Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    They are not taking away our rights, just excersising their own.
    
    For a little more talk on it, go into the MOVIES conference, topic
    #1590. 
    
    I don't mind if people air their opinions, just as long as they
    are adult about it.  (for "Last Temptation...", they had one person
    dressed as Christ tied to a cross in front of the studio pres.'s house.
    REEEEEEEAL adult! ;-) )  
    
    K.C.
    
    P.S.  For the record, I am pro-life, but think that some of the
    picketers are overreacting.  I feel that the only exceptions for
    abortion are incest, rape, and life or death (if carrying to term
    is a great risk to both mother and child).

    I think that people should see the Last Temptation so they can see
    how ridiculous it is. Its suppose to show the human side of Jesus.
    In the scene where Jesus is hanging on the cross (I only read the
    reports on the movie) he dreams about having a life with Mary Magdelen
    and has a passionate encounter with her. As a human being, after
    being flogged, crowned with thorns and hanging from a cross by nails
    in their hands and feet, what human would be thinking about sex ? 
    I mean look how easy it is to be distracted from sex, while your having it.
    The kids knock on the door and for many its all over.
    
    Jim

    mini nit:
    
    It is not so much as Jesus thinking about sex; it is his reflecting
    on how his life could have been had he decided not to go through
    with his destiny.  Its like His life flashing before his eyes, only
    "could-have-been" instead of "was".
    
    I would like to see the movie only because it has an incredible
    cast (David Bowie as Pontius, etc.)  I am just intimidated by the
    length of the movie. 2+ hours to almost 3?  I think that I will
    just wait for it to come out on VHS so that I can watch some, turn
    it off, and watch more later.  Its not that I don't have patience,
    I just don't have the time!       
    
    K.C.

    Re: .2
    
    That's the Last Temptation.  The devil says, "Hey, Jesus, renounce
    you claim, climb down from your cross, and this life could be yours!"
    For a man who's just been flogged, crowned with thorns, and nailed
    to a cross, the prospect of a nice, normal life would probably be
    pretty appealing, eh?

    re:4
    I don't know, but I heard it said that people who are being tortured
    to death, are usually looking for death to come.

    I heard there is still alot of book burning going on in this country!
    I'm really surprised.  Each individual is different and has different
    tastes.  What you may like and I may like is completely different
    and I should have no right to stop you from reading a book, seeing
    a movie or having an abortion.  I feel these issues are personal
    ones and not for someone else to make.....
    
    bs
    

    Re: .5
    
    Well, that *was* kind of the plan, after all....

    re: The topic at hand, not these nitpicking sidelights
    
    Whether or not you think the movie "Last Temptation Of  Christ" to be
    ridiculous, or sacrilegious, or wonderful, or implausible, or
    heretical, or whatever; the point of the base note is that people
    should be allowed to see this movie.  If religious leaders don't like
    it they don't have to see it.  If they want to, they can exhort their
    followers to not see it.  But when they exert force to prevent people
    other than their followers from seeing this movie, then they are
    misusing their first amendment rights.  We all have freedom of speech,
    but we also have a concomitant responsiblity to not use that right to
    deny others of their rights. 
    
    I resent people who think they can act as my guardian and insist that,
    because they don't like something, they have the right to prevent me
    from seeing, or reading, or experiencing that something.  Clearly, there
    are some things that ought to be denied me, because in order for
    my rights to be fulfilled, someone elses higher right is denied.
    This movie doesn't fall into that category, however. 
                                                             
    Mike
        

    re:8
    Jesus Christ is God to Christians. A movie that is false or degrading
    about Him will be protested. If the movie were about your father,
    and it had false and degrading information about him would you not 
    protest it ? Christ is closser to the Christian's heart than a father
    would be.
    No one has forced people not to see the film, although they've made
    it difficult. Its to bad they helped the publicity of it.
    
    Jim

    Re: .9
    
    >No one has forced people not to see the film, although they've made
    >it difficult.                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Exactly.  They have every right to protest, but what's their right
    to make it difficult for people to see the film if they choose?

