208 replies to this topic

[Kiss Kiss Bang Bang]

Khem, but this topic ain't about politics ;]

[Major Tallon]

This is probably a thread that should never have been started. The interesting thing about it, though, is the mind-boggling amount of ignorance that's been displayed about main-line Christian belief and about American society. They've been over-generalized in some circles, even American ones, beyond the point of caricature, and I'm reading a lot of that simply being parroted back.

In point of fact, American society has a wide divergence of religious belief, and the film "Jesus Camp" doesn't portray anything like the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of Christians, even evangelical ones. They could have made a film of my Lutheran church's Sunday morning worship, but that wouldn't have sold many tickets. Heck, I wouldn't have paid to see it. But show a bunch of folks on the fringes, try to make it seem like a threat to society at large, and theatergoers stream on in.

You could do the same with those on the left. I can remember dozens of young folks from my university days who were always going on about "the revolution" and how once "the bosses" and "the mindless middle class" were "sent to the wall," America would emerge as some kind of utopian society where all men not swinging from the lamp-posts would be brothers. They thought they were serious at the time, but nobody made a movie about them, and nobody took them seriously as a threat. The folks from "Jesus Camp" aren't, either.

If somebody really is interested in what main line Christians believe, just Google "Nicene Creed" and spend three minutes reading. If you're really theological and have twenty minutes in hand, try "Athenasian Creed." Or, you could just post here begging for more, and I'll try to explain. If you've got any idea of what being a Christian means, you won't find it particularly threatening. I'm not exactly holding my breath that I'll have many takers. And on a James Bond forum, I probably shouldn't. This topic has gone on far too long already.

As for the US, our politics has its faults, but we can hardly be accused of being undemocratic. On the national level, we elect the president, vice-president (through an anachronistic but fascinating instituiion called the electoral college), representatives, and senators. We do not elect the heads of the principal executive departments, called "the cabinet." These people are appointed by the president but require confirmation by the senate. On the state and local level, however, we elect everybody, enough to make your heads spin.

We elect attorneys general, state treasurers, auditors, some judges, sheriffs, coroners, school and university trustees, town clerks, board members of the sanitary districts (the guys who set sewer policy!) and mosquito abatement districts, and hundreds more. Heck, I was once elected a member of the local library board. As M would have put it, "the list is endless." Whatever our faults, our system is hardly oligarchic. And I daresay that very few of these officeholders owe their positions to that menacing block of evangelicals.

I didn't mean to get off on a rant, but some of the comments in this thread have been amazingly over the top. I would hope people would see American Christians with a little more objectivity.

I'm off now. I've got to go burn some Harry Potter books.

[Roebuck]

This topic has gone on far too long already.

It's not been all bad. There's been a few well written and thought provoking contributions to this thread (the Major's included). Sometimes it's nice to have a change from debating who the next Bond totty should be.

PS. Burn a couple of those Potter books for me would you Major?

[bond_girl_double07]

sucking fingers to arouse

WTF? I don't even remember a finger-sucking scene

And somebody must have been looking a bit too closely if they noticed DC's dark and curly's.. the good lord knows I was looking pretty close, and I never noticed anything but an 8 pack

[rogermoore007]

sucking fingers to arouse

WTF? I don't even remember a finger-sucking scene

And somebody must have been looking a bit too closely if they noticed DC's dark and curly's.. the good lord knows I was looking pretty close, and I never noticed anything but an 8 pack

Yea that's the one I really don't get. How the hell do they see pubic hair in a dark room where daniel is squirming in the chair the whole time??

Edited by rogermoore007, 14 April 2007 - 01:12 PM.

[Bond Bombshell]

I'd say that anyone on Earth has the right to criticize our President and his policies.

True, but surely not in the middle of a thread that's supposed to be about James Bond. Don't the mods get to decide? In my view the mods should have jumped on Zorin Industries the minute he used the thread as a vehicle for his own rabidly anti-Bush, anti-corporate, and (despite his protestations) anti-American views. I have my own misgivings about Bush, but I'm getting a little bit bored with these kind of rants that keep popping up out of context, and without the benefit of intellectual weight behind them.

