Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
The curious case of the lost gay Jesus porno

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
Mountains Magpie wrote:
Nah, the world needs more respect, tempered with good humour Wink


Granted, though some views don't really deserve respect.

Blasphemy is sort of the other side of the coin of religious hatred and fundamentalism. It does seem odd that religious believers are not expected to say terrible things about, say, homosexuality, yet we're relaxed when religious beliefs are gratuitously insulted. As free speech, none of this should be a matter for the law, but civilized life requires that most people frown on bad manners, even if they are legal. Blasphemy deserves our stern disapproval in the same way.


On the contrary; sacred cows are made to be roasted. There's a fundamental difference – and one that I hope most people can comprehend – between vilifying an individual and mocking an idea.

Of course, subversion wouldn't be subversion if it didn't invite stern disapproval from someplace or other; but that doesn't mean that it's not worthy of celebration. The idea of a society where blasphemy is suppressed is far more offensive to me than an 'irreverent' one in which it is rampant. Sometimes, we even like to tell ourselves that we live in such a society here in Australia, although it's probably far from the truth and likely always has been.


Yet mocking Christianity is good, mocking islam is not.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:45 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Who says, Stui? We all know that people are more cautious about mocking Islam these days because of the backlash it has provoked, but it doesn't make the act of blaspheming against Islam any less defensible or urgent. If you've paid attention to anything I've posted here over the years, you'd recall that I was firmly on the side of Charlie Hebdo, the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists and the American Copt behind the 'Innocence of Muslims' video, and highly critical of those who saw the (to say the least) way-over-the-top reactions to those satirical works as being in any way justifiable.

For those on the left who complain about 'punching down', I'd remind them that blasphemy is a brave act of resistance in Muslim-majority countries and one that carries severe consequences. In that context, blasphemy is an act of solidarity.

think positive wrote:
Insults covered by 'I'm only joking' are still insults.
the humour of cowards.


Only chauvinists interpret blasphemy – i.e. the derision of an idea that they consider sacred – as a personal insult. Unfortunately, many do.

Mugwump wrote:
^ this may be just a matter of degree, and definition. Of course ideas, and the behavior and character of those who profess them, can be attacked and mockery can be part of that, and I would disavow any kind of official or legal suppression.

However, do you really wish to go back to a world where people viciously mock the affectations of your preferred interest groups ? Of gay people, or other cultures and races ? Are these matters not more "sacrosanct" in our modern society than Christianity ? As such, are they included in your deserved "sanctity roastings" ?

Blasphemy is rightly permitted in our society, as many disagreeable things are, and sincere and forthright criticism should be cherished - but vicious offense seems to me, at root, a kind of intolerant illiberalism. Derision and gratuitous violation of the kind envisaged in this thread is also a fairly closed form of argument, which does not engage with anything other than its own supporters. These things lead to a cheap, riven and unhappy society where people in opposing solitudes effectively insult one another for fun. Is that really worth the sniggering ?

Blasphemy is a lot better than actual physical violence, but at some level they are related, as an insult is to a punch.


Of course, as you say, there are degrees. For instance, calling gay people perverts or ordinary Muslims terrorists – jokingly or otherwise – is hate speech; the sort of thing that is analogous to a physical assault. Making a joke about the fundamental ridiculousness of Islam, on the other hand, is the denigration of an idea. I trust that we are all intelligent enough here to understand the difference between these things.

You keep bringing up homosexuality, but these things aren't really analogous. A religion, let's keep in mind, is an entire system of thought. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a state of being. It's a bit hard to mock left-handedness, for instance, without directly mocking left-handed people (this is not to say that homosexuality, in its most abstract sense, can't be a valid target for satire or critique). But Christianity, or Islam, or Scientology, or Marxism, or libertarianism, or democracy, or poststructuralist philosophy, or jazz, or classical music, or the country we live in, or any other 'system' that you can think of, are owed no sanctity or respect in and of themselves. It is right that their proponents be given the right to advocate for them, and it is right that others be given the right to denigrate them. Neither of these acts should be considered more or less valid than the other. The very concept of blasphemy – that one or more of those concepts is sacred and must not be trespassed against – is an assault against that process and an attempt to control the way people think or speak; an enforcement of taboo.

