PDA

View Full Version : Fanatical Christians in Geelong



arosar
06-04-2010, 10:00 AM
Being a Catholic and having seen my fair share of reenactments back in RP, this show (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7088212.ece) didn't really bother me very much. But what do youse think?

Trampling on freedom of speech? Or a triumph for secularist values?

AR

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-04-2010, 10:44 AM
besides traumatising children, what exactly does a groaning bloodied man on a stick promote ? :hmm:

plus hes loitering.......

looking at that picture, im guessing the kid is going to want to embrace mr bunny rather than mr "idiot on the cross".

dont these people reallise that without the mandatory holiday the general public would simply ignore their past time. even with the easter holidays, most people are only excited at this time of the year because they get a nice long weekend and 2 paid holidays. peoples motives for happiness certainly wont change because some fruitloop is dressed up in rags portraying jesus, covered with a smattering of fake blood, strapped to a pole in the middle of geelong re-enacting some amateur pantomime out of a very old book...............

or maybe im just not enlightened enough to the deep and persuasive message put forth. :D

good work by the geelong police. glad to see theres still decent policing on the odd occasion.

Basil
06-04-2010, 10:49 AM
Do these comments apply to all reenactments, say the massacre of aboriginals?

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Trampling on freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech doesn't currently include the right to screen MA- or R-rated violent horror movies in an unrestricted public place, so it should not include this kind of display either. Or, alternatively, it should include both, but I doubt that those promoting the display would be happy with that.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-04-2010, 11:57 AM
Do these comments apply to all reenactments, say the massacre of aboriginals?

pardon ??????

the massacre of aboriginals occurred quite recently in the timeline of this planet not 2000 odd years ago. im not sure the indigenous population would feel that the portrayal of their recently deceased ancestors is analagous to christians celebrating the death and subsequent resurrection of christ. as far as i know aborigines are still mainly underpriveleged community members. to say that the story of christs triumph is "like for like" with the slaughter of the native australian is difficult to fathom since the first australians are still completing their own process of resurrection from the initial act of violence. and as the figures on crime health and unemployment are still not too appealing that ressurection is still faultering at present.

the portrayal of aboriginal massacre in a moderated forum is a much more appropriate and practical presentation to make to public as it would draw attention to a group that deserves the attention to help improve there circumstances more than these religious groups whos individual destiny has been shaped markedly less by the events of a man who lived 2000 years ago.

that said........... in regards to all re-enactments

if any demographic feels the need to portray an historic/religious occurence of graphic imagery in a public arena and genuinely attempt to respect the entire community then that is fine with me. i would imagine this would involve liasing with the council, venue suitability, providing a synopsis of the content that would be presented, suitability for minors etc................

individuals standing in the street re-enacting inappropriate material are simply not respectful of the community whether they be christian aboriginal hindu french scottish etc etc.

morebeer
06-04-2010, 12:10 PM
Attention seeking, amateur theatre types with too much time on their hands over the long weekend.

Leave the crucifixion depictions to the professionals, Grünewald or Monty Python.

Basil
06-04-2010, 12:53 PM
the massacre of aboriginals occurred quite recently in the timeline of this planet not 2000 odd years ago.
This is true, AFAIK.


im not sure the indigenous population would feel that the portrayal of their recently deceased ancestors is analagous to christians celebrating the death and subsequent resurrection of christ.
Selective analogies have nothing to do with my question.


as far as i know aborigines are still mainly underpriveleged community members.
:rolleyes: Here we go, here we go, here we go-oooo.


to say that the story of christs triumph is "like for like"
Whoa, Jerry! Slow down. No one is saying it's like for like. I think you're fudging your reasons for outrage. Perhaps you should go back to your original post (tongue in cheek and derisive) and construct a better commentary. You can't have both of glib rejoinders when prodding the Christians, but also abject indignation when discussing the aboriginals.


that said........... in regards to all re-enactments
Oh you made it. Welcome.


if any demographic feels the need to portray an historic/religious occurence of graphic imagery in a public arena and genuinely attempt to respect the entire community then that is fine with me. i would imagine this would involve liasing with the council, venue suitability, providing a synopsis of the content that would be presented, suitability for minors etc................
Excellent.



individuals standing in the street re-enacting inappropriate material are simply not respectful of the community whether they be christian aboriginal hindu french scottish etc etc.
So your issues are of i) non-authorisation and ii) graphic nature.

In respect of i), I assume you react just as badly when aboriginals and other groups, say bald englishmen partake in unauthorised protests.

In respect of ii) I assume you react in the same manner when all groups portray outrage in a public and graphic nature.

I don't disagree with the sentiments necessarilly, I only shine a spotlight on the thinly veiled Christian bashing that is so popular ATM.

Carry on!

