Topic: stupidity (Read 4641 times)

Dannyboy · « **on:** December 07, 2005, 06:26:26 AM »

i've just been reading about the unintentional Christmas gift that some US liberals are handing right-wing pundits, without apparantly realising it. The gift is a weapon, created by hyper-politically-correct stupidity, which people like Ann Coulter will take every opportunity to use against them - in this instance, rightly so.

It's Christmas, of course.

Apparently the ACLU is suing all and sundry for daring to create nativity scenes, say 'Merry Christmas' or sing 'Jingle Bells', because it may be offensive to people of other religions. Hello? 'Jingle Bells'? Does it even contain any religious references?

Now as an atheist, this might be the sort of thing that you would expect me to support. i don't. Anymore than i think Muslims should be banned from publically celebrating Ede. People get too easily offended. Not a Christian? That's ok. YOU dont have to say 'Merry Christmas', but there is no frikkin' point (other than giving the Coulters of this world some new titbit to publically froth over) in legislating aginst other people doing it. Truth is, those doing the legislating are probably Christians themselves, but as is so often the case, when they get started on the basically noble mission of making sure that people of other faiths dont get offended, they go too far. Way too far.

Christmas is getting more secular anyway, which is something that the other side of the fence gets very upset about, and now will find that they have even more justifications for blaming on those d--n crazy hippy homo bleeding-heart liberals. It's going to happen anyway, just calm down.

Me, i like Christmas. Honestly, screw whether it was originally a pagan holiday (we all know that it was) - it's mostly been a happy time of year for me when my family all get together. Other people may feel differently, and that's ok, but when we start banning the celebration of traditional holidays in order to protect the feelings of the minority who dont celebrate them, we have officially drifted into crazyland.

It's like all this recent fuss about Narnia. i liked the book as a kid, although i didnt get the religious allegory. Now i do, and i like it a little less, but i'll still probably go and see it. The religious right is plugging it as the best thing since 'the Passion' (and there's a lukewarm advocation if ever i heard one), and the unreligious left is complaining that it's a Christian propaganda movie. Maybe everyone could just take things (including themselves) a bit less seriously. If you dont like it, dont go and see it.

So consider this a heart-felt plea against stupidity, whether it emmanates from the left or the right. This holiday season, everybody just celebrate whatever the hell they want to.

Happy Winter Solstice!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2005, 08:48:13 AM »

Is THAT what it takes you to throw in a word around here? Gosh, if I'd have known that I would have been feeding you Coulter's columns for a long time now.

I won't say anything about the Nativity thing... that's been going on and getting worse for years. Students are getting sent home for wearing crosses. A college student was suspended for having a Bible study in his dorm room- because the dormitory is 'public.' So the Nativity thing is just a high profile manifestation of an already serious matter. On my side of the aisle, it does not reduce to politics.

But I will say something about your Narnia remarks. You need to understand the Christian community's happiness about the Narnia movie coming out in context of the Nativity/obscene political correctness that you called attention to. For years, Christianity has been getting hammered on every front, and when Christians fight back there is a litany of rebuttals, all of which seem to be suggesting that the real truth is that Christians are being nothing more than whiners.

The number one grossing Rated R film was Mel Gibson's Passion. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy did exceedingly well. In the former, obviously the Christian message was explicit. In the latter, it was very much not. Yet both, along with Narnia, are very dear to Christians. Why does the Christian Right also glory in the likes of TLOTR?

Because for so long, Hollywood only used Christians as pinatas, and it mocked its message, and it mocked its standards of decency, and it pretended that there was nothing in the Christian universe that could rise beyond lukewarm banality- ie, nothing in Christianity could ever be expected to appeal to a wider audience. So, we've had to put up with movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and being cast as the stock 'radical fundamentalist' like in Sagan's "Contact."

Movies like Narnia mean that its safe to send our kids to the movie theater without them having to deal with constant and persistent attacks on our values and message.