Isn't the general discussion forum the appropriate place to bash Bush, complain about big business and generally display your leftish credentials if you want to? Presumably, a debate there would give Zorin a chance to support his views instead of just frothing.

[00Twelve]

sucking fingers to arouse

WTF? I don't even remember a finger-sucking scene

And somebody must have been looking a bit too closely if they noticed DC's dark and curly's.. the good lord knows I was looking pretty close, and I never noticed anything but an 8 pack

Yea that's the one I really don't get. How the hell do they see pubic hair in a dark room where daniel is squirming in the chair the whole time??

Would they rather he be shaved downstairs? I mean, the scene doesn't work if Bond isn't naked, sorry. Good thing this movie wasn't made by the French, or they'd have had a penis in their face.

I'm Christian and pretty conservative too, but come on. There's a nudity disclaimer on the PG-13 rating that anybody on earth can check if they're concerned about content.

[bond_girl_double07]

Would they rather he be shaved downstairs? I mean, the scene doesn't work if Bond isn't naked, sorry. Good thing this wasn't made by the French, or they'd have had a penis in their face.

And there's the real question.. That scene was so tastefully done, and I can't even count the number of times I've seen full frontal male nudity in a continental film.. where are the haters for those guys

[Zorin Industries]

[/quote]


Excuse us if we don't really give a crap how we're "perceived" or said to be perceived abroad.


[/quote]

Well, maybe you should....

Bless. You have inadvertently helped me make my point so much better than I did.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 14 April 2007 - 03:42 PM.

[killkenny kid]

Oh, baby.I think I will go to another thread.

[Zorin Industries]

I'd say that anyone on Earth has the right to criticize our President and his policies.

True, but surely not in the middle of a thread that's supposed to be about James Bond. Don't the mods get to decide? In my view the mods should have jumped on Zorin Industries the minute he used the thread as a vehicle for his own rabidly anti-Bush, anti-corporate, and (despite his protestations) anti-American views. I have my own misgivings about Bush, but I'm getting a little bit bored with these kind of rants that keep popping up out of context, and without the benefit of intellectual weight behind them.

Isn't the general discussion forum the appropriate place to bash Bush, complain about big business and generally display your leftish credentials if you want to? Presumably, a debate there would give Zorin a chance to support his views instead of just frothing.

I completely apologise if my opinions have jarred a few folk over there in the U.S of A. That was NEVER my intention. Nor was it my plan to hijack this thread in this way (and whether I actually have is open to debate). I am only continuing to defend my original opinion that branched off from the original thread. I will argue that my views are anti American. They are far from it. They are anti Bush granted. But some Americans really need to get over the fact that their leader is not popular abroad. I am not deliberately pushing an anti-Bush stance for the sake of it. And if I was fed up with everyone bashing my leader left, right and centre, I would at least take the mental time to ponder why. Is that so wrong? Is that so out of order to suggest?

As a Brit, the whole religious bashing of CASINO ROYALE on the original site smacked of everything I - as member of a democratic society - find morally unnerving about the likes of George W Bush - a President who has had no qualms about pushing his Christianity down the throats of everyone in the World. Whether any Americans have no problem with it is completely their prerogative.

Although I have gone off on a slight (only 'slight' mind!) tangent, there can be better links made with CASINO ROYALE, some Christians reaction to it and George W Bush. ROYALE is part of a mainstream cinema industry that Bush himself has tried - and is continuing - to question its' Christianity'. So - if a film doesn't align itself to the Bush administrations beliefs, it can be censored until it does. Now - me adding this is perhaps as Draconian as Bush himself (and I'll take that on the chin). Fortunately, Bush hasn't been able to get that control over Hollywood because it is run by people who don't like him. But the fact remains is that he has tried.

I don't want to live in a world with a global figure-head who thinks mainstream entertainment such as James Bond films should meet his godly requirements. To me, that seriously questions his intelligence and integrity when it comes to more issues than just entertainment.

There are people on this thread who I rate as allies and Bond fan cousins. I apologise if I have got their backs up. I really do. But there are some people - such as the current President of one particular country - who get MY back up. And it is my democratic right to say exactly what I believe. And as this particular thread is dealing with the religious right's nannyish view of CASINO ROYALE and one man's pubic area, then me bringing in George W Bush (whether to 'bash' him or not) is surely relevant?

