176 new of 236 responses total.
I thought Rocky and Bullwinkle was a cute movie. It was better than I thought it would be.
Someone mentioned _Dogma_ 'way back there. We saw it this week and were tickled all the way through. It was so much fun for us because it felt just like playing a well-refereed game of *In Nomine*. I kept looking at Kenn and asking, "When did you write this? And where are the royalties?" A blast.
I saw Scary Movie last night. Oi vey... *snort*
Was it funny? I was thinking I might eventually rent it. I dont know if I want to pay $8 to see it.
It had its moments and was fun but is a lot of humor that doesn't really appeal to me. Farting and some really gross stuff. I would just rent it.
There is fart humor in it!?! OH happyboy...did you hear that? It sounds like we should go see it or at least rent it. *snort*
I liked Scary Movie. It was fun. Some parts of it were just sick and wrong though,
The gloryhole scene was a bit much, and the spoof on American Beauty
...
Yeah...and the snot, the ejaculation, the penis through the head. Oi! *trauma* :)
i saw "patriot" last nite. what a bloody piece of cheez whiz. it reminded me of the abctv movie of the week (read disease of the week) movies. every and i do mean every thing in the movie was telegraphed. more suitable for "history for kids" on the history channel - except it's a tad too gory for that. i loved the cannon ball taking that guy's head off. highlight of the film. made me nostalgic for pacino's "revolution" which sucked almost as much.
But jerryr, it has Mel Gibson in it. Hubba hubba
well, there is that. he wasn't terrible, but he had one cornball script to work with. it was like an amateur production of zorro meets saving private ryan.
X-MEN-- this should have been made into a movie a long time ago. A good flick that fairly well resembles the comic books. Patrick Stewart, one of my favorite actors, as the leader of the X-men, Professor X, and Ian McKellan as arch-nemisis mutant leader Magneto. Best thing about the movie is the makeup and special effects. The director of X-men, Bryan Singer who did "Usual Suspects", is quoted as saying they couldnt have done this movie five years ago because the technology wasnt there to do the effects necessary to really showcase the mutants powers. Anyway, X-men is a lot of fun. Supposedly all the actors are signed for two more X-men movies too! (*** stars out of 4)
would someone who has absolootly no clue about the content of the comic books like this film?
Yes...there are a couple inside jones (and Stan Lee makes a cameo) but I went with a couple friends who were not fans of the Comic and they really liked it....hell I didn't remember that much from the comic and I liked it.
k. thanx.
I had never read the comic books and didn't know anything about the characters and really enjoyed the movie. There was one part that I *KNEW* was an inside joke but I had to ask my wife about it... Wolverine says something about the uniforms they're supposed to wear, and Cyclops says "What would you prefer, yellow spandex?" Adrienne still has a wolverine action figure from ages ago. It's missing one set of claws.
Yep...that's one of 'em...;-)
Since I was visiting, this weekend, with my sister Maureen and my ten-year-old nephew Ramsey, I wound up seeing "X-Men". Not a brilliant movie by any stretch of the imagination, but an enjoyable enough action movie, and much better than normal for comic book adaptations. Hardcore fans of the comic will no doubt be appalled at the mixing and matching from different eras of the comic's existence, but as a former occasional comic reader, I thought they did a decent job balancing the weight of twenty years of soap-opera-like episodic continuity with the narrative constraints of a 100 minute movie. To answer the question posed in #74: My sister apparently enjoyed it, and she definitely falls into the "absolutely no clue about the comic books" category.
been waiting for x-men to be made into a movie since i was 12 years old.
countless sleepovers were spent composing the best possible cast of actors
for said hypothetical movie. rarely did we cast anyone but patrick stewart
as professor x. i recall one evening jim gose suggested kojak would make a
better xavier, and nobody ever talked to him again.
it's a slick sci-fi/special effects/action/adventure flick for anyone who
wants to go roller coaster riding, but those who don't know and don't care
about the comic book won't appreciate
a) the inside jokes, of which there are several ranging from the
self-mocking (like the yellow spandex) to the coy (key characters
with huge fan-bases from the comic slipped in very, very briefly,
like kitty pryde)
b) the surprising faithfulness to the development of many stories
and characters in the last 30 years of the comic, particularly
with wolverine, one of the most complex and easily overdone
characters in the history of comics, they managed to not fuck him
up, maintaining many facets: his animosity with summers, his
doggin after jean grey, the bond he's forced into with rogue
because of her power, the weapon x project, his relation to
sabretooth ... cyclops was done perfectly ... other odds and
ends surprising from hollywood.
c) the red carpet being rolled out for sequels galore: already i'm
fantasizing about a whole movie devoted to weapon x, another
devoted to phoenix ... already i fantasize about future wolverine
sub-plots, all of which will involve his heart warming up to yet
another young x-man girl (shadowcat, jubilee)
everyone go see x-men so they make lots of money and then make lots of
sequels.
$54.5 Million the first weekend. How's that?
"Scary Movie" - laughed out loud through most of it and had a lot of fun catching movie references. Since I didn't get the end reference, Joe made me rent "Usual Suspects". Also a damn good movie. =)
yay I love usual suspects.
resp:81 yeah, i saw that. kind of surprising.
re mcnally - my wife, a bonafide xmen addict from back in the day *LOVED* the movie... she had comic-books galore, action figures, and apparently even spent some time driving around southern michigan looking for back-issues when she was 16. So I wouldn't assume that x-men fanatics will be in an "uproar" about anything..
I just saw X-Men this evening, and quite enjoyed it.