Before Harry Potter, children and adults alike were being thrilled by the fiction of GK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, Madeline L'Engle, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkein. We like the turn of events, not merely because the fictional work in question has explicit Christian overtones (thought that's definately part of it), but because it's become so abundantly clear to certain powers out that there are attractive elements to Christianity, and they can make a load of money, both in and out of the Christian community, by addressing those elements.

Ie, the vast majority of America is starting to feel as though their representatives in the Hollywood Congress have finally begun to make their voices heard.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2005, 09:49:41 AM »

Johnny,

These things go in phases y'know - i'm not sure that your particular special interest group is so different to any other in that respect. Ok, so there may have been an anti-Christian trend in Holywood in recent years, i'm prepared to believe it. i don't really feel that Christians should receive any greater sympathy for having to endure films like 'Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Contact' (after all, the rest of us had to endure 'Contact' as well) than i should now get for having to endure films which dont appeal to my personal beliefs.

And as for always being made the bad guy, come on! The English were the stock bad guys in Holywood movies for decades. Vader was the ONLY American on the Death Star, and that's only because James Earl Jones does a cool voice-over. The actual actor was Welsh.

Joking aside, i dont see how your beef is any more valid than that of Russians and South Americans, who could much more justifiably be said to have been on the damp side of the Holywood casting-couch for years and years. Maybe things are changing now, and that's good - some other special interest group gets to feel victimised (and hey, maybe it's the secularists' turn). i for one promise not to whine about it.

Should you now be comiserating with me that my hypothetical future children probably wont be able to go to the movie theater without having to deal with constant and persistent attacks on MY values and message? Y'know, since this is the way the tide is turning.

Lighten up brother.

Incidentally, what's this about christian themes in LOTR? If there were any then they completely passed me by.

Peace out homie

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2005, 12:05:53 PM »

"Lighten up brother."

You're telling me to lighten up? lol, look at you! You were the one ranting about liberals handing an easy issue to the 'radical right!'

I wasn't being overly serious. I was just trying to put it into context. In that light, your arguments about other groups being victimized too are not relevant to what I was saying. Christians are the majority in this country, but the entertainment establishment was ignoring them completely as a market place. The movies coming out that Christians can get behind are making the producers a load of money- and this is the thing- non-Christians can get behind these movies, as well.

That so much money was sitting un-touched shows how in Hollywood, ideology trumped good business sense for a long time.

"Should you now be comiserating with me that my hypothetical future children probably wont be able to go to the movie theater without having to deal with constant and persistent attacks on MY values and message? Y'know, since this is the way the tide is turning."

What is your message, exactly?

And the fact that you enjoyed Narnia before, and even after (though to a lesser degree) finding out about the christological elements indicates to me that the values contained within it are your own values, too.

"Incidentally, what's this about christian themes in LOTR? If there were any then they completely passed me by."

And yet you probably loved the books and movies, anyway.

That Tolkien did a fine job, didn't he?

To answer that directly would require it's own thread, I think. Suffice it to say that skeptics and atheists have a very narrow view of what Christianity is all about. For a good primer on some big picture aspects of Christianity, I submit to you GK Chesterton's "Orthodoxy."

That's just to get you started.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2005, 12:42:36 PM »

"You were the one ranting about liberals handing an easy issue to the 'radical right!'

"

Yes, but part of my rant was that everyone should be more relaxed about things. Is that a contradiction?

"Christians are the majority in this country, but the entertainment establishment was ignoring them completely as a market place. The movies coming out that Christians can get behind are making the producers a load of money- and this is the thing- non-Christians can get behind these movies, as well."

So why couldn't you Christians get behind the older movies then, if non-christians are expected to pay money to watch films which completely ignore them as a marketplace? Yes, i am being difficult.

"And the fact that you enjoyed Narnia before, and even after (though to a lesser degree) finding out about the christological elements indicates to me that the values contained within it are your own values, too."

Different viewpoints share common values - so? Doesnt that invite the question of why you couldnt enjoy movies made by fellow human beings but not directed specifically at your demographic?

Anyway, i disagree that your statement necessarily follows. Just because i can watch and enjoy a film does not mean i therefore hold all the values which it promotes.