It should be every individuals most basic human right to follow what religious and political views they choose. The point of caution here is that some Presidents stifle debate, individuals morality and creative expression.

I believe it was Dolly Parton who said "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...". Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. Celebrate our ability to disagree. For the record, I don't want every discussion on this website to be about the colour of blood during a Bond gunbarrel sequence. The difference between me and the likes of George W Bush here is that I am not stifling and subduing everyone who still wants to have that discussion about shades of red blood.

I am extending a penitent hand over the Atlantic. I would hope others will meet me half way with theirs.

Friends....?

[Zorin Industries]

A couple points:

1. Who would want to see a James Bond movie that website did give a good review to?

2. The United States is the most powerful country in the world right now, and has been for over fifty years. In a very real sense, the President of the United States can effect the lives of all six billion people on the planet.

Insofar as the above is true (and it most definitely IS true) I'd say that anyone on Earth has the right to criticize our President and his policies. Doing so does not automatically equate "Bush-bashing" or "America-hating." This seems only fair, as his policies could have a negative effect on their lives and they certainly can't employ the option of voting him out of office.

Remember, someday China might be the most powerful nation in the world and we might want complaining rights then too.

3. When someone does criticize the President or U.S. foreign policy, I think the best possible response is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This Enlightenment-era idea is exactly the kind of thing the United States was based on, the kind the Founding Fathers sought to enshrine in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Speaking as an American, I personally find George W. Bush a deeply troubling figure to say the least.

Thank you for saying it better than I could, young Jackanaples.

[bill007]

And that's why George W Bush is still pushing us all towards WWIII. What does anyone expect when a war mongering, oil-fuelled dictator gets to rig two elections, one war and the international standing of a once great country?

There is an old phrase "you get the society you deserve". Would our more intelligent American cousins please remember this when voting next year?

I completely apologise if my opinions have jarred a few folk over there in the U.S of A. That was NEVER my intention......

......I am extending a penitent hand over the Atlantic. I would hope others will meet me half way with theirs.

Friends....?

[Mike00spy]

I'd say that anyone on Earth has the right to criticize our President and his policies.

True, but surely not in the middle of a thread that's supposed to be about James Bond. Don't the mods get to decide? In my view the mods should have jumped on Zorin Industries the minute he used the thread as a vehicle for his own rabidly anti-Bush, anti-corporate, and (despite his protestations) anti-American views. I have my own misgivings about Bush, but I'm getting a little bit bored with these kind of rants that keep popping up out of context, and without the benefit of intellectual weight behind them.

Isn't the general discussion forum the appropriate place to bash Bush, complain about big business and generally display your leftish credentials if you want to? Presumably, a debate there would give Zorin a chance to support his views instead of just frothing.

I completely apologise if my opinions have jarred a few folk over there in the U.S of A. That was NEVER my intention. Nor was it my plan to hijack this thread in this way (and whether I actually have is open to debate). I am only continuing to defend my original opinion that branched off from the original thread. I will argue that my views are anti American. They are far from it. They are anti Bush granted. But some Americans really need to get over the fact that their leader is not popular abroad. I am not deliberately pushing an anti-Bush stance for the sake of it. And if I was fed up with everyone bashing my leader left, right and centre, I would at least take the mental time to ponder why. Is that so wrong? Is that so out of order to suggest?

As a Brit, the whole religious bashing of CASINO ROYALE on the original site smacked of everything I - as member of a democratic society - find morally unnerving about the likes of George W Bush - a President who has had no qualms about pushing his Christianity down the throats of everyone in the World. Whether any Americans have no problem with it is completely their prerogative.

Although I have gone off on a slight (only 'slight' mind!) tangent, there can be better links made with CASINO ROYALE, some Christians reaction to it and George W Bush. ROYALE is part of a mainstream cinema industry that Bush himself has tried - and is continuing - to question its' Christianity'. So - if a film doesn't align itself to the Bush administrations beliefs, it can be censored until it does. Now - me adding this is perhaps as Draconian as Bush himself (and I'll take that on the chin). Fortunately, Bush hasn't been able to get that control over Hollywood because it is run by people who don't like him. But the fact remains is that he has tried.

