New Film "The Golden Compass"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 24 2007, 10:44 PM) [snapback]530047[/snapback]</div>

Don't remember, don't know, don't care.

I don't remember what his name is and refering to him as the athiest is more polite than refering to him as the a$$h*le.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tkil @ Oct 23 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]529587[/snapback]</div>

I'm thinking of what I think is the standard usage of the word "boycott", as the examples I gave showed. There is no call to avoid other products from the publisher, stop going to the theaters that show the movie for a year, etc. There's no coercive element involved in this statement by a "watchdog" group. This is more like an article in Consumers Report telling you what's inside the package.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boycott

Isn't that the usual definition we use? Especially after the boycotts of the civil rights movement, the table grapes boycott of the 1970s in support of farm workers, or the Southern Baptist Convention's boycott of the Walt Disney Company in the 1990s?

No Christian thinks a para-church organization speaks with any real authority over their soul. The more I see of arguments against religious folks, the more I realize just how out of touch most of the people are with what churches teach and what people believe.

There's an active effort to inflame and encourage prejudice and anger against Christians, primarily from a small group of fanatical atheists who take offense at anything. They then cherry pick quotes and equate the quotes with something far worse in an effort to dehumanize and debase religious people.

Anti-religious hate crimes are second only to racial hate crimes, according to the FBI. They outnumber hate crimes against gays, women and other ethnic minorities. Anti religious speech is fine when it is reasoned and factual; but the hyperbole that dehumanizes religious people is similar to the ethnic and racial slurs ... "sure there are some fine black folks, but then there are the 'n-words'". That kind of thinking makes it much easier to target and act against the group that is dehumanized.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 24 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]529892[/snapback]</div>

Its not censorship ... its advice given to people who then make their free will choice as to whether or not to follow that advice.

Surely you see the difference.

Parents have a duty to protect their children and to raise them in the best manner possible. That means that the good parents are the ultimate dictators and censors for their children.

In order to do that, they listen to experts, seek out advice, buy parenting books, and monitor what their children watch on TV. Because we are a free society, we allow parents to govern what their children see and read. That is freedom. It is necessary. Those who have had more than one child will know that different kids need different levels of supervision and guidance.

We should be encouraging that, not disparaging it.

As to whether the advice is sound or not is not the issue. This issue is whether or not it is akin to a "boycott" and somehow immoral for a para-church group to give a recommendation. Let me know when that kind of speech is forbidden, because then its time to move!