As far as Chesterton goes - give me a break. i read that book (on your recommendation) about four years ago without it noticably changing my life, and i am definitely not going to take the time to do it again. i'm not buying the LOTR/Christianity connection (although i know it was Tolkein who converted CS Lewis). i reckon you could find me aspects of Christianity in any book, film or play that i could mention, but that's only because it's so tied up in the heritige of western society. That doesnt make every piece of European or American literature for the last 2000 years implicitly christian in its message. You just go back to finding faces on Mars.

dark territory · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2005, 12:53:11 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2005, 01:32:43 PM »

"Is that a contradiction?"

Only if my post is to be construed as not being light enough.

"So why couldn't you Christians get behind the older movies then,"

eh?

"if non-christians are expected to pay money to watch films which completely ignore them as a marketplace?"

You missed something that I said twice, now. Non-Christians aren't being ignored, and won't be, even if more Christian-friendly films are made. The Passion, Narnia, and much more easily to see, the TLOTR movies all appealed to non-Christians as much as Christians.

"Yes, i am being difficult."

No surprise there. :) I don't understand why you are being difficult though. I'm only explaining to you some of the reasons Christian sentiment is the way it is. I'm mainly reporting to you the full context of the facts on the ground. There is no sense in arguing with me about its rationality. Even if I agreed it was irrational, these would still be the reasons Christian sentiment is the way it is. Why can't you simply consider yourself better informed? :)

"Different viewpoints share common values - so? Doesnt that invite the question of why you couldnt enjoy movies made by fellow human beings but not directed specifically at your demographic?"

Sure. That's only asking me why Christians have tended to stay away from these movies. Surely I don't have to answer that question. Gratuitous sex scene, anyone? Did this story really need me to see this woman's breasts? Or this man's butt? Was it really necessary to see the blood splattered on the wall? I GET that he was just murdered. Ok, the brutal rape scene. Or, you know, Mr. Tarantino, just for the record, "The Usual Suspects" was a great movie, but it wasn't made any greater by the litany of profane language. You realize, that right? You could have taken out the profane language and it would have been terrific. ....

On the other hand, as I have repeatedly said, movies targetted to 'my demographic,' if done using the same high powered capital resources used for other movies, are not at all limited to 'my demographic.'

You see, the overflow only works in one direction: Appeal to Christians, get the non-Christians. Appeal to non-Christians, exclude the Christians.

"Just because i can watch and enjoy a film does not mean i therefore hold all the values which it promotes."

I can agree with that to a large extent. However, it cannot be denied that we do tend to prefer entertainment that does coincide with our values. Also, perhaps the word 'enjoy' doesn't quite work. I found my viewing of "Schindler's List" to be a good use of my time, but I wouldn't say that I enjoyed the movie. However, the movie resonated with me specifically because the values that I cherish were fighting vigorously with values I oppose, and in this instance at least, my values won the day.

"As far as Chesterton goes - give me a break. i read that book (on your recommendation) about four years ago without it noticably changing my life, and i am definitely not going to take the time to do it again."

That just goes to show how poor expectations really taint such conversations. We see it in this thread. I'm trying to explain to you why Christians feel the way they do about movies like Narnia, and you're arguing with me about it. I tell you that "Orthodoxy" does a good job explaining the larger Christian point of view, and you read it expecting it to 'change your life.' Give ME a break.

Do you want to reject Christianity the way it really is, or the way you perceive it? Do you want to reject the robust description of Christianity, or are you content to smack down the strawman description?

I recall that I recommended it to you, and I admit I don't recall the context, but I would be willing to bet it was similar to this one. You want to actually understand our position? Don't argue- just shut up and listen.

I say that with every light hearted bone in my body.

When you actually have grasped what Christianity is all about, and still find it untenable, fine. I can't object to that! But actually make the effort to hear us out in our own words.

