Censorship and the arts

[blansky]

I wrote this on the Iraqi thread as well:

Someone mentioned the Geneva Convention. I'm not certain what it says but I think that it was a code of conduct about surrendering soldiers. However soldiers were probably defined as "in uniform".

In previous wars there was kind of a mutual repect of uniformed soldiers who surrendered. If you were out of uniform you were routinely executed. Any "snake in the grass" individuals such as even uniformed snipers as well as rebels/partisans/resistance types were also executed.

In Iraq where these "insurgents" are blending in with the population and then striking from alleyways etc, and then blending back in the population, I'm not sure the Geneva Comvention applies to them.

Even if it does their tactics don't garner them much respect, hence they are regarded as less than "soldiers".


Faguzi Dave wrote:

Actually, as I understand it they've always had a say about whether or not they would be photogrpahed in the first place. I remember seeing in an article or review somewhere her daughter remarking that for a period of time around adolescence she objected and her moother didn't photograph her. She later reconsidered and was ok with it again.

I saw her grown up children inverviewed and they had sort of a mixed reaction to the pictures. But the point is can a child "consent" to anything.
They obviously have no concept of what the images are about and where they are going and the long term ramifications.


As for the burned up "contractors" in Iraq whom some believe are really just mercenaries, that were hanging from the bridge picture, their vehicle was hit by a rocket grenade I believe, and already burned up. The yahoos in the pictures had just taken the bodies from the vehicle and hung them up. Although gross enough, they did not take living or dead bodies and burn them.


Michael

 

[Aggie]

my mistake on that one Michael.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Agreed!

 

[Ed Sukach]

The problem with Aggies child pornography example, as I have stated before is that Jock Sturges and Sally Mann photographs are I'm sure in the hands of pedophiles. Just as the Sears catalog lingerie section and National Geographic African editions were in the hands of adolescent boys 50 years ago. There are probably members of the Taliban masturbating over pictures of a womans calf or knee.

True - and there are those who get an enormous "kick" from Gray's "Anatomy of the Human body".

What really deserves serious thought are the sociological factors that serve to intensify the mindsets of some to slide off to bizarre places.

The single *MOST* pornographic piece I've ever encountered was "The Report of the President's Commission to Study Pornography" (or some title like that) - published by the United States Government Printing office. In it a number of *prestigious* investigators viewed and studied - closely - the adult films of the early '70's - "Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door - and wrote microscopic descriptions of the actions in them ... down to the last wrinkle in the sheets. Hoo boy!!!

Interesting too, where one can stumble across pornography - true pornography. I just saw a number of photographs of the images on Ancient Greek coins -- ca. 500 - 450 B.C.E. My word! -- they show couples -- uh ... DOING it!!

Then again - there is another correlation -- It seems that the more artistic freedom in a society (and with it, freedom from censorship), the greater the advancement and intellectual growth - and I think the Ancient Greek Civilizations bear this out. Come to think of it ... Colonial America from the end of the Witch Trails in 1693, and with them, repressive Puritanism - until after the American Revolution -- 1800 or so -- offers still more proof.

 

[Tom Duffy]

JDEF,
There's always been a tension between the movement of the Spirit (apprehension of the Transcendent) in the individual and the institutional religion which simultaneously encourages and controls that impulse. Religion and freedom are not in opposition. Only those who pervert the religious impulse by acting to "protect" the institution are in opposition to freedom. A fundamentalist of any religious denomination is motivated by something other than life's quest to appreciate the transcendent.
You said, "and opposing religions have accounted for the greatest atrocities in human history." This is plausible, though perhaps arguable. People often use religion as a justification when acting in their own self interest.
Religious impulse is also responsible for some of the greatest acts of sacrifice, charity, and altruism. Oposition to abortion, capital punishment, deportation of refugees, etc. are based on the impulse to defend the defenseless. "If you do it for the least of mine, you do it for me."
Imagining (yes, an offhand reference to John Lennon) a secular human society which treats people in the cold calculus of their value to that society ironically devalues them as compared to a society of genuinely religious people.

Take care,
Tom

 

[Aggie]

Well jeff I could say this a mad situation (mutually agreed disagreement) I will raise my American flag proudly since there is still a helluva lot to be proud of. And I will thump my bible when I feel like it, along with my (uh oh) Book of Mormon. I'm a female and I have a mind and I make it up not anyone else. I personally do not like a lot of pictures I've seen. Other than child pornography and I mean the hard core stuff not a mother's snapshot of her kid naked, Will I say it has no place being presented to the public in any form.

