Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » cowardice in Hollywood

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: cowardice in Hollywood
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it funny how some Hollywood lefties compare the religious right to fundamentalist Islam, and then spend hours bitching about the Religous Right, while saying next to nothing about Fundamentalist Islam?

Look Who Isn't Talking: A filmmaker is murdered, and Hollywood loudmouths say nothing.

quote:
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's short film "Submission," about the treatment of women in Islam, written by female Dutch parliamentarian and former Muslim Aayan Hirsi Ali, had aired in August on Dutch TV. Van Gogh was riding his bike near his home when a Muslim terrorist shot him, slashed his throat, and pinned to his body a note threatening Ms. Ali. This appears to be an organized effort, not the act of a lone nut; Dutch authorities are holding 13 suspects in the case.

After the slaying, I watched "Submission" (available online at ifilm.com) and my mind is still boggled that 11 minutes decrying violence against women incites such violence. There've been many films over the years that have taken potshots at Catholics, but I don't remember any of us slaughtering filmmakers over the offense. You didn't see the National Rifle Association order a hit on Michael Moore over "Bowling for Columbine."

One would think that in the name of artistic freedom, the creative community would take a stand against filmmakers being sent into hiding à la Salman Rushdie, or left bleeding in the street. Yet we've heard nary a peep from Hollywood about the van Gogh slaying. Indeed Hollywood has long walked on eggshells regarding the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. The film version of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" changed Palestinian terrorists to neo-Nazis out of a desire to avoid offending Arabs or Muslims. The war on terror is a Tinsel Town taboo, even though a Hollywood Reporter poll showed that roughly two-thirds of filmgoers surveyed would pay to see a film on the topic.

In a recent conversation with a struggling liberal screenwriter, I brought up the Clancy film as an example of Hollywood shying away from what really affects filmgoers--namely, the al Qaeda threat vs. the neo-Nazi threat. He vehemently defended the script switch. "It's an easy target," he said of Arab terrorism, repeating this like a parrot, then adding, "It's a cheap shot." How many American moviegoers would think that scripting Arab terrorists as the enemy in a fiction film is a "cheap shot"? In fact, it's realism; it's what touches lives world-wide. It's this disconnect with filmgoers that has left the Hollywood box office bleeding by the side of the road.

LoL! So comparing the religious right to the Islamic fundies isn't a cheap shot, but protraying the Islamic fundies as themselves would be a cheap shot?

quote:
Mr. van Gogh paid the ultimate price to make his film, and the ensuing silence of a community purportedly so interested in free speech is maddening. Agree with the man or not, what warranted his violent death?

Giving Hollywood the benefit of the doubt, I did one more search to find industry response to the van Gogh murder. I found the blog of novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon, who confirmed that I wasn't the only one who'd been wondering: "It's stunning how silent the American artistic community, Hollywood in particular, has been about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam," he wrote. "Do they even know what happened to one of their own? Have they even heard of him? Do they care someone was killed for making a film which protested violent abuse against women? Are they even interested?"

This is beginning to look a lot like cowardice. Let's make ourselves look brave by pretending that the religious right (who we've been bashing for decades) are as dangerous as the Islamonecrophiles, while avoiding making "cheap shots" at the Islamonecrophiles themselves.

quote:
Earlier this year, I was shopping a script that included Arab terrorist characters in addition to good Arab characters. Companies were interested, but after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, a wave of scripts were returned to me the next week. Confused, I narrowed the potential culprit down to a small Geneva Conventions joke by one brash character, and I changed it before sending it out again. The response was noticeably warmer, but I still encountered some trepidation over the War on Terror theme.

When I began meeting and networking with other conservative filmmakers, I put the lines back in the script. I'm not changing it again. Nor will I compromise my story. It would look pretty silly for European neo-Nazis to be traipsing around the Pakistani border, anyway.



[ November 25, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, 9/11 doesn't mean that Oklahoma City never happened, or didn't mean anything.

You really want to see an adrenaline pumping movie about Muslim terrorism? I'm not sure you do, because the effect of such a movie, pretty much unavoidably, would be to inflame passions against Muslims.

