All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
For a dispassionate viewpoint on the subject of offensive parodying of public figures, the best explanation is a US Supreme Court case involving Reverend Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler Magazine.
Hustler parodied an actual Campari Liqueur ad campaign called "My First Time", in which celebrities would reminisce about their first sexual experience. Well, Hustler's parody featured the Reverend Falwell waxing on about his first sexual experience - with his mother in an outhouse.
Falwell sued, he won, and the US Supreme Court overturned it, ruling in favor of Hustler. It's the standard of the right to use parody in literature, no matter how offensive.
Ray Comfort assumes that things can't be created naturally. His argument falls apart because of this. And even if there was a creator, Mike, how do we know it's the God that you worship? Couldn't everything just as easily have been created by Odin or Xenu or Chronus?
BTW, I will slowly be alternating the list of gods. Hopefully, it will make a point.
Point is, guys, there's no good reason to have a religious debate here. It always ends up with bad feelings, a locked thread and a member leaving the boards... like last time. I mean, believe what you want, as there's plenty of choices out there.
In the world, there are over 400 distinct religions (active) without even going into the old school ones that have since been called myths. Take your pick and stand by it. You know, be happy that you'll be in the good graces of whichever god you choose.
Ray Comfort also argues that the banana is proof of "Almighty God" because it, the banana, and the hand are each perfectly shaped for the other, and the banana has a natural non-slip surface and a biodegradable container with perforations.
"How about trying to help a writer avoid the fires of Hell? I'd say that's pretty darned relevant, too."
Actually, it's none of your business. And I don't even really think you care one bit about saving a soul, which you've tended to prove over and over. This is about you, Michael, not about saving anyone. If it were about saving souls you would not get combative and insulting. Let's call a spade a spade. This is about you and your own needs.
But if you want to save souls, fine, just not in script review threads. There are opportunities in other threads for you to get out your message. Would you want someone going into your script threads and preaching atheism or Islam or Scientology, or communism?
The purpose of the review threads is to help the writer, and that should guide your comments.
By the way, whatever happened to the turn the other cheek Jesus? Whatever happened to the Jesus that tried to convert by gently telling parables and hanging out with riff raff and people that lost their way? Simply citing biblical passage numbers as though that constitutes a coherent argument meant to convince...come on man. Do you really think anyone looks those up? If you're going to convert, be persuasive, or at least try. Hammering people with Gospel numbers just proves your real purpose. Think about it.
There's a terrific article written by John Yorke that touches in part on this subject, and encourages the contrarian.
"We don't like Satan in Paradise Lost – we love him. And we love him because he's the perfect gleeful embodiment of evil. Niceness tends to kill characters. Much more interesting are the rough edges, the darkness – and we love these things because, though we may not want to admit it, they touch something deep inside us."
Whether it's intentional or not, I've definitely seen some very lopsided evaluations of what's OK to discuss with religion. On the one hand, posting pro-religious comments is deemed unnecessary, and yet, calling religion out for being nonsense is accepted because it appears to be the general consensus of the board. That can't be right. The right to expression goes both ways. Let's get this straight: there are people who believe religion should be taken off the playing field and are entirely intolerant of it. To me, that mentality differs not one jot from bigots in any subject or area.
Personally, I'm as offended by people like Dawkins (or his ridiculous band of merry atheist cultists) as I'm by any OTT preacher trying to convert me to disavow my gay friends or to not drink or to give 10% of my earnings to a church. They are one and the same. I'm not personally religious, but do I believe in God? You betcha. The reason I discard religion is simply because of the man made rules designed to control and calm a poulace rather than allow them the rights to self-expression within the confines of the law. But we should respect those who hold religious views because in society their voice is being diminished by the sometimes vicious disdain of those trying to prove the unprovable... there is no God. If your life's work is to achieve that goal, you really will be disappointed. No one can prove anything either way.
And let me put it on record that my respect for 'people of the cloth' is greater than avid atheists like Dawkins whose motives appear largely egotistical under the guise of scientific motivations. Many scientists have faith and to have faith is something to be respected, not mocked.
Regards inputting religion in revews, I think it's best to place it in the category of perspective, as you would if people were inserting gender, race or sexuality perspectives. If it's obviously ridiculous like "you're going to hell", why would you even let that scratch your shoulder? It's silly and very likely designed to wind you up. Ignore it. As David Brent said (the superior British one): "like water off a duck's back".