    Who is to say that the movie is false?  Does anyone know what was
    going on in his head before his death.  What the religious leaders
    are angry about is that it goes against their prescribed and approved
    image of Christ, and therefore threatens their authority, not that
    it insults Christ.  There was no protest of the Monty Python movie, 
    The Life of Brian, which totally ridiculed Christ's life, because it
    was not taken seriously.  I strongly feel that any "truth" should be able 
    to stand up to scrutiny.  This really smacks of Big Brother.
    They want to put blinders on people and tell them what to think
    rather than letting them be exposed to a different view and make
    up their own minds.  Next we are going to hear that the filmmakers
    were inspired by the devil (I'm sure it is being said by some
    preacher somewhere).  They are advocating censorship and I 
    admire those movie chains that are not succumbing to it.
    	Linda

      re: .9
       
    > Jesus Christ is God to Christians. A movie that is false or degrading
    > about Him will be protested. If the movie were about your father,
    > and it had false and degrading information about him would you not 
    > protest it ? Christ is closser to the Christian's heart than a father
    > would be.

      If the movie were about my father, then the information contained
      in the movie would either be verifiable facts, opinions, or
      interpretations.
      
      Facts are not degrading in themselves.  Society's outlook or
      knowledge of these facts may change the way a
      person/group/whatever is lookup upon, but facts themselves are
      neutral.
      
      Opinions and interpretations are much more influential; they
      use all, some, or none of the facts available as their basis,
      and they often mix in emotional arguments to enhance the
      "convincing" power.
      
      Not liking the exposure of facts about my father is a maybe.
      The bandying about of opinions and interpretations would be
      liked or not liked, depending on my views on the matter.
      
      This movie is about Christ, who (flame on, not intended to
      offend) as a person, and/or as a "holy one" is *not* a
      verifiable fact.  There may very well have been a man named
      Jesus, son of Joseph, who was just a poor carpenter.  There may
      have been no person at all.
      
      However - this is all OPINION.  One merely has to glance around
      at the myriad of religions and faiths, and subdivisions of
      faiths, to see the differences in opinion and interpretation.
      
      The movie is merely another opinion/interpretation of what may
      or may not have happened.  As such, it should be given the same
      chance that the Catholic Church has been given to voice its opinions
      to all its millions of followers.
      
    > No one has forced people not to see the film, although they've made
    > it difficult. 
      
      I agree with .10.  "Making it difficult" is a violation of the
      rights of the filmmakers, and the people who wish to view it.
      How would *you* feel if you were the publisher of, say, a
      newspaper, but gee whiz, those police in the town who don't
      like your newspaper "make it difficult" for you to speak your
      piece by coming in and trashing the place on a daily basis?
      
    > Its to bad they helped the publicity of it.
    
      What they should have done was to utilize the same rights that
      the filmmakers and viewers are exercising (speech, press,
      religion) to voice a contrary view.  Suppression of contrary
      views doesn't work - for a few fine examples where it has failed, 
      walk the Freedom Trail in Boston...   :^)
      
      Bill

        For those of you opposed to the protesters of the film making
    it difficult for others to see it.  How do you feel about Brian
    Wilson who sat in front of the train that was going into the Concord
    Naval Weapons facility?  How do you feel about the sit ins at ROTC
    and recruiting stations during the Vitenam War?  They were trying
    to make it difficult for others to do what they chose.
    
        I want the right to practice civil disobedience if I want to
    protest.  If I want that right I must support every other groups
    right to pratice it.
    
    ASP

    I think we'd be better off in the long run if we just take it as
    a given that some people are offended by it and we don't go into
    whether they should be.  That kind of discussion is pretty pointless.
    
    Re: .13
    
    >I want the right to practice civil disobedience if I want to protest.
    
    Picket lines?  An annoyance rather than a real difficulty.  A *real*
    difficulty is trying to find a theater that will show the movie.

re:12

I think you missed my point. The emotion that is being felt
by the Christian over the movie is what I'am tring to explain.
I don't agree with them trying to stop the movie from playing, but I
agree with their right to protest it. The analogy of a movie about 
your father is to help you understand the feeling of the Christian,
not the content of the movie.

Granted we may have no viable facts on Christ existence or not, but
I never stated He was fact, or fiction. Even though my faith leads me to
believe in Him, I'm not pushing my belief on you, so I don't understand 
your flame.

Peace 
Jim

    re .13:
    
    Sit ins, civil disobedience, etc...
    
    They were protesting policies, not civil rights...
    
    They were trying to make it difficult for others to do what the 
    government, or some policy/decision making body, had chosen to do.
    