"i'm not buying the LOTR/Christianity connection"

Like I said, I think it would need its own thread. As Tolkien is on the record saying that his books are not allegorical and in no wise supposed to be taken that way, I submit to you that you'll have to be prepared to consider the question in a different way then you might imagine.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2005, 09:07:51 AM »

Fiesty.

Ok ok, i get that you are trying to enlighten me here, and i honestly wasnt meaning to pick on you while you were doing it. Just some things you said didnt make sense to me and i addressed them perhaps a little more aggressively than i would have done had i been talking to someone other than you. My bad.

"Gratuitous sex scene, anyone? Did this story really need me to see this woman's breasts? Or this man's butt? Was it really necessary to see the blood splattered on the wall? I GET that he was just murdered. Ok, the brutal rape scene. Or, you know, Mr. Tarantino, just for the record, "The Usual Suspects" was a great movie, but it wasn't made any greater by the litany of profane language. You realize, that right? You could have taken out the profane language and it would have been terrific. ...."

i just reproduced this paragraph cos i think its funny. Not a big fan of Tarantino either (although i did really enjoy 'The Usual Suspects').

Film-makers have a constant balance to strike between showing what people want to see and accurately reflecting the world in that big old mirror their supposed to be holding up to life. i guess they've graduated to sex scenes and violent murders but still feel that the viewing public probably dont want to witness any of the characters' toilet habits. You'd rather they drew the line a little higher, well i can agree with that mostly.

"You see, the overflow only works in one direction: Appeal to Christians, get the non-Christians. Appeal to non-Christians, exclude the Christians."

Not sure i agree. The majority of non-christians i know would have drunk their own bathwater rather than go and see 'Passion', myself included.

"Just because i can watch and enjoy a film does not mean i therefore hold all the values which it promotes."

"I found my viewing of "Schindler's List" to be a good use of my time, but I wouldn't say that I enjoyed the movie. However, the movie resonated with me specifically because the values that I cherish were fighting vigorously with values I oppose, and in this instance at least, my values won the day."

Completely agree, i felt very much the same way. DON'T spoil this moment of unity by telling me that this is because my values are Christian values. That doesnt follow any more than me telling you that your values are atheist values, and it'll only make me grouchy.

"I'm trying to explain to you why Christians feel the way they do about movies like Narnia, and you're arguing with me about it. I tell you that "Orthodoxy" does a good job explaining the larger Christian point of view, and you read it expecting it to 'change your life.' Give ME a break."

Excuse my hyperbole. i didnt expect Orthodoxy to change my life (luckily), but i didnt find it particularly enlightening either. i think we discussed it at the time - probably lost in the mists of cyberspace.

"When you actually have grasped what Christianity is all about, and still find it untenable, fine. I can't object to that! But actually make the effort to hear us out in our own words."

To be fair, it is a very easy out for you to tell me that i 'just dont understand christianity' and therefore have no grounds on which to reject it. i ask you to explain yourself and you cite a book i have already read, and when i point this out (admittedly, slightly bombastically) you tell me i need to make more effort to hear what you are saying.

i'm listening.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2005, 09:24:09 AM »

The following things got my attention more given this thread.

Ann Coulter got shouted down at a speech. Her critics criticized "her for spreading a message of hate and intolerance."

I would think the hypocrisy would be evident to all.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html

She is not by any means the only conservative to get shouted down.

And in another story, I think this guy is taking Christmas too seriously. What do you think?

http://www.local6.com/news/5491296/detail.html

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2005, 09:45:35 AM »

I see we posted at the same time. Well, its ok, I guess.

"Fiesty."

At your service!

"My bad."

Oh well, I can't say it's all your fault. Obviously, at the same time I am presenting it, in many respects I am within the position, too. I'll just take the heat for all of them!

"i just reproduced this paragraph cos i think its funny. Not a big fan of Tarantino either (although i did really enjoy 'The Usual Suspects')."

Tarantino, in my opinion, is a master story teller. TUS was awesome. Kaiser Soze................ Kaiser SOZE........

"You'd rather they drew the line a little higher, well i can agree with that mostly."

