|
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter
| Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295084] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 10:04 |
|
1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
disapprove of it.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295093 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 16:57 |
|
Toon wrote:
> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> disapprove of it.
Toon, unfortunately, it's a fact of life that there will always be
people who feel they are imbued with the inalienable right and destiny
to direct others how to live their lives and who will show you the
error of your ways if you do not.
Even if, by the wildest stretch of imagination, Laura Mallory's case is
upheld by the Georgia State Board of Education, the ACLU or another
parent will take it to a state court of appeals, etc. to have it
overturned. I suppose, (if either side were so inclined), it could
finally reach the Supreme Court. On that note, all people in the US
have to do is keep their fingers crossed that, from now until 2008,
there aren't any other justices who decide to retire or unfortunately,
contract an illness that will preclude them from carrying out their
duties on the Court. Otherwise, it could possibly be anyone's ball
game. In any given situation, if a vocal minority is "vocal" enough,
and a passive majority is "passive" enough, an unbalanced dichotomy
occurs.
I find it amazing that many of the challenges against the HP books are
initiated by people who have never even read the books in their
entirety.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295094 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 18:12 |
|
Toon wrote:
> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> disapprove of it.
She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
included any book you wish.
Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same as "You
can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite books I read in
High School was not in the library such as "The Night Therou Spent In Jail".
EVERY book in the library and every book not in the library someone decided
to include or not include. Because every school library could not have [and
should not have] every book ever written, this will always be the case. Who
ever makes these decisions [one person or a group] are affected by their
religion, politics, heritage, etc.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295098 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 19:54 |
|
Here in Minnesota escribió:
> Toon wrote:
>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>> disapprove of it.
>
> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
> supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
> included any book you wish.
>
> Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same as "You
> can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite books I read in
> High School was not in the library such as "The Night Therou Spent In Jail".
>
> EVERY book in the library and every book not in the library someone decided
> to include or not include. Because every school library could not have [and
> should not have] every book ever written, this will always be the case. Who
> ever makes these decisions [one person or a group] are affected by their
> religion, politics, heritage, etc.
>
> Ken
>
>
But what about what the majority wants?. If 50% plus 1 wants something,
well, bad luck for the others...
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295109 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:56 |
|
"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
news:bqjha29iojd8ql89phrggsv27udgj31t2n [at] 4ax.com...
> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> disapprove of it.
As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion. In
fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their libraries.
It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
majority.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295120 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 22:48 |
|
Kenny [omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net] said
> "Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
> news:bqjha29iojd8ql89phrggsv27udgj31t2n [at] 4ax.com...
> > 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> > Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> > your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> > followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> > them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> > disapprove of it.
>
> As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion. In
> fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their libraries.
> It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
> not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
> generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
> majority.
When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295136 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:05 |
|
drusilla wrote:
> Here in Minnesota escribió:
>
>> Toon wrote:
>>
>>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>>> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>>> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>>> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>>> disapprove of it.
>>
>>
>> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
>> supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
>> included any book you wish.
>>
>> Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same
>> as "You can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite
>> books I read in High School was not in the library such as "The Night
>> Therou Spent In Jail".
>>
>> EVERY book in the library and every book not in the library someone
>> decided to include or not include. Because every school library could
>> not have [and should not have] every book ever written, this will
>> always be the case. Who ever makes these decisions [one person or a
>> group] are affected by their religion, politics, heritage, etc.
>>
>> Ken
>>
> But what about what the majority wants?. If 50% plus 1 wants something,
> well, bad luck for the others...
No - decisions such as these are made according the the law - not
majority rules.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295139 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:09 |
|
"pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f139312f9feb54698aca5 [at] nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
>> As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion.
>> In
>> fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their
>> libraries.
>> It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
>> not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
>> generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
>> majority.
>
> When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got their undies in
a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute. But as loud and
numerous as they were, they didn't represent the majority of Catholics
because most of us realized it was a work of fiction. If we believed
otherwise, there would have been no way that the book would have sold tens
of millions of copies and the movie make a hundred million or so.
Besides, if it was proven tomorrow that Jesus really did have a kid, I don't
think my life would change too much, nor would I renounce my religion. But
maybe it would make the church more sympathetic and less judgemental towards
single parents who have kids out of wedlock.
Kenny
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295140 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:11 |
|
pooter wrote:
> Kenny [omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net] said
>
>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>news:bqjha29iojd8ql89phrggsv27udgj31t2n [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>>>Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>>>your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>>>followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>>>them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>>>disapprove of it.
>>
>>As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion. In
>>fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their libraries.
>>It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
>>not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
>>generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
>>majority.
>
>
> When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
THe Da Vinci Code -
A BEST selling books made into a very popular movie.
THe catholic church may be able to shout - but even Catholics don't
listen. Remebering that for most of my life - "Gone with the wind" was
bost the highest attended movie of all time - and was CONDEMNED by the
Catholic church. Now - children's movies have more "bad words" than
"I don't give a ....". And most Catholics feel the same way about
statements by the church theuy don't agree with.
