Teiresias wrote on Dec 10, 2007 11:52 AM:
" Return to sanity, please live up to your name. The public display of religious iconography on public property has been ruled a violation of the establishment clause many times. It is NOT an issue of allowing everyone to have equal access to religious displays--the issue is that religious displays should not be on public property in the first place. Also, please provide documentation about churches that have been stopped from putting up religious displays. "
mopar wrote on Dec 10, 2007 10:11 AM:
" I saw it this weekend. Good flick. "
returntosanity wrote on Dec 10, 2007 9:48 AM:
" Continued again: Oh and By the way. I have not read the books in question so I have no opinion about the movie itself. I will say however that the whole debate is silly. Just as silly as the Harry Potter debate.I have read those books and at least there if anything Christianity is revered not denigrated. Although there is no direct or indirect mention that I can find in the series. However, the themes presented are very much in line with Christian thinking. Do good to others and Do what is right instead of what is easy. Good themes I think don't you? So until I actually read the books I won't offer an opinion as to Good or Evil of this series. That would make me as guilty as those I seek to teach. "
returntosanity wrote on Dec 10, 2007 9:42 AM:
" Continued: Neither of these things mean the State is sponsoring a religion. It means that its willing to accept donations from all. Now if a State organization refused to put something up from any religion that asked that would indeed be against the Constitution. However, that is not what happens. Only Christian displays are banned. By the way yes Christians hacve been told they cannot have certain religious displays on their own property. Even Churches have been told not to have displays on their own property. Lawsuits have been filed to stop theis very thing. You want fairness I'm all for it but fair is fair. That dosen't mean we allow your and not mine. I will fight to make sure your voice is heard too even if it disagrees with my voice. Will you do the same for me? I doubt it. "
returntosanity wrote on Dec 10, 2007 9:41 AM:
" You anti-religious people just don't get or even try to do you? Neither I or any other Christian that I am aware of has ever said that a display from another religion could not be in an American park or anywhere else on public ground for that matter. It is completely fair to have those there. Why is a Christian one in someplace and not a Muslim one for example. Simple a Christian church took up a collection amongst its members and bought such a display and the DONATED it to the park. If a Muslim temple wanted to do something similar I certainly would have no problem with it. "
kittykat wrote on Dec 8, 2007 5:33 PM:
" I am a big fan of fantasy movies. I originally thought it wasn't a big deal seeing previews, just seemed like another one of those movies. But I have heard more than just this article and looked into it more. The books are what is more of the problem. After finding out what the author's intent was, it changed my mind. I am a parent of a young child and I appreciate the "heads up".The purpose of the Bishop's statement was to let those who are christian know this movie's background. If you aren't a parent who care's let it go. read an article that you care about. I don't like boxing and have my own reasons why, but i don't go to the sports section and try to trash a boxing fan who appreciates an article. How dare they put an article in the paper you don't like. "
deliverusfromevil wrote on Dec 8, 2007 4:32 PM:
" Hey Big Spender, thanks for perpetuating another conspiracy theory. "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 8, 2007 2:24 PM:
" I wonder if the Catholic heirarchy has moved behind the scenes to suppress this documentary about pedophile priests too: http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php -- it's extremely suspicious that this film hasn't gotten more buzz. "
DJ: wrote on Dec 8, 2007 1:17 PM:
" Yep, sonny, soapboxes. If the shoe fits, and apparently its a tight fit because it sounds like pinches, wear it! "
BrianGSmith wrote on Dec 8, 2007 1:14 PM:
" Another isssue is this idea of "evil" and other religious inspired concepts used to smack the sheep in line. "Evil" Bishop? Really? Get your act to the Sudan if you want to see evil. Over the top and absurd. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Dec 8, 2007 1:10 PM:
" The issue here is the forum in which this Bishop uses to tender to his sheep. I have no problem with bishops, priests or sha-mans advising their follwers what not to do and what to avoid...as long as they do this advising in their churches. The Lacrosse Tribune has to be asked why they published this. They'll say a decent percentage of the readership is Catholic-Christian....and they're correct. But seeing it is out into the public sphere those of us who find such censorship abhorrent and anti-American are commenting. We didn't enter the Bishops Church Sevices, we were just reading our favorite local newspaper. "
hemipowered wrote on Dec 8, 2007 11:01 AM:
" The Bishop has lots of time on his hand to comment and post about a movie. Did you know Bishop that most movies are make believe? They are..really. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 8, 2007 10:55 AM:
