For those of you who thought the Castillo case was an isolated case, I offer you this:
Rob Zicari and his fianc
101 comments on “Here we go, again…”
I would also wonder if a husband and wife who get turned on by “spanking” one another in the privacy of their own home are guilty of child molestation because they’re imitating treatment usually given to children.
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.
The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.
(Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”)
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments
The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)
The separation of chirch and state says otherwise.
Another reason religion needs to be banned…
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and OFF the law books…
“Pretty cool, when you think that you are alone and the media makes you feel like it.
Grem- “
I really do respect your feelings. Honestly I do. But a few questions please.
Are you 18 or younger?
Do you have a Che poster or t-shirt?
Is RageATM playing right now?
Just wondering.
The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)
Posted by Jamie @ 08/31/2003 10:31 PM ET
Any laws based on appeal to a being who may or may not exist, rather than the society in which they exist, has absolutely no authority and is subject to the interpretive whims and vagaries of religious pronouncement, which often takes the form of fits and/or ‘divine revelation’ which cannot be verified.
Were I an atheist, I would tell you that basing my laws on the pronouncement of some imaginary being strikes me as full-on insanity, no more rational than basing them on an invisible rabbit or giant purple dinosaur. It is exactly the intention of our Constitution that it be amended to suit changing times: that is the genius of the document. The impulse to amend law does not reduce it to ‘whim’ any more than the Prophet Jeremiah’s decision to alter the direction of Judaism following the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity reduced that faith to a ‘fad’ or ‘passing fancy’.
I am not an atheist, however. I do believe that your God is no more or less likely to exist than anyone else’s God, and that the Higher Law you refer to is also merely a social construct, as is your religion. Therefore, since we do not compel the worship of a specfic God in this nation, why should we compel the obedience of any specific God’s strictures?
I was raised Catholic. Under *our* interpretation of the Ten Commandments, any non-Catholic reading this fails the essential “I am the Lord Thy God” test. Should this be the law of the land? Whose Ten Commandments will we be using, exactly?
If we as citizens wish to be free to practice our religious beliefs, we must allow others theirs, even if they come to the conclusion that there is nothing to believe in. Therefore, “I am the Lord Thy God” is not an acceptable law. “Keep holy the Sabbath day” is not an acceptable law. “Do not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain” is also not an acceptable law for us, because it implies that the Lord *is* the God for everyone, and such is not the case.
The only Higher Law we require is respect for our fellow human beings and their right to be inviolate whenever possible in their thoughts, beliefs and persons.
Luigi Novi-Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven’t threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it’s an implied threat….
I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a “enemy combatant” and your off to Gitmo.
Brian D. Webber-Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.
Don’t I know it. I’m in Texas. I don’t trust any of them.
Michael Norton
I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access – and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim’s called for his access to the computer to be taken away – but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net – able to talk to children.
Searching the Web, I cannot find a reference to any such case… which isn’t to say that you didn’t hear any such things. However, commentators frequently misdescribe ACLU actions, often as an excuse to attack them. What I suspect was being discussed was the Arizona situation, where prisoners were forbidden from even passing information to Web site owners via physical mail. This was an attempt to keep prisoners from putting their case before the public via websites. This ruling does not grant prisoners Internet access. Or perhaps you were hearing about the California case that allows prisoners to receive Internet printouts via physical mail; previously, they could receive a newspaper article photocopied the paper, but not receive a printout of the same article posted on the Internet. This was in the case of a prisoner who specifically does not have Internet access, and was not a request to gain such access.
I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity – because this is what it is. I have no problem with pørņ showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.
And if this actually WAS a case of child pørņ, do you really think anyone here would be taking Zicari’s side? No fûçkìņg way! I mean, we NEED lawas to portect children. Some of them may seem Draconian to Free Spech Absolutists, but what we need to remember is, no matter how smart they may be (I can remember wanting to shout “Stop singing that fûçkìņg song!” in Kindergarten whenever they made us do the A-B-C song because I’d been taught to tead and write at home. probably the ONLY thing my parents did right, but I digress. The fact that they skipped me out of Preschool (true story! I was there one week, and they decided In was too smart and they bumped me up to Kindergarten!) only made it worse) they are still KIDS, so “the rules” for them are simply different then they are for us. But a 40-year old women in pig tails counting as child pørņ? Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
But I shouldn’t be so harsh with you. At least you’re not being an áššhølë about this like some people.
“The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)”
Y’know, I was going to make a lengthy response to this, but since (a) you’ve made it clear that you wrote it with the clear intent of “get [ting] atheist panties in a wad”, (b) you acknowledge it’s not a legally realistic view, and (c) you’ve already been rebutted nicely by Ezrael, I think this falls under the heading of “just not worth it.”
TWL
Notice that I no time do I mention my viewpoint on “obscenity” or religion. It’s no one’s business but my own, and maybe I won’t get cursed at if I keep my views to myself.
Regarding child pornography, I do have a few comments.
Comment #1. At what age is the person considered obscene? The age of consent in most states in the US is sixteen. In some states, it’s eighteen; in others, as low as fourteen. Ancient jewish society had it at thirteen for males / none specified for females. Some societies (ancient and modern) use puberty as the age of consent. But for the sake of argument, let’s use the age sixteen. So… You can participate in sex at sixteen. You can’t film it until you’re eighteen. And then you can’t purchase/rent/watch your own legally performed and recorded actions until you’re twenty-one. I find this hard to justify.
Comment #2. The criminal code in Alabama uses the phrase “…to intice or cause to respond in an excited manner…” This puts such a vague notion of obscenity on the books that it’s impossible to understand. Is a photograph of a family (including the minor children) at a nudist colony child pornography? Even though stunt doubles and a formed and dyed body suit were used in the film “Pretty Baby”, was this intended to intice or excite?
Comment #3. It’s almost universally agreed for the purpose of the law that life stops when the subject can no longer breath. Theft of property is defined as when an object is taken from it’s legal owner without legal cause. Battery is the use of force to harm another person without legal justification. These are all clearly defined and understood definitions. Thus far, no one has been able to articulate a logically consistent and justifiable definition of obscene.
To summarize, we’ve got a situation where the age of the participant is arbitrary to current and local customs; where the intentions of the viewer and producer are both subject to conjecture; and with no clear defintion of the action itself.
So tell me again why I shouldn’t donate to the ACLU anymore?
Luigi Novi: Bûllšhìŧ. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?
You can’t really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn’t hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE? I can practice my religion as much as I want to, whenever I want to, wherever I want to. Nothing that anyone in the government can say or post will be able to stop me. We have the right to freedom of religion, and quite frankly, if someone wants to post ‘religious’ materials from other religions, even in a ‘government-owned’ building, it won’t effect my worship of God in any way. If you (general you…not specific you) don’t have enough willpower or religious belief, or whatever you want to call it, that your religious beliefs won’t stand up to a little testing, you should reevaluate them.
As for the pørņ..yes it is obscene. Movies where they ‘pretend’ to kill someone or ‘pretend’ to rape someone, those are just ‘pretend’. Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare pørņ movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the video (COPS comes close as do several other ‘reality’ shows).
As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.
sorry for my long post but I believe I’ve got my 2 cents worth aired out now 🙂
Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare pørņ movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the videoI find this equation of murder and sex bizarre. Murder is the taking of a life, sex is the sharing of pleasure, the parallel is hard to see. Heck, in Judaism sex can be considered a “mitzvah”, a good deed.
If a beautiful blonde came up and offered me my choice of having sex with her or being murdered by her, I know which I’d choose.
