New Book Upsets Christians

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow, when this thread first popped up I said my part, thought it was going to go by the wayside and left to go see Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

Anyway, my little story is this: While working one night this kid came in wearing a "Jesus is a Cunt" t-shirt. Curious, I asked him why Jesus is, as he proclaimed, a "cunt." Like what exactly did Jesus ever do to him to deserve that label.

 

He just stared at me for a few seconds, mumbled something and left.

 

The end.

 

Back to your fighting...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1) A MORE apt analogy would be if a movie came out that said that FDR ABSOLUTELY knew that the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor and that he let it happen because he "wanted to see them all die" (replace FDR with Bush and Pearl Harbor with 9/11 if you'd like).

 

I --- or Tyler --- would state that the premise is quite offensive and libelous.

Is it labeled a documentary or political commentary or something? If it's not, and it acknowledges itself as fiction, then that's just what it is. Fiction.

 

There was a movie called Deterrance that came out some time ago where Iraq promises to launch nuclear missiles on the U.S. The President (a ficticious President, not sharing the identity of any real life President) drops a nuclear bomb on Baghdad at the end of the film.

 

By your analogy, if this movie came out when the Iraq stuff was heating up you'd get all offended. But you aren't because the movie admits that the events aren't real.

 

That's what's going on here.

 

I --- or Tyler --- would then be accused of trying to ban the movie from playing in theatres and doing untold damage to the First Amendment.

 

Are you? I don't think you are. In this case, people are stating cases for the book to be pulled. I'm not going to lump you in with them unless you want to join them, too.

 

You are creating arguments that weren't made in the first place to play the role of martyr.

 

No, I'm trying to explain how a straw man works, since there's less debating going on and more accusations of Christian-hating.

 

2) Even if it's classified as "fiction", if it attacks a real person with no real justification for it, it STILL can be nailed as being libelous.

 

Supreme Court says "No."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/pres...ess/press08.htm

 

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

 

Religion is simply a matter of opinion. It is not subject to libel laws.

[Guest MikeSC]

this Mike guy should just change his name to "brick wall"

Yet again, pot, meet kettle.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

1) A MORE apt analogy would be if a movie came out that said that FDR ABSOLUTELY knew that the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor and that he let it happen because he "wanted to see them all die" (replace FDR with Bush and Pearl Harbor with 9/11 if you'd like).

 

I --- or Tyler --- would state that the premise is quite offensive and libelous.

Is it labeled a documentary or political commentary or something? If it's not, and it acknowledges itself as fiction, then that's just what it is. Fiction.

 

There was a movie called Deterrance that came out some time ago where Iraq promises to launch nuclear missiles on the U.S. The President (a ficticious President, not sharing the identity of any real life President) drops a nuclear bomb on Baghdad at the end of the film.

 

By your analogy, if this movie came out when the Iraq stuff was heating up you'd get all offended. But you aren't because the movie admits that the events aren't real.

 

That's what's going on here.

 

I --- or Tyler --- would then be accused of trying to ban the movie from playing in theatres and doing untold damage to the First Amendment.

 

Are you? I don't think you are. In this case, people are stating cases for the book to be pulled. I'm not going to lump you in with them unless you want to join them, too.

 

You are creating arguments that weren't made in the first place to play the role of martyr.

 

No, I'm trying to explain how a straw man works, since there's less debating going on and more accusations of Christian-hating.

 

2) Even if it's classified as "fiction", if it attacks a real person with no real justification for it, it STILL can be nailed as being libelous.

 

Supreme Court says "No."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/pres...ess/press08.htm

 

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

 

Religion is simply a matter of opinion. It is not subject to libel laws.

1) Never heard of the movie and I doubt I'll ever see it, so I don't care, honestly.

 

If I wrote a fiction book but STILL said that FDR (by name) not only allowed Pearl Harbor to happen but encouraged it, would I not be slammed by almost everybody? Would I not be roundly criticized for saying something downright offensive?

 

Would I not DESERVE the criticism completely and totally?

 

The guy wasn't parodying some anonymous figure. He is insulting Jesus, the person.

 

There is a world of difference between a movie with a fictitious president and a book with a real person.

