One wonders if the producers didn’t send the info about the film to these groups directly… hoping for exactly this kind of controversy and public interest
I think that the debate was not so much over the ethics of Kinsey’s obtaining data from incarcerated prisoners, but in his extrapolating those results to the public at large. Absent data that the people in prison are representative of the public at large, this is a significant methodological shortcoming.
However, I don’t know enough about Kinsey’s work to know if the criticism is valid or not.
When The Last Temptation Of Christ came out, I saw an interview with a priest who urged Christians not to protest. He had led protests of a film in the seventies and was convinced that the added publicity had helped make the movie such a hit. It was a little film called Deep Throat.
Due respect, and in keeping with our newly restored friendship, don’t you think that the reference to “their nonexistent deity” is, if not a bit harsh, a bit untenable? Consider the man who just simply sees nothing beautiful whatsoever in the works of Salvador Dali. Wouldn’t it be odd for him to say, writing on those who adore Dali’s work, something about “their nonexistent aesthetic”? I mean, just because he cannot see the beauty does not mean that no man can possibly see the beauty or that the beauty does not exist.
I disagree with your comparison, ** Liberal **. Aesthetics are highly subjective. The actual existence of something (god in this case) is factual. One could argue one way or the other about the existence of god, but either he exists, either he doesn’t.
The equivalent of your Dali example would be for instance people assuming that god exists and debatting about him being loving and compassionnate or mean and bloodthirsty.
I think you’re confusing the reality of the object with feelings about the object. i know that you are religious and I know you are perfectly sincere in your faith, just as I am sure that a Dali fan is sincere in his admiration. But I can see a Dali painting, I can see photos of the artist, I have a reasonable belief in the existence of his work. The same cannot be said of any deity (not just yours). I don’t believe in YHWH for the same reasons that I don’t believe in Zeus or elves. They might exist, but the odds are they don’t. As for being harsh, venting goes in the Pit, does it not?
In any event, I don’t see how faith in god justifies blatant lies about Alfred Kinsey and the a priori censorship of the movie. If the ultrafundies don’t want to see the movie, nobody’s forcing them to. They have a choice to see it or not. But they do not reciprocate freedom of choice–they wish to forbid anyone from seeing the movie. They wish to set themselves up as judges even over people who do not share their beliefs, and I reject that utterly.
I thought the line about a “nonexistent deity” was gratuitous as well. It unnecessarily had the effect of insulting people who would otherwise sympathize with your rant, many of whom are the first to say (and who say so frequently on this board) that the kind of intolerant and dishonest behavior described in your OP is completely unacceptable, unChristian, and unjustified by either faith or the Bible. There are people who want to be on your side, you feel the same way you do and it is wasn’t especially called for in this thread (as opposed to the many other threads and debates relating to theism and the supernatural in which such pronouncements are expected by theists and are not taken personally) to tell them all that their God doesn’t exist.