I saw 'X-Men' for the second time last night, and still highly enjoyed it. The person I was with had quite a few complaints but overall enjoyed it a great deal. One of his complaints was that some of the writing was quite brilliant while other bits were 'gimmies' and aimed too much at mass appeal- leading him to think there were two writers, a great one and a mediocre one. We'd both like to see some sort of director's cut, or maybe the DVD will show some cut scenes. Overall I'm looking forward to any future movies and hope to see more character development.
Saw "American Beauty" for the second time last night. This time, I noticed something. In the scene where Lester is at work, there is a tiny sign on his cubicle that says "Look Closer". Cool...
I just saw "Coyote Ugly"....from what I've read this is suppose to be based on real people and a real bar (it was written about in GQ back in 97'). anyways, it was pretty good. The girl from "Rockey and Bullwinkle" is in this movie..she looked pretty sleazy, but in a good way. :) and Maria Bello from the movie "Payback" is in this too, she looks looks pretty good too.
I'm goin to see them Space Cows tonight.
i saw them. they should have been left out in the pasture. it was "armageddon" side-ways. ilm did an ok job with the effects, but the storyline was as lame as they come.
I saw Space Cows. What a waste of good actors.
Oh good grief, it is a summer movie... no one expects anything from summer movies. At least, I don't. I had a lot of laughs and thought it was fun. Plus, that Ethan guy was way hot. ;)
I've heard from several sources that "Space Cowboys" has a split personality. First half is Grumpy Old Astronauts and not too bad, second half tries to be serious, with opinions varying on how successful it is. Haven't seen it myself.
if by "not too bad" you mean "entirely predictable" i'd have to agree. there is one sight gag reminiscent of a recent import that had the audience laughing out loud (with some exceptions) that i hope was a paean but i suspect was just a gimmick to get a cheap laugh. but, mayhap i am being too harsh on "a summer movie"
Jerryr is sensitive about comedy involving "dirty old men." ;)
hey now!
coyote ugly is based on a realbar that is based out in the fringes of the lower west end in the factory district called "Hogs and Heifers" A country bar in nyc tends to stand out-- was quite hip a few years ago
space truckers
Coyote Ugly - This movie has a very predictable plot, but gets points for style. I liked it. It was a good excuse to turn off my brain for a while.
Has anyone ever seen David Lynch's "Wild at heart" with Laura Dern and Nicholas Cage?
yes. nick cage doing his (ugh!) patented elvis impersonation. laura dern topless. honestly that's all i remember about it besides the fact it isn't among my favs.
it was ok. i prefer jarmausch (sp).
what's that barry?
"Let's go for a ride, peanut"
YOU HEARD ME!!!
105 slipped.
i's gonna aszoom he miens jim jarmusch, dewrecktor bourne in the bahttim of a barryl o' bergen.
Ok, thanks..
"wild At Heart" was a fun Lynch movie, but not very good.
Caught the restored "Blood Simple" at the Michigan Theater the other night. It's the Coen brothers' first movie, and I'd managed to miss it all these years despite being a Coen brothers fan. Well worth the wait -- a truly delicious (but be forewarned, very violent) black comedy of errors. M. Emmet Walsh is great as the sleazy private eye.
m. emmet walsh plays sleazy as well as james woods plays crazy.
I saw "Running Mates" on TNT last night. It was an interesting behind-the-scenes political movie, but more fluff than drama. I liked Laura Linney's performance as the campaign manager. I also liked that the trailers showed that Pryce (Tom Selleck) had multiple affairs, but didn't make it a major part of the plot. Instead it focused more on special interests. It wasn't cutting-edge drama, but it was entertaining.
I saw Coyote Ugly. Yuck. The femmes were gorgeous, but that was about it. The acting was ridiculous, a given and I was not even sure that there was a plot other than "shake ya ass, show me whatchew workin' wit" Do not waste money on this movie, donate it to my "Save the Ferns" fund.
I saw "Space Coyboys" a few weeks ago when it first came out. It was amazing. Truly great. If I could afford it, I would see it again and again.
I thought it was a cute movie, but it got too "cute" with the 'Cocoon-esque' happy-go-lucky attitude about turning old. Frankly, watching James Garner try to run pained me, and seeing an old Donald Sutherland trying to climb out of an air-suit was just enough to show that there is no way in the world they could've survived the G-force to exit the atmosphere. The movie would've been better had their escorts to the great beyond been the Budweiser girls and the russian missle satellite been Dr.Evil's Big Boy rocket.
"Coyote Ugly" was *supposed* to be eye candy, qui1. =) You wanted acting and a plot?!? Heh...
There is a video/DVD called 'Earthlight' of pictures from orbit. However, it is not easily available. Would be great for people wowed by the Space Cowboy views from orbit.
Or you can go to the IMax and see it in surround view.
it's available from several sources, in two different editions. do a search at http://www.dvdpricesearch.com
Or you can just flip on the NASA channel at night.
i saw "art of war" tonite. not a bad popcorn muncher. totally predictable but i wasn't expecting shakespeare.
http://www.capalert.com/ Make sure you check out the movie reviews! Hahahahahahahaha Scary Movie got 0 out of 100. This site is not a joke. :P
Scary Movie was hillarious. I'm not going to waste my time going to that site.
I thought it was pretty funny, and we had fun trying to see if we could recognize all of the movies they parodied.
Hey Tod, that site is almost as funny as Scary Movie. hee hee ;)
-- Thomas A. Carder President ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP) A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian Ministry
re#123 & 126: Stacie, what exactly is it that you object to about a site that 'reviews' movies from a conservative christian perspective to point out issues for discussion that one might have? Do you feel the same way about Leiberman's views on 'Hollywood and the Movies'? If not why not? I'm sure there are advocacy sites that review media and literature to advocate any number of views such as NAMBLA, bestiality, incest, etc.. Why did you choose to ridicule that particular one? I've read it a little, it seemed rather harmless. Maybe I missed the part where the site advocated vandalizing patrons of 'banned' movies by throwing red paint on them or something like that.... There used to be something in this country called a 'first amendment' that prohibited among other things the establishment of a 'state religion'. It has been apparently replaced at some point by one requiring the establishment of a 'state religion' of 'atheism' or 'anti-religious' and prohibiting the expression of any organized traditional faith unless it happens to be a nominal one but of a highly vocal minority...the peyote church or the rastamans for example.