How could the Catholic Church categorize the DaVinci code as FICTION -
and then Condemn it for not getting the "Facts" straight.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295143 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:54 |
|
Kenny [omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net] said
>
> "pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f139312f9feb54698aca5 [at] nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion.
> >> In
> >> fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their
> >> libraries.
> >> It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
> >> not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
> >> generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
> >> majority.
> >
> > When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> > best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
>
> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got their undies in
> a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
> Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute. But as loud and
> numerous as they were, they didn't represent the majority of Catholics
> because most of us realized it was a work of fiction. If we believed
> otherwise, there would have been no way that the book would have sold tens
> of millions of copies and the movie make a hundred million or so.
>
> Besides, if it was proven tomorrow that Jesus really did have a kid, I don't
> think my life would change too much, nor would I renounce my religion. But
> maybe it would make the church more sympathetic and less judgemental towards
> single parents who have kids out of wedlock.
>
It was an example to make a point - at one level or another, all
religions are as bad as each other at one time or another.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295150 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 03:05 |
|
drusilla wrote:
> Here in Minnesota escribió:
>> Toon wrote:
>>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a
>>> book your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other
>>> religion's followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You
>>> can't tell them they can't read it because you think your religion
>>> tells you to disapprove of it.
>>
>> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library
>> she supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to
>> have included any book you wish.
>>
>> Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same
>> as "You can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite
>> books I read in High School was not in the library such as "The
>> Night Therou Spent In Jail". EVERY book in the library and every book not
>> in the library someone
>> decided to include or not include. Because every school library
>> could not have [and should not have] every book ever written, this
>> will always be the case. Who ever makes these decisions [one person
>> or a group] are affected by their religion, politics, heritage, etc.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
> But what about what the majority wants?. If 50% plus 1 wants
> something, well, bad luck for the others...
This is my point. All books in most libraries are chosen by just a few
people. Not 50%, not even 1%. It's only when someone wants a book removed
[or sometimes a book added] do we even hear or think of it.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295157 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 04:20 |
|
"Here in Minnesota" <neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7mbqg.1576$%p5.240 [at] newsfe15.phx...
> Toon wrote:
>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>> disapprove of it.
>
> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
> supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
> included any book you wish.
She can also choose a different library to support, thereby using
her power of choice somewhere else that supports her views, or
she could pull her kids out of the school where they're at to avoid
having contact with the books, she could also tell her kids not to
"associate with those HP readers because they're all evil.."
Note that none of these requires getting the law involved. And they're
all as effective too, and within her rights.
TME
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295160 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 04:49 |
|
Kenny wrote:
> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
> wedlock with a prostitute.
No.
According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
married.
Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
btw.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295164 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 04:56 |
|
Fish Eye no Miko escribió:
> Kenny wrote:
>
>> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
>> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
>> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
>> wedlock with a prostitute.
>
> No.
> According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
> married.
>
> Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
> btw.
Indeed, there is not and they were supposedly married. The thing is that
many catholics can't bear a image of Jesus who fathered a child, because
he is 'divine'. Whatsoever, it's said that Jesus 'was completely like we
are, except that he didn't commit any sin'. So, we do love and have
children, nothing wrong or sinful about that, whatsoever, apparently
many other think that this is somehow impure and unworthy of the son of
God... :S
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295165 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 06:01 |
|
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:KGkqg.10228$6w.709 [at] fed1read11...
> No.
> According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
> married.
>
> Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
I realize in the book they were supposed to be married. However, when all
of this blew up a couple of months ago, there were people suggesting that
they weren't married, that she was a prostitute, and they had a kid. Either
way, I still don't think it was worth everyone getting all freaked out over
it. It was just a story; take it for what it is.
Now, back to HP and colicky parents trying to ban it.
Kenny
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295167 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 07:01 |
|
The Magic Engineer wrote:
> "Here in Minnesota" <neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mbqg.1576$%p5.240 [at] newsfe15.phx...
>> Toon wrote:
>>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a
>>> book your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other
>>> religion's followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You
>>> can't tell them they can't read it because you think your religion
>>> tells you to disapprove of it.
>>
>> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library
>> she supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to
>> have included any book you wish.
>
> She can also choose a different library to support, thereby using
> her power of choice somewhere else that supports her views, or
> she could pull her kids out of the school where they're at to avoid
> having contact with the books, she could also tell her kids not to
> "associate with those HP readers because they're all evil.."
>
> Note that none of these requires getting the law involved. And they're
> all as effective too, and within her rights.
>
> TME
True, but most schools and public libraries you will support with taxes and
fees whether you want to or not.
I also don't like the idea of having to having to leave a school, library,
club, etc anytime there are different views on how to make an organization
better [in her view the library would be better without Potter books].