" My critic's remarks are FAR BELOW right now but here's my reply: of course Bishop Listecki is an American citizen as well as a Catholic administrator and in either capacity he can and should express his opinions; after all I noted the obvious -- he's 'just doing his job.' I didn't know however that EVERYONE who posted for the 'right' of atheists to make their points too are 'anti-Christs' (Wow! that's far more than Revelation indicates!) and I observed that the movie vaults are full of 'religious'-oriented movies (some VERY good really) and an 'atheist' film or two or three seems quite 'fair' to me!... "
MEXIMAN wrote on Dec 8, 2007 10:01 AM:
" SOAPBOXES.....are you for real.?? Ok grandpa...tell me another one from the olden days..!!! "
DJ: wrote on Dec 8, 2007 8:52 AM:
" Kudos to the Bishop and the Pope for standing up for what they believe in. They have done nothing more that what most of the poster here have done. They have a moral duty to stand for certain things and set certain standards. What I do see are lots of folks with agenda's here standing on their soapboxes of prejudice crying into the wind. "
meximan wrote on Dec 8, 2007 6:59 AM:
" Im sorry, but i think this story is stupid....!!! Really people when was the last time you had a dragon or evil little troll attack you on the street. Just because you watched a fantasy based movie...it doesn't mean your going to become a monster in real life. "
aggie wrote on Dec 8, 2007 5:46 AM:
" At my church they used Lord of The Rings as part of then sermon....in a good way. Faith, testing of friendship, I guess it is how you look at it. I have not read the book, but if they talk about a false god in their world, which is an alternate universe, then I don't see how it could be about our God. My faith is strong enough to tolerate a fantasy movie. Am going this weekend. "
delainebuhrow wrote on Dec 7, 2007 11:35 PM:
" Yep, wouldn't expect anything less from him either. It must be a requirement from ordination to be a jerk about something that has no bearing on your life. why can't people like him believe in the roswell conspirasies instead of being a bunch of sour grapes about completely stupid issues. i remember not being ablle to partake in the whole lord of the rings craze because my dad (who is a preacher) didn't think that there was anything "redeeming" about it. "
mytwocents wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:22 PM:
" Hey...I'm a Holiday Catholic at best. I love Bishop Listecki, he is awesome. Was at my neice's confirmation and he totally knows what is going on. Usually I daydream during long Catholic talks, but he is very interesting and "with it". Kids who have met him, love him. I do not agree with a lot of the teachings of the Cath church....Listecki seems down to earth. "
Eddie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:01 PM:
" Anna, you are quite right that the film will come and go without causing any trouble. The "fuss" that you mentioned is always started by fearful religious leaders, who give knee-jerk reactions to any film that challenges people to think in different ways about religion. It's happened many times before: The DaVinci Code, The Last Temptation Of Christ, Monty Python's Life Of Brian, etc. More often than not, these scared leaders don't even see the film before bashing it. "
Anna wrote on Dec 7, 2007 7:11 PM:
" How'd this digress into a debate on the Constitution? Back to the original topic, it's just a movie. It'll come and go, the church and its flock will still remain. I don't see what all the fuss is about. "
Eddie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 5:04 PM:
" Jeremy, your interpretation of the First Amendment is way off. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. This means that the State cannot display the Ten Commandments alone in a public park in a religious context. If it did, it would be guilty of establishing a religion. Now, if the State allows all religious groups equal access to the public park, then that is just fine. No one religion is being favored over another. The State is required to be NEUTRAL regarding religion; what part of that do you not understand? "
ML wrote on Dec 7, 2007 4:59 PM:
" Next they'll be telling us that Charles Dickens' "Christmas Carol" is Satanic because it has ghosts. I am so sick of religious lunacy. "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 4:24 PM:
" side step? you are nuts. My religion doesnt matter. We have many religions and cultures in the area and no ONE should be singled out with a monument in a park.If you follow the commandments, display them in YOUR yard with pride. It's your right. "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 4:14 PM:
" Again, you side step my points. Are you a tax paying Buddhist? If not, your argument isn't valid. How do you feel about Muslims mandating that colleges in Michigan put foot washing baths in the university? It seems to be a selective enforcement. "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 4:11 PM:
" "you want you're rights at the expense of mine"? Goes both ways, doesnt it? Put a representaion of all religions or have none at all.Why should it just be yours? Commandment #1-'You shall have no other gods before Me' why should a tax paying Buddhist have to see this in a park? It says his beliefs are WRONG. "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:42 PM:
" How is this beyond the constitution and the church? When it comes down to it, you want you're rights at the expense of mine. The constitution never meant for the elimination of religion from the public square, it meant for the end of persecution based on religion. The 10 commandments being displayed in a public park is not a persecution of you! "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:39 PM:
" This is beyond the U.S. Constitution and the church. As far as the ten commandments are concerned, the park is as much mine as it is yours. Why should your religion have a statue in the park? Where is mine? If you have one, you have to cover ALL religions in the region to be fair. "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:27 PM:
" Have you read the constitution? How many times does it mention God? It was meant to say that the US government wouldn't do as the English government and give political power to the church. It does not say anywhere in there that the display of the a religous symbol is violating your rights. It says the government can't persecute you for your beliefs. "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:15 PM:
" You are joking, right? A protest and a permenent statue or sign are a little different, dont you think? I'll make you a deal, Put a gay pride statue up at riverside and the ten commandments can go right next to it.We all pay taxes on parks, there should not be literature saying there is one true god and that is the one that Christians worship. "
Eddie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:12 PM:
" Jeremy, have you ever read the U.S. Constitution - including the Bill of Rights? Just wondering.... "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 3:01 PM:
" Why is it such a violation to see those commandments in a park, courthouse, ect? I don't support gay rights, yet they are allowed to gather to protest on public property. I'm offended by that! How is that different than the ten commandments in the park? "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 2:50 PM:
" The complaint is not about Christianity in public, it is displays on public property paid for by everyone! No one is telling you to take down the ten commandment sign in your front yard, just dont put it in a park. "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 2:23 PM:
" Here's my problem with atheists/agnostics. They are OK with a movie that aimed at children that undermines Christianity. However, they are against anything Christian being public. So if this is going to be a debate, then both sides must be able to present their side. You see it everyday, someone is offended by a cross. Yet when Christians protest a movie, they are called close minded. "
becca wrote on Dec 7, 2007 2:19 PM:
" Michael, I believe that fairness is right for both sides of a disagreement. I have no problem with you stating your opinion, even if I do not like it. The issue here seems to be that many anti-Christs take issue with this bishop stating his opinion on the matter. Also, I question why stating my beliefs has to mean that I am trying to convert you but your stating yours does not mean the same thing? I believe that free thinking opposes hypocrisy no matter which side you are on. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 7, 2007 1:35 PM:
" If Christians can tell atheists and agnostics (an 'agnostic' by the way says that 'the cake' may or may not be 'there') that their God exists why can't Christians be 'told' He doesn't? Why is that not 'fair'? I read proselytizing from literalist Christians on this blog EVERY day; if some atheists and agnostics want to put in their views I hardly think that's any more of an 'imposition' than the constant proselytizing. And if atheists get 'one movie' of their own (wow!) why begrudge that either? Just pop 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' into your DVD player huh? (Not a bad movies by the way; sort of 'gnostic' but John Wayne -- an atheist by the way -- so obviously and distinctly uncomfortable as 'the centurion at the cross' is a miscast distraction in the 'passion' scenes...) "
becca wrote on Dec 7, 2007 1:26 PM:
" Dirk: First I will say that I am not catholic, I am christian. Now I will tell you what the issue with the movie is. Bloody, gory, kill 'em all flicks do not pretend to be good and they are not aimed at children. It is the difference between hiding your bottle of poison behind lock and key in a well labelled bottle and putting it in the juice container that every child has access to. If you want to sample the poison, have at it but for crying out loud, KEEP IT AWAY from the CHILDREN!!! "
pinky wrote on Dec 7, 2007 1:19 PM:
" Really, if knowing about different beliefs is going to make you a non-believer of your original beliefs, then you weren't too secure in the first place. If I was a secure-feeling Christian, I could read books and books about Judaism, Wicca, and Hinduism and it wouldn't alter my beliefs, it would just be interesting. If you didn't see a shred of truth or it didn't spark doubt, it should make your beliefs stronger, right? When did educating yourself about new ideas become wrong? This is why I'm not 'into' organized religion... "
