the Passion, the Ten Commandments and the budding theocracy in America
The youngster is thirteen and this is the time as deemed by the Catholic church for him to be Confirmed. The gist is that he's old enough to decide for himself that he wants to be Catholic. At Baptism, he really wasn't given much choice. Now he has a mind of his own. I might debate that point, but nonetheless, it's happening come April.
To that end, I got a permission slip from school Friday which I was supposed to sign. Basically it said, we're showing The Passion of the Christ, the Mel Gibson film. It's 'R' rated for violence, so your child needs your permission to see it. It is a requirement for confirmation. Now, I'm not going to jump on too high a horse, because the youngster has seen at least one 'R' rated movie before. I bought the Eddie Murphy/Dan Akroyd movie Trading Places, a hilarious flick, and he sat down and watched it with me. I didn't remember that it was 'R' rated until there were tits bouncing across the screen, and then decided to grab the DVD case and confirm what I already knew. Yeah, pop...you just gave your kid his first exposure to tits. Nice move, lumberdude! Then there was The Exorcist , with Linda Blair masturbating with a crucifix yelling "Let Jesus fuck you!" I didn't remember that one either until it was on the screen. He has been begging and begging to watch it for a while and I finally relented. I thought it was 'R' rated just because it was scary as hell. He didn't get a good night's sleep for days, and we only got halfway through it before he turned it off, looked at me and said, "You could have just said no." In hindsight, saying no would have been the better option, probably for both movies, but that was water under the bridge.
Here though, was the church, basically saying, we're going to show an 'R' rated movie to 13 year old kids, and if your child is going to go forward with his development in the church, he has no choice but to see what someone deemed inappropriate for kids his age. I realize that it's OK if the child is accompanied by an adult, but something about that whole deal just bothers me a little on a philosophical level.
On the other side of the coin, I was off yesterday, which offered me a luxury I rarely get to indulge in...reading all of the morning paper. I usually get to scan it quickly on my way out the door, but this was my chance to sit down and relax with some coffee and read. I got to the opinion page and letters to the editor, and some bozo is ranting because some county in Florida is planning to put the Ten Commandments outside their courthouse. This guy called it a move by the "let's turn America into a theocracy" crowd. Now, I've gone off about this before, but this guy got under my skin, so I wrote my own letter to the editor. We'll see if it actually gets published. The gist of it though, is, America isn't ever going to be a theocracy, and this idiot can stop being such a drama queen. I still don't see what's wrong with planting the Ten Commandments on public ground, in front of a courthouse, in a judge's chambers, or anywhere else. Where some lawyer convinced some judge that this act constitutes government establishing a religion is completely lost on me. We all know why that piece was written into the constitution. The people didn't want the religious persecution they had in England, where there was one church mandated by the government, and you had to be a part of it. It didn't stop the president from declaring a national day of prayer when the British were knocking on the door of the nation's capital in the War of 1812. Many of the guys who wrote the constitution were still alive and kicking. None of them jumped up and down and said "You can't do that." Even then, nobody was forced into a state sponsored religion. If they were, that fact sorta missed the evening news. This isn't new ground. The Ten Commandments have been there before, making appearances in many public buildings. Yet I haven't heard of the government rounding up anyone and forcing them to belong to any particular religion, even if you broadly catagorize Christianity as one. The only religion we've been forced into is the godless one headed by congress, which cares for the needly by making it law that we tithe every April. Freedom of religion doesn't mean a guarantee that you will never have to see anything with a religious theme on public property, or at least it shouldn't. Just because the Ten Commandments are in a courthouse doesn't mean you have to believe all or any of them. If you want to be a Godless heathen (and no, I didn't say that like it's a bad thing), that's your right. You're free to believe and do as you choose, as long as you don't infringe on other people's right to the same. Believing rape and murder are perfectly normal, however, might get you in a bit of trouble here.
This guy seemed to think that decision is over and done with, and we who didn't like it should just lay down and accept it. I don't agree, either with the original premise or him.
To that end, I got a permission slip from school Friday which I was supposed to sign. Basically it said, we're showing The Passion of the Christ, the Mel Gibson film. It's 'R' rated for violence, so your child needs your permission to see it. It is a requirement for confirmation. Now, I'm not going to jump on too high a horse, because the youngster has seen at least one 'R' rated movie before. I bought the Eddie Murphy/Dan Akroyd movie Trading Places, a hilarious flick, and he sat down and watched it with me. I didn't remember that it was 'R' rated until there were tits bouncing across the screen, and then decided to grab the DVD case and confirm what I already knew. Yeah, pop...you just gave your kid his first exposure to tits. Nice move, lumberdude! Then there was The Exorcist , with Linda Blair masturbating with a crucifix yelling "Let Jesus fuck you!" I didn't remember that one either until it was on the screen. He has been begging and begging to watch it for a while and I finally relented. I thought it was 'R' rated just because it was scary as hell. He didn't get a good night's sleep for days, and we only got halfway through it before he turned it off, looked at me and said, "You could have just said no." In hindsight, saying no would have been the better option, probably for both movies, but that was water under the bridge.
Here though, was the church, basically saying, we're going to show an 'R' rated movie to 13 year old kids, and if your child is going to go forward with his development in the church, he has no choice but to see what someone deemed inappropriate for kids his age. I realize that it's OK if the child is accompanied by an adult, but something about that whole deal just bothers me a little on a philosophical level.
On the other side of the coin, I was off yesterday, which offered me a luxury I rarely get to indulge in...reading all of the morning paper. I usually get to scan it quickly on my way out the door, but this was my chance to sit down and relax with some coffee and read. I got to the opinion page and letters to the editor, and some bozo is ranting because some county in Florida is planning to put the Ten Commandments outside their courthouse. This guy called it a move by the "let's turn America into a theocracy" crowd. Now, I've gone off about this before, but this guy got under my skin, so I wrote my own letter to the editor. We'll see if it actually gets published. The gist of it though, is, America isn't ever going to be a theocracy, and this idiot can stop being such a drama queen. I still don't see what's wrong with planting the Ten Commandments on public ground, in front of a courthouse, in a judge's chambers, or anywhere else. Where some lawyer convinced some judge that this act constitutes government establishing a religion is completely lost on me. We all know why that piece was written into the constitution. The people didn't want the religious persecution they had in England, where there was one church mandated by the government, and you had to be a part of it. It didn't stop the president from declaring a national day of prayer when the British were knocking on the door of the nation's capital in the War of 1812. Many of the guys who wrote the constitution were still alive and kicking. None of them jumped up and down and said "You can't do that." Even then, nobody was forced into a state sponsored religion. If they were, that fact sorta missed the evening news. This isn't new ground. The Ten Commandments have been there before, making appearances in many public buildings. Yet I haven't heard of the government rounding up anyone and forcing them to belong to any particular religion, even if you broadly catagorize Christianity as one. The only religion we've been forced into is the godless one headed by congress, which cares for the needly by making it law that we tithe every April. Freedom of religion doesn't mean a guarantee that you will never have to see anything with a religious theme on public property, or at least it shouldn't. Just because the Ten Commandments are in a courthouse doesn't mean you have to believe all or any of them. If you want to be a Godless heathen (and no, I didn't say that like it's a bad thing), that's your right. You're free to believe and do as you choose, as long as you don't infringe on other people's right to the same. Believing rape and murder are perfectly normal, however, might get you in a bit of trouble here.
This guy seemed to think that decision is over and done with, and we who didn't like it should just lay down and accept it. I don't agree, either with the original premise or him.
John put this out here at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home