In this group most feel the library is better with Potter books; but what if
it was a different book? A book which was pro-racism, pro-sexist,
anti-environmental or pro-environmental or whatever. Would you like to be
told... "don't fight this pro-racism book, just take you kid out of public
school"? Win or lose, right or wrong, these are her views and she has as
much right to fight what she thinks is a bad book as others.
The interesting thing is... if she wins, the effect will be like Umbridge
banning Harry's interview [read book 5 if you don't know what happened].
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295171 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 07:21 |
|
Kenny wrote:
> "pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
> > When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> > best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got their undies in
> a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
> Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
Uh.. No. The Da Vince Code does not claim that Jesus had a child out
of wedlock with a prostitute. It claims that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdelene, that she was pregnant with Jesus' child at the time of
Jesus' death.
Brown claims that it was normal and expected for Jewish men, including
religious teachers, to be married. He claims, therefore, that Jesus
must have been married to Mary Magdalene.
The reason why (according to Brown) this challenges the very heart of
Christianity/Catholicism, is that (according to Brown)
Catholicism/Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine and not human,
and that (according to Brown) if Jesus were to have sex, it would prove
that Jesus was human (and therefore not divine).
Brown also claims that the Catholic church slandered Magdelene by
calling her a prostitute in order to discredit her.
All of Brown's claims (with the partial exception of parts of my second
paragraph above) are pure fiction, including his claims about what
Christanity/Catholicism does or does not teach.
> But as loud and
> numerous as they were, they didn't represent the majority of Catholics
> because most of us realized it was a work of fiction. If we believed
> otherwise, there would have been no way that the book would have sold tens
> of millions of copies and the movie make a hundred million or so.
I don't agree. The mind is like a vacuum. If you have no knowledge on
a subject, your ideas will be formed by the little you know, no matter
how much you are aware that the source is unrealiable. The Da Vince
Code contains reams of misinformation in one context or another. It is
true that, as in the Da Vinci Code, the Louvre is in Paris, but that is
really about it as far as reliable background info is concerned.
Alot of ignorant people, who have read the Da Vinci Code, like to spout
about it being only a work of fiction, so what's the big deal? Talk to
them for any length of time, however, and you will realize that they
have swallowed alot of its phony background information though it were
Gospel Truth.
I would be tempted to suspect that you belong in this category, if it
were not for the indications that you have not even read the Da Vinci
Code.
> Besides, if it was proven tomorrow that Jesus really did have a kid, I don't
> think my life would change too much, nor would I renounce my religion.
That would be Catholicism?
> But
> maybe it would make the church more sympathetic and less judgemental towards
> single parents who have kids out of wedlock.
More sympathetic and less judgmental than whom?
According to the Gospels, Jesus invited prostitutes, publicans, and
other disreputable types into his movement. He defended the practice
when the scribes and pharisees tried to throw this in his face. One of
his most famous sayings was "judge not lest ye be judged." These known
associations of Jesus' ministry were the original source of
speculations that certain women followers in the Gospels, about whom
little was known but their names (such as "Mary Magdalene") may have
been prostitutes or former prostitutes who joined Jesus' movement.
According to Brown, Magdalene was really a woman of "Royal Blood", like
Jesus himself. How dare they, says Brown. How dare they slander this
majestic royal woman by claiming she was a dirty stinking lower-class
whore.
Well. I wonder who is more sympathetic of prostitutes, and less
judgmental of them. I think I prefer the traditional Christian view,
myself.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295172 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:16 |
|
Toon wrote:
> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> disapprove of it.
While freedom of religion is indeed part of the Bill of Rights, it does
not apply in this instance.
Freedom of Speech applies here as well as freedom of the press.
No BOOK infringes upon someones right to choose their faith - which is
what freedom of religion is.
However - Banning a book IS possible - Adult Boooks, for instance, are
rarely found in School Libraries. THe question here is whether the books
cross the moral line of decency - not easy to determine but nevertheless
a supportable argument in court (If they actually do cross the line).
THe problem with the Lady's attempt to ban Harry Potter Books is that
the books are clearly fiction - and do not present situations that are
not regularly addressed in other acceptable books. In fact - her "bible"
goes far beyond the Harry Potter books in presenting the unacceptable
situations she claims. For instance - there is Idol worship, incest,
adultery, and mass murder in the Bible.
Still - she does have a right to go as far as she wants to in the US
courts - even if her case has no merit.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295174 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:31 |
|
nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
>
>>"pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
>>>best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
>
>
> I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
> the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
> Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
> anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
>
>
>>Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got their undies in
>>a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
>>Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
>
>
> Uh.. No. The Da Vince Code does not claim that Jesus had a child out
> of wedlock with a prostitute. It claims that Jesus was married to Mary
> Magdelene, that she was pregnant with Jesus' child at the time of
> Jesus' death.
>
> Brown claims that it was normal and expected for Jewish men, including
> religious teachers, to be married. He claims, therefore, that Jesus
> must have been married to Mary Magdalene.
