True - and there are those who get an enormous "kick" from Gray's "Anatomy of the Human body".
Originally Posted by blansky
What really deserves serious thought are the sociological factors that serve to intensify the mindsets of some to slide off to bizarre places.
The single *MOST* pornographic piece I've ever encountered was "The Report of the President's Commission to Study Pornography" (or some title like that) - published by the United States Government Printing office. In it a number of *prestigious* investigators viewed and studied - closely - the adult films of the early '70's - "Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door - and wrote microscopic descriptions of the actions in them ... down to the last wrinkle in the sheets. Hoo boy!!!
Interesting too, where one can stumble across pornography - true pornography. I just saw a number of photographs of the images on Ancient Greek coins -- ca. 500 - 450 B.C.E. My word! -- they show couples -- uh ... DOING it!!
Then again - there is another correlation -- It seems that the more artistic freedom in a society (and with it, freedom from censorship), the greater the advancement and intellectual growth - and I think the Ancient Greek Civilizations bear this out. Come to think of it ... Colonial America from the end of the Witch Trails in 1693, and with them, repressive Puritanism - until after the American Revolution -- 1800 or so -- offers still more proof.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
I never said liberal media, I said liberals. There is no liberal media myth, there is a liberal bias in the media. Here is a subtle example. I don't care what your position on abortion is (though I could guess), I just offer this as an example. Next time you watch CNN or listen to NPR and the issue of abortion comes up, listen to the labels used to both sides of the issue. On one side you will have the liberals, they are called "pro-choice". On the other side you have the conservatives, they are called "anti-abortion". Never will you hear the conservatives refered to as "pro-life". This is what we call ourselves in conversation, interviews, publications, etc. Why the "anti-abortion" label? Because the prefix "anti" has a negative connotation. It means to be against. The prefix "pro" is to be with, or for. It elicits a positive connotation. That is why "pro-life" is never used, it would put the conservative side in a positive light. This goes against the liberal agenda of the media.
Europe does not have very many religious practitioners anymore. The US does. If you're saying that Christians cannot be politically active because of their beliefs, then you are placing us as second class citizens. We have the freedom to practice our religion and the social responsibility to be politically active.
This forum is obviously a "liberals only" club. Sean, how do I get my name of the mebership list? I'm gone.
There's always been a tension between the movement of the Spirit (apprehension of the Transcendent) in the individual and the institutional religion which simultaneously encourages and controls that impulse. Religion and freedom are not in opposition. Only those who pervert the religious impulse by acting to "protect" the institution are in opposition to freedom. A fundamentalist of any religious denomination is motivated by something other than life's quest to appreciate the transcendent.
You said, "and opposing religions have accounted for the greatest atrocities in human history." This is plausible, though perhaps arguable. People often use religion as a justification when acting in their own self interest.
Religious impulse is also responsible for some of the greatest acts of sacrifice, charity, and altruism. Oposition to abortion, capital punishment, deportation of refugees, etc. are based on the impulse to defend the defenseless. "If you do it for the least of mine, you do it for me."
Imagining (yes, an offhand reference to John Lennon) a secular human society which treats people in the cold calculus of their value to that society ironically devalues them as compared to a society of genuinely religious people.
Well jeff I could say this a mad situation (mutually agreed disagreement) I will raise my American flag proudly since there is still a helluva lot to be proud of. And I will thump my bible when I feel like it, along with my (uh oh) Book of Mormon. I'm a female and I have a mind and I make it up not anyone else. I personally do not like a lot of pictures I've seen. Other than child pornography and I mean the hard core stuff not a mother's snapshot of her kid naked, Will I say it has no place being presented to the public in any form.
What this topic was about was should there be censorship and should the government do it? No to both. If any censorship occurs it is going to be by me not someone who tells me I can't look at something. I am more apt to go look just for that reason. At the same time i do not want objectionable material foisted on me without my approval. Ie I hate spam I am tired of p enis en haCments or how ever they want to get past filters. YES there should be censorship that can be reliable to the individual. I want spam eradicated. I want ti abolished. I want it persecuted. I want it filleted and cooked over slow coals. (wait they do that already) Now that is something I can get really angry about the over 500 per day bits of spam that pollute my computer.
This wil obviously set off more posts about how evil religion is. Yeah well go ahead, you have the right to say it.
*post moderated* -admin
This forum is obviously a "liberals only" club. Sean, how do I get my name of the mebership list? I'm gone.
I will say this- I used to be in the "anything goes, if you don't like it, don't look at it" camp, but now I have a 12 year-old step-daughter, and sometimes I do wish for a little more- um- restraint-
funny how your perspective can change...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This thread seems to have degenerated in to a partisan battle. I like most have strong feelings about censorship. I also am not too interested in fanning the flames. Having said that I'll offer a couple comments and then duck and run.