 

2) I'd personally have ignored the book and let it die a death in sales, but I totally support the Christians in question for stating their virulent opposition to this book. They have every right to trash it.

 

3) Anytime ANYBODY says anything positive about Christianity on these boards, at least 2 people will pop up and call them fundies and the like. I have actually felt bad for people like Spider Poet who will discuss faith intelligently and get absolutely trashed for it.

 

Those who don't believe refuse to EVER acknowledge that they might well be wrong. Christians ADMIT that our belief is based on faith.

 

4) Again, if I was to write that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, then he had the bodies dug up so he could anally violate them, I doubt too many people would have a problem finding a legal problem with it.

 

That's why in fiction books --- and in movies --- the author/screenwriter tries to avoid making a character too similar to a real person.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

For the record, I never labelled anyone as a Jesus hater or anything stupid like that; I can't prove that Jesus or God exist, and neither can the other side prove that he doesn't. I acknowledge this in nearly every religion argument that comes up, but somehow, it gets lost in the hatred and I get labeled as a bible thumper or something.

 

For the sake of this argument, Jesus is a person, not a "fictional character". Thus, at best, the work would be "historical fiction". However, if someone wrote a book using GEORGE W. BUSH'S name (and giving him the position of future POTUS, making it VERY clear that they're referencing the same person) and had him portrayed as a slack-jawed yokel who killed people and snor-err, bad example... and a virulent racist, would it be fair to say that Mr. Bush would have PLENTY of grounds to sue there?

 

When you're using a person's name -- whether they're historically real or just percieved as so -- people have EVERY right to be completely pissed off about this. I've acknolwedged this several times, and not once have I said "TAKE IT OFF THE SHELVES!!!" I've simply stated that the very purpose of this novel was to inflame Christians and defame (not to mention mock) their God, and such could easily be considered libel.

 

In addition, I sincerely doubt that every book store owner knows every book that's in their store. If the customers wish to alert the store owner as to the absurd and libelous content of the books within, there's nothing wrong with that. If they take the book off the shelves thereafter, it's their preoggative; they're not forced to sell anything they don't want to. It may not be right (personally, I prefer them to just ridicule the book and tell people how stupid it is and put it in the very back corner of the store), but it's certainly their right.

 

Also, Mike is completely right in noting why the fuck I even got involved with this argument; the rampant anti-religion anti-Christian sentiment on this board is revolting. I don't care what you believe, but don't be a fuckhead about it.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

A couple notes...

 

1. Eagan stop digging man. This is CE, you're in way over your head.

 

2. I never thought I'd see Tyler get called close-minded.

 

3. Tyler, my respect for you has increased ten-fold. I completely agree with you on all points. I'll never vote for Dean. But you, my friend, are most certainly fair and balanced.

[Styles 0]

Tyler, Mike and friends. Don't teach a pig to sing, it'll waste your time and annoy the pig...

[Guest Boo_Bradley]

I started a thought provoking thread?

 

 

*Wipes disbelief off his face*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If I wrote a fiction book but STILL said that FDR (by name) not only allowed Pearl Harbor to happen but encouraged it, would I not be slammed by almost everybody? Would I not be roundly criticized for saying something downright offensive?

That would be downright slander, since you named a real person.

 

Would I not DESERVE the criticism completely and totally?

 

The guy wasn't parodying some anonymous figure. He is insulting Jesus, the person.

 

The problem you're making is that you're basing this arguement as though Jesus, son of God, really did come down to Earth. The problem with this is the very existance of Jesus is purely dependant on your belief in Christianity. This is not a fault of yours, being a Christian pretty much means you believe the events of the Bible to more or less be truth.

 

But faith is faith, and the Bible has no legal legs in this country. Roy Moore found this out recently. I'M NOT COMPARING YOU TO HIM IN ANY WAY, I'm just citing an example as how our government does not recognize the Bible as undeniable truth.

 

There is a world of difference between a movie with a fictitious president and a book with a real person.

 

2) I'd personally have ignored the book and let it die a death in sales, but I totally support the Christians in question for stating their virulent opposition to this book. They have every right to trash it.

 

Right, but there's a difference between complaining about it, protesting it, whatever, and trying to ban sales.

 

3) Anytime ANYBODY says anything positive about Christianity on these boards, at least 2 people will pop up and call them fundies and the like. I have actually felt bad for people like Spider Poet who will discuss faith intelligently and get absolutely trashed for it.

 

SP isn't a fundie. I haven't called him a fundie, I don't think Marney even has called him a fundie though she has taken issues with his stance on gays. SP's problem seems to be that he acts like the world is a battle of Ultimate Good vs Ultimate Evil or something. This is not Sunday School, this is a place for (more or less, excluding comedy threads) serious debate, and that kind of thing can you crapped on.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Also, Mike is completely right in noting why the fuck I even got involved with this argument; the rampant anti-religion anti-Christian sentiment on this board is revolting. I don't care what you believe, but don't be a fuckhead about it.

I admit I target Christian organizations a lot, but they're usually the Jerry Falwell style "family value" organizations that play politics. FWIW, I feel these organizations deserve it as they seek power and influence the other organizations don't.

 

But if you think I cross the line sometimes, hey, call me on it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Also, Mike is completely right in noting why the fuck I even got involved with this argument; the rampant anti-religion anti-Christian sentiment on this board is revolting. I don't care what you believe, but don't be a fuckhead about it.

I admit I target Christian organizations a lot, but they're usually the Jerry Falwell style "family value" organizations that play politics. FWIW, I feel these organizations deserve it as they seek power and influence the other organizations don't.

 

But if you think I cross the line sometimes, hey, call me on it.

I was, by no means, talking about you.

 

Just read the people in the beginning of this thread.

 

I target fundamentalists too; you've seen me do it quite a few times. However, just being virulently anti-Christian isn't acceptable.

[Guest JMA]

Hmm, if a book is offensive to blacks and blacks protest, few people praise the book for offending them.

 

If a book offends Jews and Jews complain, few bash Jews for complaining.

 

Why is it OK to piss off Christians? Why are Christians not allowed to express their displeasure with something without being called "book burners" and the like?

-=Mike

Bookstores do allow Mein Kampf on their shelves, y'know? If they allow the work of one of history's greatest monsters, I don't see why this book should be prevented from being on shelves. Christians ARE allowed to voice their displeasure -- just like celebs are allowed to voice their opinions about wars. But somehow, it's okay to try to piss them off, right?

[Guest JMA]

And just for the record, I don't support anti-Christian behavior. I have no problem with Jesus. What I have a problem with is trying to enforce what people can and cannot read.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, my heart follows what Eagan's saying (I could share my experiences with religion with the class, I guess, but I doubt you want to hear it, but we'll just say I've done a lot of deep thought about the subject) but my brain knows to be more compassionate towards others.

 

The exception is, of course, the aforementioned political group which want to institute change in all our lives. If they are not kept in check (and let's face it, our current leadership is NOT going to do that), they must be kept under watch at least, and that's why I post as much about them as I do.

 

It looks like Boo Bradley was running under the impression of this being a comedy thread, not realizing that religion is a can of worms out here. Eagan posts something with no tact whatsoever, and it spirals into an arguement from there.

[Guest SP-1]

1. Anyone who is using the Bible to preach hate and violence isn't a Christian. I'll give you that clue free, the rest should be pretty easy to figure out if you ever read the New Testament. Which, by the way, those using the Bible to preach hate are probably taking OLD Testament things vastly out of context and forgetting about the NEW COVENANT (New!) that is the basis for the growth of the Jewish faith into Christianity in the first place. Extremists, those who preach hate and violence, these are not Christians and do not display the fruits of the Spirit which are essential to the faith and life and relationship with Christ.

 

2. It's a book. There are lots of other books that preach anti-Christian messages. Jesus was not a pot-head. A Christian with a Bible and a heart can figure this out. Tell the truth to those who don't know it. Love those who reject it anyway. This we are called to do. There are bigger and more important causes in the world to champion right now if you are a Christian. The Bible tells us that all will know He is God in the end, whether they want to or not. Another book by a human author who will fade away is not going to change that eternal truth that Christians are supposed to hold dear.

 

It's a book. Fiction. it will make money, it will cause some to go to extremes and there we will see where their hearts really are, and they'll have to examine that with God. And we will be called to love them as well.

 

If you're a Christian here on the board, hear me. It really isn't worth arguing with others here about. Hold firm to what you know. Present the truth as your believed truth because it is your right to do so and your viewpoint. A book of fiction cannot stand up to the timeless Word of God. Want to take action against this book? Crack a Bible. Keep walking with Him and changing lives for Him. It's as simple as that.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Again, like I said, I'm not saying EVERYTHING SHOULD BE BANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDD FOR BEING ANTI-CHRISTIAN or anything, either. I'm saying that it's bullshit that people can be labeled as anti-First Amendment and anti-freedom because they're protesting something that's completely baseless and offensive to their religion.

 

EDIT - Aimed at Jobber, not SP.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

As we have seen from this thread, the religious have their numbers here and are well-represented. Their less-scrupulous peers are subject to discussion, but the religious people here are not without their voice.

 

I think Eagan's first post was something that would get him flamed on nearly any board and the flaming is simply what happened as a result of that. Let's just move on.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Most of the points here have been well-articulated (save for Eagan's but you can't expect much more from someone who posts almost exclusively in NHB and spends most of his time here in flame wars with Johnson1620) and I think everything that needs to be said has been. I can see the arguments on both sides of this issue and think there is something to be said for all of them. Personally I can certainly see why this would offend people and think it's in very poor taste, but at the same time it's such an inconsequential book that it's hardly worth the time to get offended over. It's not like this is the work of the Marquis de Sade or something.

 

I think an interesting parallel situation that can be drawn from more modern entertainment is the movie "Barbershop". This is a mostly black comedy where Cedric the Entertainer plays a cynical, cantancerous old black barber, where he emphatically states that "all Rosa Parks did was sit her ass down on a bus", "Martin Luther King is a hoax", and "fuck Jesse Jackson". This was all played for comedy, of course, but Parks and Jackson didn't think so: Jackson protested against the movie (Ebert and Roeper made fun of him over this on one episode), while Parks refused to go to the NAACP awards because Cedric the Entertainer was the host.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

There's a slight difference between Barbershop and this novel; the significance is that the offending comments in that were the opinion of one character, whereas this book uses the offending premises as the basis.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

There's a slight difference between Barbershop and this novel; the significance is that the offending comments in that were the opinion of one character, whereas this book uses the offending premises as the basis.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

There's a slight difference between Barbershop and this novel; the significance is that the offending comments in that were the opinion of one character, whereas this book uses the offending premises as the basis.

Certainly true, I was just trying to think of some analagous examples, since no obvious ones come to mind.

 

Maybe Falwell vs. Hustler Magazine?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

HAH!

 

Perhaps

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I doubt pot was around back then.

Actually, it was used both industrially and recreationally as early as circa 3000 B.C. In egypt, the far east, and certainly by various other tribes that have been doing so for millenia. Same with various natural hallucinogens like Peyote.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Tyler is right. Does the author provide ANYTHING resembling ANY evidence to back up ANY of the charges he makes? Does he provide ANY reason to write ANY of it?

 

He doesn't have to, it's fiction. FICTION, which means he can be as offensive and pointless as he wants. It might sell, it might not. The point is, he's not presenting something as fact regarding Jesus, he's cracking a joke that will light up the misanthropic teenage stoner market, and maybe sell a few copies. A thousand shitty writers write thousands of shitty books every year, some of them certainly more offensive than this one. If you're that bent out of shape, just don't buy it. That says more than ALL the bitching you can do about it.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

However, just being virulently anti-Christian isn't acceptable.

 

Why not? You chose to be christian. It's not like you were born that way. Imagine for instance if I implanted a large metal spike in my skull, for fashion purposes. I chose that. You'd think I'm a dipshit, right? Same principle applies.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

I don't know what you're all crying about, this book isn't even available in America. And I highly doubt these protesters will be listened to, seeing as Britain is probably the least religious of any Western democracy. No-one gives a crap about Christianity in this country. Come on, the Church of England is the religious definition of having your cake and eating it. Its a non-issue.

[Guest MikeSC]

If I wrote a fiction book but STILL said that FDR (by name) not only allowed Pearl Harbor to happen but encouraged it, would I not be slammed by almost everybody? Would I not be roundly criticized for saying something downright offensive?

That would be downright slander, since you named a real person.

 

Would I not DESERVE the criticism completely and totally?

 

The guy wasn't parodying some anonymous figure. He is insulting Jesus, the person.

 

The problem you're making is that you're basing this arguement as though Jesus, son of God, really did come down to Earth. The problem with this is the very existance of Jesus is purely dependant on your belief in Christianity. This is not a fault of yours, being a Christian pretty much means you believe the events of the Bible to more or less be truth.

 

But faith is faith, and the Bible has no legal legs in this country. Roy Moore found this out recently. I'M NOT COMPARING YOU TO HIM IN ANY WAY, I'm just citing an example as how our government does not recognize the Bible as undeniable truth.

 

There is a world of difference between a movie with a fictitious president and a book with a real person.

 

2) I'd personally have ignored the book and let it die a death in sales, but I totally support the Christians in question for stating their virulent opposition to this book. They have every right to trash it.

 

Right, but there's a difference between complaining about it, protesting it, whatever, and trying to ban sales.

 

3) Anytime ANYBODY says anything positive about Christianity on these boards, at least 2 people will pop up and call them fundies and the like. I have actually felt bad for people like Spider Poet who will discuss faith intelligently and get absolutely trashed for it.

 

SP isn't a fundie. I haven't called him a fundie, I don't think Marney even has called him a fundie though she has taken issues with his stance on gays. SP's problem seems to be that he acts like the world is a battle of Ultimate Good vs Ultimate Evil or something. This is not Sunday School, this is a place for (more or less, excluding comedy threads) serious debate, and that kind of thing can you crapped on.

By almost ALL historical accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was a real person and did live for about 33 years. He was, by the best account of most historians, a very real person. So, the author is attacking a real person.

 

If Jesus is the son of God IS an article of faith, but his actual existence is not too much in question.

 

As Tyler pointed out, they have every right to let a book store owner know that they do not like the book and, should the store carry the book, they will simply take their business elsewhere. It is a very good tactic and one I have no problem with whatsoever.

 

And don't tell me you've not seen SP get absolutely trashed around here solely for his (or her --- I do not claim to know) religious beliefs. I honestly admire him (or her) for sticking to his (or her) guns on this issue because the abuse SP has taken over it is considerable. In many eyes, the world IS a battleground between good and evil. I see it as such myself.

=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, if a book is offensive to blacks and blacks protest, few people praise the book for offending them.

 

If a book offends Jews and Jews complain, few bash Jews for complaining.

 

Why is it OK to piss off Christians? Why are Christians not allowed to express their displeasure with something without being called "book burners" and the like?

              -=Mike

Bookstores do allow Mein Kampf on their shelves, y'know? If they allow the work of one of history's greatest monsters, I don't see why this book should be prevented from being on shelves. Christians ARE allowed to voice their displeasure -- just like celebs are allowed to voice their opinions about wars. But somehow, it's okay to try to piss them off, right?

Not exactly the same thing. Mein Kampf (which, unlike most here, I've had to read before --- a terribly written book in addition to being absolutely reprehensible) is an autobiography and political treatise that led to the bloodiest war in the history of mankind.

 

This tome doesn't exactly rise to that level in terms of importance.

 

Again, NOBODY is saying that the author lacks the right to write it. We're just saying that it's libelous, slanderous, and his "defenders" are just dipshits about this issue.

-=Mike

[Anakin Flair 0]

So, if we use this book and equate it to wrestling, if Benoit is God, would RVD be Jesus?

[Guest SP-1]

Meh, any abuse taken here doesn't faze me much. It's a message board. Even Marney's little episode in NHB a while back amounted to a much more heated version of what generally happens anyway. From my perspective, this is just another forum where there are Christians and non-Christians and there will be heated debate. Simple as that.

 

Nice to know someone is reading those of us who attempt to discuss it intelligently, though.