Censorship

[Caretaker]

One recurring theme I see within Christianity is that parents want to block their kids from viewing questionable material. Sometimes, such questionable material is indeed only a message of tolerance of homosexuals, evolution, or sometimes just really different political beliefs (think Tom Leykis).

 

What is there to gain if these ideas are withheld from children? What do you fear will happen if children are exposed to such ideas?

[Midnight]

One recurring theme I see within Christianity is that parents want to block their kids from viewing questionable material. Sometimes, such questionable material is indeed only a message of tolerance of homosexuals, evolution, or sometimes just really different political beliefs (think Tom Leykis).

 

What is there to gain if these ideas are withheld from children? What do you fear will happen if children are exposed to such ideas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

IMO, I think they shouldn't be exposed too young. But when they grow older keep them informed, so they can make their own decisions. Sheltering completely sometimes does the opposite effect.

[Merlinfmct87]

I've never understood the idea of censorship really.

 

I mean, no, I don't think a 5-year-old should see hard core, but I do think that most americans are idiots when it comes to sexual education at home.

 

They act like kids never hear the word sex until their parents say it to them.

 

Getting back to censorship, it always struck me as treating the symptom, not the problem. A fundamentalist says "GASP! YOU CANNOT SAY DAMN TO MY CHILD!" or "SHOCK! YOU ALLOW SUCH SINFUL MATERIAL TO BE SHOWN BEFORE ME!"

 

Isn't that inciting damnation? Isn't part of faith being able to resist temptation? If you remove temptation in your life, aren't you removing one way to test your faith?

 

I'd appreciate some feedback on this, I never understood it at all... outside of the very nasty point of view of the fearful attacking what they don't understand, or what poses a danger to them.

 

Merlin

[Guest Tiffany]

IMO, I think they shouldn't be exposed too young.  But when they grow older keep them informed, so they can make their own decisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think when it comes to tolerance and freethinking all should be thought it from birth.

[Caretaker]

I agree with not exposing young children to especially complex ideas, particularly as they probably won't understand them anyway. Wait until they can start to understand, and then bring all ideas to the table.

 

Of course as far as swear words, I find it rather interesting when parents shield their children's ears, since the children are going to know about such swear words in the future anyway. Why not teach the children that the words are inappropriate instead?

[Midnight]

I've never understood the idea of censorship really.

 

I mean, no, I don't think a 5-year-old should see hard core, but I do think that most americans are idiots when it comes to sexual education at home.

 

They act like kids never hear the word sex until their parents say it to them.

 

Getting back to censorship, it always struck me as treating the symptom, not the problem. A fundamentalist says "GASP! YOU CANNOT SAY DAMN TO MY CHILD!" or "SHOCK! YOU ALLOW SUCH SINFUL MATERIAL TO BE SHOWN BEFORE ME!"

 

Isn't that inciting damnation? Isn't part of faith being able to resist temptation? If you remove temptation in your life, aren't you removing one way to test your faith?

 

I'd appreciate some feedback on this, I never understood it at all... outside of the very nasty point of view of the fearful attacking what they don't understand, or what poses a danger to them.

 

Merlin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I also don't agree on censorship. I think we have lost it in todays society and the parents are no longer taken responsibility as parents. I as a parent will choose what my child watches, eats, and plays with. Until she is capable on her own, to make her own decisions. I don't want TV to be censored, I should be the responsible parent, to not let my child watch TV if it has something I don't agree with. Censorship limits are freedoms as individuals. The more we cry for censoring things, the more we loose our freedom.

 

(Sorry, didn't mean for it to be a rant)

[nirrti]

The thing I don't get is when Christians get up in arms about seeing sexual situations in the media but don't make it an issue when violent content is shown. A good example is when the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out, Christians just about had heart attacks about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene after he married her, no less. It wasn't supposed to be representative of what actually occured in the Bible story but people still railed against it calling it "blasphemous."

 

However when the "Passion of the Christ" came out last year, in spite of all the blood, beatings and utter brutality that would disturb full-grown adults, I saw so many parents bringing children as young as three to see that movie. Which movie would be more traumatizing to a young kid, seeing Jesus being made love to or seeing him whipped and tortured for two hours to the point his ribs are showing through ripped away skin?

 

Christians still carry this belief that sex is evil and sinful, something that's not to be talked about, enjoyed and allowed only under the strictest circumstances. And since so much of the Bible expouses using violence against sinners and enemies or God himself commiting the most brutal acts as punishments for trivial sins, the meme that violence is okay is subliminally absorbed through years of indoctrination within Christianity.

