Posted on 04/11/2006 3:41:19 PM PDT by Rockitz
He didn't say anything about killing people. I said something about killing people. I drew the (short) line between someone advocating censorhip to save MY soul, to the Inquisition torturing me to save my soul, to Muslims beheading me to save my soul. Leave my soul to me, thank you very much... Nice straw man though. He'll be happy being knocked down.
The rhetoric I have been hearing on this subject is ridiculous. "Losing one's soul"??? From watching a movie or reading a book???
This is a classic over-reaction, by people who have no clue what they're talking about (since they haven't read the book or seen the movie), who advocate book burning or movie censorship, or other 1st amendment infringements, in the name of protecting people from themselves. Don't you see the way of that "slippery slope"?
You may ask; but judging from your snipe and personal attack rather than discuss the point; I decline to answer. Frankly it's none of your business. It has no bearing whatsoever on this thread.
You attack my church, but your church has no bearing on this thread.
Hmmm. I think there must be another reason.
The DreamWorks animated feature "Over the Hedge" was suggested by the Hollywood screenwriter who wrote the original e-mail. Pass this e-mail on during the first week in May so it will be fresh in your readers' minds.
Isaiah 5:20 - Woe be onto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe onto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight.
I found it to be an entertaining fictional book, with well documented historical references.
Have you checked any other references that Brown declares as fact, for example the Priory of Sion?
But, I fail to see how this falls into the category of sacrilege. It, in no way, contradicts his message, his purpose or his holiness.
And that is most troubling. I am unable to make you see that it is our shared foundation that is being undermined. I am assuming you are orthodox Christian, though I don't know for sure. Or perhaps you don't consider Catholics as Christians. I don't know if that is the case either.
There has been no attack; there has been a statement of documented fact, but no attack.
You claim books were left out; I pointed out there are more books in the Catholic Bible than in the Protestant. No reply.
You claim: "Up until Martin Luther, the bible was a closely guarded secret."
I reply with contradicting facts, including Martin Luther's writing: "the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation."
No reply. Except to continue.
has diligently worked to hide scriptures from the layman…
There is a valid point there, though you present it again as "hide" which is irresponsibly inaccurate. The church has protected the canon for centuries. It did control how it was translated and how it is interpreted. It still does for catholics. This goes back to our basic disagreement on what my church is and what it was created to do.
I think some do not understand or seek to understand the church's point of view then and where we are in history compared to what they went through.
Through the early centuries there were many writings in existence claiming to be Christian and there were many sects claiming to be the true story of Christ and his message. One of the most widespread were the gnostics (whose beliefs the Da Vinci Code align with).
Over time, with much debate and argument, orthodox Christianity was defined by the Church. The basics were the New Testament Canon, the Creed and the Trinity. These defined who Christ is, what the basic beliefs of Christianity are and what is Holy Scripture.
If you value orthodox Christianity, then you value this accomplishment; if not then you don't.
When the canon was set, the Church controlled its reproduction and its interpretation. What you see as withholding, the Church sees as protecting. Had the Church not done this, the canon would not exist as a complete and closed document.
You wish it to be open, that is your choice. You are free to add any of the gnostic writings or anyone's translation to your own personal canon. You can start you own church with the Gospel of Judas, Mary and Thomas in your canon and call your church Christian if you wish.
This is the way it is in our time. It was not so in history. Freedom of religion was not in the lexicon. Freedom of speech would have to wait. There was no freedom of the press concept them: for a large portion of time there was no press. To view history with modern sensibilities is anachronistic in the extreme.
Thank you for your reply.
Why did you quote this to me?
So you did lie.
I drew the (short) line between someone advocating censorhip to save MY soul,
Either you can't tell the difference between using free speech to counter misinformation and censorship, or you're lying again. Either way, you're saying free speech is against the Constitution. Should I draw some short lines for you?
Piss off. I didn't lie. Learn to read and comprehend before using that word.
Nice strawman again....
You can have all the free speech you want. You can speak out against anything you want to condemn. But guess what - SO CAN I. You seem to have that typical liberal philosophy, that free speech is a one way street: "I can say whatever I want, and when you use your free speech rights to speak out against my words, your violating MY free speech rights". Sorry; doesn't work that way, Sparky....
Now, read this slowly, so maybe you'll pick it up this time: What I am saying is that it is a short, slippery slope between censoring, or boycotting, or otherwise limiting access to opposing religious viewpoints (even if they are FICTIONAL!!!), and executing people because they hold different religious views. And if you don't understand THAT, I guess you need to go back and bone up on your Constitutional concepts.
My point is that the ROP (that's Islam, you know) feels exactly the same way: if you stray from that religion, they feel that it's better to kill you than to let you go.
He doesn't feel "exactly the same way", and instead of producing anything to show he does, you admitted to making it up. That's all there is to it.
You can have all the free speech you want. You can speak out against anything you want to condemn. But guess what - SO CAN I.
I know you won't believe it, but others in turn have the right to answer you back. Yes, I know that's the same as cutting your head off (except for the dying part), but it really is part of free speech.
"I can say whatever I want, and when you use your free speech rights to speak out against my words, your violating MY free speech rights".
The only one here thinking that way is you. You equate his disagreement with censorship and start hollering about killing people. So tell me, how does it work? A one-way street that runs the other way?
Interesting that you seem to have an issue with the way I rebutted someone else's argument, yet he didn't seem to take issue with it. Perhaps you should just fight your own battles?
My point is (one....more....time....) that there is a continuum between objecting to someone else's religious beliefs, through persecuting them for them, to the death penalty for apostacy. I know this isn't at the far extreme of that continuum; I never said it was. But it IS a step down that slippery slope. Particularly given the history of torture, murder, and inquisition in the Catholic Church; they have been there before. Combine that with today's Islamic-based censorship; is it so hard to understand the reluctance to give ANY religious based censorship a foot in the door?
Why would religious values be any different than political ones? If its a slippery slope "objecting to someone else's religious beliefs" is the same slope there for political beliefs?
What's the difference in boycotting DVC and Farenheit 9/11?
I have no issue with boycotting the movie. In fact, the right answer, as far as I am concerned, is this: If you don't like the idea of the movie, don't see it.
Also, although I rarely agree with protesters, I believe they have the right to do so. Where I draw the line is when said protesters begin to tell others that they are going to hell because of their difference in beliefs.
Can you see the difference between "I believe this is wrong", and "If you don't believe this is wrong, you're going to hell!". I think there's a big difference. The first is an honest exchange of ideas. The other is confrontational.
Yeah, I'll agree with you there on a difference. Except it's still free speech. I think it's in error with Jesus's teaching too; however, people are free to say this as well as "you're going to hell if you don't support HB 2213."
So, I see your point, and the difference. But I think it's the same issue and slope whether it's politics or religion. It's protected speech, so long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights.
If you limit or stop free speech of religious views its the same slope to political views.
I'm going to protest it.
That sometimes produces the opposite affect of your intent, but please do as God has prayerfully put on your heart.
Marker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.