To me, it appears a self-inflicted wound to strip away the possibilities that injecting religion (or any subject, for that matter) into the mix when writing or evaluating work. We should all be seeking to add depth and texture to our work, and by closing to your mind to any area that may allow you to do that, you're depriving yourself of a chance to be a better writer.
"How about trying to help a writer avoid the fires of Hell? I'd say that's pretty darned relevant, too."
Actually, it's none of your business. And I don't even really think you care one bit about saving a soul, which you've tended to prove over and over. This is about you, Michael, not about saving anyone. If it were about saving souls you would not get combative and insulting. Let's call a spade a spade. This is about you and your own needs.
But if you want to save souls, fine, just not in script review threads. There are opportunities in other threads for you to get out your message. Would you want someone going into your script threads and preaching atheism or Islam or Scientology, or communism?
The purpose of the review threads is to help the writer, and that should guide your comments.
By the way, whatever happened to the turn the other cheek Jesus? Whatever happened to the Jesus that tried to convert by gently telling parables and hanging out with riff raff and people that lost their way? Simply citing biblical passage numbers as though that constitutes a coherent argument meant to convince...come on man. Do you really think anyone looks those up? If you're going to convert, be persuasive, or at least try. Hammering people with Gospel numbers just proves your real purpose. Think about it.
Dude, you're so off track. On all points. Nice try, though.
First, let me say, the REAL problem I have with this thread is that it happens to be going on now. I have a plenty to say on this and to the related thread somewhere else that was deleted but it's been a very busy week (and I got caught up in Florida Gulf Coast dismantling Georgetown last night). When I've glanced through, I've thought of what I could lend but figured I do so at the next available moment and by then a few dozen posts go by.
I guess it's too much to ask for everyone here to check with my schedule first?
Even now I'm dripping wet and fighting nausea from a workout that was six months overdue.
Anyway, I studied comparative mythology at a secular liberal arts college (I was a double-major…should have minored in Business but thought that was boring…and, the 9-1 female to male ratio among English majors at the school didn’t exactly discourage me). I had to defend my faith in Christianity against professors and fellow students that believed everything was the same. It wasn’t enough for me to say that you just had to have faith. I had to attend class armed with facts and logic to have my point make any sense.
(For those that use the “you just have to have faith”…nothing wrong with that. In fact, you’re all better than me on that end. I had to have and needed something more).
Jesus existed. There were literally thousands of eyewitnesses to his ministry, miracles, execution and appearances in his resurrected body. The sources for those accounts are NOT just in the Bible. There are many references regarding him in non-Biblical sources and historical records of the day (and none of those carry a religious agenda), the most prominent being the Jewish historian Josephus. The early church came under attack on all fronts. It would have NEVER survived if it was based on fictional character. You can no more deny Jesus existed than you can Hammurabi.
I work at a faith-based college. You can’t swing a dead cat over here without hitting at least six professors that have written papers, books and / or could lecture for hours on the historical Jesus. Many have been involved with archeological digs in Israel and the Middle East verifying Biblical accounts and they work alongside science professors involved in their own pursuit of discovery and the have yet to discern anything that contradicts what the Bible has to say. (I, on the other hand, spend the institution’s money on football and basketball games…thankfully none of them resent me for that and they’re all cool to talk to.)
There’s a lot I could have chimed in on but didn’t have the chance. I may PM some of you on some things that I read about 497 posts ago. If I rehashed it here, I’d take the thread backwards…which in some ways would be annoyingly awesome! But I haven't been on the board long enough to establish myself and being that much of a pest.
I’ll try and post again after I’ve showered, chugged down a Power-ade and gotten an update on a certain Bracket playing out today.
The early church came under attack on all fronts. It would have NEVER survived if it was based on fictional character. You can no more deny Jesus existed than you can Hammurabi.
This is actually a piss-poor argument.
While stories of Jesus survived, so did stories regarding the Greek gods, Norse gods, Roman gods, Aztec, Islam, etc.. And they've all come under attack by someone... a lot of them by the Christians.
Pages: 
Author
Religion and the Boards
Logged
!!!