 

And it doesn't help that the conquests of nations were justified as attempts to spread Christianity. Or that people, until recently, were executed for non-belief. Christians also used religion to justify corporal punishment, slavery, the death penalty and killing suspected witches.

 

Which begs the question, what would further advance us as a culture that values reason? Would it be to censor sexual content in the media, knowing that sex is a natural, normal part of life and an expression of love? And that a breast (Janet Jackson) is not a shameful part of a woman's body? Or if it's truly children's minds you're concerned about, would curving the amount of violent acts they see make it less likely they'll be desensitized and see it as a valid form of conflict resolution?

 

And if Christians would start appreciating sex as a wonderful part of being human, It would cut down on the guilt and shame that motivates Christians to attempt covering up any references to sex in the media and aleviate the recent rash of attempts to punish gays by passing legislation against gay marriage and their right to adopt children.

 

Of course, this would mean changing their most fundamental beliefs about morality so I doubt this would happen anytime soon. But that doesn't mean they have the right to impose their values on everything including the media. If they don't want their kids watching certain shows, changing the channel would be a better solution. And if they're that worried about the immorality on TV, why do they have one in their homes anyway?

[Midnight]

Actually, I didn't agree with that movie, but that goes into another arena. But I agree, many Christians want sex blocked but then it's okay to bring violence as long as it's talking about their religion. It's wrong. That's why I don't agree on censoring anything, let us decide what we want our kids to see. I believe sex is a beautiful thing, goodness their is even alot of sex talk in the Bible. I don't believe the Bible says that sex is bad at all. Although, I remember when I was Catholic, sex was a bad thing. I couldn't view my body parts or anything. I was embarrassed. But who's to say that Catholics follow what the Bible says anyway. God gave us this beautiful body to look at, not to hide and be ashamed.

[Vixentrox]

Catholics seem to think they follow the bible.

 

Censorship is mostly a bad thing. There are times that it's needed and even desireable though. For example, one could say keeping minor children's names out of news when they have been raped is a form of censorship since they are holding back or restricing information.

[Merlinfmct87]

The thing I don't get is when Christians get up in arms about seeing sexual situations in the media but don't make it an issue when violent content is shown.  A good example is when the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out, Christians just about had heart attacks about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene after he married her, no less.  It wasn't supposed to be representative of what actually occured in the Bible story but people still railed against it calling it "blasphemous."

 

However when the "Passion of the Christ" came out last year, in spite of all the blood, beatings and utter brutality that would disturb full-grown adults, I saw so many parents bringing children as young as three to see that movie.  Which movie would be more traumatizing to a young kid, seeing Jesus being made love to or seeing him whipped and tortured for two hours to the point his ribs are showing through ripped away skin?

 

Christians still carry this belief that sex is evil and sinful, something that's not to be talked about, enjoyed and allowed only under the strictest circumstances.  And since so much of the Bible expouses using violence against sinners and enemies or God himself commiting the most brutal acts as punishments for trivial sins,  the meme that violence is okay is subliminally absorbed through years of indoctrination within Christianity.

 

And it doesn't help that the conquests of nations were justified as attempts to spread Christianity.  Or that people, until recently, were executed for non-belief.  Christians also used religion to justify corporal punishment, slavery, the death penalty and killing suspected witches.   

 

Which begs the question, what would further advance us as a culture that values reason?  Would it be to censor sexual content in the media, knowing that sex is a natural, normal part of life and an expression of love? And that a breast (Janet Jackson) is not a shameful part of a woman's body?  Or if it's truly children's minds you're concerned about, would curving the amount of violent acts they see make it less likely they'll be desensitized and see it as a valid form of conflict resolution?

 

And if Christians would start appreciating sex as a wonderful part of being human, It would cut down on the guilt and shame that motivates Christians to attempt covering up any references to sex in the media and aleviate the recent rash of attempts to punish gays by passing legislation against gay marriage and their right to adopt children. 

 

Of course, this would mean changing their most fundamental beliefs about morality so I doubt this would happen anytime soon.  But that doesn't mean they have the right to impose their values on everything including the media.  If they don't want their kids watching certain shows, changing the channel would be a better solution.  And if they're that worried about the immorality on TV, why do they have one in their homes anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Man I hear that. How the hell can the love of two people be sinful and must be banned, but brutal and malevolent torture is good family entertainment?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't Jesus want us to focus on his miracles, not his death?