    Big difference.
    
    re: 15
    
    Sorry if I came across too hard.  I was not flaming your belief,
    which is your own and you're entitled to every bit of it.
    
    What I *don't* support is others making it "difficult", which you
    pointed out.  What would have been a lot more positive is for those
    concerned individuals to write to their local newspaper, or utilize
    other types of non-obstructive "informational" types of exposure
    for their views, which is only as far as the movie went, anyway.
    Blocking a door to a movie theatre just raises emotions, and doesn't
    settle disagreements of interpretation.
    
    Feelings are a wonderful thing.  I myself have strong feelings about
    a variety of things, and one of them is when others try to force
    their feelings on me, as in blocking the entrance to a theatre.
    I would be much more open to their input if they merely passed out
    pamphlets depicting their beliefs, and I *would* take the time to
    read it, and compare it against the movie.
    
    After all this, I'd really like to see the movie.  Anybody know
    where it's playing in the Acton area?
    
    Bill
    
    Bill

    Bill,
    
    I don't agree with you. The sit ins, civil disobedience etc were
    in deed protesting for civil rights...furthermore they were 
    protesting as an act of conscience for something that they believed
    in strongly.
    
    I believe that people have just as much right to protest a movie
    that offends their religious beliefs as people have to protest
    for a clean environment, civil rights, anti apratheid, etc. 
    
    If we wish to keep our freedom we have to allow the same freedom
    to all.
    
    Bonnie

    Brian Wilson was trying to prevent a physical act from occurring,
    an act that he believed would result in physical harm to others.
    The freedom riders were trying to ensure that all human beings
    in this country be treated as such.
    
    The zealots who are protesting "the Last Temptation of Christ"
    are trying to prevent an exchange of ideas.  They are trying
    to prevent people from having access to ideas that are different
    than their own.  THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO SO.
    
    	bruce

    I agree with .17 and those who have expressed similar sentiments.
    If we want to be able to picket those companies that do business
    with South Africa to try to get them to divest, we ought to be able
    to protest a movie theater/chain that shows something we find offensive.

    To me, this is part of what is good about the American system.  We
    can publically demonstrate our economic power.  If a movie theater/chain
    sees a group of people threaten to boycott their studio for displaying
    a certain film, they are making a decision based on what is best for
    their company.  You don't have a RIGHT to demand to see a particular film;
    you do have the right to try to persuade a company to show a particular
    film, by offering your salary.  If the economic incentive is enough, it
    will probably be made available to you from someone.  It may cost you more
    than you like, however, because the movie company has to weigh the profits
    gained from showing it against the losses they know they will suffer.

    re:16
    I agree with you on this. Extremism creates more problems then it
    solves. Blocking door ways to theaters is extremism in practice.
    
    Peace
    Jim

	I also have to say I wouldn't know how to disagree more strongly
	with the view in .18 than I do.  The Constitution was written
	rather vaguely to prevent the encroachment of the government
	upon individuals.  I don't read anything taht would suggest that
	some values are so important we defend people's rights to speak
	in those areas, while other values are unimportant so we can prevent
	free speech in that realm.  The fact is, people demonstrating many
	of the nuclear power plants often broke the law; I have heard of no
	case where the demonstrations against this movie broke the law.
	NO ONE'S RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED; YOU CAN GO TO SEE THE MOVIE AT
	ANY THEATER THAT CHOOSES TO SHOW IT.

    re .18
    
    Bruce,
    
    People do indeed have the right to protest against object to
    etc. things that they feel strongly about in their hearts
    or conscience.
    
    My son blocked the access to the President's office at his
    college this spring to protest apartheid. I could not in
    clear conscience support his stand and then object to another
    person who is a strong Catholic blocking access to the movie
    theater. Of course, the person protesting on religious grounds
    must be just as willing to be arrested, fined etc, as my son was.
    
    Civil disobediance is essential to the freedoms we enjoy - to my
    mind. We CANNOT pick an choose only those causes that we agree with.
    The freedom to protest belongs to everyone, just as the freedom
    to disagree with the protest does.
    
    Bonnie

    There is big difference between trying to stop an act and trying
    to prevent the dissemination of ideas.  What are these people afraid
    of?  It's a puny god whose existence is threatened by a motion picture.
    
    Offense is in the mind of the beholder, and is taken, not given.
    