I don't want to live in a world with a global figure-head who thinks mainstream entertainment such as James Bond films should meet his godly requirements. To me, that seriously questions his intelligence and integrity when it comes to more issues than just entertainment.

There are people on this thread who I rate as allies and Bond fan cousins. I apologise if I have got their backs up. I really do. But there are some people - such as the current President of one particular country - who get MY back up. And it is my democratic right to say exactly what I believe. And as this particular thread is dealing with the religious right's nannyish view of CASINO ROYALE and one man's pubic area, then me bringing in George W Bush (whether to 'bash' him or not) is surely relevant?

It should be every individuals most basic human right to follow what religious and political views they choose. The point of caution here is that some Presidents stifle debate, individuals morality and creative expression.

I believe it was Dolly Parton who said "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...". Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. Celebrate our ability to disagree. For the record, I don't want every discussion on this website to be about the colour of blood during a Bond gunbarrel sequence. The difference between me and the likes of George W Bush here is that I am not stifling and subduing everyone who still wants to have that discussion about shades of red blood.

I am extending a penitent hand over the Atlantic. I would hope others will meet me half way with theirs.

Friends....?

Friends!!!!!! :-)
Hey, despite the so called "hot button" nature of this thread, I have completely enjoyed it. I love talking about religion and politics.

Seriously, I am still fascinated (troubled) to find people out there defending Bush.

Also, we dont really elect the president, the electoral college does (which is a way to circumvent the will of the people, really). This would be way Bush won in 2000, since he lost the popular vote.

And, the amount of evangeicals is a big part of our politics. Even if there are only 80 million of them, they turn out toi vote in higher numbers than other Americans do. Remember, only 120 million Americans voted for president in 2004.

As for that site (the origin topic) it is laughable, but I am happy they paid to see the movie

[00Twelve]

What was this topic about?

[TheREAL008]

What was this topic about?

Me defecting to the United Kingdom not for money or glory...but for Steak and Kidney Pie!!

[dinovelvet]

Oh, yay. So a group whose religion is based on tales of violence and torture is criticizing a movie for having violence and torture in it.

Daniel Craig is bigger than Jesus!

[Royal Dalton]

It does seem a little harsh for them to crucify the film like that, doesn't it.

[commanderblond]

Religious war is people killing each other over who has the best invisible friend.

[Royal Dalton]

Not to mention the best invisible car.

[rogermoore007]

Well, maybe you should....

Bless. You have inadvertently helped me make my point so much better than I did.

so good of you to acknowledge the rest of my post. Now you're making my point.

Edited by rogermoore007, 14 April 2007 - 05:15 PM.

[killkenny kid]

Oh, baby.I think I will go to another thread.

I have to rethink, my feeling about this thread. I'm listening to the radio right on. And base on what I'm hearing about this Don Imus thing here in New York. I feel we need more healthy discussons about race,religion, and yes James Bond. I guess I've lived in a dream world. I have no idea poeple were so intolerant and unreceptive to the feelings of others

[Monkeyfoahead]

I hope Imus doesn't get re-hired.

[Santa]

this Don Imus thing

???

[Monkeyfoahead]

He called the mostly back Rutger's womens basketball team a bunch of "Nappy headed hos."

Edit: While he was on air.

[Santa]

He called the mostly back Rutger's womens basketball team a bunch of "Nappy headed hos."

Edit: While he was on air.

Oh. That's not how to win friends and influence people.

[Roebuck]

Oh, yay. So a group whose religion is based on tales of violence and torture is criticizing a movie for having violence and torture in it.

Whatever organised Christianity may have become in the last 2000 years, it was originally based on a man who spoke out against the hypocrisy of the powerful and the exclusion of the underclass. He was considered enough of a threat to the establishment that they executed him.

Today, of course, he could simply have sniped at the establishment from behind an alias on an internet forum.

[Monkeyfoahead]

He called the mostly back Rutger's womens basketball team a bunch of "Nappy headed hos."

Edit: While he was on air.

Oh. That's not how to win friends and influence people.

Not really. He subsequently lost his job.

[Publius]

Why are these people still allowed to have babies?

[Roebuck]

Why are these people still allowed to have babies?

I'd pay real money to see Don Imus have a baby!
Without an epidural of course.