Kinik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Kinik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>Easy. Hollywood HATES Christianity. They hate it for many reasons.
>>Hahahahahahaha. Christians are merely 98% of the audience for
>>televisions and movies. Hollywood doesn't do anything that would lose it
>>money.
>I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are here. Nuns, ministers,
>preists, and just plain old religious fundamentalist "bible thumpers" are
>the villians in television dramas a real lot. If you are not sensitive to
it
>you might not see the pattern.
Gangsters and firefighters and cops and lawyers and politicians and
cor****ate executives and studio executives and university executives and
adult men who live with their mothers and anyone some writer thinks he
can turn into a mustache-twirling villain with no subtlety have been bad
guys at one time or another.
In 1960s British television, a particular writer liked to turn out
stories (hell, the script was practically the same) featuring a mad
botanist as the villain. What does television have against botany?
What I think happens is that someone in real life pisses a writer off.
Highly motivated, he'll cast a characature of that person as a villain
in a future script.
And if the writer has a fight with his or her spouse, he'll probably pen
a brutal killing with one spouse beating or stabbing the other to death.
So, Hollywood opposes marriage too, right?
>>>1. Christianity is usually associated with the right and are often
>>>Republicans. Hollywood is far, far, left and almost always Democrats.
>>Mike Huckabee is airing a commercial in which he's endorsed by Chuck
>>Norris. You know, even in Hollywood, they have freedom of association.
>Chuck Norris? I'm surprised you didn't whip out the Tom Selleck, Bruce
>Willis card.
I don't have their cards. Big of you to acknowledge there opinions
diverge.
>Are you denying that Hollywood as a whole is not far left? Even the far
left
>admits that!
I think the elites of Hollywood are a bunch of greedy, self-serving
bastards, some of whom dabble in political causes for their own
amusement as wealthy people are wont to do. If I had to generalize
about their politics, I'd say that very few of them are terribly well
versed in the subtleties of society and economics and business, just like
the people who watch their movies or tv shows, so there's little point
in paying them any attention.
>>>2. Christianity have beliefs concerning ***uality(premarital ***, gay
***,
>>>lust) that the left finds disgusting.
>>Let's put on our thinking cap, shall we? Hmmmmmm. Television and movies
>>are visual. If we put a young, pretty woman on screen, especially
>>scantilly clad, it keeps eyes on the screen. Lust sells.
>>It's an economic thing, not an anti-religious thing.
>I never said that *** on screen is put there to offend the religious
>community. Keep twisting.
Stick to the point YOU made earlier and don't go off on an absurd tangent.
Wacky Christains tend to claim that ****trayals of ***/lust in images is
harmful to moral values and should be surpressed. Since Hollywood ****trays
those images for business reasons and wants freedom from censor****p,
there is a conflict.
>>>3. Many Christians want limits on abortion that the left finds
repressive
>>>and antiwomen.
>>>4. Many Christians sup****t a war on terror and many in Hollywood think
the
>>>whole idea is made up.
>>If being against terror is RELIGIOUS rather than acting in the national
>>interest, someone's religious values are all ****ed up. That has nothing
>>to do with Hollywood.
>I never said being against terror is RELIGIOUS. Keep twisting.
You just said many CHRISTIANS, quoted above. If you are now back
pedalling,
claiming that being against terror isn't religious at all, then why the
**** did you mention the religion of many people who want a war on
terror?
>>Think about the utter hypocrisy of that for a moment, considering that
>>the terrorists who themselves claim to be Muslims are also claiming to
>>be carrying out their own religious values, no? Which is WTF certain
>>Christians may be criticizing them for in a religios sense (since I have
>>to spell it out for you)?
You left this point unaddressed.
|