    Write letters, write articles, talk all you want, but don't interfere
    with my ability to see it.  Don't blacklist artists and businessmen
    from exercising their rights of free speech just because you don't
    agree with their ideas.  Watch out... anybody's ideas could be next.
    
    	bruce

    
    	The bottom line is as stated by some others earlier
    
    	if this movie were about something else other than
    
    	the alleged lord there would not be so much huff about
    
    	it. The individuals who object to this film should not see
    
    	it, those who want to should. There is no reason that can
    
    	be justified for stopping a movie, song, book, etc.
    
    
    	John
    

    What is wrong with just stating what you feel about an issue?
    Speeches, letters to newspapers, petitions, letters to Congress,
    discussion groups, all peaceful means to get an opinion across.
    Yelling, blocking doorways, threatening violence (I have seen some
    picketers do this), are, while stating opinions, are not right.
    
    Don't kill me; another note on Last Temptation:
    
    While some people picketing the movie were dressed as Jesus, or
    (fact) tied to crosses, there was a counter-picket going on where
    there was a person dressed up as a lion waving a sign that read:
    
    	"Christians:  Breakfast of Champions"
    
    Like I said earlier, there has to be a more adult and peaceful way
    to state an opinion (Although I have to admit, it is kinda funny,
    if taken out of context!)
    
    Back what you believe in:  just be sure in the method.
    
    Peace in the 1990's;
    
    K.C.

>                    -< have we repealed the constitution? >-

    The constitution doesn't deny anyone the right to blacklist others
    if they don't agree with the expressed views.

>   Write letters, write articles, talk all you want, but don't interfere
>   with my ability to see it.  Don't blacklist artists and businessmen
>   from exercising their rights of free speech just because you don't
>   agree with their ideas.  Watch out... anybody's ideas could be next.

    I happen to think this is a good idea.  I think letters to advertisers of
    TV shows that are blatently sexist are an excellent way to try to change
    the message being spread.  I don't have any right to physically force
    someone from spreading their ideas, but I do have the clout of my
    earning ability to try to cause a business to modify its ways.

    I don't advocate any picketers actually physically keeping someone out
    of a theater, or of someone threatening another with physical punishment
    because they go in to see the movie.  I don't advocate those striking
    Nuclear Power plants from trespassing illegally; I don't advocate
    striking pro football players to destroy the vehicles of "scab" players.
    These people should be punished for breaking those laws.  However, I
    certainly don't deny anyone the right to peaceful assembly to advocate
    ANY cause, whether it be religion, civil rights, or their own family
    budgets.

    Whose rights would be denied if a book publisher refuses to publish
    a pro-KKK book ?  Wouldn't it just be the publisher deciding that it
    wouldn't be profitable for it to disseminate those ideas ?  Are your
    rights being denied because you have no access to this information ?
    No, you still have access to the information, you just can't get it
    the way you want it delivered.

    I may not feel that a boycott is warranted, but I feel that any organization
    has the right to assemble peacefully any time they want to, to discuss
    any subject they want to.  [However, they don't have the right to choose
    any location they want; if I owned the grounds around a movie theater, I
    could prevent them from coming onto those grounds to do their protesting.]

    
    
    
    It's one thing to organize a boycott against a product, an idea,
    or an offensive action.
    
    It is quite another to appear before the city counsel, requesting
    legislation to BAN a movie because one particular group objects
    to the content of said movie.
    
    This seriously jeapordizes MY rights.  Thank goodness the city 
    counsel of Colorado Springs recognized that such a ban was outside
    of their jurisdiction.
    
    

	re .27
    
    I see nothing whatsoever wrong with appearing before a city council 
    and requesting that such-and-such be banned, or burned, or whatever. 
    That's simply an exercise of your right to express your opinion to 
    your elected (usually) officials.
    
    On the other hand, if the city council ACTED on the request, and 
    BANNED such-and-such as requested, THEN I start getting interested.

    I don't have a lot of empathy for the protesters in this particular
    case, and for the most part they appear to be shooting themselves in
    their collective foot (Hmm - is a collective foot a socialist
    measure of distance?), but I in no way feel that my rights are being 
    infringed by their actions. I'm glad they have the rights to take 
    the actions they do, misguided though I may think them.
    
