|
Was an awesome movie. Bravo Bill Maher for finally saying what a lot of people needed you to say. Seriously he blatantly pokes fun at how made up and fictional religions are including the bible. And now there'sa huge uproar because he made the movie. It's so funny that when you agree with religion you get no backlash but when you disagree you get bashed to nines so much for freedom of speech huh.
|
Yeah...freedom of speech is the freedom to hold your own opinion and not be forced into one line of thinking. it is not the ability to say whatever you want, and then cry about it when you obviously just offended a lot of other people who are now, look at that, excercising THEIR freedom of speech to complain about it. It is not a shield you can fall behind and expect no reprocussions.
I think everybody should have to go back to school and take a course on the constitution (The charter of rights and freedoms, if you live in Canada). You have a lot of rights guerenteed to you, but so many of them are abused and misunderstood regularly that it's apalling. Were you aware you have a freedom of religion? and that making that movie under "freedom of speech" can be taken to offend said freedom? Odd, eh?
incidently, no I have not watched the movie, nor will I due to a dislike of documentaries.
|
|
His appeal in the documentary is toward rational thought. He was basically appealing to the 16% non religious in America and 23% in Canada who are either atheistic or apathetic. Mainly cause religions have screwed things up all countries extremists in all religions. That was the point and it's true. He doesn't say anything to those who keep their beliefs to themselves he promotes that part.
|
|
His appeal in the documentary is toward rational thought. He was basically appealing to the 16% non religious in America and 23% in Canada who are either atheistic or apathetic. Mainly cause religions have screwed things up all countries extremists in all religions. That was the point and it's true. Hedoesn't say anything to thosewho keeptheir beliefs to themselves he promotes that part.
And I'm assuming that now he's getting complaints and critiques by the groups he's offended, correct? He'd almost have to be extremely naive to think he wouldn't be...
|
|
Mostly the Senator he interviewed, who thought it was for Bill Maher's HBO show and Various American christian groups.
Okay, so one senator who felt lied to (even if he wasn't, not really important), and a bunch of groups that you said above that he pokes fun at decided that they didn't like it, so they're complaining? okay, now where does your "when you disagree you get bashed to nines so much for freedom of speech huh" comment come into play? did they somehow try to stop him from releasing the movie using methods other then through the legal system? did they hold him down and try to force him to believe or say something differant?
as far as I can tell he excercised his freedom of speech to release it and they're excercising theirs to complain. there was no trampling on freedoms on either side.
|
|
It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.
Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
|
|
Yes they did it got banned in quite a few states. It was bannedin Utah, Ohio, Texas, and a few others.
Ok, but how did they get it banned? did they physically restrain him and burn all copies to go within state lines, or did they appeal, through the legal system, and have a ruling and paperwork to say it's banned? because if it's the second one then they have trampled on no rights at all.
|
|
It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
I can agree with knowing your facts before you present them, I have actually read the book of Mormon and never heard some of those beliefs such as God living on some obscure moon or something. I have heard the story of Joseph Smith and all that. But saying that I've heard of some pretty strange beliefs before as well.
|
|
Yes they did it got banned in quite a few states. It was bannedin Utah, Ohio, Texas, and a few others.Ok, but how did they get it banned? did they physically restrain him and burn all copies to go within state lines, or did they appeal, through the legal system, and have a ruling and paperwork to say it's banned? because if it's the second one then they have trampled on no rights at all.
I am almost positive they went through the legal system. I think it would have made the news big time if their was an assassination attempt against the man a huge film burning of the one movie.
|
|
The major point is he has the right to say and people to listen,just like people are allowed to preach their beliefs and people will listen. I was just happy to have a balance of opinion for once. From my point of view I am a married homosexual man in Canada, and I grow tired of only hearing constantly criticize me my lifestyle, and how I live my life I was happy to see someone lash back.
|
|
I am almost positive they went through the legal system. I think it would have made the news big time if their was an assassination attempt against the man a huge film burning of the one movie.Yes they did it got banned in quite a few states. It was bannedin Utah, Ohio, Texas, and a few others.Ok, but how did they get it banned? did they physically restrain him and burn all copies to go within state lines, or did they appeal, through the legal system, and have a ruling and paperwork to say it's banned? because if it's the second one then they have trampled on no rights at all.
Can you please post a link or something that backs up your claim that this movie was banned anywhere? I did some looking and can find nothing to support that. I saw mentions of boycotts, but that's it.
Yes they did it got banned in quite a few states. It was bannedin Utah, Ohio, Texas, and a few others.
I'm in Texas, and the movie is playing here. Facts, please.
Just read online magazine claiming it was banned their.
I'm guessing the online magazine is as made-up and fictional as religions, then.
|
|
I am almost positive they went through the legal system. I think it would have made the news big time if their was an assassination attempt against the man a huge film burning of the one movie.
My guess is that, if there is a ban, it is because private theater chains are just refusing to show the film, which is their right. The Constitution guarantees freedoms from the government, not private citizens, which is why Paizo can moderate their message boards, for example.