This get's into personal prefs a little. For example, some Christians might disagree with my belief that if the particular content really is necessary for the story, then the movie maker may be justified in including it. That doesn't mean that I'll watch it, or approve of it, or whatever. It's the mere shock value gratuitous sex scene stuff that bothers me, personally. Good example of a movie that really got on my nerves was "Double Jeapordy." Good story (maybe) but it starts off with this hot and heavy sex scene. It's just part of Hollywood's canned script on what they think a movie requires to make money, which of course is what we thought they wanted to do- but it turns out it was actually suppressing quite a bit of potential revenue.

On the other hand, the violence in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan I felt was fully justified, and I think that such efforts help counteract the sanitizing that has happened.

"Not sure i agree. The majority of non-christians i know would have drunk their own bathwater rather than go and see 'Passion', myself included."

heh, well I over-stated it. Obviously the realm of creativity is so expansive we can only make general comments.

"Just because i can watch and enjoy a film does not mean i therefore hold all the values which it promotes."

"Completely agree, i felt very much the same way. DON'T spoil this moment of unity by telling me that this is because my values are Christian values."

*sntjohnny gagged*

"i think we discussed it at the time - probably lost in the mists of cyberspace."

Pretty sure we didn't. I did not know that you read it, and I'd have remembered if we had discussed it. The old forum is still up at www.sntjohnny.com/xmb if you can find what you're thinking of.

"i ask you to explain yourself and you cite a book i have already read, and when i point this out (admittedly, slightly bombastically) you tell me i need to make more effort to hear what you are saying."

I apologize for the apparent cheap debate trick. I had in mind simply an attempt to reduce time typing and such.

"i'm listening."

But where to start?

Dannyboy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2005, 10:42:58 AM »

J-dawg,

"Ann Coulter got shouted down at a speech. Her critics criticized "her for spreading a message of hate and intolerance."
I would think the hypocrisy would be evident to all."

Well, yeah kind of. i have a hard time siding with someone like Ann Coulter (or, to be fairer, the impression i have of her, which may be incorrect), but i defend her right to say stupid inflammatory things.

i think 'Freedom' is currently the most mis-used word in the English language.

"And in another story, I think this guy is taking Christmas too seriously. What do you think?"

i'd say somebody didnt get what they wanted from Santa last year.

"*sntjohnny gagged* "

ah come on then, i know you're dying to unravel that one for me.

"But where to start?"

There's nothing for it dude, i think you're going to have to come over here.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2005, 03:41:22 PM »

Dannyboy I only think there is a legal problem with nativity scenes if their either on public property or goverment funded.

dark territory · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2005, 04:21:35 PM »

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2005, 10:58:17 AM »

Quote from: dark territory

Quote
Dannyboy I only think there is a problem with nativity scenes if their either on public property or goverment funded.

...Are you saying the government (local or national) should not recognize any religous holiday or celebration because it is illegal?

I agree with AH about this, and the ACLU has always been on the right side about this. We are a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, but the government is barred from playing a role in promoting Christianity. What the Constitution says is that religion is a matter of personal conscience. It is not supposed to constantly remind Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc., that they are living in a society that wants them to believe in Christ.

Nativity scenes and 10 Commandment monuments are not barred from public display. They are simply barred from display on property that would make them a government endorsement of a particular religious point of view.

Getting back to Dannyboy's original point, however, it is criminally stupid for an atheist to attack Christmas. That is a time when Christians can celebrate their beliefs as well as have fun. I am bemused by the fact that some Christians actually attack Christmas on the grounds that it somehow cheapens the religion. Frankly, it has always been one of my favorite holidays.

Unfortunately, there is one atheist group that has declared a "war on Christmas", and they have been generally repudiated by other secular organizations. See this article in the Humanist Network News. I agree completely with the HNN that this is a publicity stunt that plays into the hands of those who want people to believe that Christianity is under attack by liberals. No such war exists, but there will always be extremists on both sides of the religion debate who have something to gain from such tactics.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2005, 11:03:31 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

Quote from: dark territory
Quote
Dannyboy I only think there is a problem with nativity scenes if their either on public property or goverment funded.

