Dogma. A film. A satire of the Catholic Church and Catholic beliefs. So what did Catholics do?
Ignore it during the actual filming process and pre-production, then plague it with protests and controversy. The director received over 30,000 pieces of hate mail.
The controversy was over a perceived anti-Christian message in the film. But isn't it just a little non-Christian to send hate mail? If you don't like it, just don't watch it. Don't let your children watch it. Don't recommend it to anyone. I'm sure sending hate mail is not going to do anything but give a bad rep to Christians. No wonder non-believers think we're crazy. Look how many of us act crazy.
Furthermore, if you're going to boycott one movie with "bad" content, you might as well boycott ALL movies, except those made with a religious intent that suits your beliefs.
No one is entirely successful at living a good Christian life, but do you seriously have to go out of your way to look like a lunatic and do something that's decidedly unworthy of the 'loving your neighbour' idea? Geez. You make us all look like hypocritical loonies.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
IV
"There comes a point in your life when you realize who matters, who never did, who won't anymore, and who always will. So don't worry about people from your past, there's a reason why they didn't make it to your future."
~Unknown
~Unknown
III
There she was. Lying in that single bed, squinting at the light filtering through the window. She'd been woken by a noise, what noise? She placed it. A little girl. A little girl that probably hadn't been fed yet, bathed, dressed, nothing. She got up to see to the little girl that wasn't hers, tripping over toys on her way to the door. It was afternoon, the sun was very high, reflecting off the snow on the balcony like a billion tiny diamonds that stabbed at the eyes. She closed the balcony's blinds halfway, and went to pour a bowl of cereal for the little girl, who was wandering about in a shirt and panties, hair a tangled mess on her head.
Walking to the balcony and opening the sliding door, she lit a cigarette. Coughing, she felt the pain of having smoked too much the night before. Closing her eyes, she felt the pain of having drank too much the night before. Feeling the ground shift, she felt the aftermath of having done too much of something she couldn't quite recall the night before. What was it called again? It didn't really matter.
She instructed the child to go away from the smoke when she came too close to the balcony door. The child wanted to be played with, or read to. She put out the cigarette, sat down to read to the little girl. The little girl's mother wandered out of another room, also in shirt and panties. She could see the mother flitting about in the kitchen in her peripheral vision. They spoke, nonsense about how they felt physically. Bullshit about how fun the night was. At least one of them knew they were killing themselves. At least one of them knew all the problems they had were caused by themselves. At least one of them could see the mistakes, however uncorrected they stood.
She saw partly to the dressing of the girl, and did the girl's hair. She didn't dress herself, though the mother did. She wished for a moment alone. She never got a moment alone anymore. They were always together. She didn't know what she felt anymore.
Later in the day, as the sun started to go down, the mother phoned the babysitter. Dressing herself, she readied the child that wasn't hers, and took her to the babysitter's. Inventing some excuse, as was normally done, for why the mother couldn't be there herself dropping the little girl off, she deposited the child and went back to the apartment. Both women got ready to go out in the city.
Another drive, knowing she would be driving home drunk and probably high, she ventured into the city with her partner in crime. They went to a club, and then another. They drank too much, flirted for free shots, danced unnecessarily shamelessly, and jonesed for another form of entertainment. They bought some, and disappeared into the ladies bathroom. Shortly after, they walked about looking at the men, pupils dilated, jaws clenching, licking their lips. Who knew how the night would end? It was open to fancy. They were invincible. They were on top of the world. Ripping up the town, owning everyone in their path.
They were destroying themselves. Damning and abusing their own souls. Killing themselves. One of them knew it. At least one of them knew it.
Walking to the balcony and opening the sliding door, she lit a cigarette. Coughing, she felt the pain of having smoked too much the night before. Closing her eyes, she felt the pain of having drank too much the night before. Feeling the ground shift, she felt the aftermath of having done too much of something she couldn't quite recall the night before. What was it called again? It didn't really matter.