Recently saw "Art of War." I'd give it a B (rather generous). The beginning was excellent, lots of promise offered that wasn't followed up on very well. The martial arts scenes (as someone knowledgeable explained) were done accurately and the 'mistakes' made were realistic and logical. The Hollywood people who took over the original screenplay messed with it to the point where it was hard to really care about any of the characters. Wesley Snipes did very well though, as did the woman playing his Chinese sidekick. Sadly, the main plot point just wasn't that well written in. Fun action though, and some of the humorous lines were excellent. The main FBI agent was a hell of a lot of fun and got a lot of the best lines.
re #128: I assume you're being intentionally obtuse, but the whole idea that you can't express a negative opinion on something without qualifying it with clarifications outlining everything else you happen to be opposed to is just silly. The fact that Stacie doesn't mention NAMBLA, bestiality, or Senator Lieberman in her response should not encourage you to simply take your best guess at what her position might be and read that into her text. I'm also not sure how you got from "Stacie was amused by that movie review site" to "society wants to outlaw religion." Again, I assume you're being intentionally illogical here, but as there are people who make such statements and seem to expect to be taken seriously, I'm not quite sure what to think..
The second observation is related only by subject with the first. There are many opportunities today to make the second observation.
I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who really believes it. At the very least, anyone who thinks that the US populace is blatantly hostile towards public professions of religious belief has been watching a presidential campaign very different than the one in my universe.
Cinema 40 <-> Agora 112 Sorry it took me so long to link this, but better late than never;)
That's part of why it is so hard to understand why so much effort is going into outlawing religious expression. And it also explains why it's the courts, and not the legislature, doing the outlawing.
I'm sure we've been olver this argument before, but the courts are hardly outlawing religious expression. The courts have said pretty consistently that government agencies, including schools, can't sponsor religion. As such, students aren't forced to participate in activities related to the dominant religion or religions in school. But if anybody were to try to ban individual religious expression, the courts, ACLU, and so forth would be pretty resolutely against that ban as well.
re#135: It that what the constitution said? Last time I looked that there 'constitional' thingy prohibited an establishment of a 'state religion'. A 'strict constructionist' would claim that while it ment that while 'connecticut' might recognize 'gay marriage' it could not impose its 'religious view' on Utah which has a rather different religious tradition...A 'liberal' interpretation of the Constitution might be that a US citizen from Florida or Texas with a legal 'CCW' permit from either must be allowed to carry such in any other 'state'. The courts *are* outlawing individual religious expression as well as all other 'states rights'. They are. I don't have to make up hypothetical situations. There are more than enough in the current media.(biased as it is)
*Individual* religious expression is private prayer, private contemplation of whatever, following of various rites and rules, etc. As long as it is individual (your word), there is no constitutional violation. Any forms of religious expression that are not individual - that are forced upon others so they cannot enjoy their own individual rights without being bothered by others - is what I read the constitution to forbid. What INDIVIDUAL - not public or forced upon the public, but solely practiced individually - religious expression is forbidden anywhere? By the way - the phrase 'state religion' does not appear in the constitution.
The word used in the first amendment is "establish", which at that time meant "state religion." The thing being banned was the Church of Virginia, the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, and so on so forth: there would NOT be a Church of the United States. Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is.
It certainly is - and the Supreme Court is correct. The whole object of that part of the 1st amendment is to prevent religious observances from being forced upon citizens. This has been contentious (and a source of enormous human misery) from the beginning of human civilizations, where the "church" was an arm of government, and cruelly suppressed all opposition.
If a kid going to school has to sit and pray with the rest of the class, it
makes very little practical difference whether the kid is told that the prayer
is part of being a good person, a universal belief in the Christian God, or
the Church of Burns Park Elementary. It's still the school dictating
("establishing") religion for its students. Since public schools are
considered to be government actors, when a school religion is established,
a government religion is established. Likewise, if a school official were
to declare to their students that there is no god, that would be a school
establishment of atheism, and would also probably be illegal.
But that's all about schools, and to a lesser extent other government
agencies, doing things in an official capacity. If an individual wants to
talk about their religion, or pray, or whatever, they can do so as openly as
they want, as long as they're not creating a disruption of the sort that would
be banned if the content were non-religious. If a student wants to pray
quietly at their desk, and it's not interfering with the rest of the class,
that's not illegal. If a student wants to pray out loud at recess, when the
other kids are running around talking about whatever they want, it would be
illegal to stop them. Where the problem comes in is when somebody wants the
rest of the class to pray along with them, since doing so would involve the
class, and by extension the school and the government, establishing a class
religion.
The Constitution doesn't spell that out all that explicitly. It doesn't spell
out anything else all that explicitly either. There is more than 200 years
of case law interpreting the Constitution, and the recent caselaw is pretty
consistent on this.
But the recent caselaw is all wrong. The recent caselaw is *explicitly establishing Atheism as the State religion.* Exactly as you note: Atheists can force us to go along with *their* views, by requiring our silence.
"Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is." i'm confused. i thought the job of the supreme court was to say just that. yea or nay. what system of government do you live under, gelinas?