>
> The reason why (according to Brown) this challenges the very heart of
> Christianity/Catholicism, is that (according to Brown)
> Catholicism/Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine and not human,
> and that (according to Brown) if Jesus were to have sex, it would prove
> that Jesus was human (and therefore not divine).
>
> Brown also claims that the Catholic church slandered Magdelene by
> calling her a prostitute in order to discredit her.
>
> All of Brown's claims (with the partial exception of parts of my second
> paragraph above) are pure fiction, including his claims about what
> Christanity/Catholicism does or does not teach.
>
>
>>But as loud and
>>numerous as they were, they didn't represent the majority of Catholics
>>because most of us realized it was a work of fiction. If we believed
>>otherwise, there would have been no way that the book would have sold tens
>>of millions of copies and the movie make a hundred million or so.
>
>
> I don't agree. The mind is like a vacuum. If you have no knowledge on
> a subject, your ideas will be formed by the little you know, no matter
> how much you are aware that the source is unrealiable. The Da Vince
> Code contains reams of misinformation in one context or another. It is
> true that, as in the Da Vinci Code, the Louvre is in Paris, but that is
> really about it as far as reliable background info is concerned.
>
> Alot of ignorant people, who have read the Da Vinci Code, like to spout
> about it being only a work of fiction, so what's the big deal? Talk to
> them for any length of time, however, and you will realize that they
> have swallowed alot of its phony background information though it were
> Gospel Truth.
>
> I would be tempted to suspect that you belong in this category, if it
> were not for the indications that you have not even read the Da Vinci
> Code.
>
>
>>Besides, if it was proven tomorrow that Jesus really did have a kid, I don't
>>think my life would change too much, nor would I renounce my religion.
>
>
> That would be Catholicism?
>
>
>>But
>>maybe it would make the church more sympathetic and less judgemental towards
>>single parents who have kids out of wedlock.
>
>
> More sympathetic and less judgmental than whom?
>
> According to the Gospels, Jesus invited prostitutes, publicans, and
> other disreputable types into his movement. He defended the practice
> when the scribes and pharisees tried to throw this in his face. One of
> his most famous sayings was "judge not lest ye be judged." These known
> associations of Jesus' ministry were the original source of
> speculations that certain women followers in the Gospels, about whom
> little was known but their names (such as "Mary Magdalene") may have
> been prostitutes or former prostitutes who joined Jesus' movement.
>
> According to Brown, Magdalene was really a woman of "Royal Blood", like
> Jesus himself. How dare they, says Brown. How dare they slander this
> majestic royal woman by claiming she was a dirty stinking lower-class
> whore.
>
> Well. I wonder who is more sympathetic of prostitutes, and less
> judgmental of them. I think I prefer the traditional Christian view,
> myself.
>
Having gone to Catholic School - it was commonly taught there that Mary
Magdallen was a prostitute back when I was in school. That has changed
recently.
AS far as the traditional CHRISTIAN view of prostitues - traditionally -
those "CHRISTIANS" were any but christian toward such behavior.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295175 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:43 |
|
On 3 Jul 2006 07:57:45 -0700, wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>Even if, by the wildest stretch of imagination, Laura Mallory's case is
>upheld by the Georgia State Board of Education, the ACLU or another
>parent will take it to a state court of appeals, etc. to have it
>overturned. I suppose, (if either side were so inclined), it could
>finally reach the Supreme Court. On that note, all people in the US
>have to do is keep their fingers crossed that, from now until 2008,
>there aren't any other justices who decide to retire or unfortunately,
>contract an illness that will preclude them from carrying out their
>duties on the Court. Otherwise, it could possibly be anyone's ball
>game. In any given situation, if a vocal minority is "vocal" enough,
>and a passive majority is "passive" enough, an unbalanced dichotomy
>occurs.
The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case. Because really, is
anything more ridiculous than this?
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295176 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:49 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:54:53 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>Here in Minnesota escribió:
>> Toon wrote:
>>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>>> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>>> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>>> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>>> disapprove of it.
>>
>> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
>> supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
>> included any book you wish.
>>
>> Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same as "You
>> can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite books I read in
>> High School was not in the library such as "The Night Therou Spent In Jail".
>>
>> EVERY book in the library and every book not in the library someone decided
>> to include or not include. Because every school library could not have [and
>> should not have] every book ever written, this will always be the case. Who
>> ever makes these decisions [one person or a group] are affected by their
>> religion, politics, heritage, etc.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>But what about what the majority wants?. If 50% plus 1 wants something,
>well, bad luck for the others...
Depends on violation of Church and State. If the majority is basing
it on actual evidence of degradation, sure. If they base their tanning
on religion, then know. Unless the majority is composed of an equal
number of multi-religions.
I mean, how would people like it if I tried banning the sale of the
Bible? and had the majority of humanity behind me (let's play Suspend
all Dsblief in it's entirety for a moment, people.) Suddenly that
tanning becomes illegal due to religious (or lack thereof) concerns.