Now, you are correct in sensing that Holywood is very reticent to be percieved as a propaganda arm of the administration. I, for one, think that's a healthy attitude. Not just because I detest this administration, but because that's not what Holywood should be doing. We get enough propaganda as it is.

I agree though that there has been no loud outrage over the Van Gogh murder, and there should have been more. In Holland there was, though. They've been cracking down over there. The Dutch are laid back, but they don't take crap.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You really want to see an adrenaline pumping movie about Muslim terrorism? I'm not sure you do, because the effect of such a movie, pretty much unavoidably, would be to inflame passions against Muslims.
The last time that Hollywood had the balls to address Muslim terrorism, THE SEIGE did an incredibly good job distinguishing typical Muslims from the necrophiles among them. As for the "unavoidable effect," well, remember when you said Passion of the Christ would inspire violence against Jews? I’d think you’d live and learn, but you still have amazing contempt for your fellow-Americans.

quote:
9/11 doesn't mean that Oklahoma City never happened, or didn't mean anything.
Good hell, Ricky, Oklahoma City happened, but does not represent an ongoing threat. Please explain what you mean by that remark, in the context of what you were replying to. Surely you are not using one terrorist act carried out by one or two individuals, to justify Hollywood smearing Christianity in general? Were those perps even Christian? One's been put to death, the other's in custody.

quote:
Now, you are correct in sensing that Holywood is very reticent to be percieved as a propaganda arm of the administration. I, for one, think that's a healthy attitude.
Showing Bin Ladin & his ilk as bad guys, would make Hollywood seem like a “propaganda arm of the administration?” Even though they put out anti-administration movies, and rant against Bush at every opportunity. To oppose Islamic terrorism = to support Bush? Wow. And some folks say that Bush has a hard time with nuance.


quote:
Not just because I detest this administration, but because that's not what Hollywood should be doing. We get enough propaganda as it is.
Really? Do you know how the book "The Sum of All Fears" ended? A Palestinian group that had rejected terrorism, started using Ghandi’s passive-resistance tactics. You think we get too much of THAT kind of “propaganda”? That showing Palestinians a dream of winning their land and freedom by peaceful means rather than violent means, would have made Hollywood a “propaganda arm of the Bush administration?” This is the opportunity that those idiots threw away, in their cowardice, or in their fear of saying anything that might help “Bush’s work” – even if it might help us all.

The only time those Hollywood pussies even bring up the terrorists, they do so to compare them to Bush or to Christians. And you say Hollywood is trying to *avoid* propaganda?


quote:
I agree though that there has been no loud outrage over the Van Gogh murder, and there should have been more.
If Hollywood made a movie of this, they will change the murderers to Christians. Will you defend them then, as you seem to defend their cowardly bowdlerizing of the Sum of All Fears?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Delirium Tremens
Member
Member # 1997

 - posted      Profile for Delirium Tremens     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't it funny how some Hollywood lefties compare the religious right to fundamentalist Islam, and then spend hours bitching about the Religous Right, while saying next to nothing about Fundamentalist Islam?
Get your facts straight, Pete.
Maybe not fundamentalist Islam in specific, but Hollywood has a way of negatively stereotyping ALL Muslims and Arabs. This is already going on for decades and goes further than today's political correctness.

See here and here for some examples.

Posts: 432 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's got a point Pete, Hollywood has been pretty hard on Muslims and Arabs in the past. Ten years ago, your typical portrayal of an Arab in Hollywood was the crimson Jihad guy from True Lies. LOL, that guy was great, who could forget the crimson jihad [Smile] And Arnie was just so cool. "It's a snowww cone maker"

But seriously, it's only been, ironically, since September 11 that this kind of portrayal has become less common.

[ November 26, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"well, remember when you said Passion of the Christ would inspire violence against Jews? "

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything as definitive as that. I probably said it might. Glad it didn't. Jews didn't commit a huge terrorist attack against the US. I didn't see the seige, but the Muslim terrorist used to be a pretty ubiquitous villain in hollywood.

I didn't see "The Siege", so I can't comment.

"Oklahoma City happened, but does not represent an ongoing threat."