    If the owners of some theater chains are too wimpish to withstand
    the onslaught, well, that's life. It's a commercial venture, and
    it's their decision. I have no more constitutional right to force a
    theater owner to show me that film than I have the constitutional
    right to demand an air conditioner TODAY from Sears when the shelves
    are empty. 

    If I - and others - felt strongly enough, there would be counter
    demonstrations to convince the theater owners to exhibit the film. 

    
    
    But, Paul, they went beyond expressing their opinion.  They
    also asked the city counsel to support their opinion, and
    legally prevent ME from exercising MY opinion.  I feel that
    any group has a right to their opinion.  However, I have a
    right not to agree with their opinion.  Furthermore, when
    their opinion becomes law, and supercedes my opinion, there
    is a problem.  
    
    We haven't even discussed the issue of separation of church
    and state.  I feel this violates the above edict.
    
    

	Your rights aren't violated because someone asks the government
	to prevent you from seeing this; your rights are violated only
	when the government actually does prevent you from seeing it.

	However, it does seem to be a very stupid tactic on their part;
	I can't imagine a city council that would even consider such a
	thing.  There would be law suits by the dozens.  And the mere
	act of asking the council to pass an unconstitutional action
	could perhaps be construed as abetting an illegal act.

	From what I've heard on NPR Paul's comment about shootng the
       collective foot (I loved that) is what they are doing. The
       reviewer said this was no a very good movie and owed it's box
       office take to the protestors. liesl

    I'd still like to see it.
    
    Is it in town, and if so, where?
    
    Kinda hard to condemn something which you haven't seen, don't you
    think?  Gee, I wonder how many of the protestors actually saw the
    film first?
    
    Bill

    
    RE:  .22
    
    I don't think anyone has a right to prevent the use of private
    property, just because they object to what goes on, with the consent of
    the law, in that property.  Good protest is trying to convince people
    to see your point of view.  Bad protest is trying to physically prevent
    them from doing what you don't think they should.  Sitting on private
    property and preventing people from accessing a building is a form of
    violent protest.  It *is* a use of force.  It's saying, "I will stop
    you from doing this, because I don't think you should."
    
    I'm a pro-choice person, but I strongly defend the right of people with
    other opinions to stand outside clinics trying to get people to see
    their way of thinking.  When they try to physically prevent these
    people from entering the clinic, they are breaking the law and should
    be prosecuted and punished.
    
    								-- Mike

    Do you know that a lot of the voices speaking out against the
    people protesting the movie sound very familiar to me. They
    sound like the right wing conservative, older people's objections
    to my generation and my and my husbands' personal involvement in
    the anti war movement, the ecology movement, the civil rights movement.
    
    Which is why I support these people's rights to protest. If they
    are prevented from protesting, I may well not be able to protest
    against something that I care very strongly about some time in
    the future.
    
    Bonnie

    Just to be really clear, however, my support for the protestors
    stops when they start to go beyond protesting, and even blocking
    buildings and try to actually censor what I can see or read or
    hear!
    
    Bonnie

    	It's interesting to note that many "Christian" bookstores have
    a very small selection compared to any mainstream bookstore.  They
    are served by a small group of publishers, and it is all really
    very exclusive.   I'm sure there are many people who are being 
    advised to avoid "the devils bookstores", and only shop at the
    acceptable bookstore.   I prefer a wider selection, as do many
    other Christians I know.
    
    	In the same vein I had a musician friend who was converted to
    join a radical 'born-again' sect.   They insisted that he stop
    singing all the 'secular' tunes that he was slowly building a
    career from, to only sing 'Christian' songs.   (he later left...)
    Again, the secular music has far more variety available than
    does the approved music of this particulary restrictive sect.
    
	If these people ever get authority over any section of arts
    or public expression it will be a great tragedy.

    	These people are now getting more organized than ever before.  
    They are forming their own PACs (Political Action Committees) and 
    in the past eight years of the Reagan era, have been a major part 
    of the swing to the right.   Personally, I think some of the
    republicans are just using them.   The (undoubtedly biased) book
    "Holy Terror" by Conway and Siegelman traces the assault these
    people have been making on our freedoms.   And, no doubt about it,
    this is a long term, concerted attack on some traditional US freedoms.
    
	Many years ago, these people were mostly in small sects, but
    increasingly, the mainstream protestants and Catholics have had
    to deal with changes in their own numbers.   Many thoughtful people
    have left the churches, leaving greater power for the remaining
    zealots.   Thus there are more churches today that are willing
    to take political stands that are offensive to the mainstream.

