Carrey film "too risqué" for US release

[The Pessimist]

Again, the issue isn't whether they have the right to make these or the right to see them. It's about whether it is a good thing, and a large segment of people DO NOT want to talk about good or bad, saying "It's for the individual to decide," a complete dodge--yeah, we KNOW it's for the individual to decide, but do you think the results of those individual choices result in something that's good or bad?

For some reason, people dismiss this kind of discussion with "It's their right." Well, yeah, it's their right--so what? What's that got to do with whether or not it has a good or bad impact on society? And society indeed exists as something that can and is shaped by conscious actions.

There isn't any such thing as "societal rights", "public morality", etc... all of those are socialism, and justifications for social action: namely forcing one's morality above others via gov't intervention. You say that you don't support interfering with the pornists choices, but than you draw to what's best for "society", which usually leads to doing something or forcing someone to stop something, even when they are not bothering anyone else with it.

So, no, there is no societal responsibility since it almost always leads to tyrannistic action. If you wanna change things, start educating. And the reason socialists often choose gov't intervention instead is because they know in advance that not everyone will partake in this moral education, are resentful of it, and proceed to force their morality upon them. They don't wanna educate people on say homosexuality, so they try and ban its activity in some vain hope it will just work out in the end. As has been said, banning doesn't change anything. It creates an underground market, or simply hides what has always been there.

I definitely think that this kind of thing is considered nothing to get upset about because the media--Hollywood and the TV and Internet outlets--accept that this stuff is okay. If the media as a whole decide something is good or bad, for whatever reason, it creates a tone of acceptance. Anyone who thinks it's all just a matter of chance is either closing his eyes or doesn't like the implications, so just ignores them.

There's very little "implications" since if you don't like it, don't watch it. Buy a filter. The choice rests with the individual to take responsibility for themselves. Much of Hollywood probably doesn't care for it either, but it sells, and since morality usually isn't an issue in business, there ya go. Otherwise non-association and/or education. But that's really about all you can do.

[The Pessimist]

The elite refers to those who actually make the movies, those in positions of authority and those who are responsible on the creative end for what we see. And when "Passion Of The Christ" gets snubbed of any consideration for major awards, I call that the ultimate case of the elite's attitude in action. To say there isn't a monolithic attitude in the entertainment industry on a particular political/social world view that incluides hostility to all things religious from a traditional standpoint is to deny reality just as it would be denying reality on the matter of bias in our media institutions.

As for religion "forcing" itself, I would only note my tried-and-true answer to that how enforced hostility to religion by a state rooted in atheism has a higher death toll on its hands than all the excesses attributed to the spread of "religion" (i.e. Christianity). (Of course in the case of Christianity, which got its start by flourishing in the context of 300 years of persecution by the Roman Empire was hardly a doctrine "forcing" itself on anyone since the penalty for following it was quite severe).

When an entity utilizes gov't to dictate who and who cannot marry, that's religious tyranny. When different religious persuasions have battled each other throughout history to be the "one" ruling religion, that's also religious tyranny for they seek to rule and enforce their morality above all others.

Otherwise I agree: gov't cannot favor a religion or non-religion.

[Eric Paddon]

When an entity utilizes gov't to dictate who and who cannot marry, that's religious tyranny.

Well I would certainly agree that those who attempt to rewrite the definition of marriage through judicial fiat and subversion of the democratic process by imposing their narrow definition of morality on the majority do practice a form of "religious tyrrany" but that's the kind that i usually favored by the aforementioned elite.

[The Pessimist]

When an entity utilizes gov't to dictate who and who cannot marry, that's religious tyranny.

Well I would certainly agree that those who attempt to rewrite the definition of marriage through judicial fiat and subversion of the democratic process by imposing their narrow definition of morality on the majority do practice a form of "religious tyrrany" but that's the kind that i usually favored by the aforementioned elite.

Well that's why I said gov't cannot favor a "non-religion" too. Otherwise marriage is defined by the individual. Ideally it should could down to individual church choice according to their own morality. But remember: if an independent church so chooses to marry gays, you need to grow a thicker skin and tolerate it since you don't have any extraordinary rights above anyone else.

[The Pessimist]

If you wanna change that moral outlook, then educate..