Desmond
06-04-2010, 03:32 PM
Free advertising for a small business with only 60 customers. Viva free enterprise.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
10-04-2010, 08:26 PM
tremendous stuff gunner. this has to be the most dissapointing thread I've been part of in a long while.

so I'm now somehow part of some christian bashers movement on this messageboard. would this be on the strength of me finding your query in relation to indigenous genocide appalling and this declaration then used in determining bias against the christian religion ? to be honest you can't make that connection primarily from the original question as I will explain later.

by the way havent you noticed that generally I don't even post in religious threads. it would seem likely that someone who is actually hostile towards christians would consistently voice their opposition in the appropriate channels (i.e. the religion threads). this is obvious not the case so it would seem either you've overlooked the facts or are telling fibs.

let me go through this sorry saga for you for the last time

a) my original post indicates that I'm supremely unimpressed with a particular public display due to the visual content. I thought by the tone and content of the post that it would have been patently obvious that this was the case. not once did I mention anything in relation to the value of the message the party involved was issuing. the identity of the party involved in my opinion is superfluous to the outcome of police intervention. but you believe it not to be the case. somehow this isn't enough for your sceptical mind to be convinced.
which leads onto your original reply in the thread and point b......

b) your inability to realise your initial question regarding "indigenous genocide" as insensitive and wholly improper is really quite perplexing.

would you have been prepared to question me on the merits of whether the surviving familys from the atrocitys that were committed on the jewish people from last century should be given the same treatment ? would that be an appropriate line of questioning ? or would it be grossly insensitive?

your gross misinterpretation of my motives has exposed your inability to elicit pertinent information in a respectful manner.
here's an equation that proves you couldn't even ascertain whether or not I was biased against christians (even if I was) and had of answered 'no' to your original query..........

equation to disprove gunners "christian bashing melodramatics"

confirmation that any individual that desires sensoring graphic portrayals of an easter themed display but allows the public performance of a depiction of ethnic genocide does not prove that that individual is bashing christians . as I've described in length the context of each presentation is also pertinent to the final decision. and what ultimately you fail to reallise is that some individuals (not me) that might be flexible in the method they opportion censorship might place complete censorship on christians presenting pantomime to display jesus on the cross in public but have little or no need for that sensorship to be placed on the christian movement had itself recently been the victim of a massacre itself and this instead was the theme of the performance to proceed. a massacre like the one in which you refer to that the first australians endured.

so your need to reference indigenous genocide was clearly out of order. maybe it is you who is trying to bash a particular group by trying to hold them to account in line with your sympathys for christians in a discussion which didn't warrant their situaton being mentioned in the first place.

people have the capacity to vary their offence and conjer up differing levels of emotion and sympathy and make judgements of specific material on merit irrespective of the party involved.

this is my last response on the matter.

even kittens can't save this thead. (somebody please post the picture)

Spiny Norman
11-04-2010, 07:26 AM
It was unnecessarily provocative the way this group went about their 'display' ... however I should point out that at least what they did was an educational counterpoint to the usual drivel that gets trotted out at easter time (e.g. media reports about "Christians all over the world gathered..." which show the usual 'high church' cathedral-style celebrations, easter bunnies, easter egg hunts, etc).

Has anyone bothered to notice that the Christian easter celebrations actually ARE about someone who was beaten, whipped, then nailed to a cross, dying a horrible, painful death? Why shouldn't Christians be permitted to portray this? (leaving aside their choice of location, which was very poor).

Given that police arguably acted outside the law in intervening, why are the usual left-wing suspects not frothing at the mouth about that?

Spiny Norman
11-04-2010, 07:29 AM
even kittens can't save this thead. (somebody please post the picture)
OK.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2010, 07:37 AM
or maybe this:

Desmond
11-04-2010, 08:05 AM
It was unnecessarily provocative the way this group went about their 'display' ... however I should point out that at least what they did was an educational counterpoint to the usual drivel that gets trotted out at easter time (e.g. media reports about "Christians all over the world gathered..." which show the usual 'high church' cathedral-style celebrations, easter bunnies, easter egg hunts, etc).

Has anyone bothered to notice that the Christian easter celebrations actually ARE about someone who was beaten, whipped, then nailed to a cross, dying a horrible, painful death? Why shouldn't Christians be permitted to portray this? (leaving aside their choice of location, which was very poor).

Given that police arguably acted outside the law in intervening, why are the usual left-wing suspects not frothing at the mouth about that?
You have a point. Much easier to demonstrate that part than to demonstrate self-resurrection.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2010, 03:12 PM
Has anyone bothered to notice that the Christian easter celebrations actually ARE about someone who was beaten, whipped, then nailed to a cross, dying a horrible, painful death? Why shouldn't Christians be permitted to portray this? (leaving aside their choice of location, which was very poor).

Location is really what all this is about. Private place or a theatre or similar (with appropriate disclaimers) and there should be no problem - though I'd hope those promoting it would have no problem with equally violent non-religious movies or artwork being available under the same circumstances.


Given that police arguably acted outside the law in intervening, why are the usual left-wing suspects not frothing at the mouth about that?

What is the argument that they may have acted outside the law? I have seen some claims by the religious group about what the police supposedly said in breaking up the demonstration, but I'm not sure those reports are reliable.

CameronD
11-04-2010, 11:23 PM
This happens all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8NrffXjUKs
It occured during world youth day by the catholic church and considered acceptable to be broadcast.

I think thats the problem, its being done graphically in public places numerously and applauded for it.

ps

I thought that shopping centres were private property owned by corporations.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2010, 01:43 AM
I thought that shopping centres were private property owned by corporations.

Quite correct. What I had in mind by "private" in this instance is somewhere where the general public aren't pouring in in numbers unaware of the likelihood of this sort of thing and with children in tow etc.

If it is part of a mass religious event it is more to be expected by those watching.