becca wrote on Dec 7, 2007 1:18 PM:
" I agree that agnostics do not just say that they do not know, they also say that I do not know, which is astoundingly ignorant. They do not know of my experience or of my research, they blindly assume that since their beliefs are based on a lack of information, mine must be as well. Let me give a simple example: if there is a piece of cake in the next room and I tell my neighbor it is there because I have witnessed evidence and he tells me there is not without having done any investigation or research into the matter, we both have an opinion but I am right. And you call this science? Or logic? I call it ignorance. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 7, 2007 1:04 PM:
" I'm not sure what the 'ossified' Phil is saying below -- did the government take down his Christmas tree or make him unwind and put away his outdoor decorations? Did it invade his church and demand No Christmas stuff anymore preacher man!? Or is he demanding that PUBLIC property paid for and maintained by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, even atheist tax dollars be employed for the religious purpose HE favors? Well how 'bout a Ramadan display Phil? Let's have Krishna represented on His birthday! Let's put up menorahs and maagen Davids on Rosh Hashanah and for Yom Kippur! Let's have an atheist display on why NOT to believe -- and we could celebrate Tom Paine's birthday eh? Whattaya think Phil ol' boy? Sound 'reasonable' -- on that public property?... "
PHIL OSIFER wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:34 PM:
" So you have the Bishop telling you that this author is ant-Christian and he is speaking out. Well where is his outrage about the politicians who do not want symbols of Christmas ie. Democrats in particular.
Or are these just selective homilies about what he thinks are evil. I would be more afraid of those politicians who want to disassemble the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:34 PM:
" Jesus was a 1st century CE Jew who indeed was a wandering teacher and healer who believed he was the messiah of Israel. The great mythologist of Mediterranean religions, Robert Graves, posited that Jesus had good reason to think so because he may well have been the last legitimate living heir to the throne of Herod so he was or should have been 'king of Israel,' an important messianic title. However he obviously failed as a JEWISH messiah like so many others would in the future; and whether thinking as he did made him 'insane' is a judgment call. Jesus, like the 17th century 'mystic messiah' Sabbatai Sevi, did manifest manic-depressive aspects but religious charismatics are 'eccentric' by definition I'd say... "
mopar wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:21 PM:
" No thank you. I know what is right and wrong. I don't need someone to tell me what movies I can and cannot watch. I look forward to seeing the movie this weekend. Phillip Pullman is a terrific author. "
Michael Welch wrote on Dec 7, 2007 11:05 AM:
" There are cruel exploitive impulses in human beings that can be defined as 'evil' but one of them is NOT denying the existence of 'God' or 'gods.' Indeed the God of the Bible is cruel and exploitive and even genocidal -- the 'Noah' story is the most successful genocide ever recorded to date, especially if you believe that myth literally. Christian (or in the case of Mitt Romney at least a 'semi-Christian') religious belief is virtually mandated in order to be the presidential nominee of the Republican party so the Christian belief is inordinately powerful in this society; it is hardly 'under siege' or 'threatened' by movies like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or even this new one. Bishops however are administrative bureaucrats whose job it is to tell you 'the rules'; Listecki's just doing his job... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Dec 7, 2007 11:00 AM:
" Old_Fogey, you are mistaken on your Biblical history. Jesus didn't claim to just be a messenger of the way to God, but the actual way to God. John the Baptist, claimed to be the messenger of God, preparing the way for Jesus. If you do a little more study on Jesus, you will see that Jesus accepted worship as God. Muslims and others like to say that Jesus was just a good teacher or a messenger, but when you look at his claims he could ONLY be Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Good teacher or messenger are not possible options. "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:51 AM:
" I find it rather funny that people are defending a movie about a book that the author admits to trying to undermine Christianity. So really, what you're trying to do is get other "free" thinkers to believe what this author believes. How is that so different that religion? "
marley wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:45 AM:
" Well said, Tony. We need more "free thinkers" like yourself. "
Old_Fogey wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:27 AM:
" Jesus Christ? According to the biblical history I am aware of, he was only the messenger. Why do people worship the messenger and not the person he was supposed to be delivering the message from? I can say the same thing about Mohammad and other messengers too, btw.