Here's the deal with "Freedom of Speech" that most people do not get: The amendment protects the U.S. citizen's FoS from the U.S. Government (each state has a similar provision). What most people do not understand is that it does not protect (and cannot) you from your neighbor. If I put up "Elect Elminster" signs in my front yard and my neighbor, a filthy Dragonlance biased lout, comes over, stomps on my sign, puts up a large, gaudily painted, "Elect Raistlin" sign in its stead, he has not abridged, violated, or in any way hindered my right to FoS. Why? He is not the Federal Gov't. Now, he may have violated a criminal law or two regarding trespass or destruction of property, but not FoS. True FoS has nothing to do with the original poster's point.
|
|
Here's the deal with "Freedom of Speech" that most people do not get: The amendment protects the U.S. citizen's FoS from the U.S. Government (each state has a similar provision). What most people do not understand is that it does not protect (and cannot) you from your neighbor. If I put up "Elect Elminster" signs in my front yard and my neighbor, a filthy Dragonlance biased lout, comes over, stomps on my sign, puts up a large, gaudily painted, "Elect Raistlin" sign in its stead, he has not abridged, violated, or in any way hindered my right to FoS. Why? He is not the Federal Gov't. Now, he may have violated a criminal law or two regarding trespass or destruction of property, but not FoS. True FoS has nothing to do with the original poster's point.
This is true, but it's not only the federal government. State governments are also bound by most of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
The major point is he has the right to say and people to listen,just like people are allowed to preach their beliefs and people will listen.
I don't know how things work in Canada, but I think you have some misconcenptions about what freedom of speech means in the US. The US Constitution limits the power of government. Specifically, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights tells us that the government cannot limit speech. Since these religious groups you've mentioned aren't government entities, it's not an infringement of Bill Mahr's right for them to speak out against him. Just the same as it's not an infringement of a religious groups rights for Bill Mahr to speak out against them. Also, Freedom of Speech doesn't come with any kind of implied (everyone must hear your opinion" clause. We also have Freedom of Ignore.
-Skeld
Edit: Ninja'd!
Most definitely. I did not want to get into the whole states' constitution thing as the US is really 50 different little countries with their own sets of rules (though they are quite beholden/limited to what the Fed Constitution forbids regarding Gov't conduct). The states can always grant more freedoms, they just cannot restrict them any further than the Fed Const does.
We also have Freedom of Ignore.
-Skeld
Thank God for that!
|
|
Most definitely. I did not want to get into the whole states' constitution thing as the US is really 50 different little countries with their own sets of rules (though they are quite beholden/limited to what the Fed Constitution forbids regarding Gov't conduct). The states can always grant more freedoms, they just cannot restrict them any further than the Fed Const does.
Canada runs on a similar system, with a similar bill of rights (Mostly written differently under a british system). But has a tendency toward a more european based political system.
What's so interesting to me is the definition of "religious beliefs." I work with many good-hearted, well intentioned people who would identify themselves as (or at least identify with) socially progressive, economically liberal, and (for lack of a better term) secularists. I have observed a religious back-lash from these folks against the "big-three" religions of the book (I think someone here referred to them collective as the Abrahamist religions) in general, and Christianity in particular. Eastern religions (or Eastern "Philosophies") do not seem to raise much ire, interestingly enough.
At any rate, I have overheard conversations outside my office door that center around: Obama, Progressive economic policies, a desire for a more secular President, Behavioral Science (I work with many behavioral scientists), Evolution, Atheism, Agnosticism and others (you get the idea). These conversations take on a religious tone and fervency all their own! Furthermore, I have found that "rational thought" is simply assumed to be attributed to the proponents of the above--agreeing with the speaker is "rational," disagreeing is not. Being a secularist is "rational," being a Christian is not. Supporting one presidential candidate is "rational," supporting the other is not.
The fact of the matter is that I am a Christian, and I believe that my faith is actually very rational. I understand that their are many believers in many religions that have a magical kind of faith and who do not question their own beliefs. Often it seems that these folks have a hard time explaining their own beliefs, and often it seems that these same folks put others down for not having the same kind of faith. The OP seems to have been a victim of this mentality--the same mentality that apparently makes it easy for Bill Maher to put others down for not sharing his own (I would argue, RELIGIOUS) beliefs.
I've found that it's always easier to mock another person than to really understand someone--some even make a living at it.
|
|
I hate that the term documentary is used whenever someone is actually trying to encourage a line of thought.
Documentaries used to be objective, by definition.
When I used that term, and I think I'm the only person in this thread to have used it, I was referring to the style of the movie, not the content. For me a documentary is anything featuring a series of interviews and discussions with people IRL, while trying to give a point or retell something that happened, or whatever. I just dislike watching that type of movie, objective or no.
|
|
I hate that the term documentary is used whenever someone is actually trying to encourage a line of thought.
Documentaries used to be objective, by definition.
Yeah, bith the far right and the far left have been using "documentaries" to push their agenda. I just wonder if this was already in the pipeline when Expelled came out, or if it's a reaction to it.
|
When I used that term, and I think I'm the only person in this thread to have used it, I was referring to the style of the movie, not the content. For me a documentary is anything featuring a series of interviews and discussions with people IRL, while trying to give a point or retell something that happened, or whatever. I just dislike watching that type of movie, objective or no.