...Are you saying the government (local or national) should not recognize any religous holiday or celebration because it is illegal?

I agree with AH about this, and the ACLU has always been on the right side about this. We are a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, but the government is barred from playing a role in promoting Christianity. What the Constitution says is that religion is a matter of personal conscience. The government is not supposed to constantly remind Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc., that they are living in a society that wants them to believe in Christ. Why? Because their right to their religious conscience is guaranteed by government.

Nativity scenes and 10 Commandment monuments are not barred from public display. They are simply barred from display on property that would make them a government endorsement of a particular religious point of view.

Getting back to Dannyboy's original point, however, it is criminally stupid for an atheist to attack Christmas. That is a time when Christians can celebrate their beliefs as well as have fun. I am bemused by the fact that some Christians actually attack Christmas on the grounds that it somehow cheapens the religion. Frankly, it has always been one of my favorite holidays.

Unfortunately, there is one atheist group that has declared a "war on Christmas", and they have been generally repudiated by other secular organizations. See this article in the Humanist Network News. I agree completely with the HNN that this is a publicity stunt that plays into the hands of those who want people to believe that Christianity is under attack by liberals. No such war exists, but there will always be extremists on both sides of the religion debate who have something to gain from such tactics.

dark territory · « **Reply #15 on:** December 10, 2005, 12:24:00 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** December 10, 2005, 01:05:09 PM »

I guess the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't mean anything, either.

dark territory · « **Reply #17 on:** December 10, 2005, 01:21:09 PM »

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 10, 2005, 03:02:18 PM »

Quote from: dark territory

Cop? That doesn't answer my question. Should we leave all religion off of public land? This includes atheism of course. I want you to know that I was in a state institution talking to someone about God, and an athiest started to trip out that I mentioned the word or when I was not interested in stopping when he brought up the tabboo. I let the person know as nicely as I could that they did not have to listen. I would go out and get them when I was done. There was a sumof about 6 people in the room. One objection. The rest wanted me to continue they encouraged me to speak, so I did.

Sorry, Dark, but my post did address the question. It is not a matter of "leaving all religion off public land". It is a matter of the government appearing to advocate a religious opinion. Do you agree with me that the Constitution obligates the government not to explicitly endorse Christianity? Among other things, this means that public school teachers cannot teach children that Christianity is right or wrong.

I do not know the circumstances of your encounter, and I have no idea whether this issue is even relevant to it. Perhaps you ought to present the details in a new thread.

Quote

So where do you think the line ends or begins?

That really depends on the situation, doesn't it? The general principle is clear enough: government neutrality on matters of religion. Our government has actually crossed the line many times in the past, and the current government has been worse than most.

Quote

I think if you are claiming seperation of church and state I believe the people have done so. America is not a Theocracy. It's a new Democracy. Steming from deism. Not theism or church. Our founding fathers of this great nation understood the perils of misguided power. So they the took power and divided it. We have a vote, we have rights. No one serves a single power. The people elect people to manage power for a short time. No monarchy. Each person has the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Let's try to focus on just the church-state separation piece. Many prominent patriots were deists in the 18th century, but that does not mean that the government was founded on deist principles or that they intended it to promote deism. Quite the opposite, I think. Although not Christians themselves, they intended the government to represent Christians and non-Christians alike.

Quote

I think the nativity scene could easily be a christmas tree with candy canes on it. Oh my. It is my opinion that a nativity scene is an ornament.

I do not. Non-Christians do not necessarily see Christmas trees a symbols of the Christian religion. The custom does, after all, have a pagan origin. However, it is ultimately the job of the courts to sort such things out. A nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is clearly a religious symbol meant to show that the government endorses that religion. The people in court who try to defend it are usually those who see its removal as an attack on religion. Hence, they, too, see it as a religious symbol. They just don't want the government to remove their symbol.

dark territory · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2005, 11:54:36 PM »

Author Topic: stupidity (Read 4641 times)