        The best answer I have read addressing these conflicts is 
    Scott Peck's latest book; "Different Drum".   He points out in 
    this book that we can build a strong sense of community, but 
    that this requires tolerating everyone's viewpoint.   The book 
    seems specifically aimed at drawing together the divided 
    communities of Christians, along with those of other faiths.
    The book sets forth a way to build a sense of harmony within
    a community, with guidelines and suggestions.   It is also a
    powerful call for world peace.
    
    	So, we have among us, people who feel that severe restrictions
    are necessary.   They cast their selves out from the mainstream
    of society (which is not so nuts, if you think about it) but
    the rest of us reinforce their trip if we also treat them as
    outcasts.   Therefore, we must continue to allow them their 
    expression, even if it does make going to the movies more
    difficult.    We can only teach these people tolerance by 
    practicing it.   We must include them in *our*  community.   
    If we have one, that is.

					Alan.

How do you reconcil being against censorship, and against (censoring)
pornography? (assuming you hold those stands) 

'People protesting TLT were protesting policies, not civil rights...'

I think people protesting TLT were protesting the movie rather then civil
rights; in both cases civil rights were being violated equally.

"There is big difference between trying to stop an act and trying to prevent the
dissemination of ideas.  What are these people afraid of?  It's a puny god whose
existence is threatened by a motion picture."

The difference between an act and an idea is slim.  For me, apartheid is an
idea, for SA it is an act.  For me, showing/viewing a film debasing my religious
beliefs is an act.

What are people afraid of?  I believe they are afraid that other people will see
the movie, and say 'oh, that's the way it was', when they believe firmly that
the opposite was true, and that the people seeing the movie would be pushed away
from God by what they have been exposed to.  Are they afraid of the picture for
themselves?  Not really.  Is God afraid of the picture for himself? No. Do these
people have any more right to make a disturbance than other protesters? no. 

JMB


Nobody_has_a_right_to_push_a_bullhorn_in_*my*_face

    Re .34
    
    I'm not old! (response .25)  I'm 23!
    
    :-)
    
    Peace in the 1990's
    
    K.C.

    Re .9
    
    I know this is a little late, but I just read all 38 notes.  Christ
    is not God, in all the teachings that I have had over the last 40+
    years, he is the son of God, he was mortal, a human being.  I have
    a difficult time understanding all of the hoopla.  There are many
    versions of the Bible in circulation, all different mens
    interpretations. I recently attend a memorial service where a modern
    version of the Bible was used, I was uncomfortable with the wording
    of some of the passages, should I have protested? Of course not,
    I attended out of respect to the family, not to take on a new form
    of religion.  What happened to valueing differences?

    re:39
    This isn't a debat over scriptural beliefs, don't make it one here,
    there's a religion conference for that. It is about people protesting
    a movie they find offensive. In RE.9 I was trying to help people
    understand what the improtance of Jesus Christ is to the protestors
    of "The Last Temptation". 
    I don't think you can compare the protestors to you protesting at a 
    church service. You would have no right to do so for obvious reasons.
    They have the right to protest the film, but they do not have the
    right to obstruct others from viewing it. I believe you missed my
    point.

    Jim

    To the general topic at hand, "we" are part of "they" when the "they"
    behave in a fashion favorable to our preferences and unfavorable
    toward others.  Everyone takes one side or another on a particular
    topic or issue once in a while.  Because we are different people
    from different worlds, our opinions will never be the sames as those
    of all others.
    
    If enough "we" people get together to approach the "they" people,
    the "we" may become the majority "they" and vice versa.  That's
    how women achieved voting rights, blacks achieved desegregation,
    etc.
    
    It's all in your point of view.

  > However, it does seem to be a very stupid tactic on their part; I can't
  > imagine a city council that would even consider such a thing. 
    
    I'm thoroughly embarrassed to say that last week the Dallas City
    Council passed a resolution condemning The Last Temptation.  Of course
    they can't ban the film or stop any theater from showing it, but the
    resolution was intended to leave no doubt as to where they stood.  The
    thing that I find so totally ludicrous about it is that, by their own
    admission, not a single person on the council has seen the movie. Not
    one!
    