No slight intended to you, I was thinking more along the lines of a certain fat-@$$ jerk with a ballcap who seems to be a godfather of the propaganda = documentary trend.
|
|
No slight intended to you, I was thinking more along the lines of a certain fat-@$$ jerk with a ballcap who seems to be a godfather of the propaganda = documentary trend.When I used that term, and I think I'm the only person in this thread to have used it, I was referring to the style of the movie, not the content. For me a documentary is anything featuring a series of interviews and discussions with people IRL, while trying to give a point or retell something that happened, or whatever. I just dislike watching that type of movie, objective or no.
No, this has been a trend since Leni Riefenstahl. It has just become more acceptable in recent years.
Um, it's showing in theaters in Texas, as well...
Yep, playing at Dunvale, but I skipped it... "Appaloosa" took priority. There are some deep truths in that movie, despite its "fiction" label.
Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
I've never felt 'clutched' by my church. Sometimes the pastor shakes my hand, but that's about it.
I think I have a good grasp of both scientific and religious ideas. For me, religion is more metaphorical and moral. It doesn't have to be answerable to the tyranny of reason.
|
|
It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
What was said about Mormonism? (I haven't seen the movie, and am trying to decide whether or not it's worth seeing.)
|
|
What was said about Mormonism? (I haven't seen the movie, and am trying to decide whether or not it's worth seeing.)It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
According to Maher, who only talked to former members who left the LDS Church, Mormons believe that god is a man who stands 6 feet tall and lives on the planet Cholu and that he had promiscuous sex with multiple women to populate the Earth. He also said that we believe the "Mormon underwear" protects us from fire, disease, and injury. He did add a few factual things, we do believe that some Native Americans are decended from a branch of the tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith did say that the place where Adam dwelled after being expelled from the Garden of Eden in in Jackson County Missouri, but that is not the official doctrine of the church. Considering that anthropologists and historians now believe that many of the tribes in central America may have originated in Asia and Africa, is it reall that far fetched to believe that some may have originated in the Middle East as well?
|
|
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
However, as was pointed out in the film by the Vatican's chief scientist and the promptly ignored, The Bible is not viewed by most Christians as a scientific work, and is not intended to be one. It is a book about morals and virtues, and many things are meant to be understood as alegory rather than fact. I believe in God and am a religious person, but I also understand the natural laws by which the world and the universe work and believe that God would work within those laws to accomplish his goals. Even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
|
|
Fact: Religious belief is not based upon disprovable, testable premises and as such cannot be scientifically tested. So it is impossible to prove whether God, or whoever/whatever you chose to believe in, exists or, indeed, does not exist.
So if you believe in God, it is a personal choice as similarly as not believing in God is a personal choice. It isn't based (either way) on rational priciples of logic but on emotional preferences. I am an atheist, and I simply don't like the notion of a supposedly benevolent being lording it over me and the rest of creation, and prefer scientific explanations of the world.
I can't speak for this film, as I haven't seen it and I don't doubt it overstates its case. However, to an atheist a lot of religion can seem quite silly (especially some of the ritual aspects) and arbitrary and this is probably what the film reflects. It's probably a lot more controversial in the US than it would be here in the UK (where most people are probably agnostic if they ever bother to think about it).
Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
So what you're saying is that because you can't grasp the concept of an eternal creator as the originator of existence, you're content to believe a bunch of theories (i.e. fairy tales) thought up by some guys who feel they're too sophisticated and clever to have been creations of a supreme being?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity drive us into excepting the theories (fairy tales) of men unable to accept faith in God?
See how that works? Ultimately, science is not able to prove or disprove the existence of God and their is no truly universally accepted theory of origin. Even secular scientists don't always agree about the big bang. It all comes back to faith, whether in god or in man.
Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
So what you're saying is that because you can't grasp the concept of an eternal creator as the originator of existence, you're content to believe a bunch of theories (i.e. fairy tales) thought up by some guys who feel they're too sophisticated and clever to have been creations of a supreme being?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity drive us into excepting the theories (fairy tales) of men unable to accept faith in God?
See how that works? Ultimately, science is not able to prove or disprove the existence of God and their is no truly universally accepted theory of origin. Even secular scientists don't always agree about the big bang. It all comes back to faith, whether in god or in man.
No, quite different that. I trust scientists who have to prove (or at least show reasonable speculative theories within known provable scientific measures) how their views of creation, the Universe, etc etc work, more than some guys who made up a load of (by any standards unprovable) moral faerie stories thousands of years ago.
There should be no more need for scientists to disprove the existence of the Christian deity than they should have to disprove the existence of leprechauns, or fire breathing dragons, etc.
Name me one scientist who believes science has definitively explained or understood everything about the big bang. Naturally scientific knowledge grows and expands as more evidence is discovered through experiments, theories, and debate. Indeed scientific growth stands in stark contrast to the typically static and conservative nature of organised religion.