If you really believe this, then you're living a fantasy. You really think the extreme right isn't dangerous? Isn't an ongoing threat? Tell me you're not that oblivious. As for "smearing christianity" - I thought we were talking about Muslims. You really need to chill with your self victimization.

As for Sum of All Fears - I didn't know that (didn't read opr see it), but since it came out in 2002, I stropngly doubt thaty the motivation for changing the ending was political. They probably thought it would be anticlimactic or something. You can't possibly think that a bunch of pecenicks would have a problem with such a scenario.

Not everything is a conspiracy, and your shrill braying about it only makes it less likely that you'll be taken seriously when you do have a point. Why don't you (social) conservatives make movies of your own? You already have a network. Start a studio too.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Get your facts straight, Pete.
Maybe not fundamentalist Islam in specific, but Hollywood has a way of negatively stereotyping ALL Muslims and Arabs. This is already going on for decades and goes further than today's political correctness.

OK; let's get this straight. I am supposed to feel better about Hollywood's complete silence and cowardice about murderous islamist necrophiles, because, you think, Hollywood's cheap shots at gentle and sincere Muslim people somehow makes up for that?


quote:
"Oklahoma City happened, but does not represent an ongoing threat."

If you really believe this, then you're living a fantasy. You really think the extreme right isn't dangerous? Isn't an ongoing threat? Tell me you're not that oblivious.

Oh, get over yourself, Ricky. Oklahoma City was not orchestrated by some extreme-right counterpart of Al Qaeda. The elements of the extreme Right that ARE dangerous, today (as opposed to dead or in prison), did not orchestrate Oklahoma City. Therefore Oklahoma City does not represent an ongoing threat, any more than your Baruch Goldstein represents an ongoing threat.


quote:
As for Sum of All Fears - I didn't know that (didn't read opr see it), but since it came out in 2002, I stropngly doubt thaty the motivation for changing the ending was political. They probably thought it would be anticlimactic or something. You can't possibly think that a bunch of pecenicks would have a problem with such a scenario.
Well, if you ever read Sum of All fears, and then see the movie (in that order), then you will probably be embarassed to have said anything so idiotic.

Don't preach to me about conspiracy braying when you're the one braying about Oklahoma City representing on ongoing threat. I accused Hollywood of cowardice re Islamist terrorists. Last time I checked cowardice does not equal conspiracy.

Funny you actually agreed with me on Hollywood's cowardly silence on the Van Gogh murder.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4044939.stm

Pakistan bans Newsweek magazine that reports Van Gogh's death

quote:
Magistrate Tariq Mahmood Pirzada said the article, Clash of Civilisations, "contained some objectionable remarks which are tantamount to desecration of the Koran".

Authorities said they were considering legal action against the publication, although they gave no further details.

The ban may have little effect on sales - the 22 November issue has already been superseded by the 29 November edition.

An Islamabad vendor told Associated Press Television News the 22 November issue had sold 50% more than other editions of the magazine.

The Dawn newspaper said the article was a "naked attack on Muslims' faith. It hurts the feelings of over a billion inhabitants of this Earth".

Van Gogh, 47, had made a controversial film critical of Islamic culture.

Intended to illustrate domestic violence in Muslim societies, it featured images of Koranic verses daubed on semi-naked women.

He was shot and stabbed to death in Amsterdam on 2 November.

OK, the quran verses on the bodies probably was unnecessarily inflammatory. One could probably have made the same valid criticisms without inflaming some nut-job. So I don't think that Hollywood needs to be pissing in its boots over these guys.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jason notes:

quote:
But seriously, it's only been, ironically, since September 11 that this kind of portrayal has become less common.
It's only since then that Muslims and Arabs have been targeted, because of their ethnicity and religion, on a large scale, for violence and murder. Kudos for Hollywood in realizing the New Reality at once, and stopping any potential contribution to mindless hate.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the contrary: Hollywood has the resources and the power to make shows like The Seige, or season 2 of Twenty-Four, shows that help Americans distinguish between the muslim necrophile extremists, and the good Muslims that are our friends and neighbors. Malice against Christians keeps Hollywood from distinguishing the Fallwells from the Timothy McVeighs. Am I giving Hollywood too much benefit of the doubt when I say that their refusal to attack the likes of Osama comes from fear of extremist reactions -- could it be that they hold peaceful conservative Muslims in the same contempt that they hold peaceful conservative Christians? I don't think so. My reading is that they only hold Christians in that kind of malice, and that their motive for avoiding further movies like The Seige comes from fear of the extremist reactions.