    					I_live_in_Texas_but_I'm_not_a_Texan
    					Pat

    	I agree with Bonnie, and whoever else said, that living
    	in a free society means we all have the right to try and influence
    	others thinking.  I am not so much bothered by the individuals
    	protesting as by the religious leaders who are telling "their" 
    	people what to see and not see, and by the fear implicit in this
    	that an intelligent person can be harmed by exposure to an
    	idea.  It seems to me that they have very little faith in their
    	followers faith.
    		Linda

	I think a more frightening aspect of the protests here are their
       anti-semetic leanings. Several times on TV I have seen interviews
       where the reporter asks one of the leaders if they aren't
       fostering a attitude of hatred towards Jews. As they are saying
       no you can see posters in the background accussing the owners of
       ? (can't even remember the studio) of being Christ haters and
       killers.

       liesl (who believes religion is the most dangerous weapon in the
       world)

    	Watch the 'Sword of Islam' on PBS to see how these TLT protesters
    feel. It made me think.
    
    The law say 65 mph (a certain govenor is protecting me at 55)
    
    The law says my 15 year old daughter may get an abortion W/O my
    permission. ( a hospital may let her die W/O my permisson for an
    operation)

    WHO IS TO DECIDE
        
    Protest - YES
    
    Boycott - YES

    
    
    SGK

    I don't think people protesting the showing of a movie can really
    be compared to people protesting public policy.
    
    If the army were rounding Christians up and forcing them into theatres
    to see the movie, then protesting against the movie would be morally
    equivalent to protesting against the draft. 
               
    If the government levied a tax to pay for the production and
    distribution of the movie, then protesting against the movie would
    be morally equivalent to protesting against nuclear weapons or
    apartheid (which is government-sponsored denial of human rights,
    aided and abetted by US government policy).
    
    Of course I agree that Christians have the right to make their opinion
    about the movie known, but they do not have any right to make it
    hard for me to see it.  Certainly as far as I'm concerned they're
    shooting their collective foot (nice phrase :-).  When the movie
    "Hail Mary" came out a few years ago, I read reviews that said it
    was boring so I decided not to go.  Walking down Mass. Ave. one
    night, I saw picketers outside the theatre.  One woman had her little
    girl, about six, marching around reciting the rosary.  Well, I turned
    right into the theatre and paid my $4.  And it _was_ a boring movie.
    
    "The Last Temptation of Christ" opens this Friday in Boston at the
    Paris and in Brookline at the Circle.
    
    Incidentally, the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis was banned in Greece,
    the author was excommunicated, and when he died, the church prevented
    his body from being buried in Greece. 
                                                       
    Pilar.

    I have already made my point in this topic, but on an added note,
    I must say that I am a Christian.  Does anyone think less of me
    for my pre-stated opinion for that?  :-)
    
    K.C.

    I'm amazed that the protesters are continuing to give this movie
    more free publicity than its producers could EVER have afforded
    in a million years!  I for one fully intend to go see it just to
    find out what all the fuss is about.  Millions of dollars will be
    taken in by theaters from patrons who attend for exactly the same
    reason.  Yet the protesters continue to make a huge ruckus, keeping
    it in the papers and on the news.  What thought process am I missing
    here???
    
    							Pat

    There was a comment way back there about "Life of Brian" by Monty
    Python. Well, as a matter of fact, it did engender some amount of
    protest. Not nearly as much as this film, but some nevertheless.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    In any organization one usually subscribes to a set of ideals or
    theologies.  We choose leaders and our belonging to this group is
    for many purposes one of which is guidance.  We accept this guidance
    because we feel that we do not have the time, the resources  or
    the expertise to make judgments in certain areas.
    
    People who belong to a political party subscribe to the ideals of
    that party.
    
    People who belong to the NRA fiercely defend the right to bear arms
    and use that group to lobby any effort to eliminate that right.
    
    I think when we discuss an issue like this we should be sure to
    include some direct quotes to support some of the arguments.  Did
    a church leader say that TLT should be banned or did they in fact
    advise their congregation that the movie was in conflict with their
    teaching of Christ?                 
    
    After we determine that fact we can then discuss whether or not
    we have an issue of censorship and/or a concern around separation of 
    church and state.  
    
    I also feel that the media and the arts have some social responsibility
    around the sensitivities of certain groups...if entertainment or
    art must be enjoyed and expressed at the expense of a large segment
    of the population this is not making a better world.  Freedom of
    expression comes with a bigger burden of knowing how to use that liberty.
               
