to the authorities and the rights of the state over the rights of the individual. The authorities as you called them did not initiate these proceedings.

The Islamic council of Victoria took action against the Catch the fire Ministries, on the bases that they suffered discrimination.
A group of individuals taking civil action against another group of individual. Try to understand this is not a question of the state saying you must do this. It is resolving a situation where one individual or a group of individuals are having their rights effected by another individual or group.

Hence if you feel that I have vilified your religion you would not report me to the authorities you have to personally take action against me at V.C.A.T. (The Victorian Civil Administration Tribunal) You provide your own Lawyers. The state does not act on your behalf. You would be the Plaintiff and I would be the Respondent.

Finally if you bothered to read the legislation and the judgement links to which I have provided. You would know that I would be covered under the exemptions provided in section 11 of the act. I’ll not do your work for you, do the reading. Further it was you who reiterated that the pasters only used passages from the Quar’n. Those passages were used to suggest that Islam is a violent religion. I merely produced similar passages from the Bible; further pointing out that if we do not take a literal interpretation of what the bible tells us the Quar’n should be treated with the same kindness.

You need to read the definitions of the act to find how Religious vilification is defined. It’s not as simple as saying “Catholics are finks” So ultimately my response is go do your homework and when you know what you’re talking about we will discuss this further.

Posted By: fanuilh Dec 30, 2004 - 04:15 pm

I've done my homework. And the reality of it is very clear to me.

Wave goodbye to your freedoms. They're being taken away. You can hang a ribbon on it if it makes you feel better.

If the judge had followed the actual intent of Section 11, the pastors would have been acquitted.

"A person does not contravene Section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith - (a) In the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) In the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for - (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or (ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or (c) In making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest."

If it didn't apply to them, why should it apply to you, or to anyone?

Oh well. I know you're not stupid, so it's likely you're being deliberately obtuse. It's a shame, but it's not going to affect my life the way it's likely to affect yours. You're reacting exactly the way I had expected you would.

Good luck.

Posted By: Lastone Dec 30, 2004 - 05:32 pm

It should also be noted that the Pastor concerned was candidate in the last Federal Election. Could it be that he might have considered a bit of Muslim bashing could be a vote winner?

Posted By: Magus Dec 30, 2004 - 08:06 pm

Oh well, Pat0214. At least my parents agreed that she was stupid, in that regaurd at least. She was my least favorite grade school teacher. She wasn't bad, just not overly bright in certain areas.