Let's consider the film in question, which would have undoubtedly provoked torrents of outrage if it had ever been noticed beyond sleazy New York back streets and the pages of The Village Voice. The idea of Jesus, the central figure of the West's central thought system for the better part of 2000 years, being treated as an object of erotic attraction – in earnest or otherwise – is not even a particularly radical one (indeed, some would say that he has always been quite deliberately depicted by religious painters as physically attractive). Unless we are cowed by superstition or a belief in the inherent holiness of tradition, the idea of that concept being explored in a morally dubious, poorly-made pornographic movie should strike us as being quite funny, if nothing else. Christians, needless to say, might be much less likely to see the humour in that; but there is no conceivable sense in which Christians themselves are being insulted by it. There is no hate speech in an image of Jesus being sodomised on the cross, no matter how many people might find the idea offensive.

Indeed, it strikes me that we would do well to take more culturally revered figures and ideas and put them in places they don't belong, either in pursuit of intellectual or artistic goals or just for the fun of it. That isn't some sort of necessary evil that we must tolerate, but rather a form of critical engagement with the society we live in. To frown upon such exercises is submissive, fearful, anti-intellectual idolatory. To encourage them is a path to free thought.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:04 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know much about Opus Dei but the involvement of the Us government in it seems to be almost nil. The only names I recognise among people who are purportedly members of it (notably Justice Scalia and Ruth Kelly) seem to be people with a record of well-scrutinized successful public service and good moral character. They're Catholic, with Catholic views on abortion and other matters. This is permitted in a free society.


They're not Catholics they're Catholic fascists. There are Catholic communists in Italy, there are Catholic drug dealers in Mexico, who pray to St Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes, not to get murdered.

These people (Opies) rule the Catholic church, thanks to John Paul 2 and his hatred of communists. Franco was a mass murderer, who should have been swinging from a rope next to Tojo and Eichmann. But he wasn't, because it suited the Americans' purpose. He did however found the Opus Dei movement. No one says that as a Catholic, one has to whole heartedly support the fascism.

As a better person than I am said from the Philippines: "as a Catholic feminist, every time I go to mass, they insult me from the pulpit."

I read Justice Scalia's biography on Wikipedia. Like Santamaria, the best place for him is in the cemetery.


Last edited by regan is true fullback on Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:05 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't just referring to blasphemy, I mean all insults on general.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:07 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

regan is true fullback wrote:
[quote]I don't know much about Opus Dei but the involvement of the Us government in it seems to be almost nil. The only names I recognise among people who are purportedly members of it (notably Justice Scalia and Ruth Kelly) seem to be people with a record of well-scrutinized successful public service and good moral character. They're Catholic, with Catholic views on abortion and other matters. This is permitted in a free society.[/quote]

They're not Catholics they're Catholic [u]fascists[/u]. there are catholic communists in Italy, there are catholic drug dealers in Mexico, who pray to St Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes, not to get murdered.

These people (Opies) rule the Catholic church, thanks to John Paul 2 and his hatred of communists. Franco was a mass murderer, who should have been swinging from a rope next to Tojo and Eichmann. But he wasn't, because it suited the Americans' purpose. He did however found the Opus Dei movement. No one says that as a Catholic, one has to whole heartedly support the fascism.

As a better person than I said from the Philippines: "as a Catholic feminist, every time I go to mass, they insult me from the pulpit."
Try to be less subjective.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

think positive wrote:
I wasn't just referring to blasphemy, I mean all insults on general.


I presumed you were agreeing with Mugwump that blasphemy is a form of insult – was that fair?

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:28 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
think positive wrote:
I wasn't just referring to blasphemy, I mean all insults on general.


I presumed you were agreeing with Mugwump that blasphemy is a form of insult – was that fair?


Yeah fair point

I don't think this kind of film is funny or necessary, and I get his point. Can you imagine a movie like this about gay, Muslim etc,

Why should Christians be expected to have thicker skins?

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

think positive wrote:

I don't think this kind of film is funny or necessary, and I get his point. Can you imagine a movie like this about gay, Muslim etc,

Why should Christians be expected to have thicker skins?


On the first, have you ever seen a British sitcom from that era? As for Muslims, the fact that there is such a huge backlash to even the mildest representation of Muhammad doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to make a similarly blasphemous film about him.

I'm not saying Christians need to have thicker skins. If some are more inclined to be offended, that's entirely their prerogative – they can be as offended or non-offended as they like. But the fact that they hold Jesus sacred doesn't mean I or anyone else should.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I expected you'd go with the "religion is chosen, homosexuality is inherent" argument, and I considered it myself. In the end, though, I think the relevant point is that both Christianity and being gay are ways in which people define their identity, and it is not really their ideas, but their identity you insult when you crudely foul and viciously (this word is key) mock what they love. Love for a dead child is also chosen ; is that ok for you to deride ? You say that a "system of thought" is fair game. But the culture in which people were brought up is also, in many respects, a system of thought. So are many of the forms of life (mannerisms, clothes, ethics) that gay people choose. Is it ok to mock that viciously ? Where are your limits ? Where does a system of thought end and a way of life begin ?