[ November 28, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hollywood doesn't like to tackle subjects that are both recent and real. In the post-war era, they have rarely made movies about on-going conflicts in which the US is involved.

It was several years after the end of the Vietnam war that we started to see movies about that conflict, the same was true of the Gulf War.

I don't expect that we'll see much in the way of films on the WoT until it's over.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hadn't thought of that, Jesse. Unlike other arguments, that is quite plausible, and in that light, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt & say that it's not cowardice.

Still, it's a shame, because there is a lot of good they could do. They could save thousands of lives by showing both sides that America is not and should not be at war with all of Islam. Terrorism is, ultimately, a war of images. Hollywood has the power and the talent to help to end this war more quickly, with less actual violence. Every message that is delivered in celluloid, is a message that need not be written in blood.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunil Carspecken
Member
Member # 1453

 - posted      Profile for Sunil Carspecken     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of Hollywood, does anyone know any good online film reviewers? I like Roger Ebert, but I occasionally have strong disagreements with him. He seems to hate comedies like Tommy Boy and Happy Gilmour.
Posts: 333 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that the Radical Muslim Extremists view Western Media with complete disdain. I don't think Hollywood has much power to effect their view in a positive way.

Given the general lack of artistic merit in most of what Hollywood produces today, do you really think that they would be capable of producing films that would have a positive effect?

Demonize Muslims? I have no doubt they could handle that, but it doesn't serve the purpose.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Except that the Radical Muslim Extremists view Western Media with complete disdain. I don't think Hollywood has much power to effect their view in a positive way.
Radical Muslims care what their fellow Muslims say about of them. Hence the war of images, a war that they are still winning.

quote:
Given the general lack of artistic merit in most of what Hollywood produces today, do you really think that they would be capable of producing films that would have a positive effect?
Capability is based on talent, not on the general merit of their work. And the quality of their best work shows that there is some real talent in Hollywood. I think they could do this, and save lives. And joining the fight against terror does require anyone to like or praise GWB, or even refrain from criticizing him.

(That talk from Ricky -- that somehow joining the fight against Al Qaeda turns you into a lackey of George W. Bush? To be against AQ, you have to be for GWB? Think about it. Is that really a position that a liberal should defend?)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would suggest anyone that has not watched 'The Siege' watch it.

Great movie - and it wasn't dumbed down. Both of the 'bad guys' are portrayed to have actual reasons behind their actions.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny thing is, I think Ricky & Zyne would totally agree with _The Seige_ if they saw it -- it's one of those "if we enact something like the patriot act then the terrorists have already won" movies. But they are fixated on the idea that attacking Muslim terrorists means attacking muslim people, or supporting Bush, so they won't see it.

I actually disagree with the movie's lefty conclusions; I am just using it to show that you can show the terrorists as the bad guys while actually increasing tolerance towards Muslims in general, and also while arguing against current US policies.

[ November 29, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Delirium Tremens
Member
Member # 1997

 - posted      Profile for Delirium Tremens     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am supposed to feel better about Hollywood's complete silence and cowardice about murderous islamist necrophiles, because, you think, Hollywood's cheap shots at gentle and sincere Muslim people somehow makes up for that?

Ok, maybe I was a bit too personal in my remark. You certainly have a point that Hollywood doesn't make the distinction between terrorists and sincere Muslims. Looking for causes, I think 95% of the motivation of our fellow filmmakers is "follow the money" (especially recently). This strategy implies:
- Confirm stereotypes. I can't remember seeing a movie with e.g. a gay Indiana Jones type, a Mormon Indiana Jones type, or a computer programmer with less than average intelligence who cared about his family.
- Avoid controversy. A bit of controversy (a corrupt judge, Jesus getting beated by Jews, e.g.) is good to attract the attention, but too much controversy is bad. You won't see a film e.g. with a pro vs contra Iraq war theme. That would stirr up the emotions just too much.
- (Jesse's point) Avoid themes that are too actual. It's very ridicoulous if it turns out afterwards that the movie made the wrong conclusions (the typical example here is Rambo III: Rambo helping the Taliban against the commies).