It becomes more and more difficult though to "educate" when we increasingly find that the elites of this world in the political realm (not to mention activist judges sympathetic to this elite) make it more and more impossible for us to "educate" the correct way based on their hysterical efforts to stamp out all traces of religion from the public arena but they simultaneously glorify the loosest standards on porn as the epitome of what makes America great.

When we go from a society that once felt it important to make a biopic on the life of Reverend Peter Marshall to one that thinks the likes of Larry Flynt is worth our attention now, that says it all for me as well.

Leftist schools teach non-religious thought. If you don't like that, move and open your own home school to which children will or will not attend. Right now gov't intervention has the left at the top of the education pyramid. Well, according to you, you believe the "correct" way is the right, or the religious way. The problem with gov't (and the reason it needs to be gutted) is it holds power over people, the individual's life. It favors someone, and as long as there is governing rule, there's no cure. So you can legislate to have your values ruling above others, or you can do your small part and not support and/or vote power in the first place. But again, if you use gov't to enforce your morality, for a time that will work until someone tires of religious rule and proceeds to utilize gov't to enforce their morality. It's an endless cycle that provides no winners, or "temporary" winners if you will.

However, if gov't prevents you from opening up your own school, prevents you from holding some type of religious class at say a rental room somewhere, then their violating your free speech rights. You can and probably should take them to court.

Again though, it sounds like you want all non-religious, pornographic activities banned or brought down to a second-class measure for your morality to rule. That wouldn't be any better since it's tyrannistic.

[Eric Paddon]

Leftist schools teach non-religious thought. If you don't like that, move and open your own home school to which children will or will not attend.

Except that another elite, i.e the NEA and its powerful union of teachers uses its might to deny choice in education opportunities for children and compelling them to get only the education as the elite sees fit (even though the elite politicians who gladly empower this elite union and institution will so often exercise the choice they deny others by sending their kids to private schools).

***Well, according to you, you believe the "correct" way is the right, or the religious way.****

Actually, I'm for the kind of diversity in academic thought that is not allowed more and more because of the power of one particular elite.

****Again though, it sounds like you want all non-religious, pornographic activities banned or brought down to a second-class measure****

I have never used the term "ban". I have merely referred to how the elites of our entertainment industry have lost their compass and made what society once had the common sense to regard as beyond the pale or the mark of bad behavior acceptable while stigmitizing those who don't accept that definition as the oddball cranks and kooks of society. And denying the role that's been played by the entertainment industry in fostering that attitude seems to me the ultimate case of trying to deny responsibility to one degree. Bad parenting can cause it, but good parents often see their children go bad not because they've failed but because their children are increasingly more and more at risk in a society of fewer and fewer standards of maturity.

What I would like to see is not banning but signs that the entertainment industry would be open to *true* diversity of thought in which conservatives and the religious faithful could have a sense that there can be just as many movies out there that reflect *their*values instead of being 99.9% skewered the other way. And this is the kind of diversity the industry reveals that they never will be open to if they can have any say in the matter. An industry that loves to wrap itself in the mantle of "free expression" when it came to suspected communists and a blacklist in the 50s has revealed it's more than willing to practice a blacklist of their own today when it comes to those who don't parrot their own narrow world view of things. And I don't presume to suggest there should be legislation to redress that (I leave such tyrrany measures to those who would like to come up with things like the "Fairness Doctrine" for talk radio). I only believe in loudly proclaiming that there is a problem and keeping the public aware of it so that sooner or later the elite will get the picture about how maybe it might be good business to do more movies and TV programs that cater to the views of Red State America instead of doing only their self-congraulatory routine of programs aimed at the other half. It's because there's a total absence of that nowadays that I feel compelled to have a near total divorce from all elements of modern-day TV and filmmaking without a single regret.

[The Pessimist]

I have never used the term "ban". I have merely referred to how the elites of our entertainment industry have lost their compass and made what society once had the common sense to regard as beyond the pale or the mark of bad behavior acceptable while stigmitizing those who don't accept that definition as the oddball cranks and kooks of society. And denying the role that's been played by the entertainment industry in fostering that attitude seems to me the ultimate case of trying to deny responsibility to one degree. Bad parenting can cause it, but good parents often see their children go bad not because they've failed but because their children are increasingly more and more at risk in a society of fewer and fewer standards of maturity.