Atheism does not require silence and atheists only call for silence where it is generally required, like libraries, movie theatres, etc. It is ONLY the constitution that requires that there be no official public support of religious observances, or interference with an individuals exercise of religious practices in private (or among solely like minded groups). If it didn't, then atheists in power could forbid religious observances anywhere and any time. Is that what you want?
re #141: I'm sorry, but the courts are not forcing you to be silent at all. You can pray and observe all you want. You just can't do it at government-sponsored events and in facilities paid for by the government. And that's the way it should be.
Jerry, the Supreme Court establishes and interprets the laws. That doesn't make them right. ;) Rane, Dan, we will just have to disagree. We've been over this ground before, and neither is going to convince the other. God is present at graduations and such. To not admit that, and to not welcome it, is just wrong. It may be legal, but it is still wrong.
They establish laws? Wow, that's news to me. Nothing stops you from praying in school. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it would probably be a violation of your constitutional rights if the government tried to prevent you from praying in school.
Yes, we disagree, Joe. I have never seen evidence for gods present at graduation, or anywhere else. There is equally no basis for saying it is "wrong" to perceive this. If you want to believe in supernatural things like gods, that is your privilege, but because some people believe it doesn't make it true, much less a matter of ethics or morality.
re: #145 & 146 ummmm....congress establishes bills, the president signs them into law, the supreme court interpets them. where does one look to be "right?"
I have just observed support for my position from a most unlikely source - the far-right reactionary columnist Cal Thomas. He says, in a column in today's paper, that there is no more justification for having public prayer at football games as there is to hold football games in a church! He also quotes the biblical statement attributed to Jesus, that says prayer should be done by oneself, in private, in one's own chamber, and not in public.
and now if someone would care to explain the link between the star spangled banner and sports?
Tradishuuuuuuuuuun
re 147 - Joe's an agnostic I think, Rane.. he doesn't much "believe" in God or any other supernatural being, near as I can tell.
#145 does not sound "agnostic" - pretty direct assertions of god(s) hanging around varous ceremonies.
Re #148: nope. Congress *enacts* laws, but it is the Court that *establishes* the law, by telling us what Congress what actually meant (no matter what the language of the law; if the Court disagrees, the Court wins). Well, I've only heard Twain's "War Prayer" once, but that was enough to show that he was on the right track. Prayer at a football game is likely to be for a similar purpose. Done right, though . . .
Given the media uproar over Lieberman, I do think we have 'demonized' any conventional expression of religious sentiment of any kind.
I know Congress "enacts" laws, but I have never heard of an authority that any agency has to "establish" laws. You must have invented this new concept about government. All the Supreme Court does is settle disputes over the constitutionality of laws. Are all the laws the Supreme Court does *not* take on for consideration "unestablished" (whatever that means).
perhaps you'd like to share your stash, gelinas?
<remmers finds it odd to be reading this religious discussion in the "film" conference>
Simple..films are about many topics, so many topics get discussed. Or is there a rule that one must just give the name of the movie one saw, and say nothing else?
I rented "Any Given Sunday" on friday. Great football movie. Very honest portrayl of pro football, aging, and egos. Loved it. Al Pachino was and is a god.
The first definition of "establish" is "to make firm or stable," the third is "settle", the first sub-part of the fifth is "to set on a firm basis", and the third sub-part of that same fifth is "to gain full recognition or acceptance of". Sure sounds like what the Supreme Court does with the laws that it chooses to review to me. Oh, and the sixth definition is "to make (a church) a national institution". Allowing prayer does NOT make any church a "national institution."
The dictionary definitions are irrelvant - only the legal definitions are meaningful here. The constitution speaks of laws respecting the "establishment" of religions, but *not of laws*.
Right; the Supreme Court created that all on its own. "Marbury", I think was the case.
but...but...they are tasked with doing that. that's what they do. again, i will ask you....what system would you prefer to make it "right?"
No, they aren't "tasked with doing that". They claimed for themselves the *privilege* of doing so. I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. The Supreme Court often makes bad decisions. Eventually, they (sometimes) get it right the next time around (qv Plessy vs. Fergusson and Brown vs. Board of Education). I can complain about their having made a wrong decision without wanting to discard them. If I do it right, I'll convince enough others that the chances of the Court getting it right, too, will increase.
Joe, would you mind elaborating on what part of these court decisions you think is wrong and why? I'm wondering which things they've banned you think are not state sponsored religious expressions, or which particular things they've permitted you think are, and why? Or if you are saying that the government should conduct official prayers, which religion you think ought to be represented in those prayers, and why. It's a rather weak argument to say that the court is wrong and leave it at that.
Well, the Court has held that any public prayer, other than in a church, is in and of itself an establishment of religion, a making a religion an instrument of the state. I disagree with that view: the people at any given gathering *can* pray together *without* that prayer being an expression of government, governance or the state. Further, if allowing such prayer is an establishment of religion, forbidding it is *also* an establishment of religion, and, even worse if you accept the Court's view, a specific religion: Atheism. Bluntly, the Court has carved out an untenable and unsupportable position. Any way you cut it, They Are Wrong.
Which specific case are you talking about? I'm not aware of any court case saying that a group of people cannot decide to pray together while not in church. In the cases I'm aware of, the courts have said that the leaders of government sponsored gatherings cannot lead their audience in a prayer, and that they can't permit a specific prayer while banning other speech. If there were a gathering where people were just talking freely, saying whatever they wanted, and they were prevented from praying, I'm sure the court would have a problem with that as well. I fail to see how this is an enforcement of atheism. I've talked to you in person, and I don't think you suddenly became an atheist during those conversations. And yet, you were somehow able to have a conversation without interrupting it for a prayer. Likewise, if everybody at a school function were required to listen to a school official give a speech about there not being a god, I very much doubt the court would look kindly on that.
Atheism is not a religion. A (not) - theism (god-ism).