 

Merlin

[Amethyst]

My pet peeve is Christians who want to ban books because they think those books contain "UnChristian" ideas, like Harry Potter. Harry Potter is FICTION. It is not real. Most kids can tell the difference between reality and fantasy -- and if they can't, they need to see a child psychologist, imho. I am so bloody sick and tired of religious fanatics saying that kids can't use their imagination. This is one of the main problems I see in our society. People don't know how to think because they don't read books, or the only book they read is the Bible and nothing else, except maybe those annoying little Portals of Prayer booklets or something.

 

There's a rather famous quote (I keep forgetting who said it): When one burns books, one will soon burn people. That is another reason I am totally against book banning. If you don't want to read it, fine, but don't stop other people from reading it.

 

Now, I have nothing against providing children with age appropriate material. What I have against is people saying that children shouldn't read fairy tales because they contain "Teh Ev!l!!!11!" magic, even though it is completely fictional and nothing remotely like fairy tale stuff exists in real life. That is why they are called fairy tales and not reality tales. There are people who practice what they call magic, but it's NOTHING like in Harry Potter or any of that stuff. And no respectable Pagan I have ever met would teach a very young child magic against their parent's wishes.

[DaveL]

There's a rather famous quote (I keep forgetting who said it): When one burns books, one will soon burn people. That is another reason I am totally against book banning. If you don't want to read it, fine, but don't stop other people from reading it.

 

Remember the fundies freaking about rock music being played backwards. I suppose we should burn all our CD collections as well. Pure Devil's stuff.

 

Has anyone found anything satanic in church hymns being played backwards?

I'll bet you'll never hear fundies talk about that.

[Lizard]

Remember the fundies freaking about rock music being played backwards. I suppose we should burn all our CD collections as well.  Pure Devil's stuff.

 

Has anyone found anything satanic in church hymns being played backwards?

I'll bet you'll never hear fundies talk about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can one play a cd backwards? That could be interesting..

 

There are some things that children should NOT be exposed to, IMO..

 

Bigotry and hate based on a persons color, creed, nationality or sexual orientation. Or any other "difference" that is perceived.

 

Yes, there is evil out there. My own son was exposed to "evil"..a sick man who drove the school bus. The man is in prison now, after having molested over 250 children (his admission)

 

Censoring books and movies? I think we already have a pretty good system in place.

 

I remember a few years ago, when the Harry Potter craze was going full force. The fundies were up in arms about "teaching witchcraft" to "our" children. My daughter, who is smart, but is not a reader, found a passion for reading in those books. I was then supposed to take that away from her? Tell her they were "bad"? There was no way that I, as an avid reader, could do that.

 

I myself began reading very young. Had my parents fallen into the fundie trap of censorship, I don't think I would have read much at all. Instead, they encouraged me to read whatever I chose..which was usually some type of sci-fi novel.

 

We also watched the TV available in the day. In fact, I just watched an episode of the Twilight Zone that would probably send the fundies screaming blasphemy..It was the episode about two people, from different worlds who crashed on a planet..and found a means to communicate.. His name was Adam..and hers Eve. At the end, Rod Serling made a statement..about the names and places being familiar..perhaps fantasy, or something else..he alluded to the fable of it all..

[Amethyst]

Well, I recall reading that when Star Trek was on TV for the first time, the fundies wanted to take it off the air because of Spock's pointy ears. Those people just have no imagination, and what little they do have, they use it to declare everything other than the Bible as "evil."

[Lizard]

Well, I recall reading that when Star Trek was on TV for the first time, the fundies wanted to take it off the air because of Spock's pointy ears.  Those people just have no imagination, and what little they do have, they use it to declare everything other than the Bible as "evil."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes..he looked like satan..or the god Pan? Of course, the "ideas" presented by the show were somewhat revolutionary too..there were always some kind of "moral" to them, only opposite of the judeo-christian ethic.

I remember an episode of TNG, they visited a planet where they were all "one sex"..and a few of them thought they were "male" or "female"..and were persecuted for it..subliminal messages...

[Vixentrox]

I remember an episode of TNG, they visited a planet where they were all "one sex"..and a few of them thought they were "male" or "female"..and were persecuted for it..subliminal messages...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I remember that episode. Wasn't Riker having the hots for one of them?

[Amethyst]

Star Trek also had the first interracial kiss on television, and they only got away with it in the 60's because the characters were under alien mind control. If something breaks discriminatory barriers, you can usually guarantee it'll be protested against by fundies.