And that's still the responsibility of every parent to only put their children in situations they see morally fit. If you don't like the choices the local schools offer, take them out and form home schools. You may mean well, but it's still socialism. There is no "obligation" to society. The reason the world is the way it is is because individual's let it happen. The responsibility cannot rest on a collective that doesn't exist since each individual made a choice to include allowing their gov't to have control over them. Power is only possible if the people gave it to them. And since it requires a lot of people to get up off their sofas to do something about it, they've quite collectively said "**** it", because they really don't care. What they seek, they sure got.

What I would like to see is not banning but signs that the entertainment industry would be open to *true* diversity of thought in which conservatives and the religious faithful could have a sense that there can be just as many movies out there that reflect *their*values instead of being 99.9% skewered the other way. And this is the kind of diversity the industry reveals that they never will be open to if they can have any say in the matter. An industry that loves to wrap itself in the mantle of "free expression" when it came to suspected communists and a blacklist in the 50s has revealed it's more than willing to practice a blacklist of their own today when it comes to those who don't parrot their own narrow world view of things. And I don't presume to suggest there should be legislation to redress that (I leave such tyrrany measures to those who would like to come up with things like the "Fairness Doctrine" for talk radio). I only believe in loudly proclaiming that there is a problem and keeping the public aware of it so that sooner or later the elite will get the picture about how maybe it might be good business to do more movies and TV programs that cater to the views of Red State America instead of doing only their self-congraulatory routine of programs aimed at the other half. It's because there's a total absence of that nowadays that I feel compelled to have a near total divorce from all elements of modern-day TV and filmmaking without a single regret.

Given the opportunity, do you really think religion only wants "half" of the entertainment industries pie? Since religion has always been steeped in a form of control, I highly doubt that. But again, the entertainment industry primarily broadcasts secular entertainment because someone's buying it. Otherwise I'm afraid you are in the minority.

[Eric Paddon]

And that's still the responsibility of every parent to only put their children in situations they see morally fit. If you don't like the choices the local schools offer, take them out and form home schools. You may mean well, but it's still socialism.

Vouchers and school choice for those who can't instinctively afford access to better schools than the worthlessness of the taxpayer funded public school system is not "socialism." However, politicians who vote against opportunities to expand choice opportunities to the lower class because of their in-hock status to powerful elite unions but who then turn around and send their own kids to the same schools they won't expand access to is my definition of how a Soviet style appartchik used to live.

By and large, parents find themselves *forced* to send their children into an environment that increasingly works to undermine their efforts to raise them as they see fit through social indoctrination on issues, in addition to open encouragement of a popular culture that glorifies less than noble conduct. And when that happens, that isn't their fault by a longshot.

****Given the opportunity, do you really think religion only wants "half" of the entertainment industries pie? Since religion has always been steeped in a form of control, I highly doubt that.****

You're dealing with a straw man argument here. The issue is not one of desiring "control" but a simple question as to where the heck is this much ballyhooed concept of "tolerance" to be found in the entertainment industry when it applies to the beliefs and values of political conservatives and traditional religious believers? On that level, it's next to non-existent and that is a comment on the very less than noble attitudes to be found in those who hold the power over what gets made and what doesn't.

No one in the Religious Right is pushing for any kind of government sanctioned equivalent to the "Fairness Doctrine" that is desired by those on the other side of the fence to regulate free expression. Again, when it comes to whining to government and activist courts to get their religious agendas shoved down the throats of society (and thus by default making their brand of religious beliefs the state church of America) secular atheism has long considered anything goes on that score.

THere was a time when the entertainment industry had a conscience and recognized that the faithfully devout in our nation constitutes the mainstream of society. That's why when I watch old TV programs from the 50s through the mid-70s the prevailing attitude is one of positive depictions of clergy and of those with faith without making the programs forums for preaching a specific religious doctrine. They merely recognized the common consensus of the American religious fabric, which is totally lacking in today's entertainment.

