free speech, shock value and respect for religion

Great Debates
1

I just received an email urging me to sign a cyber-petition to have a forthcoming movie &/or play banned. Why?

Because it portrays Jesus and his disciples as gay.

My first thought was to dismiss it completely, but before I managed to hit the delete button a paragrpah caught my eye. It went along the lines of how this shows disrespect to people’s faith and beliefs.

Now I’m agnostic at best and a stanch advocate of freedom of speech and against censorship. I’m also an idealist who feels people should have a sense of responsibility that is reflected in thier every action.

I think people have the right to question and present their views and as such see no problem with this movie. After all if your faith is strong enough guys it’ll withstand a flick won’t it?

But then again the movie is portraying a historical figure in a certain light without any facts (I’m assuming that I guess) and is that right?

And despite my personal disliking of organised religions I believe people’s personal choices of any nature should be respected. Is this a breach of that respect?

I’m not overly convinced this is more than a storm in a teacup but I would like to hear your opinions.

2

So, if I say, “I think dpr is a schmuck” should that speech be banned just because it doesn’t “respect” you? I don’t think so.

3

This doesn’t address the morality, but just the facts - Snopes has debunked this already:

Gay Jesus Petition

HenrySpencer

4

I guess this is really beside the point, but that movie is a hoax.

5

What are the odds - I got the link right, and messed up spelling snopes.

::Whacks back of head with hand::

HenrySpencer.

6

One of your objections might be that the play/movie/whatever makes a portrayal of Jesus and his followers without having facts to back it up?

Pretty much like his portrayal in the Bible, right?

7

Not at all. That’s far from what I meant. As I mentioned I’m an advocate of free speech, but as an idealist I’d hope that such a comment was made from a position where you had evidence or a solid reason for making it. Not for shock value or just plain old spite.

Now, now don’t make assumptions. My opinion of the bible as a history lesson is far from flattering.

My point was that we preach tolerance yet do we practice it?

Thanks for the link HenrySpencer though I could care less about the movie either way. I just thought it might raise a few interesting points for discussion.

8

dpr said:

Ok, taking this at face value…nobody is entitled to have their opinions “respected” to the point that the very existence of other views must be suppressed so they don’t get their panties in a bunch. Since the hypothetical offended Christians would not be forced to see this hypothetical movie, that’s what it would be–getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that otherhypothetical people were watching it. My hypothetical response would be a hypothetical “tough shit.”

9

Seems to me, you are playing devil’s advocate asking the following:

To answer your first concern, we can portray historical figures in any light we wiish. I’m sure that the surviving relatives of Ty Cobb didn’t appreciate how the baseball player was shown in the movie about his life.

Now, some things there were factual, but every movie will have embelishing which one can say is “wroong” and “portraying (someone) in a certainlight without any facts” - or even just loooking at SOME facts, or none at all.

If you want to petition that every movie be totrally 100% factual, you will be left with documentaries to watch exclusively.

As for your second point, if we have freedom of speech, this means freedom to say things that others might not like, and might not show “respect.” The minute we take those voices away, who is to say that something I say might not come under similar scrutiny? Or something YOU say?

You can excercise YOUR freedom of choice by choosing to not go, and your freedom of speech to actively protest this flick, but take their speech away? Sorry, not for me.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, one week, five days, 7 hours, 23 minutes and 15 seconds.
5372 cigarettes not smoked, saving $671.54.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 4 days, 15 hours, 40 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

10

I remember when “The Last Temptations of Christ” was released some twelve years ago and the hoopla that went with it. There was talk of boycotting theatres that showed the movie. People wanted the flick banned. Which is why I made a point to go and see it. The movie itself wasn’t that great, but I had to go to show my support for free speech. If anyone ever decided to make a movie depicting Jesus as gay, it probably wouldn’t interest me. However, if there were a call to ban the flick, I would go see it, even if it sucks. I find it interesting that when some group or another demands a movie or a book to be banned, it actually creates more interest than the work is worth. Rushdie’s book “Satanic Verses” must have been one of the most boring books I’ve ever read. Yet it was a best seller, only because certain Muslim groups created such a controversy over it. Without the controversy, I doubt it would ever have made the Top 100.