A film like this is not a critique designed to dissuade people from falsehood, not an argument - it's just a kind of puerile defecation on an image, to provoke (let's face it) a community of people you do not like. I find the god hypothesis impossible to believe, so I'm not talking my book. But it still seems to me illiberal, bad-mannered and destructive behaviour. Not to be outlawed, not to be resisted with violence (a reluctance we probably got from Christianity).... but to be frowned upon by generous people who want to live in peace.

PS ref your post immediately above, nobody is suggesting you should hold Jesus sacred because others do. I'm just suggesting it's an act of aggression to go out of your way to foul his image, and not one conducive to the kind of broad-minded tolerance that you usually espouse.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Bravo! What is wrong with simply respecting people's Beliefs?

David, those sitcom would not be allowed to be made these days. Are you being served for a start I'm guessing.

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

think positive wrote:
Bravo! What is wrong with simply respecting people's Beliefs?

David, those sitcom would not be allowed to be made these days. Are you being served for a start I'm guessing.


Mrs Slocambe's pussy sure got up to some adventures

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:55 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Stereotypical gay characters may be frowned upon nowadays, but there's certainly no law against such things. I saw a Spanish film a couple of years back which was essentially Are You Being Served on a plane, lisps and all. It wasn't well received, but it was still chosen to open the local film festival in front of a couple of thousand people. So, it's not really accurate to say that such things couldn't be made today; just that, reasonably enough, TV producers are a little more sensitive about such matters, aware that gay people form part of their audience and are accordingly attuned to the need to present more three-dimensional characters. There may be a fear of offence present too, but then it's not as if Christianity is immune to that or seen as total fair game.

Mugwump wrote:
^ I expected you'd go with the "religion is chosen, homosexuality is inherent" argument, and I considered it myself. In the end, though, I think the relevant point is that both Christianity and being gay are ways in which people define their identity, and it is not really their ideas, but their identity you insult when you crudely foul and viciously (this word is key) mock what they love. Love for a dead child is also chosen ; is that ok for you to deride ? You say that a "system of thought" is fair game. But the culture in which people were brought up is also, in many respects, a system of thought. So are many of the forms of life (mannerisms, clothes, ethics) that gay people choose. Is it ok to mock that viciously ? Where are your limits ? Where does a system of thought end and a way of life begin ?

A film like this is not a critique designed to dissuade people from falsehood, not an argument - it's just a kind of puerile defecation on an image, to provoke (let's face it) a community of people you do not like. I find the god hypothesis impossible to believe, so I'm not talking my book. But it still seems to me illiberal, bad-mannered and destructive behaviour. Not to be outlawed, not to be resisted with violence (a reluctance we probably got from Christianity).... but to be frowned upon by generous people who want to live in peace.

PS ref your post immediately above, nobody is suggesting you should hold Jesus sacred because others do. I'm just suggesting it's an act of aggression to go out of your way to foul his image, and not one conducive to the kind of broad-minded tolerance that you usually espouse.


I think you have the wrong end of the stick here – my distinction here has nothing to do with choice; it's about the difference between a system of belief and a personal characteristic.

I'm not sure I even accept your dichotomy to begin with. What I'm trying to establish is what I see as a fairly fundamental difference between sacrilege and vilification, i.e. mocking Christianity, not the Christian. I just don't think you can make a similar division between homosexuality and a gay person, because these sets aren't sufficiently analogous – homosexuality here being more like Christianness than Christianity; and if you mock Christianness, you really may as well be denigrating Christians as a group. Likewise, Christianity is more analogous to something like a 'gay lliberation' ideology; and yes, I dare say that is as fair game as any other thought system.

We need to clarify something about this film, too, by the looks of things. It was not, as far as I can tell, designed to provoke or offend Christians; it was first and foremost a work of pornography aimed at getting gay men off. The worst you could say about it was that it sought to profit from the notoriety of its subject matter.

You speak of tolerance above. If we are to tolerate and accept the existence of Christianity (as I do), why can we not take the same approach to an irreverent pornographic film? So long as it is not beamed into Christians' loungerooms without their consent, is it not sufficient that they shrug their shoulders and go about their business? Why must we indulge such willful offence by 'frowning upon' something so harmless?

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace


Last edited by David on Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

regan is true fullback wrote:


I read Justice Scalia's biography on Wikipedia. Like Santamaria, the best place for him is in the cemetery.


The sentiment above sounds pretty representative of a Francoist world view to me. I don't believe either of the men you mentioned ever welcomed the death of those with a different ideology, as you seem to.