Just as the Court found the "right to privacy" (on which it decided Roe vs. Wade) in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights, so too is its position on the establishment of Atheism as the official religion of the United States found in the penumbra of its decisions on the matter: the apparent goal is not neutrality on the question but rather denial that there even is a question: there can be no mention of God (or even gods). No one case sums it up, but each adds to the load that leads to the breaking of the camel's back. Take the most recent decision, on the football game in Texas (and I've not read the decision, merely the reporting of it in the news): students were, in that case, forbidden to lead a prayer. Or so it has been reported. (I rather liked the comment on the matter in tonight's AA News; he said much to agree with. I don't feel like going upstairs, or I'd identify the writer. A syndicated columnist, anyway.) I understand the Court has not yet rendered a decision on Ohio's motto, nor on the attempt to put the United States' motto on some school walls. I do not expect it to affirm either action, *based on how it is has decided all similar questions since 1964* (or thereabouts). The United States is not, nor should it be, a Christian nation. (I don't believe such to be possible, either.) However, neither is it, nor should it be, atheistic. BTW, some would say that the law that admitted Utah to the Union is unconstitutional: it required the banning of a specific practice of a specific religion. On the face of it, that was a prohibited interference with the free practice of that religion.
Yes, it is, Rane: it is the belief that there is no god. Its only cultus may be self-reliance, but that doesn't disqualify it.
I'm not an athiest, but I still think that it's perfectly appropriate and best for government to separate itself from religious practice, and if that means no prayers before school football, that's just fine. In some religions, an appropriate pre-football religious ceremony might involve the sacrifice of a chicken or small goat - I wonder how many of these "pro-school-prayer" groups would be willing to tolerate that? And, for the "bible is the truth" folks, I'd like to point out the old testament has quite a bit of information on the kinds of animal sacrifice that will please God the most. Personally, I'd like to see the "In God We Trust" disappear off of US currency as well. It wasn't there before 1864, and doesn't need to be there today. I'd also like to see the "under god" disappear out of the pledge of allegiance. It wasn't there originally, and there are plenty of religious folks in the US today who believe in more than one god.
I can only speak for myself: if you need to sacrifice a chicken, that's fine. Wellhausen pointed out that the ancient Hebrew word for "sacrifice" meant "butcher for food": one didn't eat unless sharing with one's god.
Yep, no more kosher ballpark franks at Cubs games, thats what it means...
i love this. the court is wrong. having said that, exactly what has changed? they still are the yea and naysayers on this countries laws. whether they carved it out for themselves or were givin a mandate, that's the way it is. now what?
Re #171: no, atheism isn't even a "belief". It is not codified, has no tenets, and has no rites or rituals that adherents must obey. As far as it goes, it is an *observation* that there is zero evidence for supernatural effects or entities (gods). Given zero evidence, it makes no sense to invent such supernatural entities, except to control other people's thoughts and behaviors. This has been done in abundance, throughout history. But that's a sham. The *observation* that there are not gods is also testable - produce some, or some of their purported actions, and put them to a test of reproducibility and absence of human fakery or error. It is illogical to consider the absence of beliefs about supernatural phenomena to be a supernatural belief in the absence. If it is absent, one just forgets about it and acts in accord with the absence. But that is a separate issue from the constitutonal mandate that governments here may not take actions to establish any religion. Not just not one in preference to others, but NONE. That means, no governmental branch, agency, or employees thereof, may take any action (in their official capacity) that promotes any or all religions. There is a lot of ad-hoc violation of this principle (all the symnbolism that Marcus mentions, the congressional chaplains, etc), but fortunately these violations are not taken so far as to impose upon the lives of citizens in really atrocious ways (as does prayer in governmentally sponsored or supported venues).
Personally, I'd like to see an atheist prove that god does NOT exist. Thus, I'm pretty much an agnostic. :)
<nods in agreement with Ric>
re #170: before using the recent Texas football prayer decision to support your position, you might want to read it. Were you aware that the plaintiffs in that case were Catholic and Mormon students who felt that the practice was coercive and hostile towards their religions?
In the Texas case, the school was trying to do an end run around the Constitution by having a student elected by the other students to say "whatever he wanted to say," but which was clearly expected to be a prayer of the community's majority religion. The school's position was that the student wasn't part of the Government. But what is the Government? The Government isn't some magical force that is inherently powerful, but rather a group of people elected by whatever population they govern. The Federal government is elected by the people of the US, and the State governments are elected by the people of those states. From there, the state governments delegate power to smaller local governments, such as school boards, elected by smaller constituencies. The elected governments in turn delegate power to to their employees, elected commissions, unelected commissions, and so forth. In this case the school board had presumably delegated the power to lead the school in prayer to school administrators, who had then delegated that power to a student elected by the other students. The argument that the student wasn't part of the government because he had been elected by the students to a position created by government actors could also be used to argue that any elected official anywhere in the US was not part of the government. It makes no sense. In the Texas case, I seriously doubt the court would have had any problem with a situation where some people were praying, others were talking about other things, or saying different prayers, and anybody who wanted to say "la la la la la" very loudly over the rest of the crowd would have been permitted to do so. Those would all be individual expression. But that's not what was happening. Instead, an elected student official was leading the rest of the assembled student body in a prayer for the majority religion, whether the other students wanted to participate or not.
It is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove a fantastic supernatural myth based upon no evidence whatever. It is incumbent upon people making such claims to prove them - otherwise they should be ignored (or perhaps studied sociologically, as among the strange things people do).
