Again, I don't believe they have a chance of prohibiting the film and how come the Italians aren't protesting the depiction of their part in the Crucifixion? This happened (?) over 2000 years ago. The Italians certainly were vocal about "The Sopranos," and Carmella is a devout Catholic in the series. What a conflicted judgement that brings about. Gibson obviously presented a rough cut to get an idea about the reaction to the film. The final cut may, in fact, tone down what is being protested. Several films have depicted the spitting and throwing things at Jesus on the stages of the cross but if the film goes beyond what's actually in the scripture, it's in trouble. Historians lambasted Gibson for his distortion of history in "Braveheart," including the over-the-top execution scene. Did the English, by the way, protest that film? I don't believe so. The gross division between the Hebrew and Christian religion is still the pronouncement by fundamentalist Christian clerics that Jews will go to Hell. Giving credential to Gibson for the awards is endorsing those awards as the final critical worth of a film. It was released to mixed reviews and didn't appear on any critic's list as the best film of that year to my knowledge. Even if it did, the 80's and 90's were the worst decades for films in film history -- Paulene Kael stopped reviewing movies because of the lack of quality.
BTW, Kael would have undoubtedly panned that film.
But the fundies are the ones who are urging us to back Israel 100% and get rid of them Ay-rabs.... aren't they?
Exactly and if you can find the credibility in that, be my guest.
Mel is feverishly in the editing room right now but I don't know what the hurry is -- the film isn't in theaters until Spring of 2004!
Could it be we will see yet another cut with the cuts being in judicious (sic) sections of the film? Laughable.
BTW, one should wonder through the Internet and see whal Mel has said about the modern day Catholic church. It isn't what some on this forum would like to read. Mel keeps a chapel on the grounds of his home where the services are all in Latin as he was not happy that the church had begun services in English. This guy needs to be in a new version of "The Time Machine" where he can travel back to Medieval times and stay there.
Actually, services were often in the Venacular prior to the Council of Trent. The priests usually didn't know enough Latin to do the whole mass in Latin.
Quote:While I'm all for our freedoms, I wonder sometimes how a group like NAMBLA can be permitted to exist openly as they do. Consider a similar group dedicated to supporting and informing those who prefer rape to consensual sex. I'm pretty sure the law would come down on them like a hammer. Why not NAMBLA?
Scrat
Similar? They are dissimilar. Your 'analogous' example (rape) is entirely coercive.
Blatham - Do you really find rape and child rape to be so different that you are arguing with my analogizing using the two? I can only guess that your view of pedophilia and mine are very different, and can tell you that I don't think I care to understand yours. Rape is the act of having sex with someone who does not consent. Minor children lack the ability to legally consent, which makes Pedophilia a form of rape. NAMBLA instructs its members in ways to prey upon children for the purpose of committing sexual acts with them. How is that so different from my hypothetical web site instructing men in the best ways to commit rape?
The First Amendment protects the NAMBLA site and their philosophy -- whether there's problems with the law depends on when the members act on it and if it's consensual, obviously the parents would have to be the ones deciding on criminal action. That's what statuetory rape is -- it doesn't have to be forced on the individual. With the sodomy laws striken down, there's no grounds to prosecute nearly all of the Catholic priests who were accused (also because the statute of limitations was upheld and the state laws letting them go back that long ago to prosecute are no longer valid).
I guess if everyone wants to live in a world where people are prosecuted for intent...see "Minority Report."
(And it's getting smoky in here again...this is again off the topic and should be diverted except I think it is too late as other pertinent posts would be moved).
Lightwizard wrote:The First Amendment protects the NAMBLA site and their philosophy -- whether there's problems with the law depends on when the members act on it and if it's consensual, obviously the parents would have to be the ones deciding on criminal action.
Are you arguing that it is up to parents to decide whether or not their minor children can have sex with adults? At what age? ??? Preposterous. If someone has sex with a ten year old, that person should be prosecuted, and I don't care whether the parents approve or do not.
And I recognize that the argument is that the 1st Amendment protects NAMBLA, but would it also protect my hypothetical site promoting rape? It seems to me that one implies the other.
Actually, I think that Scrat is correct, in that a site which would glorify rape would have a first amendment right to exist, so long as there was not a possibility of promoting criminal behavior, or conspiring to commit or abet a criminal activity. NAMBLA can only exist as a public information forum so long as there is no demonstrable intent to promote criminal activity.
NAMBLA was forced offshore long ago. They were hosted in Germany but I believe they had problems there too.
The 1st ammendment issue is a local (US) legal issue and peripheral to the discussion, which is a moral question. Scrat equated rape with sex between a man and a young man, ignoring the fundamental point of consent/coercion.
One can hang all questions/answers here on written law, but that seems a bit silly and shallow, and certainly avoids the tougher moral questions. If in one jurisiction, age of consent is ten and in another it is 18, you have simple answers, but the moral questions remain unaddressed.
This is in indeed dark territory. I still maintain that this isn't really different from Stanley Kubrick pulling "A Clockwork Orange" from distribution in England because of the copycat crimes. It's up to Gibson's own conscience what happens -- of course, those who use the film as an excuse to commit a crime against a Jewish person will be prosecuted. However, if the person is dead, what are his rights? I don't feel entirely comfortable making a cast in stone judgement on whether the film is anti-semitic unless I saw the entire rough cut (which we will likely never see). It obviously riled up some in the ADL and they must have founds something offensive. I don't believe they are trying to get free publicity but I would not put it past Gibson to stir something up for the free publicity. He hasn't got a distributor (the film is produced by his own company, Icon (sic). No distributor wants to touch a film that is in primarily Latin with no subtitles. Could anyone sit through a film like this? Just to see how much blood and gore can be added over previous depictions of the Crucifixion? The visual agony may be there but I am doubting already that the mental agony is sufficiently depicted. I think that is for everyone's own interpretation of the scriptures and imagination. This is like what happened in the toy industry. Toy's used to require some ingenuity and imagination on the part of the child. Now it's all manufactured to look exactly like adult toys (yes, I loved my Erector sets).
Yes, it is up to an adult parent whether to insitute criminal charges if they learn their underage child is sleeping with an adult. Of course, NAMBLA is infering if one is going to do it, don't get caught.
Still the organization itself isn't against the law. What Crave said is true as the Web servers and ISP's don't want to sponsor anything like this. I don't believe they are advocating going out and forcing a minor to have sex. Leave that up to the priests who've used coercion including the youngster's fear and religious feelings so they can have sex with them.
(Like Don Quixote, there's a lot of flaying at windmills on this thread!)
Should there be a different standard for consensual sex between an older and younger man than the same between two females --or two people of the opposite sex but in the same older/younger categories? At what age does consensual sex become legal? Are we influenced here by the law, or are we primarily influenced by stereotypes?
Stereotypes -- what about the an older heterosexual loving an underage person? A famous trial not long ago regarding that.
It was made worse in the fact that she was his schoolteacher.
We're putting underaged persons on trial so apparantly they have that sort of judgement but not the judgement if it makes them happy to have sex with an older person. Double standards? I think so.