[The Pessimist]

Vouchers and school choice for those who can't instinctively afford access to better schools than the worthlessness of the taxpayer funded public school system is not "socialism." However, politicians who vote against opportunities to expand choice opportunities to the lower class because of their in-hock status to powerful elite unions but who then turn around and send their own kids to the same schools they won't expand access to is my definition of how a Soviet style appartchik used to live.

By and large, parents find themselves *forced* to send their children into an environment that increasingly works to undermine their efforts to raise them as they see fit through social indoctrination on issues, in addition to open encouragement of a popular culture that glorifies less than noble conduct. And when that happens, that isn't their fault by a longshot.

The parents still need to take some level of responsibility, even if it means removing their children from the school system altogether and forming their own home schools. Parents could stand up together as a community and do something other than continuing to send their children to these schools. Instead, they take it.

Unless law is forcing children into public schools (as in 'you go here or we throw you in jail'), there's a mode of action that can take place.

You're dealing with a straw man argument here. The issue is not one of desiring "control" but a simple question as to where the heck is this much ballyhooed concept of "tolerance" to be found in the entertainment industry when it applies to the beliefs and values of political conservatives and traditional religious believers? On that level, it's next to non-existent and that is a comment on the very less than noble attitudes to be found in those who hold the power over what gets made and what doesn't.

No one in the Religious Right is pushing for any kind of government sanctioned equivalent to the "Fairness Doctrine" that is desired by those on the other side of the fence to regulate free expression. Again, when it comes to whining to government and activist courts to get their religious agendas shoved down the throats of society (and thus by default making their brand of religious beliefs the state church of America) secular atheism has long considered anything goes on that score.

THere was a time when the entertainment industry had a conscience and recognized that the faithfully devout in our nation constitutes the mainstream of society. That's why when I watch old TV programs from the 50s through the mid-70s the prevailing attitude is one of positive depictions of clergy and of those with faith without making the programs forums for preaching a specific religious doctrine. They merely recognized the common consensus of the American religious fabric, which is totally lacking in today's entertainment.

Again, it became that way because consumers allowed it to happen. You've decided according to your faith that you can no longer support that type of programming. But others continue to support the programming. Until that changes, there isn't a reason for the industry to change.

[AndyDursin]

Again, it became that way because consumers allowed it to happen. You've decided according to your faith that you can no longer support that type of programming. But others continue to support the programming. Until that changes, there isn't a reason for the industry to change.

I'm not sure I agree that "consumers allowed it to happen." The depictions of religious figures as negative are often peripheral in films and TV -- it's hard to boycott something that occurs on the side in films and TV that are otherwise not particularly "anti-faith" per se.

Hollywood is not in step with portraying "mainstream America" in movies, nor do I think "they" want to. They haven't been that way for decades and it's even more out of touch now than ever. That doesn't mean I don't watch and love films, but it's a fact I acknowledged years ago and it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

[Eric Paddon]

The parents still need to take some level of responsibility, even if it means removing their children from the school system altogether and forming their own home schools.

That's easier said than done if you happen to be struggling financially to make ends meet. But since their tax dollars happen to fund the inadequacies of the public school system, it seems to me that the civic institutions they end up funding are the ones in need of some accountability of their own which they're not getting and have not gotten for decades.

****Unless law is forcing children into public schools (as in 'you go here or we throw you in jail'), there's a mode of action that can take place. ***

When laws are designed thanks to the lobbying efforts of crooked organizations like the NEA to block parents from having the ability to make choices like their unyielding opposition to vouchers, I think it's really a stretch to then suddenly say this is all the fault of the parents if they can't get their children the kind of schooling they'd prefer. The NEA won't reform itself and Congress thanks to that same unreformed NEA won't give the poor people vouchers or expand school choice. And somehow that's all supposed to be the fault of the parents? That's a very dubious point.