Then again, while most American oppose same sex marriage, an almost
equal number oppose an amendment banning it. yet many still insist on
ratifying one, claiming allowing same sex marriages goes against the
majority of Americnas. Yet that majority who doesn't like equal
rights to all Americans, also don't want an amendment.
So, the majority doesn't always gets it's way.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295177 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:51 |
|
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:20:55 -0500, "The Magic Engineer" <pem &( [at]
comcastic!> wrote:
> she could also tell her kids not to
>"associate with those HP readers because they're all evil.."
Like people told their kids/brothers not to associate with crazy Hary
Potter in OOP. Did anyone of them go to the Board Of Governors
demanding Harry's expulsion because he might corrupt their kids with
his lies? No.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295178 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:55 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:56:07 GMT, "Kenny"
<omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>news:bqjha29iojd8ql89phrggsv27udgj31t2n [at] 4ax.com...
>> 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
>> Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
>> your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
>> followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
>> them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
>> disapprove of it.
>
>As a Catholic, I don't really view that HP is going against my religion. In
>fact, most of the catholic schools around here have HP in their libraries.
>It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for most people -- religious or
>not. I think it's a big deal for the fringes or fundamentalists who are
>generally more intollerant, and they're, sadly, the loudest, but not the
>majority.
>
>Ken
>
it's a piece of fiction. Do people really think god meant fiction
when he said magic is bad, MmmKay? Don't associate with magic,
MmmKay? 10 to 1, god, being the ever loving being he is, loves HP
because of all the good it brings into the world. Literacy, exercise,
learning not to take the easy way out, but the right way out. The
banning of a KILLING curse. Mr. Life First would surely love that
part.
And really, is there any documented proof a kid read HP, studied the
occult because of it, then abandoned their religion to cast dark magic
on people? and aren't mentally unstable?
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295179 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 09:58 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:09:23 GMT, "Kenny"
<omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
>Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
Can someone tells me how this affects his candidacy for Messiah and
his ability to save people? Is it against the rules of messiah hood
to father out of wedlock (or be married and a daddy?) will a
significant number of people refuse salvation because Jesus Jr existed
after all? How does this affect people to be such a bad thing?
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295180 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 10:00 |
|
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:06 -0700, "Fish Eye no Miko"
<fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>Kenny wrote:
>
>> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
>> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
>> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
>> wedlock with a prostitute.
>
>No.
>According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
>married.
>
>Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
>btw.
Anybody else bothered by the fact Jesus allegedly married/knocked
up/was involved with a woman with his Mommy's name? Oedipus Complex
or what? bad enough he tries to be like his father, now he's after
his mother sexually? And taking an interesting twist in it.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295181 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 10:04 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:56:05 -0500, drusilla <me [at] me.net> wrote:
>Fish Eye no Miko escribió:
>> Kenny wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
>>> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
>>> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
>>> wedlock with a prostitute.
>>
>> No.
>> According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
>> married.
>>
>> Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
>> btw.
>
>Indeed, there is not and they were supposedly married. The thing is that
>many catholics can't bear a image of Jesus who fathered a child, because
>he is 'divine'. Whatsoever, it's said that Jesus 'was completely like we
>are, except that he didn't commit any sin'. So, we do love and have
>children, nothing wrong or sinful about that, whatsoever, apparently
>many other think that this is somehow impure and unworthy of the son of
>God... :S
The son of god. So god, the holiest, divinest of them all, had a son.
But he forbid his son has a kid of his own? OKay, whatever the nuts
say. god the divenest of them all can have a kid, but it'll ruin his
kid's own divinity to have a kid? Ooh, one too many spoonfools of
Cooc Puffs.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295189 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 13:55 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> Toon wrote:
> > 1st Ammendment. Freedom of Religion. Unless you're in an all
> > Christian/Catholic/etc school, it's illegal to tell them to ban a book
> > your religious beliefs tell you should be banned. other religion's
> > followers might have no problems whatsoever with HP You can't tell
> > them they can't read it because you think your religion tells you to
> > disapprove of it.
>
> She has the right to try to have the book removed from any library she
> supports or her kids go to and you too have the right to try to have
> included any book you wish.
>
> Not having a certain book in a certain library is not quite the same as "You
> can't tell them they can't read it". Many of my favorite books I read in
> High School was not in the library such as "The Night Therou Spent In Jail".
>
> EVERY book in the library and every book not in the library someone decided
> to include or not include. Because every school library could not have [and
> should not have] every book ever written, this will always be the case. Who
> ever makes these decisions [one person or a group] are affected by their
> religion, politics, heritage, etc.
>
> Ken
THANK you. A little common sense. Every school library has to have
standards and has to exclude books. EVERYONE has the right to an
opinion on those standards. Even religious people. How is THIS
undemocratic or unconstitutional?
Basically, we all want students to have access to what is enriching,
and to be protected from what is harmful. Mallory disagrees with us
about what is harmfull. Let's all stop acting like she is the Next
Great Threat to Democracy just because of this. That is not what I
call a very democratic attitude.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295199 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 17:16 |
|
<nystulc [at] cs.com> wrote in message
news:1151990481.511764.33840 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
> the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
> Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
> anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
I'm not sure what mean by "what anti-catholics are shouting at the
Catholics."