    Some of the protestors might be overzealous in their efforts to
    express their displeasure in the film...but there is an equal effort
    on the part of many individuals to portray church leaders as censors
    when in reality they (the church leaders) are performing a function 
    accepted by the members of their church. 
    

    Just as a note, I read that a liberal clergy (who's name escapes
    me now) saw the film and said that in no way should it be banned.
    He stated that the movie was so beautifully filmed that those not
    feeling close to God or Jesus Christ would probably feel that much
    closer after they saw the movie.
    

    re: .51 and .52
    
    I agree with Jerry.  We owe a responsibility to the minority equal
    to, or greater than, the responsibility assumed by the majority...
    
    This applies not only with entertainment, but civil rights and other
    movements as well - for a good example:
    
    "I have a dream..."
    
    Bill
    
    P.S.  When's the last time you saw that bumper sticker that said:
          "THE MORAL MAJORITY ISN'T" ?
    

    re .54:
    
    			The Moral Majority is Neither.

    re: .55
    
              I think MORON MAJORITY fits nicely....
    
    

                          Member of IMMORAL MINORITY

    
    
    The concept of censorship is very important in our society and
    any attempt to enforce censorship should be looked at very closely.
    
    
    I can not deny rights to one group of individuals without taking
    the chance that those same rights may be denied to me.  I am against
    a lot of things that happen in the world we have created (war, violence
    of any kind, misogyny, starvation).  I work to change this world
    and sometimes I break the law to do this.  BUT I hope that I never
    deny anyone the same rights I use.
    
    I think that the main difference is whether you are doing damage
    to another person by protesting/banning something.  Also, what kind
    of damage is being done by what you are protesting/banning.
    
    There must be a divine equation about this.  I would think that
    it would go something like this:
    
    
    	the amount of effort to stop something expended by you should
    	equal or be greater than the amount of pain/suffering that would
    	happen to others if this thing was allowed to continue
    
    The number of individuals is not as important to the equation as
    the degree of their suffering individually.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    
    			I see the Goddess in all and when one suffers
    			She suffers and when She suffers I feel Her
    			pain.
    

    Here's one:
    
    When Tipper Gore was on her high horse about rock music a few years
    back (and I watched part of the committee hearing on TV), she openly
    stated that those albums should be removed from the shelves.  A
    couple of years later, (last year about), she said that she was
    not promoting censorship, but just awareness!
    
    Printed lyrics are one thing, but no one is going to tell me what
    music to listen to!  Granted, some of the albums she mentioned aren't
    the kind that I would listen to anyway, but I will not condemn those
    who do.  As for rock lyrics promoting drug abuse and mental unwellness,
    I listened to rock music all of my life (1964 to present), have
    NEVER even wanted to try any kind of drugs, or wanted to do some
    publicly terrible thing like murder my cat or swear at my mother.
    (I even own a copy of Prince's "Purple Rain" album!)  :-)
    
    I actually could handle Tipper's first tirade (with a grain of salt
    the size of an all-day sucker), but the fact that she is trying
    to cover up what she was saying, contradicting it completely, was
    more than I could stomache!  
    
    I will never forget Frank Zappa's "Cure Dandruff by Decapitation"
    speech.
    
    K.C. the music lover

    This sounds like a topic for human_relations...
    
    Civil disobedience is allowable...you just get hauled away temporarily
    (in this society, anyways).  However, when it endangers others,
    then it's clearly wrong.  When I worked at Sack Theaters (now USA
    Cinemas), a large group of handicapped people protested at my theater
    against the theater chain because they didn't have handicap access
    at ALL their theaters.  (some theaters were leased, not built and
    owned)  My theater had complete access but we were
    showing Ghandhi and they wanted the symbolism.  These people were
    protesting for their rights, but they CHAINED all the main exits shut.
    Imagine if there was a fire and the theater patrons couldn't get
    out?  The protesters would have been arrested for murder! (Lucky,
    the fire exits couldn't be chained.)
    
    These same people were telling customers that the theater chain
    discriminated against handicapped people and the customers believed
    them until I pointed out all the handicap ramps.  The protesters
    were on their high horse and claiming the high moral ground and
    they didn't care if someone got hurt while they protested.