The rare examples that do manage to depict a correct image, deserve to be praised.

"Van Gogh, 47, had made a controversial film critical of Islamic culture. Intended to illustrate domestic violence in Muslim societies, it featured images of Koranic verses daubed on semi-naked women. "

I saw a couple of minutes of Van Gogh's film, and this is a very polite way to express its content:
"semi-naked": the women were wearing a headscarf, and a VERY transparant sheet to cover the rest of their body. The complete naked bodies were very clearly visible from top to toe (except for the face). As far as I can remember, the verses were painted on the bodies and partly over the breasts, so you basically had to look at the breasts in order to read the verses. I don't speak Arabic, but I was told that the verses were those where Muhammed says that beating your wife is OK. One of the women was saying things like: "Oh, Allah, if you are good, why does my husban beat me in your name". Apparently, the film went on like this for 15 minutes or so, and that was it.

I'm the last one to say that Van Gogh deserves to be murdered, but I can understand that sincere people were shocked by these images. Those who see Theo Van Gogh as an icon of western values, freedom of opinion or right/left politics are just wrong: his only goal was creating controversy.

One thing I forgot: on more than one occasion, Van Gogh publicly labelled Moroccans as "geitenneukers" (goatf***ers) - he wasn't making the distinction between sincere Muslims and terrorists either.

[ November 30, 2004, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Delirium Tremens ]

Posts: 432 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They bash the Religious Right more because they are more dangerous to our everyday life than the Muslim extremists.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed on Van Gogh, DT. You have made the point that I was hinting at when I said "One could probably have made the same valid criticisms without inflaming some nut-job."

I'm not asking for Pro & Contra Iraq. I'm talking about taking on the Islamist necrophiles in general. Like "The Seige" did.

KE, why don't you tell me how your everyday life has personally suffered because of the religious right.

I know some that have occasionally annoyed me and pissed me off. But Islamist necrophiles attacked our economy as well as our people. A large proportion of Americans suffered from depression after the 9-11 attacks. Like tens of thousands of Americans, I personally lost my job and my family health insurance as a direct consequence of 9-11, when the company of 200 employees I belonged to (it had just taken on 60 new employees and was opening a branch in California) suddenly found that several major customers housed in the World Trade Center were not going through with those software & service purchases after all. The software industry in my whole state collapsed, and I could not find full-time work. My wife was pregnant with our third child. Every day of my life is affected by the debt that I'm saddled with because of those terrible months.

I don't know what strange world you and Hollywood live in where the Religious Right are more dangerous to our everyday lives than the "Muslim extremists," but it is not the world I live in. I am not the only American that feels this profound disconnect and sense of betrayal from our moviemakers.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

Okay. Due to the oppressive Christian culture I live in I am unable to reveal my relegious beliefs, or lack thereof, for fear of losing my job and/or persecution. My children are subjected to Christian propoganda, everywhere but particularly in school, on a daily basis. I am persecuted and brow-beaten at every family get-together, or if I mention my beliefs in any public setting. And, my money, my national anthem, and my pledge are all dominated by a God I do not believe in. However, what I was referring too was the negative affect the RR has on the laws of our country.

KE

[ November 30, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those are valid complaints about living in a different culture, KE. But I see no specific complaints relating to the religious right -- all of your specific complaints relate to the country's religious mainstream.

But I am very sorry that your job and extended family creates a hostile environment for your beliefs. It saddens me that Christian employers and families could be so unChristian.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you. I must admit that as frustrating, patronizing, and condescending as my friends and family can be, they do sincerely believe it is for my own good. The specific complaint with the RR would be their affect on the laws of our nation, neh?

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Speaking of Hollywood, does anyone know any good online film reviewers?
SC, the Onion's reviews have never failed me. http://www.theonionavclub.com/?ref=onion2
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Molonel
Member
Member # 1667

 - posted      Profile for Molonel   Email Molonel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Cranky:

http://www.mrcranky.com/

He rates all movies according to how bad they are. The best you can hope for is a single bomb on a film, and that translates into, "Almost tolerable."

