You want to know why Catholics are mad about The Da Vinci Code, among other things? Read these actual posts from a forum run by canoe.ca (which may or may not be the actual opinions of the owners):
"The vatican has it's knickers in a knot about the book/movie because, even though it's billed as a fictional thriller/mystery, the book is about Jesus fathering a child with a wife and the bloodline existing today. I guess the vatican doesn't want people believing that this could actually be true..."
'The book was a very good read..kind of a cross between John Grisham and Hans Kung. I too do not know why the Vtaican keeps shooting itself in the foot with all these denunciations over a work of fiction - they are usually more astute."
"grumps: "they are usually more astute" You're kidding, right?"
"At least the Cardinals didn't try to whip their followers into a murderous frenzy because they read a book, or saw a cartoon, that was arbitrary to their faith. They have their leather thong panties in a knot because someone had the gaul to write a book that was hugely succesful and shoots holes in thier little financial institution from which they derive everything and all of the comforts that they tell their followers are "evil.""
Any wonder why? Spelling, factual and theological mistakes and all. The last acceptable prejudice. None of this is criticism or educated opinions. It's the same crap all over again. Nothing ever changes. Of course Catholics are angry. Not only are they and their religion attacked but there isn't any freshness in the stupidity on what is so obviously noxious bigotry.
More later.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
You Say Potato....
(mmmm...potatoes...)
Sorry.
Speech becomes "intolerant", "bigotted" or "hurtful" depending on who says it. Watch.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Say that outloud and see how many angry letters (or letter-bombs), protests and bricks through your window you get.
Change the philosophy.
Catholicism is immoral.
Now it's okay (unless the president of a Catholic focus group writes a letter to the editor which will either be promptly ignored or misquoted).
Islam is immoral.
Burn, baby, burn (said outside a Danish consulate only).
Being Chinese is immoral.
That's okay because Chinese people don't have feelings the way you and I do. Say it enough and it makes it easier to trade with a dictatorship and ignore the slave labour, shocking abuses of human rights and the underhanded way in which they support other dictatorships as cruel and elusive as they are.
Of course, no one has the absolute right to free speech. You can't scream out "fire" when there is no fire but you also can't say homosexuality violates the precepts of your religion, either. Why don't people just be honest and say: "You can say whatever you like as long I like what you have to say." While we're being honest, that is, but that would make us hypocrites and you can't drive to Vancouver to discover yourself in an SUV with a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker or backpack through India with a Canadian flag on your backpack (because everyone in India loves you and has completely forgotten how your government screwed over its citizens and yours in the Air India Flight 182 case).
Everyone wants to speak their mind, or what little mind they have, and have the last word. I suppose its an inherent need to survive in a dog-eat-dog world. But freedom of speech becomes a ridiculous sentiment given that the same people who clamour for it are also the same people who will whip around like a cobra and cry "hate speech!" whenever they hear something they don't like. It's immaterial if the comment is factual or rooted in a centuries' old culture or religion (it does become material, oddly enough, if the comment is so absurd and rootless that that word absurd actually jumps out of the dictionary and slaps the face of the offending commentator, demanding a quarter every time they say something stupid).
It becomes equally sad when any kind of speech is allowed under the assumption (insert own joke here) that whoever hears the opinion being expressed can discern truth from fiction (The Da Vinci Crap is a timely example of this). If that were so, then any twit denying the Holocaust should be able to continue denying it and everyone around would shake their heads in disbelief that someone would deny an historical fact and say something so atrocious. But given that only one in three Canadians can pinpoint the principle victims of the Holocaust (that being Jews), Holocaust denial becomes dangerous and inflammatory. Is it the fault of parents and educators that something like that should occur? I think so. Look what I just did! I expressed a dangerous and educated opinion. Let the denial and finger-pointing begin!
People won't admit outloud they have an opposition to free speech because it makes them seem out-of-step with the times but in reality such opposition already exists. No one will come clean.
Let's see how long it takes for this post to be taken out-of-context, misquoted or blasted (if read at all).
Sorry.
Speech becomes "intolerant", "bigotted" or "hurtful" depending on who says it. Watch.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Say that outloud and see how many angry letters (or letter-bombs), protests and bricks through your window you get.
Change the philosophy.
Catholicism is immoral.
Now it's okay (unless the president of a Catholic focus group writes a letter to the editor which will either be promptly ignored or misquoted).
Islam is immoral.
Burn, baby, burn (said outside a Danish consulate only).
Being Chinese is immoral.
That's okay because Chinese people don't have feelings the way you and I do. Say it enough and it makes it easier to trade with a dictatorship and ignore the slave labour, shocking abuses of human rights and the underhanded way in which they support other dictatorships as cruel and elusive as they are.
Of course, no one has the absolute right to free speech. You can't scream out "fire" when there is no fire but you also can't say homosexuality violates the precepts of your religion, either. Why don't people just be honest and say: "You can say whatever you like as long I like what you have to say." While we're being honest, that is, but that would make us hypocrites and you can't drive to Vancouver to discover yourself in an SUV with a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker or backpack through India with a Canadian flag on your backpack (because everyone in India loves you and has completely forgotten how your government screwed over its citizens and yours in the Air India Flight 182 case).
Everyone wants to speak their mind, or what little mind they have, and have the last word. I suppose its an inherent need to survive in a dog-eat-dog world. But freedom of speech becomes a ridiculous sentiment given that the same people who clamour for it are also the same people who will whip around like a cobra and cry "hate speech!" whenever they hear something they don't like. It's immaterial if the comment is factual or rooted in a centuries' old culture or religion (it does become material, oddly enough, if the comment is so absurd and rootless that that word absurd actually jumps out of the dictionary and slaps the face of the offending commentator, demanding a quarter every time they say something stupid).
It becomes equally sad when any kind of speech is allowed under the assumption (insert own joke here) that whoever hears the opinion being expressed can discern truth from fiction (The Da Vinci Crap is a timely example of this). If that were so, then any twit denying the Holocaust should be able to continue denying it and everyone around would shake their heads in disbelief that someone would deny an historical fact and say something so atrocious. But given that only one in three Canadians can pinpoint the principle victims of the Holocaust (that being Jews), Holocaust denial becomes dangerous and inflammatory. Is it the fault of parents and educators that something like that should occur? I think so. Look what I just did! I expressed a dangerous and educated opinion. Let the denial and finger-pointing begin!
People won't admit outloud they have an opposition to free speech because it makes them seem out-of-step with the times but in reality such opposition already exists. No one will come clean.
Let's see how long it takes for this post to be taken out-of-context, misquoted or blasted (if read at all).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)