***As for the pørņ..yes it is obscene. Movies where they ‘pretend’ to kill someone or ‘pretend’ to rape someone, those are just ‘pretend’. Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong.>>>
Having sex with someone is morally wrong? OK if you say so. Me I say concenting adults can have sex with anyone they want, and if they want to allow it to be filmed so that other concenting adults can watch, well that’s thier bussiness, not mine. Also the word “pørņ” covers a whole lot, everything from Maxium magazine and Baywatch to “bare assed teen šlûŧš” has been considered pørņ by someone, not all of it has people actually having sex. I briefly worked for a video company that produced some of Penthouse’s videos, and I can assure you there was no actual sex going on while filming, lots of nudity, lots of “fake” sex but no actual sex. You might think watching the final product that there was some actual sex happening but there wasn’t, all play acting and tricks of the camera. You’d be amazed at how much on these things is actually fake. So I don’t think you “pørņ = actual sex” agurment really hold up.
*Can’t have it both ways. I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.*
OK lets say your right. Lets ban all movies which have adult actors and actresses depicting children as sexual objects. Among those movies and TV shows to go
American Beauty
American Pie (and just about every other teen age sex comedy/coming of age story, AP specifically has an older women sleeping with a high school age boy, hardly the only movie to have such a scenerio)
Manhatan
Casabanca (The chief of Police character tries to elict sexual favors from a girl that the dialoge makes clear is “under age”)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The first two seasons at least, Angel is over 200 years old and was in his 20’s when he became imortal, but when he starts his relationship with Buffy she’s only 16, any way you look at it that would be covered).
Brintney Spears videos, (OK maybe those should be banned).
Should I go on, or have you started to rethink your “it all should be banned” platform?
Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
According to whom?
You see, with all of the supposed value and importance of the Ten Commandments, even the various factions of Christianity cannot agree on the delineation of the ten. Luigi’s listing seems to be loose descriptions of the Catholic edition of the Ten Commandments.
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.
Jamie: The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.
Luigi Novi: It’s an arm of the federal government. Hence, it should be subject to the will of the people. Not some narrow-minded fascist censors.
Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments
Jamie: The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims.
Luigi Novi: Laws are perfectly valid when they reflect our rights, protect us from harming one another, and provide for a stable society. They do not have to be based on religion, nor do I see religion as necessarily being “higher,” or even “Higher.” Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity, nor does it stop some censors from trying to create laws like the one discussed here that most certainly are based on “whims.”
Jamie: And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
Luigi Novi: The only authority necessary is the authority of the people to govern themselves. There are indeed countries that base their laws on their whimsical interpretations of holy books. Are those just societies? Would anyone here want to live there?
Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Michael Norton: Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven’t threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it’s an implied threat….
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter what he says. Threatening someone is against the law, period. Not writing a letter saying that someone should step down. That’s not a threat, and doesn’t violate the Clear and Present Danger aspect of the First Ammendment.
Michael Norton: I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a “enemy combatant” and your off to Gitmo.
Luigi Novi: You may write that clarity into the Clause, or interpret it if it comes to trial. If the person was just expressing themselves, but not doing anything to harm anyone, it should be protected.
Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. 🙂
Amanda French: You can’t really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn’t hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE?
Luigi Novi: It is the endorsement of a religion by the government, babe. The government has no business promoting ANY position on ANY religion whatsoever. To put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is WRONG. Again, I wonder if people outraged by the removal of the monument would like it if the courthouse were decorated like a Shinto shrine, a Muslim mosque, Jewish synagogue, or a Scientology camp.
Think about it: Why don’t we decorate our courthouses like Jewish synagogues? Of course, Judaism forbids the depiction of graven images in synagogues. So that would mean we couldn’t put statues or paintings of God or Jesus in them. Some people may not like that.
Amanda French: As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.
Luigi Novi: Often such laws fly directly in the face of the Constitution.
Amanda French: Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
Luigi Novi: Sorry to disagree with you, dollface, but you’re wrong. That is the version I was taught in parochial school. The fact that there is more than one version doesn’t mean that your version is “right” and my version is “wrong.”
The way I see it, the defendent’s have only one chance – and that is to request of jury of their peers. The lawyer for the defence might be able to argue that only a jury of regular pørņø watchers could make a distinguishment without reasonable doubt on if a crime has been comimtted, or not.
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won’t effect you one way or the other). ‘Course that is yet again a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. 🙂
Much as I agree, I find it kinda sad that that’s the only part of my post anybody has responded too. :-
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion.
Oh cripes, yes, let’s get into a religion bashing contest.
But, of course, it’s apparently ok to bash a reglion as long as it isn’t Christianity.
As was said, if this were any other religion under discussion wrt that 10 Commandments monument, there would be no question of it’s removal.
I’m surprised nobody mentioned that this is only an issue because it’s happening in the south (Alabama to be specific).
But actually, it isn’t. According to some folks I met over the weekend, this same situation is also going on, for over two years (apparently the same length of time as the Alabama situation, which nobody in the media has mentioned) to remove a similar monument from a small Nebraska courthouse.
Another ongoing battle, but the principal is the same – we are not all ruled by the ideals and “laws” of one religion, so don’t try and force it on anybody.
The moment you do, you’re no better than those such as the Taliban.
As for the whole obscenity thing, it disgusts me as well that people can get away with trying to make people appear to be younger than they are, etc, but it’s been done for CENTURIES.
Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to.
People’s definitions of art will differ, of course, so why bother trying to fit *some* things under the law, but not others?
That’s what alot of you want.
You truly cannot have it both wants.
1)
Regarding the picture of Arlington Natl Cemetary (or some other Federally owned cemetary) since I don’t think it has been addressed yet.
It might be federal, and thus public land, but a cemetary is rather unique in that each gravestone can be considered owned by the family of the deceased. There is no part of a courthouse that can be considered owned by one and only one family/person. It belongs to the entire city/county/state. And thus erecting monuments that symbolize one religion, or even a trio of religions, over and above all others is a violation of the first ammendment.
2)
The ACLU by and large only goes to court if someone comes to them. It might look like they’re always supporting ‘the Liberal’ causes, but it’s not exactly true. They defended Oliver North, and have also defended Neo-Nazis. They defend people across the political spectrum.
And since the ACLU primarily deals with issues involving violation of Constitutional rights…and since by the nature of these cases it is one person – or a group of people – against the Government. They are ALWAYS defending the victims. The government is the one accused of a crime.
3) I am not a Catholic, but they do not leave out “You shall have no other Gods before me” and not bowing down, and not making a graven image are both part of that commandment. Just because the King James Bible tries to divided this commandment into two, doesn’t make it two. (Yes, I’m Jewish)
4) it’s a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around.)
If that’s the case, they won’t have any problem finding prospective jurors.
Crud. That last one was in response to Michael Tierney’s commetn about an all-pørņø-watching jury.
Catholicism is Christianity. In fact, save for Greek Orthodox and some small sects still existing in the Middle East, Catholicism has a far better claim to the title Christianity than any Protestant faith. Catholicism was Christendom, the literal Body of Faith, for 1500 years. Many hundreds of millions worship Christ under the Aegis of Catholicism.
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won’t effect you one way or the other). ‘Course that is yet again a whole ‘nother can of worms.
The Catholic interpretation may be wrong. Then again, so may you be. Unless Christ spoke to you directly last night and told you exactly what His father meant by the Ten Commandments, your opinion is simply that, your opinion. It should not be Federally enshrined as long as I am an American Citizen. Under the tenets of the faith as I was raised in it, you’re a heretic. Let’s post that in our courthouses, shall we? All ye dread sinners who rebel against the Rock of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, he who inherits the mantle of Peter who Christ gave unto the bedrock of Christendom, shall ye be accursed, your names as ashes in the mouth, and the angel Uriel shall seal ye in the lake of endless fire to be tormented nightly, for that ye knew the name of your Redeemer yet turned away from those He placed above you. That could go right up above the door. You could read those words every time you went in front of a Judge. Wouldn’t that make you feel secure in the fairness and impartiality of your justice system as an American, to see the dogma of a particular faith enshrined in her houses of judgement? Or we could put this one up…it’s a particular favorite of mine, which you’ll see the reasons for in a moment:
And the murderers and them that have made common cause with them shall they cast into the fire, in a place full of venomous beasts, and they shall be tormented without rest, feeling their pains; and their worms shall be as many in number as a dark cloud. And the angel Ezrael shall bring forth the souls of them that have been slain, and they shall behold the torment of them that slew them, and say one to another: Righteousness and justice is the judgement of God. For we heard, but we believed not, that we should come into this place of eternal judgement.