It could also be argued that those wishing to dispute something that's been accepted "common knowledge" for hundreds of years should have proof, but none of that's relevant. I'm pretty much an atheist, because I find it extremely hard to believe that a "god" in the traditional Christian or Jewish sense exists. I don't know to what extent that's really a religious belief, as I don't feel very strongly about it. I'm certainly somewhat mystified when I hear news stories about that missing woman who was supposedly the leader of the atheists, since I can't imagine atheists being enough of a group to have somebody lead us in our atheism. But in the context of religious freedom, it makes very little sense to think of atheism, agnosticism, and the like as anything but religions. Religious freedom is the freedom to believe what you want to believe, whether that's a belief that everything the leader of some established religion says is true, a personal belief in a god or set of gods and how that god or gods wants you to live, a belief that no such gods exist, or any other set of religious convictions. As such, for the government to declare the nonexistence of any god, or of a certain god, would be just as inappropriate as it would be for the government to declare that a god exists.
It may not be 'incumbent' on anyone to disprove a 'myth' but that tends to be because you can't.
Doesn't something like 95% of the human population of this earth believe in some sort of "supernatural being" (or beings?) And it's been that way for thousands of years, not hundreds of years.
Governments shouldn't, ideally, be in the philosophy business.
Well, they could always do what I was taught to do when someone other than my religion was saying a prayer, put your hand behind your back and stand there quietly until they were done praying.
Most of the "supernatural beings" that humans have believed in since we evolved into existence (100,000 years ago +/-), no one today believes in any longer, because they (the supernatural beings) never did anything for anyone (except as myths to prop up various potentates and dynasties). This is still true today. Humans have also believed in numerous other untruths: flat earth, celestial sphere, Ptolemaic cosmology, luminiferous ether (these being all quite recent). Humans are extremely gullible.
Every early society that I can think of, however, had supersitions,
taboos, and it's own pantheon. Why would *every* society have these same
features, and why would there not be an athiestic or cynical early society
there to beat them at the games that cultures play?
Most of the other things that you mentioned, Rane, have been proved to be untruths. Nobody has proven that there isn't a god.
(jazz slipped in)
If you have a slippery definition, then it's not possible - "prove
that something which you can't see, feel, taste, hear, or smell, and no
instrument or technology can detect through any means whatsoever exists".
You can tackle the question edge-wise and disprove a certain theology,
though there's not much point to it, because proving to someone that their
faith is unfounded with historical arguments and logic is like arguing with
a horse in Urdu. But it is possible, for instance, to disprove the popular
conception of God in mainstream Christian society.
Because everyone knows that you must argue with a horse in *Marathi*!
Some Important Theological Questions are Answered if we think of God
as a Computer Programmer.
Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step through
all those variables.
Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier revs.
Q: Does God know everything?
A: He likes to think so, but he is often amazed to find out what goes
on in the overnite job.
Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages him automatically and
he logs on from home to try to bring it up. Otherwise things can wait
until tomorrow.
Q: Did God really create the world in seven days?
A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and candy
bars. On the seventh day he went home and found out his girlfriend
had left him.
Q: How come the Age of Miracles Ended?
A: That was the development phase of the project, now we are in the
maintenance phase.
Q: Will there be another Universe after the Big Bang?
A: A lot of people are drawing things on the white board, but
personally, God doubts that it will ever be implemented.
Q: Who is Satan?
A: Satan is an MIS director who takes credit for more powers than he
actually possesses, so people who aren't programmers are scared of
him. God thinks of him as irritating but irrelevant.
Q: What is the role of sinners?
A: Sinners are the people who find new and imaginative ways to mess
up the system when God has made it idiot-proof.
Q: Where will I go after I die?
A: Onto a DAT tape.
Q: Will I be reincarnated?
A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And searching
those .tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a request for you,
God will just say that the tape has been lost.
Q: Am I unique and special in the universe?
A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites running
exact duplicates of you in the present release version.
Q: What is the purpose of the universe?
A: God created it because he values elegance and simplicity, but then
the users and managers demanded he tack all this senseless stuff onto
it and now everything is more complicated and expensive than ever.
Q: If I pray to God, will he listen?
A: You can waste his time telling him what to do, or you can just get
off his back and let him program.
Q: What is the one true religion?
A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so just pick
the one that best suits your needs and don't let anyone put you down.
Q: Is God angry that we crucified him?
A: Let's just say he's not going to any more meetings if he can help
it, because that last one with the twelve managers and the food turned
out to be murder.
Q: How can I protect myself from evil?
A: Change your password every month and don't make it a name, a common
word, or a date like your birthday.
Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this true?
A: They are much more likely to receive email.
Q: Some people say God is Love.
A: That is not a question. Please restate your query in the form of
a question.
Re #188: Because of ignorance. I think that humans evolved to *want* to believe in superstitions. For one thing, they had no other explanations for the multitudes of mysteries around them - in effect, they did not know for millenia what anything was or why anything happened. Assuming explanations and holding to them would have "solved" this cunumdrum for early humans, and that is likely to have had survival benefits. Even if the relation between actions and consequences were random, coincidences would still have fortified beliefs that certain actions had desirable consequences, and they would have been repeated until they became traditions. For example, Rain Dances. Sometimes it rains, and sometimes people like to dance, and sometimes they coincide: so why not try that dance again? One can see how all sorts of rites and rituals would become established, and eventually codified in "religons". An atheistic perspective would not have provided any answers that were anywhere near as "satifying" as the answers that were invented along the way. However, wherever humans have left a written record of beliefs, among them are the atheistic beliefs of some. They just did not get much support because they did not address the problems that people were trying to solve. Praying and burning offerings and cutting out the hearts of sacrificial humans, were at least *doing* something. Certainly, *doing* something would have appeared to have a better chance of attaining desired goals, for societies steeped in ignorance, than not doing anything because it was likely all that ritual really was useless. This argument is even made today: why take a chance not carrying out rituals when *doing* a ritual just might have a desired consequence?