"
Tony wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:16 AM:
" Evil is real. Satan's message is spread subtly. How better than to work on the young, many of whom not saved by baptism, and may have little to no Christian upbringing. It saddens me to see so much vitriol. I cannot help but wonder if many of the previous posters are not part of Satans minions. For the record, I am not Catholic, not a Bible thumper, but I do believe the teachings that my caring parents saw that I received. The Pope and the Bishop are Holy men. It is their calling to be God's soldiers and save humans from eternal damnation. While I don't agree with all positions of the Catholic church, this one I do. I challenge leaders of all faiths to proclaim their feelings as well. Thank you Bishop, may God be with you. "
PHIL OSIFER wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:02 AM:
" It's fantasy pure fantasy, however there are idiots who believe in fantasy. But think about this could Jesus Christ be fantasy.We take our belief in Christ on Faith because we did not see him and so many years ago who knows. Or how about this one, Jesus Christ was really an alien came to earth to help us?
So Bishop keep on preaching good, clean up the pedophils and building monuments. We will seperate the "chaff from the wheat" so to speak. Oh by the way see you at the movies "
jeremy wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:00 AM:
" The church is speaking to it's members, not the "free" thinkers of this blog. What is wrong with a church telling it's members not to see a movie? What are you so scared of, that this movie will go under because church goers didn't see it? As long as they aren't telling you, the "free" thinkers not to see the movie, then who cares. "
Teiresias wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:58 AM:
" They need to get their stories in line--the US council of bishops is giving the movie a thumbs up. See today's MPLS Star Tribune for that story. Shouldn't the Bish start worrying about the really important issues of the day like whether people can eat corned beef on fridays? Or better yet, how the poor are treated in America? "
Double A wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:33 AM:
" The bishop is sending a message to people. He is in a high positin in a large organization ...so it is newsworthy. He's not 'making a law' here. It's just a heads up. It's a defense against an attempt to undermine faith. And subtly undermining faith is not so complicated ...like Big Spender points out, it's hard to present facts to support our faith. But that is why faith is so intriguing, so mysterious, so powerful. A message from the bishop to help keep people stay focused on their faith is not so out of line. "
Willie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:25 AM:
" The Church lost most of it's power and authority hundreds of years ago when they separated Church and State. They have been fighting to get political power ever since by using these tactics to change the way people think. The Church is always trying to lobby to change laws through its followers. Ironically, the law is now trying to put a stop to the pedophile practices of its priests. Talk about loss of trust! "
AJ0981 wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:15 AM:
" You're kidding me right. Its a FICTIONAL movie.
wait....so movies aren't real life....