–From “The Apocryphal New Testament”
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Why not stick that up in the main lobby? It’s direct, it speaks of harsh punishments for any who commit crimes like murder and justice for the slain, and it was supposedly written by the Apostle Peter himself. Of course, it’s only sacred writ to a handful of really extreme Christians nowadays…but so what? After all, you don’t seem to mind if Buddhists are expected to see the Ten Commandments in our courts and not think anything of it, so why not put stuff you might not believe up? After all, the seperation of church and state shouldn’t mean that your faith isn’t exempted, so why should it mean that any of them are? And certainly I could make a case that excerpts like the one above have had an effect on the development of jurisprudence since the time of Constantine…indeed, it was said to be one of Constantine’s favorite passaged, and his successors Justinian and Theodora helped bring the Justinian Code of laws to Rome under Belisarius, a code that influenced the Papacy and thus every nation in Europe at the time, a code that influences us today through the English Common Law it helped bring into being. So why not? Since we’re going to be using the argument that we should have the influences on our jurisprudence posted in the lobby, and that the Ten Commandments supposedly are such, let’s go nuts.
I hasten to also point out that *if* the Ten Commandments were to be seen as the foundation of our jurisprudence, it would almost certainly be the Catholic version. Since Catholicism is the faith that shaped European law from 500 to 1500, after all, and even those nations that became primarily Protestant did so in reaction to Catholicism, not in a vacuum.
It’s simple. If we are to be free to practice our religions without government interference, we must practice them without government interference. That includes posting passages from Holy Texts in our courts of law. Unless you’re willing to allow for the possibility that a plurality of Jainists might somehow get elected. As much as I respect Jainism, I don’t want their ideals emblazoned in our courts either. Not even if it became the majority religion of the United States.
Keep your faith. Keep it in your life and your observances. And keep it out of mine, because I have my own, and I don’t require instruction from either you or the state.
***Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to***
Hëll we can go even further. Ban Snow White since in the original version, (not the Disney adaptation) Snow was about 12 years old.
I think most people have got my opinion twisted around…I agree there should be seperation of church and state, as it is put forth in the constitution. However, just because something is posted somewhere *any religious text of any kind* doesn’t mean that: a) I’m going to read it, b) I’m in any way forced by the government to believe it and c) I’m going to make a fuss to have it removed.
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess. The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn’t effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I’d be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe “In God We Trust” and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.
Yes, there should be separation of church and state. No it should not be limited to the 10 Commandments being posted in a courthouse.
Can’t remember where I heard it, but I recall the ACLU has been reporting that they’ve got a lot of new members lately from the conservative wing of the political spectrum. I take this as a sign that John Ashcroft is scaring folks on both sides of the aisle.
And Amanda, this atheist doesn’t have a major problem with “In God We Trust” on the currency, simply because it’s the national motto of the United States. Note that this is not the god of the Old Testament/New Testament/Koran, but an unspecified “god of nature” worshipped by the deists (since Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc. were deists).
Unlike Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument, “In God We Trust” is sufficiently ambiguous and non-denominational that taking offense at it would be tantamount to taking offense at the phrase “Oh my god…”
In addition, Amanda, many Atheists do have difficulty with that phrase on the money. They tend to believe in one battle at a time, however.
Now, I’m not an Atheist, as I’ve already pointed out. I have my own religious beliefs, although they aren’t to be found in any particular faith currently extant. However, were I one, I may be of the opinion that there are still creationist and creation science battles to win in my children’s schools, that there are battles like the Moore case to engage in, that there are other causes that are more important to me right now and more specifically religious than a mention of God on the money that doesn’t come from any source used by any existing faith. Of course, I might not. When asking a question like the one below:
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess.
You aren’t really asking this question looking for an answer. You’re using it as a rhetorical launching pad to accuse an entire section of the population of insufficient belief in their own stated creeds as a means to justify why they shouldn’t object to something. Well, you don’t object to it on money, so you shouldn’t object to it in the courts. And you do this with no real basis in fact. Here is an excerpt from an article written by Richard Dawkins recently:
I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out “In God we Trust” on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. “But it’s only words,” I would expostulate. “Why get so worked up about mere words, when there’s so much else to object to?” Now I’m having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.
Obviously it is established that at least some people do in fact object to the words In God We Trust being on our currency. So your argument that they don’t does not hold water. Furthermore, even if it did, it does not follow that all references to God enshrined in the workings of the Federal government are of equal objectionability (some are from a specific religion and therefore favor that religion over others, whereas others are mere references to God without a specific bias towards any religion, which does not have the effect of endorsing one faith over another) and should thereby all be treated the same way. Prioritization of these cases is not the same as endorsing one over the other, it just means choosing where to devote your time and resources.
The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn’t effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I’d be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe “In God We Trust” and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.
You have no idea what other people have done, and what you may have done does not end the discussion. Many, many Atheists have done exactly that, and furthermore, the fact that you have done it does not invalidate another’s argument on the issue of the Ten Commandments in our courts. I’m glad you recognize the principle of separation of church and state, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t also apply in this instance. This is like saying to a crowd who gather in front of a courthouse to protest the favorable treatment of a specific murderer Well, you didn’t protest when that assault happened last week. We are not required to demonstrate our beliefs in a prescribed manner.
For myself, I agree with Robert above me that “In God We Trust” is sufficiently non-religious to be allowed. Others may disagree, and may therefore use their time and effort to argue their position. My then saying Then you shouldn’t the schools to use the word good because it is derived from God doesn’t then require them to go on an etymological purge.
**Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to.**
Better than that, let’s ban the Zeffirelli version because Olivia Hussey is only 15 and is nude in it(you don’t see anything).Or howabout the big hooplah over “Lolita” a few years ago?
The real problem here is society’s repression when it comes to literary children. They freak for some reason.
That said, I saw “Bowling For Columbine” last night so I have to ask if this is all being raised out of fear and maybe we shouldn’t be making decisions from fear?
Michael Norton
“it’s a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around.”
Um, I was being sarcastic. I’ve read the novel three times, including with the chapter originally left out of the American movie (and, consequently, the film). Saying it’s a movie adaption is like talking about the “adaptions” of THE LORD OF THE RINGS being out now. Anyway, it’s a small point.
As for the (ongoing) argument, freedom is the ability to choose to accept/purchase/believe something or not. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean erecting monuments of your beliefs on federal grounds; it means you can worship or not worship any religion you please. As for pørņ, freedom of speech lets the folks behind it make it (as long as it’s not kiddie pørņ or involving a crime, like kidnapping or rape), and we the people have the freedom to buy it (if we want) or to ignore it (if we want). When you ban it, or try to keep it from being made, you’re abridging the freedom of those who *do* want to watch/buy it, simply because you hate it.
(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn’t more superhero-related pørņ? Superheroes and pørņ have several good points of crossover — skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage — and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)
You have the freedom of expression, speech, religion (and other examples) as long as this doesn`t harm the rights of others. This is at least the general idea in Germany and Britain, the cultures I know best, and I agree with this 100 %.
Of course there are grey areas and a lot is debatable, also because absolute laws are unjust and individual circumstances have to be taken into account. I certainly prefer this approach to discussions like this one than the American view which seems to be “You have to allow EVERYTHING because nothing is more important than my freedom to watch, say, read etc. what I want”.
My opinion is, there have to be limits and child pørņ is one of them. I have been told here that because adults were playing the parts of children, it is not child pørņ. Others have said, if it is computer generated and no children were really involved, it should be ok. Not to me. There is no excuse for child pørņ and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.
There is no excuse for child pørņ and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.
