Hello, Passions,

I checked over my postings above and I didn't find anything I said that referred to the content of Moore's movie. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, you're right, haven't seen it, don't intend to, doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on what I read about it or respond to the new guests on this site.

Best,

Pete

Pete wrote:
"By deferring to those of us who don't, you lose nothing and you may still allow your children to visit sites you feel are more in line with your way of raising your children"

I lose nothing? You mean, I lose my right to express myself the way I wish because YOU view it as offensive.

Television,

You don't lose your right at all. You're expressing your opinion now, aren't you? And managing to do so quite well without using offensive or hateful language? Nothing wrong with that.

But, wait, are you saying you should be allowed to express yourself in any way you wish, no matter how offensive?

Stay with me for a second, okay? Let's say you invite me to your house. While I'm there, I manage to offend your children and spouse with my foul language, kick your dog, knock over your good vases, eat all your food, raid your liquor cabinet, etc. In short, I'm fairly rude. You have the right to escort me to the door, don't you? For not following your rules. (Rules that are likely informal since no one really posts a set of rules in their house. I mean, most everyone expects everyone else to act in a civil manner.) Send me on my way with your best wishes. But, hey, wait a minute. You've violated my right to express myself as I wish. Oh, okay, I shouldn't've kicked the dog or eaten your food or raided the liquor cabinet; those are physical expressions that might bring physical harm or damage to others. But, by golly, you have no right to restrict my use of foul language.

Of course you do. It's your house. I'm your guest. If I want to act that way, I can do that where I'm welcome to do it. Or in my own home. My rights aren't violated at all.

This is a discussion board that doesn't belong to you or to me. We're guests, invited to discuss matters pertaining to Bradbury. Let's conduct ourselves as guests. Let's be respectful of one another. Let's be considerate of those who are offended by what's considered foul language. If we can't, let's go elsewhere. But let's not whine about having our rights restricted when we're free to express ourselves just about anywhere else we want to on the 'net.

Best,

Pete

Amen, Pete.

I am happy to read that there are some leveled headed people here.

quote:

Originally posted by dig420:
Wannabe censors and repressive political figures are CLEARLY, CLEARLY the enemy in Bradbury's work, and if you claim otherwise you're simply distorting his work and his intentions to keep yourself from being included in the enemy camp.

dig420,
You are absolutely right. They are the enemy, and I don't argue against that. But those were not your words. "In RB's literary world, bible-thumpers and conservatives are the enemy". Does that sound like the same statement? Again, I will say it is untrue, though your revision is inarguable.



[This message has been edited by Yestermorrow (edited 06-21-2004).]

Mr. Dark,
I believe that if some Christian fundamentalists today were given the OK by the church and/or government, they would behave just as Al-Queda has-by terrorizing & killing opponents of their view of their religion.
It's happened before, eh?
From the little I know about it, during the Crusades Christians "regularly, in apparently good conscience -- murder(ed) thousands of innocent persons."
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny."
Al-Queda seems to be attempting through terrorism to deliver their Holy Places from Christian or Judaic tyranny.
Religious fundamentalism, and the madness it creates, comes in all flavors Mr. Dark.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
The inability to distinguish between Biblical fundamentalists (Bible-thumpers) and Al Queda -- who regularly, in apparently good conscience -- murder thousands of innocent persons (in violation of the Qur'an) is an intellectual failing I find disturbing.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-21-2004).]

BadgerBrian:

Fundamentalist?

Name it correctly, why don't you:
'''utterly brainless religious idiots'''
UBRE for short

You''ll find them everywhere

I know some christian fundamentalists. I don't know any (although I know there are little hateful sects here and there) who would kill on command. I think part of the problem is one of culture. The crusades occurred roughly in the period of the 10th century. Religious leaders promised eternal life to those who died in battle (sound familiar?). The problem is that the Jihadists in the middle east are attacking today -- not 9-12 centuries ago. When I say cultural issues are involved in this, I think some of the radical Islamists want the entire world to live in the 11th century. During the Christian (I use the term here culturally, not religiously) crusades, you could basically kill one at a time, one on one. Today, 18 idiots can hijack jets and kill 3,000 people. With biological weapons, bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, artillary, high-power hand-held and portable weapons, the potential for destruction and murder is nearly limitless.

The crusades were a horrible abuse of religion. The terrorists represent a horrible abuse of religion. I think that the weaponry available means they cannot be allowed to grow and foster their hatred and thier perversions of religion.

I never said religious distortion only comes in one flavor. Please don't put words in my mouth and then attack me with them. Weren't there just some wars in Europe over the attempt to commit genocide against Muslims?

Anyway, I ramble, irrelevantly. Sorry about that.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-22-2004).]