> Uh.. No. The Da Vince Code does not claim that Jesus had a child out
> of wedlock with a prostitute. It claims that Jesus was married to Mary
> Magdelene, that she was pregnant with Jesus' child at the time of
> Jesus' death.
I'm aware of what the book says. I was just pointing out that it has been
suggested that she was a prostitute by others.
> Brown claims that it was normal and expected for Jewish men, including
> religious teachers, to be married. He claims, therefore, that Jesus
> must have been married to Mary Magdalene.
Well, that's how Brown views the universe in his book. He's entiltled to
his opinion. I'm not going to defend him.
> The reason why (according to Brown) this challenges the very heart of
> Christianity/Catholicism, is that (according to Brown)
> Catholicism/Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine and not human,
> and that (according to Brown) if Jesus were to have sex, it would prove
> that Jesus was human (and therefore not divine).
Well, a lot of people do pray to Jesus and do believe he is divine and not
human. And if Jesus did have sex, I do suppose that could anger some as it
would deeply challenge their beliefs.
> Brown also claims that the Catholic church slandered Magdelene by
> calling her a prostitute in order to discredit her.
Sounds like a good old conspiracy story. Pick your side and have fun
debating it. Seriously though, this is just Brown's beliefs. Again, I'm
not going to defend it.
> All of Brown's claims (with the partial exception of parts of my second
> paragraph above) are pure fiction, including his claims about what
> Christanity/Catholicism does or does not teach.
I pretty much agree with you, however, I'm sure Brown, along with a lot of
others, don't.
> The mind is like a vacuum. If you have no knowledge on
> a subject, your ideas will be formed by the little you know, no matter
> how much you are aware that the source is unrealiable.
This is true to some extent. If you know nothing about a topic, obviously
the first thing you read will form your first idea. The difference is if
you use that as your only source of information, or do you do a little more
research and reading and find information that differs or challenges what
you know. I prefer the latter.
>The Da Vince Code contains reams of misinformation in one context or
>another. It is
> true that, as in the Da Vinci Code, the Louvre is in Paris, but that is
> really about it as far as reliable background info is concerned.
Just like there's a train station in London for HP or a space shuttle launch
facility in Florida for the movie Armageddon. But I have yet to find that
magical Platform 9 3/4 or the shuttles Freedom and Independence.
> Alot of ignorant people, who have read the Da Vinci Code, like to spout
> about it being only a work of fiction, so what's the big deal? Talk to
> them for any length of time, however, and you will realize that they
> have swallowed alot of its phony background information though it were
> Gospel Truth.
Well, that's their problem now isn't it. Look outside and you will see a
planet full of people who believe one thing or another based on unreliable
or phony information. Personally, I actually enjoy talking with my friends,
speculating if Jesus had a kid and it is being hushed up by some secret
group just like I enjoy speculating with my friends how we would survive if
an asteroid the size of texas was going to slam into the pacific or if
zombies (from Dawn of the Dead) started to roam the earth. I also like
speculating what house I'd be in if I lived in JKR's universe and went to
Hogwarts, or what would be my favourite class. However, at the end of the
day, all those topics come from fictional sources.
> I would be tempted to suspect that you belong in this category, if it
> were not for the indications that you have not even read the Da Vinci
> Code.
Ahh, now we're getting to what appears to be upsetting you. Okay...I'll
humour you. Yes, I've read the DaVinci Code. No, I haven't swallowed the
phony background as if it was the Gospel Truth. And I don't recall posting
anything here to suggest that I did. All I said that there were a lot of
people who got their gaunch in a knot over it. Just like there's a lot of
christians/catholics getting bent out of shape about HP. They're both
fictional stories. 'Nuf said.
>> Besides, if it was proven tomorrow that Jesus really did have a kid, I
>> don't
>> think my life would change too much, nor would I renounce my religion.
>
> That would be Catholicism?
Beats me. I just know what I believe wouldn't change too much.
Kenny
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295200 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 17:20 |
|
"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
news:gt7ka29gfbet1fsj8cmnf1qqpsjaebfnir [at] 4ax.com...
> Anybody else bothered by the fact Jesus allegedly married/knocked
> up/was involved with a woman with his Mommy's name? Oedipus Complex
> or what? bad enough he tries to be like his father, now he's after
> his mother sexually? And taking an interesting twist in it.
Ha ha, no wonder the church is trying to cover it up...
Kenny
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295205 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 19:02 |
|
[nystulc [at] cs.com] said
> Kenny wrote:
> > "pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
> > > When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> > > best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....?
>
> I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
> the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
> Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
> anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
>
So if someone points out a catholic is shouting bollocks then they are
an "anti-catholic"... It's all coming out in this thread, innit. :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295206 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 19:09 |
|
Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:09:23 GMT, "Kenny"
> <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
> >it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
> >Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
>
> Can someone tells me how this affects his candidacy for Messiah and
> his ability to save people?
