Since Mr Bush has firmly nailed (!) his colours to the mast of bullyboy conservatism by proposing an amendment to the US constitution banning "gay marriage", I think a campaign should be started to remove Freedom of Religion from the Bill of Rights and replace it with a Right to Freedom From Religion, including bans on all things religious/superstitious from the public domain.
Let's face it, religious observance is best practised in the privacy of your own home or church: daddy can then beat the abstinence message into you with glee and fervour, preferably without using a cane or whip with razor blades, but hey, if that's your thing, go for it. SM and Roman Catholicism have always had an intimate relationship in the past so why not continue that fine culture. But please keep it private. If I want to have something rammed down my throat, I prefer Ewan McGregor to Mel Gibson or George Bush.
Christopher Hitchens's take on "The Passion" here.
February 25, 2004
February 24, 2004
Passionate flogging a family value
Surely I am not the only one appalled by those Christian "moral standards" groups and churches calling for the rating on Mel Gibson's "Passion" film to be lowered so they can subject their underage sprogs to slasher violence with impunity?
And are they calling for chief censor Bill Hastings's head (again) for daring to slap an R16 on a piece of gory trash. How deliciously catholic in its metaphor is that?
Why is everything completely upside down in this country?
Films with graphic ultra-violence can be seen by kids but films which contain legal and loving scenes (which can be done for real by 16-year-olds) can't be rented or seen until you're 18.
You can drive, recklessly, dangerously and blinding drunk at 15 but you can't have a beer at the pub with your mates until you're 18. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban driving until you're 18 (and until you can afford 3rd party insurance) but serve beers at any gig or rave?
Why can frustrated middle-aged women object to any expression of man-on-man love on television - and be supported by the powers that be - but you cannot complain if your own community is not adequately represented on screen?
And are they calling for chief censor Bill Hastings's head (again) for daring to slap an R16 on a piece of gory trash. How deliciously catholic in its metaphor is that?
Why is everything completely upside down in this country?
Films with graphic ultra-violence can be seen by kids but films which contain legal and loving scenes (which can be done for real by 16-year-olds) can't be rented or seen until you're 18.
You can drive, recklessly, dangerously and blinding drunk at 15 but you can't have a beer at the pub with your mates until you're 18. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban driving until you're 18 (and until you can afford 3rd party insurance) but serve beers at any gig or rave?
Why can frustrated middle-aged women object to any expression of man-on-man love on television - and be supported by the powers that be - but you cannot complain if your own community is not adequately represented on screen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)