Jerryr, that is priceless!
And Rane replies with the standard answer. Same debate, same theories repeated. <sighs>
Since they are correct, why should they change?
This response has been erased.
So Rane, we know what your religious beliefs are. We also know what the beliefs of the Christian Coalition are. It's obvious that you and they disagree widely, but you and they both believe that your beliefs are the one true path. The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for the government to pick one of those as the official beliefs for our society, and our constitution says it isn't.
so who has seen any good movies lately? this IS the movie review item, but this agora has been so bizarre that the movie item turning into a theology discussion isnt that surprising
It's been a pretty rotten summer for movies, which may explain why we've wandered so far astray..
I've always suspected the same people who complain bitterly about prayers not being allowed at graduations would be the first to cry foul if there was, say, an Islamic prayer at the beginning of one. They're all for religious expression as long as it's the RIGHT religion.
I watched 10 things I hate about you again tonite. I love that movie. It was a great adaptation of "the taming of the shrew" both tastefully done, and not overly "hyped up" like American Pie (which I liked, but WAS over the top in some parts). Besides, Heath Ledger....Yummmmm
Re #199: (first, I have no "religious beliefs", but we've been through that several times). Now, what is your point? I agree that the government should not allow the "establishment" of a national religion.
Ok, let's say that we accept that atheism is not a religion, but rather a complete lack of religion. Could we truely claim to have religious freedom if the government made it an official policy that all theistic religions were wrong, and made it an official policy to subject theistic religious people to that message?
The first amendment also provides freedom of speech, as well as freedom to practice religions. In essence, no single opinion on supernatural matters may be promoted or subjugated by law. So the answer to your question is NO. Nor am I supporting enacting any such law to control freedom of thought and expression. Still, one can argue for rational perspectives and expose the problems arising from superstitions.
Yes, you have the freedom to attempt to turn every argument about religious freedom, religious history, or anything else that mentions religion, into an argument about whether theistic religions are wrong. Likewise, I have the right to tell you that, while I agree with you to a point, the arguments you're making have nothing to do with the discussion the other participants are trying to have. So, for purposes of this discussion, would you agree that you and the Diag preachers have an equal right to stand in front of the Grad Library, explaining your view of the existence or lack thereof of God to anybody who will listen, but that neither of you has any more right to be there preaching than the other?
Of course, though I have never done that. As others have observed, I enter this kind of discussion only when others start it.
There was a time in this country when The Constition and The Bill of Rights defined what little The State could do. It used to be that the 'interpretation' was that the rights of the state were delegated to it by The People and anything that was not specifically delegated was the inherent and inalienable right of the citizen. How far we have come away from that. We are now very much like the PRC where The State grants to the citizens what little they can have and do. In the current presidential campaign the two 'real' candidates debate about what small or smaller portion of the 'tax' ought to be given back as a 'spending' program to the very citizens that currently pay said 'tax' in what was originally supposed to only be 'temporary' measure during 'war'. "Don't worry, I'll only stick it in a little, and if it hurts I'll pull it right back out". Right up there with "Yeah, it is totally IBMPC compatible - or in the current 'Windoze compatible'..." Or the "No, I won't cum in your mouth". Its a 'fair share' tax in that those that make more not only pay more (as a percentage) but those successful citizens pay and even larger amount on account the 'percentage' is higher the more they make. Its ironic that the 'vig' on a loanshark mobster loan is more fair in that it is a constant across the board. One of the major reasons for the downfall of the USSR was very simple. Somewhere along the way, the poles simply stopped working. They 'woke up an smelled the coffee'. Well, the 'proles' in the USSA are starting to wake up. Once the most 'tax abiding' nation on earth citizens of the USSA are starting to realize that something is 'rotten in the state'. More and more 'democrats' are paying 'off the books' for services such as 'lawnboys' and 'daycare'. Even the most publically 'doctrinaire' democrat are paying 'off the books'. Imagine whats gonna happen when anonymous digital 'cash' starts to circulate - untracable and inherently therefore untaxable...That is the real reason the USSA is so opposed to private cryptological systems. They aren't worried about the criminals, they are worried that the common ordinary 'citizens' - who they regard as a 'necessary evil' - will start to actually 'consort' with one another directly without the 'benefit' of the state. They worry that at some point the 'proles' will 'wake up and smell the coffee' and ask why exactly it is they are working for no personal benefit for 1/4 of the year and increasing....
(sunny's still on topic here!!!!) I watched Never Been Kissed, with Drew Berrymore. I love that movie. Makes me so happy to see that smart people can be popular and pretty too. Well done. Well done!
Richard, are you going to enter a proposal in coop outlawing drift?
So.. is it hard to be so closeminded that you can't even contemplate that the 'other side' might be right, just for a moment? How sad.
<pokes MoonKittyCat> (seen any movies lately???????)
I watched The Ten Commandments. Obviously a purely fictional movie, since there is no god. :)
hmm... movies I've seen lately... Big Trouble in Little China was viewed the other night with Deb and That Guy, was most amusing- as always. Other than that the other movie I've seen at all recently is 'The Big Chil,' a wonderful movie.
Cute, ric...but Yule Brenner is a great actor...er...was a great actor. I have also seen Showdown in Little Tokoyo... Brandon Lee...<sigh>
Rew #214: all movies are fictional, except for some documentaries. Is The Ten Commandments a documentary? Has a god finally shown up for an interview?
They keep calling His press agent, but they can't quite get through o the Big Man Himself... he's too busy contemplating His greatness... <shrugs>
Re #217:
Jesus was supposed to show up some time this year, according to some of
the lore...
