Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Book burning and other censorship
Supporting yout Point of View...
I have been writing an entire series of blogs on similar subjects and I agree with you. It always seems that a certain Dogma group is a little too sesative and unable or willing to intelligently debate the issue.
Censorship of material is horrible. Recently, in Texas recently there was a group of Christian parents that wanted to ban two terrific books. (Stranger in a Strange Land and A Brave New World). These books are being read and taught in the classrooms across the nation and in an open forum environments. The instructors discuss the authors intent and ideas.
When asked if they had read the books they admitted they had not. (hmmm, interesting...)
Free Your Mind...
SactoMonkey
posted by
SactoMonkey
on November 10, 2003 at 6:10 PM
| link to this | reply
friend
it is not a sin for a Christian or a person of another belief to give cause or explanation for their faith. what I was speaking of had nothing to do with what you wrote, rather it was addresed to Christians who are engaging in ugly accusational rock throwing with people who disagree with and ridicule the Christian faith. The Bible instructs Christians not to DEBATE because in the end a debate does not really help or strengthen either party. It usually breeds quarraling or worse. Debating is not the same as giving an answer when some one makes demand of you. it is all a matter of faith, either you believe it or you dont. no one can ever be debated into being a Christian, Muslim or atheist. Christians are to be living examples of the love, wisdom and mercy of God. It is not the responsibility of a Christian to convert a person, the Spirit of God does that through the Christian as the christian yields his or herself to Him. Debating is of the intellect, whereas a true witness and preaching of the Gospel is by the spirit. Conversion takes place in the heart, not in the intellect. Dont get me wrong, im not saying that using ones intellect is a sin and eveybody who does is damned. I am saying true preaching and conversion is HEART TO HEART, not MIND TO MIND.
posted by
cantey
on November 10, 2003 at 5:43 PM
| link to this | reply
barneymac
I did not say it was only the Christians who were doing. I said it was Organized religions in general. MHW just wants to make it look like I was Christian bashing. You'll notice that Twain was mention in my post.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 10, 2003 at 11:52 AM
| link to this | reply
pg scott
I agree with the idea of watching what kids or exposed to, but I would not do it as a form of censorship.
Censorship to me is controlling what is available, while raising your children is exposing them to what is fitting for their level.
I would not let my 3 year-old watch a XXX movie, that is just logical. But I don't want some holier than thou group telling me I can't watch those movies if I want to. And once my son is old enough, then I won't stop him. But I will let him read just about any thing he can.
I will not keep him from knowledge, which is what censorship really tries to do.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 10, 2003 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Just Right-Wing Christians?
While I find much to criticize about the Christian right, they are not the only ones in the book burning and censoring biz. A play entitled "Paradise" was recently shut down here by Muslims. Mark Twain is banned from many high schools including, ironically, Mark Twain Middle School. Shakespeare? Why, he's sooooo Eurocentric!
Personally, I've not much use for organized religion either, but I try to be a bit more ecumenical in my criticisms.
posted by
barneymac
on November 10, 2003 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
MHW
Get a life.
I do not hate Christians. I know many and am friends with several. I have no problem with people having different views than me.
Once more someone is trying to change the subject. You really should read my other blogs. What you just said fit so well into an earlier blog of mine that it just helps to prove my point.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 10, 2003 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Christians This And Christians That. Kooka, Why Don't You Ever Name Names?
Who in the hell are all of these radical Christians that you are always taking pot shots at and attacking.
In my opinion, there are a whole lot of low-life liberals who are enemies of civilization and I will name some of them: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the entire Democratic Party, NARAL, the National Organization for Women, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the National Urban League, Planned Parenthood which is carrying out a genocidal process by targeting thousands of black womand an girls for abortion, and I could on for pages.
I am prejudiced towards anti-Christian liberals and I have the courage to come right out and admit it. I do not just set back and shoot them down. I qualify everything I say about anti-Christian liberals by letting everybody know that I hate them in the first place.
But, on the other hand, you are not demonstrating any courage at all. Instead of coming right out and admitting that you hate Christianity and its followers, you try to give everybody the impression that you are an objective writer, presenting substantive findings and conclusions.
In other words, you are doing little more than spreading lies, exaggerations and showing that you are a stone-cold bigot when it comes to your views of Christianity and its followers.
Show some courage, friend. Just come right out and say "I hate Christianity and its followers."
posted by
Feenix
on November 10, 2003 at 5:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Being as I am hopelessly contrary, I cannot help but record an objection. It goes with saying that as an atheist I do not agree in any shape or form with certain Christians that Harry Potter is evil and should be banned. But if I were such a Christian I should have no trouble with censorship in this particular case. Just as I do not have any objection to censoring children from the propaganda of paedophiles for the reason that such material is potentially harmful and evil. The difference is never between those who are for censorship and those who are opposed to it - the difference lies in what one considers harmful and therefore in need of censorship.
You do not believe that Harry Potter is harmful or in the slightest bit evil - fair enough, I agree with you. But I would be very surprised to say the least if you, like myself, thought that paedophillia was harmful and evil, and yet unlike myself nevetheless were opposed to censorship from children.
Whether I am for or against censorship always depends on the particular case in question.
posted by
pg_scott
on November 9, 2003 at 9:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting
Recently Christians paid a so-called scientist (read: fraud, like their religion) to come up with ""proof" that the Harry Potter series was "damaging children's minds." The study was quickly torn to shreds by real scientists who quickly saw through the enormous holes in the man's "research," but that wasn't good enough. The Christians had taken this man's so-called study to heart, and that was that.
The danger with literalism is that it prevents thinking. I've said this many times, and I'll say it many more.
posted by
ShawnMichel
on November 9, 2003 at 8:53 PM
| link to this | reply