Mr. Dark,
I agree with you-you do ramble irrelevantly.
I know some Christian fundamentalists as well, and no matter how they come off (Hitler and Chuck Manson were described as charismatic too), their message & mission is: Our view is the only right view, and we will not tolerate variations. If they were blessed by their church to kill infidels, and like I said before, were given the OK by the govt., it would be their goal.
While you are correct that the weapons today are much more efficient than during the Crusades, and "today, idiots can hijack jets and kill 3,000 people," there are many, many more people on the planet than there were then, so it kinda evens things out, eh?
Mr. Dark, you're splitting hairs.
My point is that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. (Sorry, I can't remember who to attribute that quote to.)
And while you did not actually say that "religious distortion only comes in one flavor," you certainly put Christian fundamentalists above Al-Queda, and my point was (if you haven't put it together yet) that all forms of religious fundamentalism/fanaticism are the same-the only differences are where and when they occur.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I know some christian fundamentalists. I don't know any (although I know there are little hateful sects here and there) who would kill on command. I think part of the problem is one of culture. The crusades occurred roughly in the period of the 10th century. Religious leaders promised eternal life to those who died in battle (sound familiar?). The problem is that the Jihadists in the middle east are attacking today -- not 9-12 centuries ago. When I say cultural issues are involved in this, I think some of the radical Islamists want the entire world to live in the 11th century. During the Christian (I use the term here culturally, not religiously) crusades, you could basically kill one at a time, one on one. Today, 18 idiots can hijack jets and kill 3,000 people. With biological weapons, bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, artillary, high-power hand-held and portable weapons, the potential for destruction and murder is nearly limitless.

The crusades were a horrible abuse of religion. The terrorists represent a horrible abuse of religion. I think that the weaponry available means they cannot be allowed to grow and foster their hatred and thier perversions of religion.

I never said religious distortion only comes in one flavor. Please don't put words in my mouth and then attack me with them. Weren't there just some wars in Europe over the attempt to commit genocide against Muslims?

Anyway, I ramble, irrelevantly. Sorry about that.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-22-2004).]

I've never defended religious violence or bigotry. You have completely made this up. You're arguing a straw man here.

You know nothing about me, yet you claim to be able to perform a kind of knee-jerk character assasination effort on me.

I have defended the Qur'an and its teachings many, many times and have read it multiple times. I think the Beatles got part of it right when they said, "Love, love is the answer".

When religion forgets that God is love and that love is how we show discipleship, it misses the mark. This is not original with me, by the way, Christ taught this 2,000 years ago. As a species, we forget this at our peril.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-22-2004).]

Mr. Dark,
I can't tell if you're responding to my last post or someone else because you didn't include the original post, but I'm sorry if you took anything I said as anything more than a response to your posting(s) regarding Christian fundamentalism vs. Al-Queda.
Nothing more, period.
I haven't stated that you are defending religious violence or bigotry-where in my responses does it allude to that?
Arguing a straw man? What the hell does that mean?
How do I "claim to be able to perform a kind of knee-jerk character assassination on you?"
You're doing a heck of a job on your own.
Please Mr. Dark, get a grip-review your postings and my responses.
Then take a deep breath and count to ten.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I've never defended religious violence or bigotry. You have completely made this up. You're arguing a straw man here.

You know nothing about me, yet you claim to be able to perform a kind of knee-jerk character assasination effort on me.

I have defended the Qur'an and its teachings many, many times and have read it multiple times. I think the Beatles got part of it right when they said, "Love, love is the answer".

When religion forgets that God is love and that love is how we show discipleship, it misses the mark. This is not original with me, by the way, Christ taught this 2,000 years ago. As a species, we forget this at our peril.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-22-2004).]

BadgerBrain,
I support a great deal of what you're saying. Religion, although a great tool for helping people in need have some hope in this world, is dogmatic in that it assumes a variety of absurd propostions, and then asks one to follow the "teachings". Fundamental factions of each religion take the "teachings" to their extreme, and cannot agree with anyone else. I used to know a black girl who was a "7th day adventist", and who fervently believed in that interpretation of christianinty. She told me that she believed Jews were the chosen people, and as such ranked higher than anyone else with respcet to God's love and commitment. being a Jew who renounced all but the very basic traditions (for their aesthetic value rather than theological appeal), I was appaled. I asked her then about the various interpretations of christianity that believe blacks to be inferior to white men. She got increadibly ticked off at the idea, and said it was blatantly racist. I reverted back to her religion. She supported it wholeheartedly. There was no drawing of parallels for her between the to various religious factions.
I drew out of this the conclusion that one cannot reason with fundametalists because they are not using reason.

Cheers, Translator

BadgerBrian: A review of your posts -- while indirectly insulting to me and my reasoning -- shows that I DID overreact. Sorry about that!

The boards have put me in a kind of defensive mood of late, but I shouldn't have let that color how I interpreted and reacted to your comments to me.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-24-2004).]