Franco was a thoroughly nasty piece of work. He was probably slightly nastier than those he was fighting against, but Homage to Catalonia makes it pretty clear that the homicidal violence against enemies in that dreadful war went two ways. As Orwell showed, the violence of the Communists was targeted as much at their own side as at the Nationalists, of course.

I read a little about Opus Dei for 30 mins this morning, and it seems a slightly weird, rather ultramontane sect within the Catholic Church, though it is hard to find anything that seems unbiased. I could not source anything even remotely independent substantiating your suggestions that it orchestrates or commits murders. It would surprise me if it does, as (to be cynical) it would be very bad for the brand of the Catholic Church, and I'd be surprised if the firm in Rome would licence that.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:47 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
he sentiment above sounds pretty representative of a Francoist world view to me. I don't believe either of the men you mentioned ever welcomed the death of those with a different ideology, as you seem to.


Compare the utter obsequiousness and grovelling in your own country over the death of Churchill in 1965 -"yooou sir", "he finds in death his finest hour" with the WTF was that? attitude to the death of the last Empress of India. The world had moved on.

Suddenly a 86 billion dollar conservative hobby at taxpayers expense seemed not such a good idea...

Not that I have anything against Churchill per se. But his unquestioning obedience to the establishment he loved does make one question his legacy.

John Hepworth dared to put his head above the parapet in 1977 and say that the death of Menzies was not necessarily a bad thing. He was mercilessly pilloried by the conservative press and the letter writing trolls. I don't necessarily agree with Hepworth but i respect him.

Was the world a better place with the peaceful death of Santamaria, or Joh Bjelke Peterson, undoubtly. If you had walked with me through Manila, and seen the harm inflicted by the opies, the 10 child policy for one thing, or had you walked with me through Warsaw in 1976 and seen the hatred for their overlords by the people, then you would wish that God would hasten the demise of tyrants of all stripes

I'm not talking about the civil war in Spain, but it's aftermath, where Franco and Escriva murdered three hundred thousand people and adopted their kids out to "good Catholic families". That's genocide baby.

In this country, George Pell, another opie, has done a double twist and pike to protect the Church from legitimate claims of sexual abuse. If you want a jihad against islam, whose influence in this country is marginal at best, clean up your own mess first.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:12 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I consider Australia my "own" country more than England, actually, though I have great love for both.

I don't really understand your point about Churchill. WSC was a complicated figure but unquestionably a man of enormous talent and importance. His sins - and there were many - were all absolved by his extraordinary peroration at the Cabinet table in 1940, which kept Britain in the war against the British Vichyists, and so provided a base for the Normandy landings four years later. Without those, there is no credible alternative to a Nazi or Soviet-dominated Europe. He made that choice knowing that a successful invasion was likely, and knowing what it would mean for himself and his family. It was an act of monumental, history-changing personal courage and faith which towers over all of his errors. He should have a monument in every Western European capital (and he mostly does). The "establishment" you refer to was really represented by Lord Halifax and his giant land-owning chums who wanted to do a deal with Hitler. As a man of his time, Churchill believed in the British Empire, unsurprisingly. You can sue his reputation for that, I guess.

Joh was a crook and a borderline thug, I agree. To the best of my knowledge, and I did once read a book about him, Santamaria was a conservative Catholic who never killed anyone or committed an act of legal corruption, and nor has Justice Scalia. I'm prepared to wish someone dead only when they have committed monstrous and unmitigated acts of criminality, and been convicted of them by law. That they happen to have a different intellectual ideological position to mine seems to me regrettable, but not grounds for me to rejoice in their death. I don't even wish death on Marxists, though i know that history suggests that they would put me up against the pock-marked wall when their barbaric ideology succeeds, as it temporarily does from time to time.

As for Franco after the Civil War, yes, a horrible man and a vicious dictator. The other side were pretty atrocious as well, but that does not exonerate Franco and his thugs. The Catholic Church has much to be ashamed of, and this is a reasonable entry for the charge sheet. A 10-child policy in a poor country would certainly be another. I'm no Catholic apologist ; it's a long list, that charge sheet. Some of it was the result of error, some of institutional self-aggrandisement. The latter is the moral question, the former merely an intellectual one.

Hepworth's statement is clearly that of a totalitarian mind- being glad of the death of someone because of a political disagreement within the fabric of a democracy is a repellent and disgusting thing, really. I cannot imagine why anyone should respect that. In any democracy, grown-ups recognise that ordinary decency comes before politics. People who sincerely believe otherwise tend to make life miserable for decent people across the world.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group