Take this little gem from his review of Alexander:

"Watching "Alexander" is like going on a first date, noticing in the first five minutes that your date hums to herself and suffers from bouts of involuntary drooling, then realizing that perhaps those tickets to the unabridged reading of War and Peace weren't such a hot idea."

Posts: 182 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pat Sajak makes a pretty good point...

quote:
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they’re not Christians or Jews.

There’s another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?

As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?

As I said, it’s a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.

I think Pat may be on to something here......
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Delirium Tremens
Member
Member # 1997

 - posted      Profile for Delirium Tremens     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world
Not a segment of the Arab world, Daruma, all Muslims.

Here are a couple of Van Gogh quotes:

"Juist de imams moeten zo vrijuit mogelijk kunnen spreken, want hoe kunnen wij ons moreel superieur wanen aan de geitenneukers als we hen het enige onthouden dat onze samenleving wezenlijk onderscheidt van de hunne? Laat onze imams de pygmeeën blijven die ze zijn, maak van hen geen martelaren"

Translated:
"The imams in particular must have the possibility to speak as free as possible, because, how can we feel morally superior to the goatf***ers if we deny them the only thing that distinguishes our society from theirs? Let our imams remain the pygmees that they are, don't make martyrs of them."


Here's another:
"Burgemeester Cohen van Amsterdam moddert voort, nu weer met de Marokkaanse jeugd die thuis geleerd is dat joden maar beter aan het gas kunnen en dat die mening vooral met een toeter verspreid moet worden tijdens de 4-Mei-stiltes, waarna je als jeugdige geitenneuker gaat voetballen met de rouwkransen."

"Major Cohen of Amsterdam muddles on, this time with the Moroccan youth who learned at home that Jews are better off gassed and that this opinion should be spread loudly during 4 May silences, after which you can play soccer as a young goatf***er with the funeral wreaths."

These and other similar statements can be found on Theo van Gogh's personal website.

So, according to your logic, if you don't support a person which makes such statements, you must be against Pres. Bush and the fact that terrorists should be punished?

[ December 01, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Delirium Tremens ]

Posts: 432 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Koner
Member
Member # 1390

 - posted      Profile for Koner   Email Koner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, my money, my national anthem, and my pledge are all dominated by a God I do not believe in.
Your money has one phrase on it which references God, "In God We Trust". Thats it. Nowhere else on your money is God mentioned. God certainly does not "dominate" your money. In fact I would hold that your money, the dollar bill at least, is dominated more by Masonic symbols than it is by God. There are no fewer than 5 prominent Freemasonic symbols on every 1 dollar bill, not including the picture of George Washington who was the leader of his Masonic Lodge and whose innaguration was officiated by fellow Masons and there was no prayer offered.

The last time I read the Star Spangled Banner (at least the portion which has become our National Anthem) God is not mentioned once. In the LAST verse of Fancis Scott Key's poem, "The Star Spangled Banner" there are three lines:

[quote]Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
[quote]

That is however the only reference to God in the poem but those are NOT part of the National Anthem. So I would hold that the Nationl Anthem is not in fact "dominated" by God.


I'll grant that God does hold a prominent position in the Pledge of Allegiance though. But I personally think that the Flag, and the Republic for which it stands hold the dominant positions.

EDITED TO ADD THIS!

I would say that I am agnostic at best. Whether I believe there is a God varies upon the day of the week and what books I've recently read. I do not know where I stand on my faith in God or any divine being. But I'm most certainly not offended by other who are. I don't feel oppressed by believers. And I'm sure not offended or opressed because God is mentioned on my money.

[ December 01, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Koner ]

Posts: 754 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne - I checked out the Onion's review of 'The Siege', after I just watched it on USA. I thought their depiction, while true at points, made the movie sound much to shallow.

Yes, Denzel Washington is a simple hero-figure. However, I believe that T. Sheloub plays a legitimate part, and that 'The Siege' does deal legitimately with arabs, arab terrorists, and the possibility of US security & safety going way overboard.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1