She instructed the child to go away from the smoke when she came too close to the balcony door. The child wanted to be played with, or read to. She put out the cigarette, sat down to read to the little girl. The little girl's mother wandered out of another room, also in shirt and panties. She could see the mother flitting about in the kitchen in her peripheral vision. They spoke, nonsense about how they felt physically. Bullshit about how fun the night was. At least one of them knew they were killing themselves. At least one of them knew all the problems they had were caused by themselves. At least one of them could see the mistakes, however uncorrected they stood.
She saw partly to the dressing of the girl, and did the girl's hair. She didn't dress herself, though the mother did. She wished for a moment alone. She never got a moment alone anymore. They were always together. She didn't know what she felt anymore.
Later in the day, as the sun started to go down, the mother phoned the babysitter. Dressing herself, she readied the child that wasn't hers, and took her to the babysitter's. Inventing some excuse, as was normally done, for why the mother couldn't be there herself dropping the little girl off, she deposited the child and went back to the apartment. Both women got ready to go out in the city.
Another drive, knowing she would be driving home drunk and probably high, she ventured into the city with her partner in crime. They went to a club, and then another. They drank too much, flirted for free shots, danced unnecessarily shamelessly, and jonesed for another form of entertainment. They bought some, and disappeared into the ladies bathroom. Shortly after, they walked about looking at the men, pupils dilated, jaws clenching, licking their lips. Who knew how the night would end? It was open to fancy. They were invincible. They were on top of the world. Ripping up the town, owning everyone in their path.
They were destroying themselves. Damning and abusing their own souls. Killing themselves. One of them knew it. At least one of them knew it.
Two
Thought for the day.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society (called, go figure, anarchy). Anything past that is what separates anarchists into the different 'classifications' (inidividualist anarchists, socialist anarchists, etc).
I have a number of opinions that hold with some of the anarchist ideals. I also see such opinions for how the world should be as idealism, not realism. People are too evil to be left to their own devices. There are not enough honestly good people for it all to play out well. Eventually too many of the young, weak and infirm would be left to the mercy of the merciless. Eventually, those who are too evil and greedy would find a way to bring a form of state back in.
There is also the hope that a lot of the horrible things that happen are results, directly or indirectly, of the influences of state. That without state there would be more than enough of an all-for-one and one-for-all attitude, that people would live happily in community as opposed to under state. That there would be enough people willing to help those who needed help - because there will ALWAYS be people who need help. The hope that a lack of state really truly would mean an abundance of community.
There is also massive contradiction with some anarchists. The idea that violence and aggression is wrong and damages the individual, that self-defence and non-violence are the ways to go, is fine. But in order to try to bring about a state of chaos wherein a community of anarchy can be achieved people have used extreme violence. Is that in direct violation of the non-violence belief, or is it deemed and viewed as an act in self-defence of the violation of one's individual self by state? If a life of peace as equals is the goal, I don't believe violence is the right way to achieve it. Rather spoils the whole idea, wouldn't you say?
I don't wholly agree with state, as it is. I know if the world was full of me's in a state of anarchy it would be fine. It would mean huge emphasis of the sovereign individual. But an alarming number of individuals are of such a disposition that in the real world, it would create a highly unstable, volatile life for everyone. People get greedy, for any number of things, and community would suffer. People can't live without other people, but because of those who spoil it for the rest, we would not be able to function properly without state. Before society ever came close to becoming an anarchy, someone with their own agenda would have state propped right back up. It is completely unrealistic to believe the world could exist in a state of anarchy (and thus, stateless) for even a minute, however unfortunate that fact is. I like the ideas of anarchy, and tribalism, very much. However, I am not an anarchist. I do not attempt to achieve anarchy for the whole world, or a nation. I believe it to be futile, and therefore just live my life. People can strive to achieve a kind of anarchic way within groups and clubs and communes. There will always, however, be the confines of the state.
Regards,
Don't-know-where-that-came-from.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society (called, go figure, anarchy). Anything past that is what separates anarchists into the different 'classifications' (inidividualist anarchists, socialist anarchists, etc).