****Again, it became that way because consumers allowed it to happen. But others continue to support the programming. Until that changes, there isn't a reason for the industry to change.[/quote]

In other words the fact that "Passion Of The Christ" becomes one of the biggest hit movies of all time is somehow *not* an indicator of the consumer market that exists to give a larger amount of programming or films that would reflect that same sympathetic perspective? If anything that should have made the powers that be think twice about whether a gaggle of blatantly anti-religious movies over the years that have made a tiny fraction of what "Passion" made is a mark of sound business strategy or is it more a case of Hollywood elites catering to their own prejudices and biases? And if anti-religious biases were somehow a truer mark of what the consumer really wants then the wretched "Book Of Daniel" should have been a runaway hit TV program!
[/img]

[The Pessimist]

Again, it became that way because consumers allowed it to happen. You've decided according to your faith that you can no longer support that type of programming. But others continue to support the programming. Until that changes, there isn't a reason for the industry to change.

I'm not sure I agree that "consumers allowed it to happen." The depictions of religious figures as negative are often peripheral in films and TV -- it's hard to boycott something that occurs on the side in films and TV that are otherwise not particularly "anti-faith" per se.

Hollywood is not in step with portraying "mainstream America" in movies, nor do I think "they" want to. They haven't been that way for decades and it's even more out of touch now than ever. That doesn't mean I don't watch and love films, but it's a fact I acknowledged years ago and it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

And how do you change that? By buying MORE tickets? C'mon...

[The Pessimist]

That's easier said than done if you happen to be struggling financially to make ends meet. But since their tax dollars happen to fund the inadequacies of the public school system, it seems to me that the civic institutions they end up funding are the ones in need of some accountability of their own which they're not getting and have not gotten for decades.

I understand it isn't ALL the parents fault. It is to the extent that the majority of parents are not pro-active.

In other words the fact that "Passion Of The Christ" becomes one of the biggest hit movies of all time is somehow *not* an indicator of the consumer market that exists to give a larger amount of programming or films that would reflect that same sympathetic perspective? If anything that should have made the powers that be think twice about whether a gaggle of blatantly anti-religious movies over the years that have made a tiny fraction of what "Passion" made is a mark of sound business strategy or is it more a case of Hollywood elites catering to their own prejudices and biases? And if anti-religious biases were somehow a truer mark of what the consumer really wants then the wretched "Book Of Daniel" should have been a runaway hit TV program!

You win that one.

[AndyDursin]

And how do you change that? By buying MORE tickets? C'mon...

I can only speak for myself, and my view is that you either boycott everything or live with it and acknowledge that it's not an accurate portrayal of what most Americans are like. Michael Medved wrote an excellent book years ago on the subject, Hollywood Vs. America, which might seem like it's an analysis of a lot of trivial aspects of movies, but it shows in how altering even small aspects of film they've, over time, crafted their own version of what they think Americans are -- a positive portrayal of religion (of any kind) notably not being one of those things, in spite of the reality that many Americans ARE faith-based of one kind or another. But it's often subtle -- it's not like they make a movie that declares "RELIGION SUCKS!" (okay, "Religulous" did, lol), often times they just sneak this kind of thing into even innocuous fare, which is what Medved's book did such a good job outlining. That makes a "boycott" so difficult, because you'd be boycotting shows that often times have no "objectionable" portrayals in them at all.

[The Pessimist]

And how do you change that? By buying MORE tickets? C'mon...

I can only speak for myself, and my view is that you either boycott everything or live with it and acknowledge that it's not an accurate portrayal of what most Americans are like. Michael Medved wrote an excellent book years ago on the subject, Hollywood Vs. America, which might seem like it's an analysis of a lot of trivial aspects of movies, but it shows in how altering even small aspects of film they've, over time, crafted their own version of what they think Americans are -- a positive portrayal of religion (of any kind) notably not being one of those things, in spite of the reality that many Americans ARE faith-based of one kind or another. But it's often subtle -- it's not like they make a movie that declares "RELIGION SUCKS!" (okay, "Religulous" did, lol), often times they just sneak this kind of thing into even innocuous fare, which is what Medved's book did such a good job outlining. That makes a "boycott" so difficult, because you'd be boycotting shows that often times have no "objectionable" portrayals in them at all.

Well, religion doesn't exactly have a stellar record. People have died over this stuff in the name of a God who has yet to give a provable endorsement of said text. Then they utilize gov't tyranny in the name of ordainment. In that regard I like the atheist tyranny more. At least they don't hide behind the veneer of God.

I'm sorry, but an "accurate" portrayal of clergy shows a little more than holy stature.