It affects it because it would prove the gospels are wrong.
> Is it against the rules of messiah hood
> to father out of wedlock (or be married and a daddy?) will a
> significant number of people refuse salvation because Jesus Jr existed
> after all? How does this affect people to be such a bad thing?
Because it would prove that the Bible is fiction and that organised
religion, Catholicism in particular, have been telling lies in order to
hold control over their congregation.
It would quite simply blow Christianity straight up to heaven and then
right back to hell.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295207 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 19:39 |
|
pooter escribió:
> Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:09:23 GMT, "Kenny"
>> <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
>>> Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
>> Can someone tells me how this affects his candidacy for Messiah and
>> his ability to save people?
>
> It affects it because it would prove the gospels are wrong.
>
>> Is it against the rules of messiah hood
>> to father out of wedlock (or be married and a daddy?) will a
>> significant number of people refuse salvation because Jesus Jr existed
>> after all? How does this affect people to be such a bad thing?
>
> Because it would prove that the Bible is fiction and that organised
> religion, Catholicism in particular, have been telling lies in order to
> hold control over their congregation.
>
> It would quite simply blow Christianity straight up to heaven and then
> right back to hell.
>
Not. You got t wrong; it's not about Christianity or the Bible but about
Jesus himself. Jesus is supposed to be a divine higher being that came
to earth to teach a message, have powers, bla bla blah. The Bible we
know now is about this aspect of Jesus, whether real or not, even when
is a contradiction about what the Church and Catechism itself teaches:
"that Jesus was exactly like us, except that he didn't commit sins".
Now, I know many people (mostly around my age: 24/25) who doesn't care
at all whether Jesus was married or not, because we know that is his
message was what was important. After all, having a child is something
humans do everyday. Whatsoever, there are extreme people, mostly of them
quite older; some other not, who might not tolerate the image of Jesus
being humanised, and their faith might collapse. What the church fears
is the reaction of this people. But as I told you, mostly of us don't care.
It has nothing to do with the Gospels, but about the Gospels' main
character's private life. And mostly of them aren't exactly about him as
a man, so, no problem. But, as stated above, many people wouldn't like
to have their faith based on what an 'ordinary man' did.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295213 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:01 |
|
pooter wrote:
> [nystulc [at] cs.com] said
> > Kenny wrote:
> > > "pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
> > > > When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> > > > best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....
> >
> > I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
> > the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
> > Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
> > anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
>
> So if someone points out a catholic is shouting bollocks then they are
> an "anti-catholic"... It's all coming out in this thread, innit. :-)
No, Pooter. I don't think that was what I was trying to say at all.
However, if you think that is what I really was saying, you are going
to have to elaborate. Why do you think that we are really discussing
"Catholics shouting bollocks" and reasonable people being called
"anti-Catholic" for pointing out the truth?
I am sure you must have specific reasons for believing your statement
is applicable in this context, because I do not want to think you are a
bigot. I do not want to think you are the type of person who would
assume, automatically, that anything bad that people say about
Catholics must automatically be true, and anything they try to say to
defend themselves must, automatically, be "bollocks".
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295215 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:05 |
|
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> I find it amazing that many of the challenges against the HP books are
> initiated by people who have never even read the books in their
> entirety.
Speaking of challenges, it would really be a funny coincidence
if a character that is (accidentally, of course) named identically
to Laura Mallory would show up in fanfics...
-Chris
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295216 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:06 |
|
drusilla [me [at] me.net] said
> pooter escribió:
> > Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
> >> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:09:23 GMT, "Kenny"
> >> <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> it challenges the very heart of catholicism -- that
> >>> Jesus had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute.
> >> Can someone tells me how this affects his candidacy for Messiah and
> >> his ability to save people?
> >
> > It affects it because it would prove the gospels are wrong.
> >
> >> Is it against the rules of messiah hood
> >> to father out of wedlock (or be married and a daddy?) will a
> >> significant number of people refuse salvation because Jesus Jr existed
> >> after all? How does this affect people to be such a bad thing?
> >
> > Because it would prove that the Bible is fiction and that organised
> > religion, Catholicism in particular, have been telling lies in order to
> > hold control over their congregation.
> >
> > It would quite simply blow Christianity straight up to heaven and then
> > right back to hell.
> >
>
> Not. You got t wrong; it's not about Christianity or the Bible but about
> Jesus himself. Jesus is supposed to be a divine higher being that came
> to earth to teach a message, have powers, bla bla blah. The Bible we
> know now is about this aspect of Jesus, whether real or not, even when
> is a contradiction about what the Church and Catechism itself teaches:
> "that Jesus was exactly like us, except that he didn't commit sins".
>
> Now, I know many people (mostly around my age: 24/25) who doesn't care
> at all whether Jesus was married or not, because we know that is his
> message was what was important. After all, having a child is something
> humans do everyday. Whatsoever, there are extreme people, mostly of them
> quite older; some other not, who might not tolerate the image of Jesus
> being humanised, and their faith might collapse. What the church fears
> is the reaction of this people. But as I told you, mostly of us don't care.