I have a number of opinions that hold with some of the anarchist ideals. I also see such opinions for how the world should be as idealism, not realism. People are too evil to be left to their own devices. There are not enough honestly good people for it all to play out well. Eventually too many of the young, weak and infirm would be left to the mercy of the merciless. Eventually, those who are too evil and greedy would find a way to bring a form of state back in.
There is also the hope that a lot of the horrible things that happen are results, directly or indirectly, of the influences of state. That without state there would be more than enough of an all-for-one and one-for-all attitude, that people would live happily in community as opposed to under state. That there would be enough people willing to help those who needed help - because there will ALWAYS be people who need help. The hope that a lack of state really truly would mean an abundance of community.
There is also massive contradiction with some anarchists. The idea that violence and aggression is wrong and damages the individual, that self-defence and non-violence are the ways to go, is fine. But in order to try to bring about a state of chaos wherein a community of anarchy can be achieved people have used extreme violence. Is that in direct violation of the non-violence belief, or is it deemed and viewed as an act in self-defence of the violation of one's individual self by state? If a life of peace as equals is the goal, I don't believe violence is the right way to achieve it. Rather spoils the whole idea, wouldn't you say?
I don't wholly agree with state, as it is. I know if the world was full of me's in a state of anarchy it would be fine. It would mean huge emphasis of the sovereign individual. But an alarming number of individuals are of such a disposition that in the real world, it would create a highly unstable, volatile life for everyone. People get greedy, for any number of things, and community would suffer. People can't live without other people, but because of those who spoil it for the rest, we would not be able to function properly without state. Before society ever came close to becoming an anarchy, someone with their own agenda would have state propped right back up. It is completely unrealistic to believe the world could exist in a state of anarchy (and thus, stateless) for even a minute, however unfortunate that fact is. I like the ideas of anarchy, and tribalism, very much. However, I am not an anarchist. I do not attempt to achieve anarchy for the whole world, or a nation. I believe it to be futile, and therefore just live my life. People can strive to achieve a kind of anarchic way within groups and clubs and communes. There will always, however, be the confines of the state.
Regards,
Don't-know-where-that-came-from.
One
Hello.
So, just for starters, this is my experimentation with the marvel of blogging. It is actually my second ever blog, the first ended in deletion after a short time because I hated it. Hated writing in it, hated reading it, and came to the conclusion that I expected too much out of the whole thing. So I deleted it and started fresh. As the blog's description says, with a quote in it itself, I'll be using this just for a place to put things that should be put somewhere. Quotes I find useful, inspiring, or just important to me in some way. Thoughts on some topic or other that I've ruminated upon, or just thought of that moment. Little pieces of "autobiographical reflections", something that happened a long while ago or just yesterday. Bits of a story, or little stories, how ever it ends up. Jumbles of jumble that belong somewhere, but have nowhere to be put other than being written some place. This is now that place. So any one reading this/these, have fun witnessing the inner workings of my mind. Somebody ought to have fun with them. Hopefully you can take something useful away with you!
Regards,
Me, Myself, and I.
So, just for starters, this is my experimentation with the marvel of blogging. It is actually my second ever blog, the first ended in deletion after a short time because I hated it. Hated writing in it, hated reading it, and came to the conclusion that I expected too much out of the whole thing. So I deleted it and started fresh. As the blog's description says, with a quote in it itself, I'll be using this just for a place to put things that should be put somewhere. Quotes I find useful, inspiring, or just important to me in some way. Thoughts on some topic or other that I've ruminated upon, or just thought of that moment. Little pieces of "autobiographical reflections", something that happened a long while ago or just yesterday. Bits of a story, or little stories, how ever it ends up. Jumbles of jumble that belong somewhere, but have nowhere to be put other than being written some place. This is now that place. So any one reading this/these, have fun witnessing the inner workings of my mind. Somebody ought to have fun with them. Hopefully you can take something useful away with you!
Regards,
Me, Myself, and I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)