1). Freedom of speech is a liberty. Liberties are what makes this country great and that which makes us vulnerable. I will side with great and live with the risks. I think that is what the founding fathers intended and that is what I believe in. T. Jefferson said, "any man that would sacrifice his freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security." Freedom is not free.
2). Exposing for public discourse the images of tortured Iraqis is necessary. It doesn't have to be done in a manner that further humiliates the victims. As I noted earlier the BBC was thoughtful enough to blur their faces. The reasons are obvious to me -- we as a democracy need to know what is being done in our name.
3). Whether the Iraqis are covered by the Geneva convention or not is not material. I would also be suspicious that there is a shortage of experts here on international law. I also think it is irrelevant that our enemies are bigger bastards than us. The beheading of Mr Berg does not make it right for us to do what we did. I would like to think that we are better than our enemies. A measure of that would be the superior manner in which we treat our prisoners. We shouldn't be looking for loop holes in the law so that we can mis treat people we should be treating people with respect because it is the right thing to do.
4). I read and watch all the news I can. When I'm on vacation in other countries I go at it with fervor. Reading the comments here I suspect I'm not alone. If you think that news organizations are not partisan or are liberal or conservative as a group I would invite you to read the following on any given day: The Weekly Standard, Wallstreet Journal, CS Monitor, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, The Guardian and the London Times.
The BBC, Frontline, News Hour, CNN, CBC, FOX News and any one of the ABC, NBC CBS.
These are the great (or at least big) news sources available to us in N America. They all produce their product for their constituency. Some are watered down and homogenized, some are right or left leaning and others are extremely evenhanded. To label the press liberal or conservative is wrong by the evidence (in my tiny little mind). To not recognize the leanings of the source can be dangerous.
As this thread is obviously winding down, I will add to my amazement that I absolutely agree with everything that jdef said.
I believe that it is our humanity that makes us good, loving, altruistic, godlike and not our religion.
Does that mean that if you are a devout, Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddist that you are not those above qualities.
It just means that you are not applying all the fundament tenants of your religion but are instead using your humanity to make judgements on which parts of your religion that you wish to adhere to.
As has been said previously fundamentalist anything are dangerous people. They are a constant threat to their neighbors because they place their religion above their humanity.
Some of the best people I know are adherents of various religions, and some are secular as I am.
My four cents worth.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
I wasn't going to post to this again and I restrained my self from commenting on religion the last time, but I have to throw my two cents in with jdef and and Michael.
People who are not religious have as reliable a moral compass as the religious folk.
As seen in the middle east as well as here at home the religious zealots are often the ones who seem to have lost their way.
Nothing for it then, but to burn you at the stake!
My acknowledgement, really, that much of what you is true.
I'm a believing Roman Catholic who enjoys drinking, cursing and the well crafted dirty joke. I don't think there's anything inconsistant there; the sacred and profane are both part of human nature.
I think you're trying to create a freedom vs. religion comparison when one has nothing to do with the other. "Christians are not free to believe that Jesus was not the son of god..." Why would you want to, if you're a Christian?
The only time I remember that Jesus lost his temper and committed violence was in throwing the money changers out of the temple. I'm sure he, similarly, would also have much to say to the institutional authorities in his own church.
Religions also have the ability to evolve as human knowledge progresses. The Church condemed Galileo, but not Darwin. Some of Catholicism's most progressive thinkers embrace evolution and examine its implications toward communal spirtiuality. Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind. He concluded that the social use of the intellect is the peak of man's talents, and would become their ultimate realization. I'd recommend his book, "The Future of MAN".
Another book recommendation is Bernard J. F. Lonergan's "Insight" subtitled "a Study of Human Understanding". He progresses though observation, science, metaphysics, transcendence and God. According to the Time magazine review of the book, "Lonergan is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century." Well worth a look if you're so inclined.
There is nothing incompatible between religion and humanity. The religious impulse is man's highest call to realize his potential.
I get very upset when people bend religion to their own selfish agendas. Jesus washed the the feet of his disciples at the last supper and said words to the effect of "Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me master and so I am. Now go and do likewise." Pretty friggin' unambiguous to me!
I'll close with this, as Christopher Burkett, the photograper (see, Sean, I'm back on topic!) of magnificent 8x10 color landscapes said that people are very uncomfortable with his artist's statement because he credits God as his motivation to photograph. I don't mind making people uncomfortable, especially secular humanists
and I think it is germane to to the Ethics and Philosophy forum.
Although many of us hold divergent views I think we handled this type of topic fairly well. I do hope gregdavis reconsiders his departure. APUG is really the nicest group of people on any photography bulletin board.
edit: corrected the name to gregdavis, I misread it, initially.
I do hope gregdavis reconsiders his departure.
Maybe he just ventured off to get some more of the Republican koolaid.