11

Has anyone proposed banning any speech? I don’t think so. (The OP used that term, but I don’t think it is true, if banning is defined as forbidding by the government). Should the government sponsor people saying these things? Should people boycott other offerings of people who say these things? These are the relevent issues in most censorship controversies. I am quite sure that if people said unpleasant and offensive things about you, you would not be inclined to support them in this or other ventures. (This is also directed to NiceGuyJack).

12

Free Speech is a constutional right. Speech gets redefined every few years so; mostly it’s been expanding recently.

Under the idea of FS, the hypothetical studio would have the freedom to produce a movie depecting the Jesus and the gang as gay.
I wouldn’t go see it, out of respect. I value Christian belief, and even hold that belief myself. I don’t think it’s true, so why bother?

Undoubtably some less restrained people will go ballistic over such a hypothetical project. That’s their right. Studios simply look upon this as free press, and milk it. Consumers end up seeing it to see what the fuss is about, thereby giving it a great opening weekend, followed by a quick drop off the charts. Movie ends up making a profit, and everyone goes home happy.

I guess my point is, yeah, they can make such a movie, so what? I’m not going to see it.

13

In the US, our freedom of speech allows us to voice our opinion on all matters, as long as those opinions are not libelous or slanderous or would create a major public disturbance (don’t go yelling FIRE in a movie theater).

Our good neighbor to the north, Canada, has banned parts of Dr. Laura’s radio program because of her position on homosexuality. While I stridently disagree with Dr. Laura’s position, I don’t think she should be banned. I do question the judgement of her producers at Paramount, however. If her program were to denounce blacks, women, Jews or any other minority group in the same way she denounces homosexuals, would it ever get out of the proposal phase?

What I find so humorous about many protesters and people calling for banning various books and movies is that often these people haven’t even READ or SEEN said book or movie.

Had the prostesters of The Last Temptation of Christ seen the movie, they would have seen the disclaimer that appeared on the screen, saying movie is only loosely based on the 4 Gospels and is really the author’s interpretation of those events. They also seemed to focus on the infamous love scene of Mary Magdelene and Jesus making love (for all of 5 secs of scene time). I thought it was hilarious that no one mentioned the close friendship between Jesus and Judas or that, at the end of the dream sequence, it’s Judas that convinces Jesus of the necessity of his death.

Certainly, if don’t like something, exercise your right to protest it, but make sure you know what you’re protesting!

14

If we were to attack the “jesus movie” we would have to attack that sub movie. You know the one that showed Americans capturing the German sub, the one with Bon Jovi. That commited a far greater offense. It was actually the British who did that, and yet the movie showed Americans. This was and is disrepesctful to the people that actually risked their lives in the war. And yet no one wants to have it banned. For some reason the only people that try and do this are religious nuts.

15

Freyr:

This is a point constantly being made by anti-censorship folks. But it not usually a valid one. You don’t have to see/read everything to get a sense of where it stands or what it is about. In the examples that you give, I don’t see anything that would change someone’s mind that was missed.

oldscratch:

Does this mean that all people that are trying to block Dr. Laura’s show are religious nuts? I’m not sure they would appreciate your characterization.

The reason it so commonly found among religious people is because our culture more commonly ridicules religion.

16

Sorry if I was misunderstood. The people protesting Dr. Laura are not protesting the potrayal of a “historical” figure. The only people who seem to protest fictional potrayals of history are religous nuts. If you can find some other cases that would be just fine. When gay people start protesting the potrayal of the Spartans and heterosexual, then we can talk.

17

oldscratch,

In that case you would definitely be right. But I would point out that, to religious people, these historical figures continue to have direct and current relevence to their lives. This is not typicaly the case with non-religious issues.

Let’s wait till a movie is made portraying Karl Marx as an anti-semite. We’ll see oldscratch out there, picketing and shouting…

Freyr:

Corection to my earlier post: Should be

Comment…

18

I said:

What I find so humorous about many protesters and people calling for banning various books and movies is that often these people haven’t even READ or SEEN said book or movie.

IzzyR replied:

Comment…

Uh, Izzy… I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You want me to comment on my own statement? Are you asking for a clarification or expansion?

19

Sorry. I earlier pasted oldscratch’s words instead of yours and commented on them. I had meant for that comment to refer to your quote. In correcting this I did not retype my earlier remarks, but instead wrote “comment…”, meaning to insert my earlier comment at this point.

20

How so? Is presenting youyr views on a subject disrespectful to all those that don’t agree with them? The Quran says that Jesus was not God. Is that disrespectful to people that believe he was?