and here i thought we wouldn't need police anymore because i figured Batman could just save us!!! The entire thought process of the church is dumb when it comes to stuff like this... but i suppsoe it works for those unable to think for themselves "
wakeup wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:27 AM:
" Didn't we already have an article about the bishop believing this movie is "evil"? Why do we need daily reminders? How about letting us know what the bishop thinks about spending $1 TRILLION to illegally conquer Iraq? So, we know the bishop won't be going to the movie. Move along, please. "
LAX wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:26 AM:
" Just another example of how nutty the church is -- as the Trib notes, this is a FANTASY movie! It's as much of a fantasy as the Bible is, in my opinion. Of course, the Catholic Church would have me burned me at the stake for saying if they had their way as they did just a few hundred years ago. And by the way, where the heck is the Catholic Church's outrage relative to Bush's illegal, immoral war in Iraq? I dare Bishop Listecki to issue a public statement condemning the war! The silence is deafening! "
doctor9 wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:22 AM:
" Open letter to the Bishop: Why do you use phrases like "self-described atheist"? Does that make the author evil? And did you actually READ the book. Pullman is making statements about how religion tries to control people. I certainly hope that you don't think that THAT is the "basis of Christian belief". Warning children about the dangers of people in religious power is not leading them away from God. It's protecting them from the men who claim to serve God. Shame on you, a bishop, for the way you treat a fellow man. "
Anna wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:16 AM:
" Anyone whose faith might be compromised or challenged by a movie doesn't have much faith to begin with. One should be able to watch a movie and simply disagree with its message, not be influenced by it. It's just a movie. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Dec 7, 2007 8:12 AM:
" Why is this a front page story? I'm wondering did the paper contact Bishop Listecki, or did the Bishop contact the paper to put out a proclamation? Personally, I won't take my kids to this movie for the reasons the Bishop lists, but making a big public issue of this will only increase the intrigue and attendance of this movie. There are far more pressing issues that could be put on the front page, this is just more silliness from the La Crosse Tribune. "
buckets wrote on Dec 7, 2007 7:53 AM:
" "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
Steven Weinberg-Nobel Prize Winner-Physics
"Golden Compass" evil?! Definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Open your minds. QUESTION AUTHORITY...especially the Catholic church! Encourage your children to THINK! And they will find THEIR truth. "
Christian wrote on Dec 7, 2007 7:28 AM:
" It's interesting about agnostics. They KNOW enough about what I know to tell me that I can't KNOW what I do know. "
Richard Cranium wrote on Dec 7, 2007 6:45 AM:
" To Ollie: I agree totally. They are both CREEPY looking. That aside, the Catholic Churches leaders should pay more attention to what their Priests are doing and not worry about other things like people making decisions for themselves.That's the Catholic Church for you though.The world's largest political party feels they can do and say whatever they want... "
bb wrote on Dec 7, 2007 6:41 AM:
" The Catholic church really needs to address it's own pedophile scandals and stay out of the public eye. Save yourself first, then worry about outside attacks, you are on a frail foundation already. "
ollie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 6:22 AM:
" The Pope and Listecki, I can't think of any other two people that LOOK more evil. "
Eddie wrote on Dec 7, 2007 4:51 AM:
" Once again, insecure religious leaders feel threatened, so they accuse novelists and film makers for trying to turn people away from God. The truth is that these artists are making commentaries regarding authoritarianism and dogmatic oppression. Whenever the People are asked to think for themselves and question authority, those in Power become afraid. How sad.... "
ezzee wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:47 AM:
" This is part of the reason that I truly hate organized religion. They find problems in everything. Harry Potter is bad and evil. The Golden Compass is good and evil. But it is ok to start wars in the middle east because that is where all the prophecies say the final battle ground is. Need we remind people that the Catholic Church also just recently within the last decade say that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, the world is not flat, and the holocaust actually happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but it is stuff like this that I do not subscribe to a certain faith or organized religion in any form. "
dirk wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:28 AM:
" Why is it that the Catholic Church gets riled up about movies such as this and The Da Vinci Code, yet lets hundreds of horror movies depicting brutal killings slide? This isn't a matter of is christianity true of not, this is a matter of targeting movies that are a threat to the status quo- not a threat to christian values. "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:24 AM:
" This Robert Ingersoll quote expresses exactly what Listecki is so afraid of: "The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact he drives you from the realm of reason he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact."
-- http://thewaronfaith.com/aq_ingersol.htm "
Big Spender wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:06 AM:
" What's wrong with "“trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" when Christian belief is not physically true? Why should Christian religion get an automatic free pass while other points of view must stand muster to critical examination? "A man is accepted into church for what he believes and turned out for what he knows." .....Mark Twain -- http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Atheist%20Quotes.htm "
Advertisement