Since you’re redefining child pørņ from even the loose definition generally used (pørņ containing children), could you give us a definition to address, so we know what you’re talking about?
Me, I’m a fan of the comics of Ariel Schrag, autobiographical work that contains explicit drawings of underage folks having sex. Is that pørņ? Is that something that I need to be protected from? Something that the people depicted (primarily Ariel herself) needs to be protected from? I happen to think it’s beautiful, moving work… but if it has “no excuse”…
(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn’t more superhero-related pørņ? Superheroes and pørņ have several good points of crossover — skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage — and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)
There is Superhero pørņ. Playboy did a spread back in the 70’s with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several pørņø movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself “bøøbgìrl” or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90’s, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There’s also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline pørņ, (not x-rated but it’s definatly not for children) and it’s created by Stan Lee no less. It’s also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero’s with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there’s superhero pørņ out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. 🙂
There is Superhero pørņ. Playboy did a spread back in the 70’s with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several pørņø movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself “bøøbgìrl” or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90’s, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There’s also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline pørņ, (not x-rated but it’s definatly not for children) and it’s created by Stan Lee no less. It’s also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero’s with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there’s superhero pørņ out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. 🙂
Thanks, Darren, but that’s not *quite* right what I meant. While the Playboy spread sounds wonderful (guess who’s going to Google?) as was the Penthouse book (and a few other comics), not many videos. A lot of parodies have next to nothing in terms of superhero elements (costumes, action); Chloe did a video (THE WILD AND WACKY ADVENTURES OF CHLOE) where she dressed as Wonder Woman on the cover, with *nothing* like that inside. If you (or, in this case, I) limit this to adult videos (the original topic here) with definitive superhero elements, I’d say there are 4 or 5 good ones — in an area with dozens of releases every week.
And while it’s scary I know so much about this, it surprises very few people who know me 🙂
There was a pørņ movie the adult cable channel called “X-Girls.” I didn’t see the beginning, and there wasn’t any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody.
Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..
Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that’s fine, because society has deciding rdhead’s rigyhts are no onger inportant.
Rights are based on a higher principle than society’s whim whether you like the idea or not.
**Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
**
So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.
There’s a link at the bottom to the second part. Enjoy.
“There was a pørņ movie the adult cable channel called “X-Girls.” I didn’t see the beginning, and there wasn’t any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody.”
Watching the non-subscribed channels, eh? “X-Girls” is one of the better superhero pørņøš out there. And they’re pretty much ALL parodies; the question is whether they’re also exciting.
What’s that you say? You want superhero pørņ?
“I did an article on this very thing waaaaay back when. Here’s the first part”
A very nice article. However, I fear the part on “antisocial misogyny” missed a bit. For reasons I still haven’t grasped the basis behind, a lot of the superhero fetish sites have some *really* nasty, weird stuff. It’s a bit like regular pørņ: You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that’s true of regular movies too…
You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that’s true of regular movies too…
Wasn’t it Theodore Sturgeon who said “90% of science fiction is crap. Then again, 90% of anything is crap”?
Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia. Can’t have it both ways.
Of course you can. Just as you have movies that support, advocate and advance violence, drugs, teen sex, murder, mayhem, and drinking…movies which routinely land in the top ten box office. At the same time we have a society or elements of that society which decry those very things. How many people who watch action films have ever actually been in knock down, drag out fights or shoot ’em ups. A very small percentage, I’d guess.
Prove to me that pørņ movies have taken decent, well-behaved priests and turn them into monsters, and then we’ll talk.
PAD
what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.
No, I think what folks are really bìŧçhìņg about is that the U.S. government is NOT doing its job in so many other areas, that time, monies and energy would be better spent attending to things other than the dodgy question of pørņ.
PAD
The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Just a reminder: The reference to Clear and Present Danger came from the horrific Supreme Court ruling supporting the jailing of a man for fifteen years simply because he distributed a flier opining that the draft violated the Constitutional prohibition against slavery. “Clear and Present Danger” remains a testament to how the judiciary is willing to stomp on the First Amendment for the most capricious of motives.
PAD
I’m aware of that, Peter, but the principle in theory is still a far better test than the Miller test regarding obscenity, which if I recall correctly, you yourself said was bogus. Obscene material should be protected, because I think whether something has literary or artistic value should be left up to the buyer, not 12 strangers. But material or acts that directly fly in the face of pre-existing laws against harming other people (libel, slander, child molestation, threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire), that constitute unethical business practices (false advertisement, insider trading), or otherwise inhibits the justice system (perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress during an investigation, revealing classified government secrets) should not be, and it is those things that in my opinion, can and should be confined to the concept of Clear and Present Danger.
Luigi Novi: Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..
Jamie: Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that’s fine, because society has deciding rdhead’s rigyhts are no onger inportant.
Luigi Novi: This is another non sequitur of yours. This statement by you bears absolutely no resemblance or relationship to the quote by me that precedes it.
I said that the fact that laws are social constructs does not mitigate their validity. The validity of any idea (including a law) should be promoted or challenged on its own merits. Not whether it’s a social construct. A law’s validity is not determined solely by whether it is derived from a dubious book of myths written 6,000 years ago when people thought the world was flat.
Jamie: Rights are based on a higher principle than society’s whim whether you like the idea or not.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say rights were based on whims. “Construct” and “whim” are not the same thing. Again, you use the bait and switch tactic of making a deliberate confusion between two different things, substituting something I did say with something I did not, and think you’re so smart that no one will notice.
Many laws (The First Ammendment, the Second Ammendment, the Fourteenth Ammendment, the Twenty-Second Ammendment, Separation of Church and State, Banning cell phones while driving, etc.) are not based on religious law, but I would hardly call them “whims.”
Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
Jamie: So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t make the above statement in regard to anything about the post office. The quote above is in response to your statement: “Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.” Why are you taking a response to one statement, and making believe it is in response to another?
I have no problem with you correctly pointing out to me that the Postal Service is not tax supported. In the first place, the underlying point of my first pointing it out was that it’s an arm of the federal government, and therefore, in my opinion, it should be subject to the will of the people, and not some narrow-minded fascist censors, which, if you actually read my posts correctly, you’d have seen. Although my referring to it as supported by taxes may have been incorrect, the point that it should not be playing Big Brother because it’s an arm of the government supposedly founded on the principle of self-rule was the main point I was making, and it remains intact. Simply correcting me by substituting “tax supported” with “part of our government,” and the point remains. To focus on the distinction between those two phrases after the correction’s been made, rather than on the main point it was made in reference to is simply hair-splitting.
As far as being a “crybaby” because you pointed it out? Spare me. I already exposed you as a snob, a pathological liar, a flat-out hypocrite, and an extremely poor debater on the prior thread in question (and here) merely by pointing out and dissecting your own paralogisms. I have no problem being corrected, but anyone who reads that thread can plainly see that the same does not hold true for you, so save the violin music for yourself, as I am not saddened or disturbed by your transparent attempts at argumentative sleight of hand, but quite amused by them, since responding to them is like shooting ducks in a barrel.
I have to share this. I hope it can be viewed from here.
For another opinion on how our laws are not derived from the Ten Commandments, here is one that goes into greater depth than mine, and indeed uses a different version of the Commandments: http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html
“On the “Frontline” segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called “Forced Entry” which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. “
I take it, then, that similar obscenity charges will be brought against the producers of films/television shows such as The Accused or Twin Peaks for their works featuring “episodes in which women are raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and (in the case of TP) finally murdered?”
We’re talking about fictionalized depictions of a crime, not a crime itself, here.
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it?
This particular agnostic with atheistic leanings would be glad to. Would you care to point out another form of US legal tender without those words that I can use to feed, clothe and shelter my family?
• 
I would also wonder if a husband and wife who get turned on by “spanking” one another in the privacy of their own home are guilty of child molestation because they’re imitating treatment usually given to children.
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.
The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.
(Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”)
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments
The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)
The separation of chirch and state says otherwise.
Another reason religion needs to be banned…
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and OFF the law books…
“Pretty cool, when you think that you are alone and the media makes you feel like it.
Grem- “
I really do respect your feelings. Honestly I do. But a few questions please.
Are you 18 or younger?
Do you have a Che poster or t-shirt?
Is RageATM playing right now?
Just wondering.
The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)
Posted by Jamie @ 08/31/2003 10:31 PM ET
Any laws based on appeal to a being who may or may not exist, rather than the society in which they exist, has absolutely no authority and is subject to the interpretive whims and vagaries of religious pronouncement, which often takes the form of fits and/or ‘divine revelation’ which cannot be verified.
Were I an atheist, I would tell you that basing my laws on the pronouncement of some imaginary being strikes me as full-on insanity, no more rational than basing them on an invisible rabbit or giant purple dinosaur. It is exactly the intention of our Constitution that it be amended to suit changing times: that is the genius of the document. The impulse to amend law does not reduce it to ‘whim’ any more than the Prophet Jeremiah’s decision to alter the direction of Judaism following the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity reduced that faith to a ‘fad’ or ‘passing fancy’.
I am not an atheist, however. I do believe that your God is no more or less likely to exist than anyone else’s God, and that the Higher Law you refer to is also merely a social construct, as is your religion. Therefore, since we do not compel the worship of a specfic God in this nation, why should we compel the obedience of any specific God’s strictures?
I was raised Catholic. Under *our* interpretation of the Ten Commandments, any non-Catholic reading this fails the essential “I am the Lord Thy God” test. Should this be the law of the land? Whose Ten Commandments will we be using, exactly?
If we as citizens wish to be free to practice our religious beliefs, we must allow others theirs, even if they come to the conclusion that there is nothing to believe in. Therefore, “I am the Lord Thy God” is not an acceptable law. “Keep holy the Sabbath day” is not an acceptable law. “Do not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain” is also not an acceptable law for us, because it implies that the Lord *is* the God for everyone, and such is not the case.
The only Higher Law we require is respect for our fellow human beings and their right to be inviolate whenever possible in their thoughts, beliefs and persons.
Luigi Novi-Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven’t threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it’s an implied threat….
I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a “enemy combatant” and your off to Gitmo.
Brian D. Webber-Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.
Don’t I know it. I’m in Texas. I don’t trust any of them.
Michael Norton
I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access – and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim’s called for his access to the computer to be taken away – but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net – able to talk to children.
Searching the Web, I cannot find a reference to any such case… which isn’t to say that you didn’t hear any such things. However, commentators frequently misdescribe ACLU actions, often as an excuse to attack them. What I suspect was being discussed was the Arizona situation, where prisoners were forbidden from even passing information to Web site owners via physical mail. This was an attempt to keep prisoners from putting their case before the public via websites. This ruling does not grant prisoners Internet access. Or perhaps you were hearing about the California case that allows prisoners to receive Internet printouts via physical mail; previously, they could receive a newspaper article photocopied the paper, but not receive a printout of the same article posted on the Internet. This was in the case of a prisoner who specifically does not have Internet access, and was not a request to gain such access.
I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity – because this is what it is. I have no problem with pørņ showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.
And if this actually WAS a case of child pørņ, do you really think anyone here would be taking Zicari’s side? No fûçkìņg way! I mean, we NEED lawas to portect children. Some of them may seem Draconian to Free Spech Absolutists, but what we need to remember is, no matter how smart they may be (I can remember wanting to shout “Stop singing that fûçkìņg song!” in Kindergarten whenever they made us do the A-B-C song because I’d been taught to tead and write at home. probably the ONLY thing my parents did right, but I digress. The fact that they skipped me out of Preschool (true story! I was there one week, and they decided In was too smart and they bumped me up to Kindergarten!) only made it worse) they are still KIDS, so “the rules” for them are simply different then they are for us. But a 40-year old women in pig tails counting as child pørņ? Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
But I shouldn’t be so harsh with you. At least you’re not being an áššhølë about this like some people.
“The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)”
Y’know, I was going to make a lengthy response to this, but since (a) you’ve made it clear that you wrote it with the clear intent of “get [ting] atheist panties in a wad”, (b) you acknowledge it’s not a legally realistic view, and (c) you’ve already been rebutted nicely by Ezrael, I think this falls under the heading of “just not worth it.”
TWL
Notice that I no time do I mention my viewpoint on “obscenity” or religion. It’s no one’s business but my own, and maybe I won’t get cursed at if I keep my views to myself.
Regarding child pornography, I do have a few comments.
Comment #1. At what age is the person considered obscene? The age of consent in most states in the US is sixteen. In some states, it’s eighteen; in others, as low as fourteen. Ancient jewish society had it at thirteen for males / none specified for females. Some societies (ancient and modern) use puberty as the age of consent. But for the sake of argument, let’s use the age sixteen. So… You can participate in sex at sixteen. You can’t film it until you’re eighteen. And then you can’t purchase/rent/watch your own legally performed and recorded actions until you’re twenty-one. I find this hard to justify.
Comment #2. The criminal code in Alabama uses the phrase “…to intice or cause to respond in an excited manner…” This puts such a vague notion of obscenity on the books that it’s impossible to understand. Is a photograph of a family (including the minor children) at a nudist colony child pornography? Even though stunt doubles and a formed and dyed body suit were used in the film “Pretty Baby”, was this intended to intice or excite?
Comment #3. It’s almost universally agreed for the purpose of the law that life stops when the subject can no longer breath. Theft of property is defined as when an object is taken from it’s legal owner without legal cause. Battery is the use of force to harm another person without legal justification. These are all clearly defined and understood definitions. Thus far, no one has been able to articulate a logically consistent and justifiable definition of obscene.
To summarize, we’ve got a situation where the age of the participant is arbitrary to current and local customs; where the intentions of the viewer and producer are both subject to conjecture; and with no clear defintion of the action itself.
So tell me again why I shouldn’t donate to the ACLU anymore?
Luigi Novi: Bûllšhìŧ. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?
You can’t really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn’t hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE? I can practice my religion as much as I want to, whenever I want to, wherever I want to. Nothing that anyone in the government can say or post will be able to stop me. We have the right to freedom of religion, and quite frankly, if someone wants to post ‘religious’ materials from other religions, even in a ‘government-owned’ building, it won’t effect my worship of God in any way. If you (general you…not specific you) don’t have enough willpower or religious belief, or whatever you want to call it, that your religious beliefs won’t stand up to a little testing, you should reevaluate them.
As for the pørņ..yes it is obscene. Movies where they ‘pretend’ to kill someone or ‘pretend’ to rape someone, those are just ‘pretend’. Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare pørņ movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the video (COPS comes close as do several other ‘reality’ shows).
As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.
sorry for my long post but I believe I’ve got my 2 cents worth aired out now 🙂
Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare pørņ movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the videoI find this equation of murder and sex bizarre. Murder is the taking of a life, sex is the sharing of pleasure, the parallel is hard to see. Heck, in Judaism sex can be considered a “mitzvah”, a good deed.
If a beautiful blonde came up and offered me my choice of having sex with her or being murdered by her, I know which I’d choose.
***As for the pørņ..yes it is obscene. Movies where they ‘pretend’ to kill someone or ‘pretend’ to rape someone, those are just ‘pretend’. Pørņ is not ‘pretend’, they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong.>>>
Having sex with someone is morally wrong? OK if you say so. Me I say concenting adults can have sex with anyone they want, and if they want to allow it to be filmed so that other concenting adults can watch, well that’s thier bussiness, not mine. Also the word “pørņ” covers a whole lot, everything from Maxium magazine and Baywatch to “bare assed teen šlûŧš” has been considered pørņ by someone, not all of it has people actually having sex. I briefly worked for a video company that produced some of Penthouse’s videos, and I can assure you there was no actual sex going on while filming, lots of nudity, lots of “fake” sex but no actual sex. You might think watching the final product that there was some actual sex happening but there wasn’t, all play acting and tricks of the camera. You’d be amazed at how much on these things is actually fake. So I don’t think you “pørņ = actual sex” agurment really hold up.