>
> It has nothing to do with the Gospels, but about the Gospels' main
> character's private life. And mostly of them aren't exactly about him as
> a man, so, no problem. But, as stated above, many people wouldn't like
> to have their faith based on what an 'ordinary man' did.
You seem to have misunderstood me.
If the stories that Jesus had a child, and these stories have been
around for hundreds of years, were proved to be true then that would
blow the church apart because it would prove the church had lied, and if
they have lied about that, what else have they lied about....
You have to remember that the story of Jesus Christ only exists because
of Bible, and because of The Church.
Bbbbbbooooooommmmmmm!!!!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295217 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:21 |
|
pooter wrote:
> If the stories that Jesus had a child, and these stories have been
> around for hundreds of years, were proved to be true then that would
> blow the church apart because it would prove the church had lied, and if
> they have lied about that, what else have they lied about....
I believe there was something else, with a sun, and a planet,
and how they were spinning around each other. But then it may
as well have been that thing with the disc resting on a giant
turtle being carried by four elephants...
> You have to remember that the story of Jesus Christ only exists because
> of Bible, and because of The Church.
>
> Bbbbbbooooooommmmmmm!!!!!!
Oh no, not again. Now the white mice will have a lot of work
to start all over again :)
-Chris
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295218 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:29 |
|
[nystulc [at] cs.com] said
> pooter wrote:
> > [nystulc [at] cs.com] said
> > > Kenny wrote:
> > > > "pooter" <a [at] bff.com> wrote in message
> > > > > When Catholicism takes issue with something it can shout as load as the
> > > > > best of them. Dare I mention the Da Vinci Code....
> > >
> > > I would say, with respect to the Da Vinci Code and similar issues, that
> > > the Catholics are losing the shouting match. Nobody knows what the
> > > Catholics are shouting ... they just think they do, based on what
> > > anti-Catholics are shouting about the Catholics.
> >
> > So if someone points out a catholic is shouting bollocks then they are
> > an "anti-catholic"... It's all coming out in this thread, innit. :-)
>
> No, Pooter. I don't think that was what I was trying to say at all.
> However, if you think that is what I really was saying, you are going
> to have to elaborate. Why do you think that we are really discussing
> "Catholics shouting bollocks" and reasonable people being called
> "anti-Catholic" for pointing out the truth?
>
> I am sure you must have specific reasons for believing your statement
> is applicable in this context, because I do not want to think you are a
> bigot. I do not want to think you are the type of person who would
> assume, automatically, that anything bad that people say about
> Catholics must automatically be true, and anything they try to say to
> defend themselves must, automatically, be "bollocks".
>
>
You use the phrase "anti-catholic" and you call *me* a bigot.
LOL!
But anyways. A bigot is someone who has an unreasonable dislike (look it
up) and I can assure you that my dislike of *all* religion is totally
reasonable.
But that is irrelevant and why you decided to use such an ugly word in
you failed attempt to try to discredit someone who read the words you
yourself wrote, took them at face value and then remarked on their
hypocrisy, is between you and your conscience.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295230 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 02:00 |
|
Fish Eye no Miko <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
>
>> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
>> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
>> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
>> wedlock with a prostitute.
>
> No.
> According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
> married.
I've heard that at the time of Jesus only a married man could be considered
a Rabbi.
> Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
> btw.
Her being his wife makes it perfectly reasonable to be visiting his tomb
with his mother.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295231 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 02:08 |
|
Toon <toon [at] toon.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:06 -0700, "Fish Eye no Miko"
> <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
>>Kenny wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I'll agree that there were a bunch of Catholics who got
>>> their undies in a knot over that because it challenges the very heart of
>>> catholicism -- that Jesus had a child out of
>>> wedlock with a prostitute.
>>
>>No.
>>According to the book, Mary wasn't a prostitute, and she and Jesus were
>>married.
>>
>>Catherine Johnson. And there's no Biblical proof Mary was a prostitute,
>>btw.
>
>
> Anybody else bothered by the fact Jesus allegedly married/knocked
> up/was involved with a woman with his Mommy's name? Oedipus Complex
> or what? bad enough he tries to be like his father, now he's after
> his mother sexually? And taking an interesting twist in it.
Depends how common a name "Mary" was then.
|
|
|
| Re: Why It's UnConsitutional To Ban Harry Potter [message #295232 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:09 |
|
Christian Winter wrote:
> wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > I find it amazing that many of the challenges against the HP books are
> > initiated by people who have never even read the books in their
> > entirety.
>
> Speaking of challenges, it would really be a funny coincidence
> if a character that is (accidentally, of course) named identically
> to Laura Mallory would show up in fanfics...
>
> -Chris
LOL...It would definitely depend on what type of character she was
portrayed as! :-)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 05:08:45 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,17863 Sekunden |
