Quote:
..She is not accusing a specific set of people, nor is she accusing an entire class of people. .. It was a personal attack on specific people. And for no reason.

True and true. I was just saying that Rosie's comment hopefully isn't considered political.

Quote:
But I can't imagine a situation where the government would push for a private corporation to fire a private citizen, barring some SEC matters.

Again, we're not in disagreement here, I just wasn't clear. The advertisors did not demand he be fired, nor is the FCC. But their actions, cancelling advertising or issuing huge fines, could push a broadcaster to take certain action. I was just relieved that the firing seemed to be because NBC didn't like having a show w. no advertisers and a show that previously had only been known by 0.0001% of the population but now is known by 99% of the population but now as a liability. Basically, public outrage partially and sponsor revolt primarily caused NBC to fire him even though only some of the public was calling for it. The public calls for firing people all the time (Bill Benette, Dan Rather) but usually the people making the calls aren't likely to have been watching the show anyway. So, that leads me back to the sponsors being the major factor here.

Quote:
I believe that both Sharpton and Jackson have done both good and bad. Sometimes they do promote an image of victimhood, but, then, other times, they promote an image of self-hate. In reality, they are both political creatures whose interests are probably based in helping, but for whom those interests have long since taken a back seat.

Guessing people's intentions is too hard to do in my opinion. I just judge their actions and I feel that they have done far more harm than good. I feel they stand for the opposite of what MLK stood for. That's just my opinion. But I don't doubt for a minute that they feel they are doing good. I can say that about most people I disagree with politically for what that's worth.

////

Regarding the Last Temptation of Christ, whether or not you or I think it is blasphemous doesn't negate the fact that people found it so. In fact, you brought up the film AND brought up the fact that it is considered blasphemous by some, not me. I only questioned the fact that the creators did the film out of a sense of creating something holy or depicting something to be holy.

However... I retract my suspicions of the creators' intent.. See, I told you guessing intentions is too hard! According to wikipedia, it appears that Nikos Kazantzakis' novel was written with the intent of showing that Christ sacrificed during his entire life, not just at the end with his life. Pretty cool concept actually, and it makes sense.

Yet, also, thanks to wikipedia , the blasphemy charge is supported. Blasphemy is the demanation of something holy or sacred. Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual... The Last Temptation's scene [yelow]depicting Christ imagining himself engaged in sexual activities, a notion that has caused outrage from some Christians and it's clear why. It doesn't jive with what they consider true. And since Christ is holy to Christians, that defamation is upgraded to blasphemy.

To further explain, according to Matthew 5:27-32 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' {28} "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Many people interpret this to mean that thinking of adultery, as in the book/film, Christ has defacto commited adultery. Hence, to suggest such a thing is blasphemy.

So, Bitt's example is a good one. The film is blasphemous or righteous depending on who looks at it.

Personally, I favor Dennis Prager's take on this. He is a Jew and not a Christian, but it seems he sometimes does a better job of actually reading the text rather than rely on Church tradition.. He argues that the text clearly states "adultrey of the heart" and not "adultery of the flesh" and to suggest that God would consider both to be the same defies common sense. Because at that point, if I've already lusted over a woman, I might as well go ahead and do it because I've already commited the act in God's eye. Therefore, inpure thoughts may be unholy thoughts, but they are quite different than impure actions. Impure thoughts are merely unholy and impure actions may be sinful (although not necessarily).

///

Fun conversation!