*Can’t have it both ways. I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.*
OK lets say your right. Lets ban all movies which have adult actors and actresses depicting children as sexual objects. Among those movies and TV shows to go
American Beauty
American Pie (and just about every other teen age sex comedy/coming of age story, AP specifically has an older women sleeping with a high school age boy, hardly the only movie to have such a scenerio)
Manhatan
Casabanca (The chief of Police character tries to elict sexual favors from a girl that the dialoge makes clear is “under age”)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The first two seasons at least, Angel is over 200 years old and was in his 20’s when he became imortal, but when he starts his relationship with Buffy she’s only 16, any way you look at it that would be covered).
Brintney Spears videos, (OK maybe those should be banned).
Should I go on, or have you started to rethink your “it all should be banned” platform?
Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
According to whom?
You see, with all of the supposed value and importance of the Ten Commandments, even the various factions of Christianity cannot agree on the delineation of the ten. Luigi’s listing seems to be loose descriptions of the Catholic edition of the Ten Commandments.
For a comparison, go to http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.
Jamie: The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.
Luigi Novi: It’s an arm of the federal government. Hence, it should be subject to the will of the people. Not some narrow-minded fascist censors.
Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments
Jamie: The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims.
Luigi Novi: Laws are perfectly valid when they reflect our rights, protect us from harming one another, and provide for a stable society. They do not have to be based on religion, nor do I see religion as necessarily being “higher,” or even “Higher.” Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity, nor does it stop some censors from trying to create laws like the one discussed here that most certainly are based on “whims.”
Jamie: And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.
Luigi Novi: The only authority necessary is the authority of the people to govern themselves. There are indeed countries that base their laws on their whimsical interpretations of holy books. Are those just societies? Would anyone here want to live there?
Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Michael Norton: Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven’t threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it’s an implied threat….
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter what he says. Threatening someone is against the law, period. Not writing a letter saying that someone should step down. That’s not a threat, and doesn’t violate the Clear and Present Danger aspect of the First Ammendment.
Michael Norton: I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a “enemy combatant” and your off to Gitmo.
Luigi Novi: You may write that clarity into the Clause, or interpret it if it comes to trial. If the person was just expressing themselves, but not doing anything to harm anyone, it should be protected.
Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. 🙂
Amanda French: You can’t really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn’t hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE?
Luigi Novi: It is the endorsement of a religion by the government, babe. The government has no business promoting ANY position on ANY religion whatsoever. To put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is WRONG. Again, I wonder if people outraged by the removal of the monument would like it if the courthouse were decorated like a Shinto shrine, a Muslim mosque, Jewish synagogue, or a Scientology camp.
Think about it: Why don’t we decorate our courthouses like Jewish synagogues? Of course, Judaism forbids the depiction of graven images in synagogues. So that would mean we couldn’t put statues or paintings of God or Jesus in them. Some people may not like that.
Amanda French: As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.
Luigi Novi: Often such laws fly directly in the face of the Constitution.
Amanda French: Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.
Luigi Novi: Sorry to disagree with you, dollface, but you’re wrong. That is the version I was taught in parochial school. The fact that there is more than one version doesn’t mean that your version is “right” and my version is “wrong.”
The way I see it, the defendent’s have only one chance – and that is to request of jury of their peers. The lawyer for the defence might be able to argue that only a jury of regular pørņø watchers could make a distinguishment without reasonable doubt on if a crime has been comimtted, or not.
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won’t effect you one way or the other). ‘Course that is yet again a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fûçkìņg gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I’ve already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that’s kinda beside the point.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. 🙂
Much as I agree, I find it kinda sad that that’s the only part of my post anybody has responded too. :-
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion.
Oh cripes, yes, let’s get into a religion bashing contest.
But, of course, it’s apparently ok to bash a reglion as long as it isn’t Christianity.
As was said, if this were any other religion under discussion wrt that 10 Commandments monument, there would be no question of it’s removal.
I’m surprised nobody mentioned that this is only an issue because it’s happening in the south (Alabama to be specific).
But actually, it isn’t. According to some folks I met over the weekend, this same situation is also going on, for over two years (apparently the same length of time as the Alabama situation, which nobody in the media has mentioned) to remove a similar monument from a small Nebraska courthouse.
Another ongoing battle, but the principal is the same – we are not all ruled by the ideals and “laws” of one religion, so don’t try and force it on anybody.
The moment you do, you’re no better than those such as the Taliban.
As for the whole obscenity thing, it disgusts me as well that people can get away with trying to make people appear to be younger than they are, etc, but it’s been done for CENTURIES.
Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to.
People’s definitions of art will differ, of course, so why bother trying to fit *some* things under the law, but not others?
That’s what alot of you want.
You truly cannot have it both wants.
1)
Regarding the picture of Arlington Natl Cemetary (or some other Federally owned cemetary) since I don’t think it has been addressed yet.
It might be federal, and thus public land, but a cemetary is rather unique in that each gravestone can be considered owned by the family of the deceased. There is no part of a courthouse that can be considered owned by one and only one family/person. It belongs to the entire city/county/state. And thus erecting monuments that symbolize one religion, or even a trio of religions, over and above all others is a violation of the first ammendment.
2)
The ACLU by and large only goes to court if someone comes to them. It might look like they’re always supporting ‘the Liberal’ causes, but it’s not exactly true. They defended Oliver North, and have also defended Neo-Nazis. They defend people across the political spectrum.
And since the ACLU primarily deals with issues involving violation of Constitutional rights…and since by the nature of these cases it is one person – or a group of people – against the Government. They are ALWAYS defending the victims. The government is the one accused of a crime.
3) I am not a Catholic, but they do not leave out “You shall have no other Gods before me” and not bowing down, and not making a graven image are both part of that commandment. Just because the King James Bible tries to divided this commandment into two, doesn’t make it two. (Yes, I’m Jewish)
4) it’s a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around.)
If that’s the case, they won’t have any problem finding prospective jurors.
Crud. That last one was in response to Michael Tierney’s commetn about an all-pørņø-watching jury.
Catholicism is Christianity. In fact, save for Greek Orthodox and some small sects still existing in the Middle East, Catholicism has a far better claim to the title Christianity than any Protestant faith. Catholicism was Christendom, the literal Body of Faith, for 1500 years. Many hundreds of millions worship Christ under the Aegis of Catholicism.
Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one…look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won’t effect you one way or the other). ‘Course that is yet again a whole ‘nother can of worms.
The Catholic interpretation may be wrong. Then again, so may you be. Unless Christ spoke to you directly last night and told you exactly what His father meant by the Ten Commandments, your opinion is simply that, your opinion. It should not be Federally enshrined as long as I am an American Citizen. Under the tenets of the faith as I was raised in it, you’re a heretic. Let’s post that in our courthouses, shall we? All ye dread sinners who rebel against the Rock of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, he who inherits the mantle of Peter who Christ gave unto the bedrock of Christendom, shall ye be accursed, your names as ashes in the mouth, and the angel Uriel shall seal ye in the lake of endless fire to be tormented nightly, for that ye knew the name of your Redeemer yet turned away from those He placed above you. That could go right up above the door. You could read those words every time you went in front of a Judge. Wouldn’t that make you feel secure in the fairness and impartiality of your justice system as an American, to see the dogma of a particular faith enshrined in her houses of judgement? Or we could put this one up…it’s a particular favorite of mine, which you’ll see the reasons for in a moment:
And the murderers and them that have made common cause with them shall they cast into the fire, in a place full of venomous beasts, and they shall be tormented without rest, feeling their pains; and their worms shall be as many in number as a dark cloud. And the angel Ezrael shall bring forth the souls of them that have been slain, and they shall behold the torment of them that slew them, and say one to another: Righteousness and justice is the judgement of God. For we heard, but we believed not, that we should come into this place of eternal judgement.