Panorama Video on W. Stadium has a wonderful collection of bad 1970's sci-fi movies. Last night's choice: "Deathsport", starring David Carradine. Set in the year 3000! Quasi-futuristic dirt bikes called "Death Machines"! Insane dictators! Gratuitous nudity! Plexiglass swords! Explosions a-plenty! Heads roll!
(How could I have forgotten to mention the cave-dwelling mutants or the sadistic prison guard?)
ALMOST FAMOUS-- saw this last night, easily the best film of the year so far. Written/Directed by Cameron Crowe (Singles, Say Anything, Jerry McGuire, among others) This is the semi-autobiographical story of how Cameron Crowe at the age of fifteen got thechance to travel across the country with the band Led Zeppelin and writeabout it for RollingStone (in the movie the band is called "Stillwater") The movie chronicles Crowe's introduction to the world of rock bands and groupies, as the band travels by bus across the u.s. from san diego to new york. It is both a coming of age story and a tribute to a time and an era. If only music was as innocent now as it was back then! The movie has lots of great performances (frances mcdormand as crowe's mother who lets him go on the road yet remained the dominant presence in his life forone, and also Kate Hudson, real life daughter of goldie hawn and kurtrussell, in a starmaking role as the band's "lead groupie") Crowe is a really terrific director and this is a really heartfelt filmabout an important moment in his life. ALMOST FAMOUS gets **** (fourstars and a damn good soundtrack as well!)
kate is russell's step-daughter. i believe her dad is bill hudson, but i could be wrong about his first name.
Does she play a slut?
actually, i misspoke - kurt russell and goldie hawn aren't married so kurt is not actually her step-father, but given the long term relationship with kate's mother, he might as well be.
goldie and kurt have been living together for twenty years, I believe thatmakes them commonlaw married
Common law marriage varries from state to state. Many states base it on whether a couple is claiming to be married (referring to eachother as "my husband," or "my wife," and so forth) regardless of the amount of time involved. Michigan courts don't recognize common law marriages at all, saying that if the legislature had wanted to consider people who hadn't had a wedding to be married, they would have done so. You can find some information about this at www.icle.org.
thats a backassbackwards pointof view the michigan legislature has...you cant be considered married unless you have awedding or signsomepiece of paper?
It seems pretty reasonable to me. From the point of view of the law, marriage is a property relationship between two people with substantial implications. Whether or not the state considers you married (in a real property sense) isn't necessarily related to whether you, your friends and family, or your co-religionists recognize a valid "marriage" in whatever sense that may apply.
"Common law" means law established by legal precident instead of by the legislature. In other words, even in states where it is very easy to be considered common law married, that's something done by the courts, rather than by the legislature. The Michigan courts have said it's the legislature's job to define marriage, not theirs.
It's a "precedent" not "precident" - and common law is part of our legal system which we inherited from the English (except for Lousiana, but that's another story). I also think it would be more accurate to say that in states that have common law marriages, it's a pre-existing condition the court recognizes, rather than an action the court takes. Ie, you can't just go up to a judge and ask to be common-law married; rather, as part of some other process the court might recognize that you have or had a common law marriage. Kind of like in this state a court might decide that, as a matter of fact that yes, you did indeed break into that liquor store and steal that booze, or yes, your hair really was dyed green when you did that.
I saw Mision to Mars this weekend. Not that thrilled. Some of the effects were good, and t hings like that, but the plot was SEVERLY lacking. I didn't care about the characters, or the mission, or Mars for that matter. They tried to give it direction and some "moral" weight, but when that didn't work, they just kinda played it out with interesting science stuff. I didn't like it, but I found it interesting. I also watched Beyond the Mat. GREAT movie. Yes, I loved wrestling when I was growing up, and yes I know it's fake. But I did wonder what happened to some people. I loved Damien, the snake of Jake the Snake, and they tell what happened to Jake. They tell a lot of other stories too. It's not just glitz. I thought it was a great documentary. Also got Demolition Man (hee hee!), Willow, and the Abyss. Loved all of them. That's why I rented them again.
(back there...I thought Crowe did tour with Stillwater..didn't they open Woodstock or somethin like that?...not ed Zeppelin)
i think you mean sweetwater:
-------
DAY ONE
-------
Richie Havens
-High Flyin' Bird
-I Can't Make It Anymore
-With A Little Help From My Friends
-Strawberry Fields For Ever
-Hey Jude
-I Had A Woman
-Handsome Johnny
-Freedom
Country Joe McDonald
-I Find Myself Missing You
-Rockin' All Around The World
-Flyin' High All Over The World
-Seen A Rocket
-Fish Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag
John B. Sebastian
-How Have You Been
-Rainbows All Over Your Blues
-I Had A Dream
-Darlin' Be Home Soon
-Younger Generation
Incredible String Band
-Catty Come
-This Moment Is Different
-When You Find Out Who You Are
Sweetwater
-Motherless Child
-Look Out
-For Pete's Sake
-Day Song
-What's Wrong
-Crystal Spider
-Two Worlds
-Why Oh Why
Bert Sommer
-Jennifer
-America
Tim Hardin
-If I Were A Carpenter
Ravi Shankar
-Raga Puriya-Dhanashri/Gat In Sawarital
-Tabla Solo In Jhaptal
-Raga Manj Kmahaj
-Alap Jor
-Dhun In Kaharwa Tal
-Medium & Fast Gat In Teental
Melanie
-Beautiful People
-Birthday Of The Sun
Arlo Guthrie
-Coming Into Los Angeles
-Walking Down The Line
-Amazing Grace
Joan Baez
-Joe Hill
-Sweet Sir Galahad
-Drug Store Truck Driving Man
-Swing Low Sweet Chariot
-We Shall Overcome
Talk about your nightmares.
Hey . . don't you *like* folk music?
Perhaps you should be interrogated.
You have several choices: