Letters to the Editor
thatboy
Published Letters: 242 Editor's Choice: 14
-
@Sic Semper Morannis
[Read the article: "It is impossible to miss the discrimination against ... believers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Note the number of attempts to pass "hate crimes" laws that would silence Christians.
I have to admit, you've got me there. Never heard of those. Please enlighten me. For the record, neither I nor any other atheists or "radical secular liberals" I know advocate silencing anybody, even Christians. Let the Klan march, let Christians condemn 'sinners.' The answer to speech is more speech, not silencing the speaker.
Note the number of college students bullied by professors or kids in public schools bullied by teachers for wanting to simply express their beliefs in public...
By which I assume you mean they insist on teaching actual science instead of Bible stories. Because if you're talking about things like students praying, handing out tracts and proselytizing during times such as before and after school and during lunch, those things have been upheld by the courts and even defended by (gasp!) the ACLU.
Now, how many Evangelicals go around beating up gays or drag bodies behind trucks? None, I'd venture, and those are crimes already anyway.
Never said they did. Although I will say that much Christian rhetoric and the Bible could certainly be said to support or incite such behavior. And I will say I suspect it is Christian-oriented people behind the bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of abortion providers, but I have no proof of this. Perhaps another reader here may?
And again with a reference to hate crimes. Nowhere in my post did I mention hate crime laws. Sorry I omitted one of your favorite talking points.
I can't marry my sister or my mom, nor can I marry a dog or donkey. If the state says so, two men can't "marry" each other, either.
Thank you, so much, for once again conflating being gay with incest and bestiality. That one never gets old. Cracks me up every time!
-
Research
[Read the article: "What is wrong with women?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A little research on this turns up some interesting things...
From a Hollywood Reporter article (emphasis mine)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560144
The billboards, first posted March 13, feature four frames with captions above each one. "Abduction" shows Cuthbert with a gloved hand over her face; "Confinement" features the actress behind a chain-link fence with a bloody finger poking through; "Torture" depicts Cuthbert's face, covered in white gauze, with tubes shoved up her nose; and "Termination" shows her with her head thrown back, seemingly dead.
[snip]
He also said that the campaign for bus shelters -- a variation of the second frame in the billboard poster, minus the bloody finger -- had been approved by the MPAA.
The bloody finger. Is that what so many complained about? I doubt it, and yet the MPAA approved the other images. And indeed, if you look at the billboard objectively, are the images really that disturbing? You can see worse than the 'Torture' and 'Termination' images on any TV medical show. Is this really worth penalizing the filmmakers, or is the MPAA just flexing its political muscle?
A synopsis of the plot from http://www.movieweb.com/news/69/18569.php
(This link also shows the original billboard)
In Captivity, a fashion model and a chauffeur are kidnapped and held hostage in a small room by a serial killer. While the madman methodically terrorizes them, the victims draw strength from each other and fall in love.
So there is a man being tortured here as well, though I admit without seeing the film I have no way of knowing if it's to the same extent Cuthbert is. He does appear in the trailer. But in that trailer (at least the one I saw) "I'm sorry!" is not the first thing Cuthbert screams.
None of this is meant to argue that the movie won't be disturbing; it's meant to be. But to imply a fictional horror film will inspire the same violence against women as religious zealotry, or that those who enjoy watching a fictional film about a serial killer are no different than those who enjoy watching an actual video of of a real woman being stoned to death, is absolutely ridiculous.
-
@RealName & Anonymous
[Read the article: Inside the Creation Museum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems to me you should just leave people to their own myths.
Why, I'd be happy to do that, RealName, if they could keep their myths to themselves and not insist that they are true and that everyone else must run their lives by those myths whether they believe them or not.
But at the risk of asking an obvious question, would any of you offer the same level of ridicule for a similar museum created by Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, or Shinto fanatics?
Believe it or not, Anonymous, I most certainly would. In fact, you don't even have to build a museum! Just come talk to me about your favorite myth that you just know is the One Truth, and I'll be happy to tell you how ridiculous it is.
What is the alternative to ridiculing this? Let it go unquestioned as the truth?
Read the article carefully, and you'll see these particular fanatics have no problem ridiculing people who believe differently than they do. That's fine. They have every right to do that. If, however, you're going to drag religion out of your church and home into the public arena, you can expect people to challenge you. Religion doesn't deserve any special exemptions or privileges.