–From “The Apocryphal New Testament”
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Why not stick that up in the main lobby? It’s direct, it speaks of harsh punishments for any who commit crimes like murder and justice for the slain, and it was supposedly written by the Apostle Peter himself. Of course, it’s only sacred writ to a handful of really extreme Christians nowadays…but so what? After all, you don’t seem to mind if Buddhists are expected to see the Ten Commandments in our courts and not think anything of it, so why not put stuff you might not believe up? After all, the seperation of church and state shouldn’t mean that your faith isn’t exempted, so why should it mean that any of them are? And certainly I could make a case that excerpts like the one above have had an effect on the development of jurisprudence since the time of Constantine…indeed, it was said to be one of Constantine’s favorite passaged, and his successors Justinian and Theodora helped bring the Justinian Code of laws to Rome under Belisarius, a code that influenced the Papacy and thus every nation in Europe at the time, a code that influences us today through the English Common Law it helped bring into being. So why not? Since we’re going to be using the argument that we should have the influences on our jurisprudence posted in the lobby, and that the Ten Commandments supposedly are such, let’s go nuts.
I hasten to also point out that *if* the Ten Commandments were to be seen as the foundation of our jurisprudence, it would almost certainly be the Catholic version. Since Catholicism is the faith that shaped European law from 500 to 1500, after all, and even those nations that became primarily Protestant did so in reaction to Catholicism, not in a vacuum.
It’s simple. If we are to be free to practice our religions without government interference, we must practice them without government interference. That includes posting passages from Holy Texts in our courts of law. Unless you’re willing to allow for the possibility that a plurality of Jainists might somehow get elected. As much as I respect Jainism, I don’t want their ideals emblazoned in our courts either. Not even if it became the majority religion of the United States.
Keep your faith. Keep it in your life and your observances. And keep it out of mine, because I have my own, and I don’t require instruction from either you or the state.
***Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to***
Hëll we can go even further. Ban Snow White since in the original version, (not the Disney adaptation) Snow was about 12 years old.
I think most people have got my opinion twisted around…I agree there should be seperation of church and state, as it is put forth in the constitution. However, just because something is posted somewhere *any religious text of any kind* doesn’t mean that: a) I’m going to read it, b) I’m in any way forced by the government to believe it and c) I’m going to make a fuss to have it removed.
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess. The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn’t effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I’d be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe “In God We Trust” and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.
Yes, there should be separation of church and state. No it should not be limited to the 10 Commandments being posted in a courthouse.
Can’t remember where I heard it, but I recall the ACLU has been reporting that they’ve got a lot of new members lately from the conservative wing of the political spectrum. I take this as a sign that John Ashcroft is scaring folks on both sides of the aisle.
And Amanda, this atheist doesn’t have a major problem with “In God We Trust” on the currency, simply because it’s the national motto of the United States. Note that this is not the god of the Old Testament/New Testament/Koran, but an unspecified “god of nature” worshipped by the deists (since Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc. were deists).
Unlike Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument, “In God We Trust” is sufficiently ambiguous and non-denominational that taking offense at it would be tantamount to taking offense at the phrase “Oh my god…”
In addition, Amanda, many Atheists do have difficulty with that phrase on the money. They tend to believe in one battle at a time, however.
Now, I’m not an Atheist, as I’ve already pointed out. I have my own religious beliefs, although they aren’t to be found in any particular faith currently extant. However, were I one, I may be of the opinion that there are still creationist and creation science battles to win in my children’s schools, that there are battles like the Moore case to engage in, that there are other causes that are more important to me right now and more specifically religious than a mention of God on the money that doesn’t come from any source used by any existing faith. Of course, I might not. When asking a question like the one below:
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess.
You aren’t really asking this question looking for an answer. You’re using it as a rhetorical launching pad to accuse an entire section of the population of insufficient belief in their own stated creeds as a means to justify why they shouldn’t object to something. Well, you don’t object to it on money, so you shouldn’t object to it in the courts. And you do this with no real basis in fact. Here is an excerpt from an article written by Richard Dawkins recently:
I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out “In God we Trust” on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. “But it’s only words,” I would expostulate. “Why get so worked up about mere words, when there’s so much else to object to?” Now I’m having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.
Obviously it is established that at least some people do in fact object to the words In God We Trust being on our currency. So your argument that they don’t does not hold water. Furthermore, even if it did, it does not follow that all references to God enshrined in the workings of the Federal government are of equal objectionability (some are from a specific religion and therefore favor that religion over others, whereas others are mere references to God without a specific bias towards any religion, which does not have the effect of endorsing one faith over another) and should thereby all be treated the same way. Prioritization of these cases is not the same as endorsing one over the other, it just means choosing where to devote your time and resources.
The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn’t effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I’d be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe “In God We Trust” and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.
You have no idea what other people have done, and what you may have done does not end the discussion. Many, many Atheists have done exactly that, and furthermore, the fact that you have done it does not invalidate another’s argument on the issue of the Ten Commandments in our courts. I’m glad you recognize the principle of separation of church and state, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t also apply in this instance. This is like saying to a crowd who gather in front of a courthouse to protest the favorable treatment of a specific murderer Well, you didn’t protest when that assault happened last week. We are not required to demonstrate our beliefs in a prescribed manner.
For myself, I agree with Robert above me that “In God We Trust” is sufficiently non-religious to be allowed. Others may disagree, and may therefore use their time and effort to argue their position. My then saying Then you shouldn’t the schools to use the word good because it is derived from God doesn’t then require them to go on an etymological purge.
**Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?
Because that’s what it comes down to.**
Better than that, let’s ban the Zeffirelli version because Olivia Hussey is only 15 and is nude in it(you don’t see anything).Or howabout the big hooplah over “Lolita” a few years ago?
The real problem here is society’s repression when it comes to literary children. They freak for some reason.
That said, I saw “Bowling For Columbine” last night so I have to ask if this is all being raised out of fear and maybe we shouldn’t be making decisions from fear?
Michael Norton
“it’s a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around.”
Um, I was being sarcastic. I’ve read the novel three times, including with the chapter originally left out of the American movie (and, consequently, the film). Saying it’s a movie adaption is like talking about the “adaptions” of THE LORD OF THE RINGS being out now. Anyway, it’s a small point.
As for the (ongoing) argument, freedom is the ability to choose to accept/purchase/believe something or not. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean erecting monuments of your beliefs on federal grounds; it means you can worship or not worship any religion you please. As for pørņ, freedom of speech lets the folks behind it make it (as long as it’s not kiddie pørņ or involving a crime, like kidnapping or rape), and we the people have the freedom to buy it (if we want) or to ignore it (if we want). When you ban it, or try to keep it from being made, you’re abridging the freedom of those who *do* want to watch/buy it, simply because you hate it.
(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn’t more superhero-related pørņ? Superheroes and pørņ have several good points of crossover — skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage — and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)
You have the freedom of expression, speech, religion (and other examples) as long as this doesn`t harm the rights of others. This is at least the general idea in Germany and Britain, the cultures I know best, and I agree with this 100 %.
Of course there are grey areas and a lot is debatable, also because absolute laws are unjust and individual circumstances have to be taken into account. I certainly prefer this approach to discussions like this one than the American view which seems to be “You have to allow EVERYTHING because nothing is more important than my freedom to watch, say, read etc. what I want”.
My opinion is, there have to be limits and child pørņ is one of them. I have been told here that because adults were playing the parts of children, it is not child pørņ. Others have said, if it is computer generated and no children were really involved, it should be ok. Not to me. There is no excuse for child pørņ and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.
There is no excuse for child pørņ and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.
Since you’re redefining child pørņ from even the loose definition generally used (pørņ containing children), could you give us a definition to address, so we know what you’re talking about?
Me, I’m a fan of the comics of Ariel Schrag, autobiographical work that contains explicit drawings of underage folks having sex. Is that pørņ? Is that something that I need to be protected from? Something that the people depicted (primarily Ariel herself) needs to be protected from? I happen to think it’s beautiful, moving work… but if it has “no excuse”…
(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn’t more superhero-related pørņ? Superheroes and pørņ have several good points of crossover — skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage — and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)
There is Superhero pørņ. Playboy did a spread back in the 70’s with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several pørņø movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself “bøøbgìrl” or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90’s, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There’s also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline pørņ, (not x-rated but it’s definatly not for children) and it’s created by Stan Lee no less. It’s also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero’s with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there’s superhero pørņ out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. 🙂
There is Superhero pørņ. Playboy did a spread back in the 70’s with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several pørņø movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself “bøøbgìrl” or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90’s, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There’s also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline pørņ, (not x-rated but it’s definatly not for children) and it’s created by Stan Lee no less. It’s also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero’s with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there’s superhero pørņ out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. 🙂
Thanks, Darren, but that’s not *quite* right what I meant. While the Playboy spread sounds wonderful (guess who’s going to Google?) as was the Penthouse book (and a few other comics), not many videos. A lot of parodies have next to nothing in terms of superhero elements (costumes, action); Chloe did a video (THE WILD AND WACKY ADVENTURES OF CHLOE) where she dressed as Wonder Woman on the cover, with *nothing* like that inside. If you (or, in this case, I) limit this to adult videos (the original topic here) with definitive superhero elements, I’d say there are 4 or 5 good ones — in an area with dozens of releases every week.
And while it’s scary I know so much about this, it surprises very few people who know me 🙂
There was a pørņ movie the adult cable channel called “X-Girls.” I didn’t see the beginning, and there wasn’t any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody.
Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..
Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that’s fine, because society has deciding rdhead’s rigyhts are no onger inportant.
Rights are based on a higher principle than society’s whim whether you like the idea or not.
**Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
**
So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.
What’s that you say? You want superhero pørņ?
I did an article on this very thing waaaaay back when. Here’s the first part: http://the-trades.com/column.php?columnid=1323
There’s a link at the bottom to the second part. Enjoy.
“There was a pørņ movie the adult cable channel called “X-Girls.” I didn’t see the beginning, and there wasn’t any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody.”
Watching the non-subscribed channels, eh? “X-Girls” is one of the better superhero pørņøš out there. And they’re pretty much ALL parodies; the question is whether they’re also exciting.
What’s that you say? You want superhero pørņ?
“I did an article on this very thing waaaaay back when. Here’s the first part”
A very nice article. However, I fear the part on “antisocial misogyny” missed a bit. For reasons I still haven’t grasped the basis behind, a lot of the superhero fetish sites have some *really* nasty, weird stuff. It’s a bit like regular pørņ: You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that’s true of regular movies too…
You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that’s true of regular movies too…
Wasn’t it Theodore Sturgeon who said “90% of science fiction is crap. Then again, 90% of anything is crap”?
Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia. Can’t have it both ways.
Of course you can. Just as you have movies that support, advocate and advance violence, drugs, teen sex, murder, mayhem, and drinking…movies which routinely land in the top ten box office. At the same time we have a society or elements of that society which decry those very things. How many people who watch action films have ever actually been in knock down, drag out fights or shoot ’em ups. A very small percentage, I’d guess.
Prove to me that pørņ movies have taken decent, well-behaved priests and turn them into monsters, and then we’ll talk.
PAD
what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.
No, I think what folks are really bìŧçhìņg about is that the U.S. government is NOT doing its job in so many other areas, that time, monies and energy would be better spent attending to things other than the dodgy question of pørņ.
PAD
The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Just a reminder: The reference to Clear and Present Danger came from the horrific Supreme Court ruling supporting the jailing of a man for fifteen years simply because he distributed a flier opining that the draft violated the Constitutional prohibition against slavery. “Clear and Present Danger” remains a testament to how the judiciary is willing to stomp on the First Amendment for the most capricious of motives.
PAD
I’m aware of that, Peter, but the principle in theory is still a far better test than the Miller test regarding obscenity, which if I recall correctly, you yourself said was bogus. Obscene material should be protected, because I think whether something has literary or artistic value should be left up to the buyer, not 12 strangers. But material or acts that directly fly in the face of pre-existing laws against harming other people (libel, slander, child molestation, threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire), that constitute unethical business practices (false advertisement, insider trading), or otherwise inhibits the justice system (perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress during an investigation, revealing classified government secrets) should not be, and it is those things that in my opinion, can and should be confined to the concept of Clear and Present Danger.
Luigi Novi: Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..
Jamie: Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that’s fine, because society has deciding rdhead’s rigyhts are no onger inportant.
Luigi Novi: This is another non sequitur of yours. This statement by you bears absolutely no resemblance or relationship to the quote by me that precedes it.
I said that the fact that laws are social constructs does not mitigate their validity. The validity of any idea (including a law) should be promoted or challenged on its own merits. Not whether it’s a social construct. A law’s validity is not determined solely by whether it is derived from a dubious book of myths written 6,000 years ago when people thought the world was flat.
Jamie: Rights are based on a higher principle than society’s whim whether you like the idea or not.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say rights were based on whims. “Construct” and “whim” are not the same thing. Again, you use the bait and switch tactic of making a deliberate confusion between two different things, substituting something I did say with something I did not, and think you’re so smart that no one will notice.
Many laws (The First Ammendment, the Second Ammendment, the Fourteenth Ammendment, the Twenty-Second Ammendment, Separation of Church and State, Banning cell phones while driving, etc.) are not based on religious law, but I would hardly call them “whims.”
Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.”
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.
Jamie: So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t make the above statement in regard to anything about the post office. The quote above is in response to your statement: “Nore I did not preface this with “bull” or a “lie.” Why are you taking a response to one statement, and making believe it is in response to another?
I have no problem with you correctly pointing out to me that the Postal Service is not tax supported. In the first place, the underlying point of my first pointing it out was that it’s an arm of the federal government, and therefore, in my opinion, it should be subject to the will of the people, and not some narrow-minded fascist censors, which, if you actually read my posts correctly, you’d have seen. Although my referring to it as supported by taxes may have been incorrect, the point that it should not be playing Big Brother because it’s an arm of the government supposedly founded on the principle of self-rule was the main point I was making, and it remains intact. Simply correcting me by substituting “tax supported” with “part of our government,” and the point remains. To focus on the distinction between those two phrases after the correction’s been made, rather than on the main point it was made in reference to is simply hair-splitting.
As far as being a “crybaby” because you pointed it out? Spare me. I already exposed you as a snob, a pathological liar, a flat-out hypocrite, and an extremely poor debater on the prior thread in question (and here) merely by pointing out and dissecting your own paralogisms. I have no problem being corrected, but anyone who reads that thread can plainly see that the same does not hold true for you, so save the violin music for yourself, as I am not saddened or disturbed by your transparent attempts at argumentative sleight of hand, but quite amused by them, since responding to them is like shooting ducks in a barrel.
I have to share this. I hope it can be viewed from here.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030903b6.htm
For another opinion on how our laws are not derived from the Ten Commandments, here is one that goes into greater depth than mine, and indeed uses a different version of the Commandments: http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html
“On the “Frontline” segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called “Forced Entry” which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. “
I take it, then, that similar obscenity charges will be brought against the producers of films/television shows such as The Accused or Twin Peaks for their works featuring “episodes in which women are raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and (in the case of TP) finally murdered?”
We’re talking about fictionalized depictions of a crime, not a crime itself, here.
Why aren’t all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren’t they demanding that the little phrase “In God We Trust” be removed from their money or refuse to use it?
This particular agnostic with atheistic leanings would be glad to. Would you care to point out another form of US legal tender without those words that I can use to feed, clothe and shelter my family?