What this topic was about was should there be censorship and should the government do it? No to both. If any censorship occurs it is going to be by me not someone who tells me I can't look at something. I am more apt to go look just for that reason. At the same time i do not want objectionable material foisted on me without my approval. Ie I hate spam I am tired of p enis en haCments or how ever they want to get past filters. YES there should be censorship that can be reliable to the individual. I want spam eradicated. I want ti abolished. I want it persecuted. I want it filleted and cooked over slow coals. (wait they do that already) Now that is something I can get really angry about the over 500 per day bits of spam that pollute my computer.

This wil obviously set off more posts about how evil religion is. Yeah well go ahead, you have the right to say it.

 

[mobtown_4x5]

This forum is obviously a "liberals only" club. Sean, how do I get my name of the mebership list? I'm gone.

*post moderated* -admin

I will say this- I used to be in the "anything goes, if you don't like it, don't look at it" camp, but now I have a 12 year-old step-daughter, and sometimes I do wish for a little more- um- restraint-

funny how your perspective can change...

 

[jd callow]

This thread seems to have degenerated in to a partisan battle. I like most have strong feelings about censorship. I also am not too interested in fanning the flames. Having said that I'll offer a couple comments and then duck and run.

1). Freedom of speech is a liberty. Liberties are what makes this country great and that which makes us vulnerable. I will side with great and live with the risks. I think that is what the founding fathers intended and that is what I believe in. T. Jefferson said, "any man that would sacrifice his freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security." Freedom is not free.

2). Exposing for public discourse the images of tortured Iraqis is necessary. It doesn't have to be done in a manner that further humiliates the victims. As I noted earlier the BBC was thoughtful enough to blur their faces. The reasons are obvious to me -- we as a democracy need to know what is being done in our name.

3). Whether the Iraqis are covered by the Geneva convention or not is not material. I would also be suspicious that there is a shortage of experts here on international law. I also think it is irrelevant that our enemies are bigger bastards than us. The beheading of Mr Berg does not make it right for us to do what we did. I would like to think that we are better than our enemies. A measure of that would be the superior manner in which we treat our prisoners. We shouldn't be looking for loop holes in the law so that we can mis treat people we should be treating people with respect because it is the right thing to do.

4). I read and watch all the news I can. When I'm on vacation in other countries I go at it with fervor. Reading the comments here I suspect I'm not alone. If you think that news organizations are not partisan or are liberal or conservative as a group I would invite you to read the following on any given day: The Weekly Standard, Wallstreet Journal, CS Monitor, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, The Guardian and the London Times.

and watch
The BBC, Frontline, News Hour, CNN, CBC, FOX News and any one of the ABC, NBC CBS.

These are the great (or at least big) news sources available to us in N America. They all produce their product for their constituency. Some are watered down and homogenized, some are right or left leaning and others are extremely evenhanded. To label the press liberal or conservative is wrong by the evidence (in my tiny little mind). To not recognize the leanings of the source can be dangerous.


I

 

[blansky]

As this thread is obviously winding down, I will add to my amazement that I absolutely agree with everything that jdef said.

I believe that it is our humanity that makes us good, loving, altruistic, godlike and not our religion.

Does that mean that if you are a devout, Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddist that you are not those above qualities.

Absolutely not.

It just means that you are not applying all the fundament tenants of your religion but are instead using your humanity to make judgements on which parts of your religion that you wish to adhere to.

As has been said previously fundamentalist anything are dangerous people. They are a constant threat to their neighbors because they place their religion above their humanity.

Some of the best people I know are adherents of various religions, and some are secular as I am.

My four cents worth.


Michael McBlane

 

[jd callow]

I wasn't going to post to this again and I restrained my self from commenting on religion the last time, but I have to throw my two cents in with jdef and and Michael.

People who are not religious have as reliable a moral compass as the religious folk.

As seen in the middle east as well as here at home the religious zealots are often the ones who seem to have lost their way.

 

[Tom Duffy]

jdef,
Nothing for it then, but to burn you at the stake!
My acknowledgement, really, that much of what you is true.

I'm a believing Roman Catholic who enjoys drinking, cursing and the well crafted dirty joke. I don't think there's anything inconsistant there; the sacred and profane are both part of human nature.

I think you're trying to create a freedom vs. religion comparison when one has nothing to do with the other. "Christians are not free to believe that Jesus was not the son of god..." Why would you want to, if you're a Christian?

The only time I remember that Jesus lost his temper and committed violence was in throwing the money changers out of the temple. I'm sure he, similarly, would also have much to say to the institutional authorities in his own church.

Religions also have the ability to evolve as human knowledge progresses. The Church condemed Galileo, but not Darwin. Some of Catholicism's most progressive thinkers embrace evolution and examine its implications toward communal spirtiuality. Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind. He concluded that the social use of the intellect is the peak of man's talents, and would become their ultimate realization. I'd recommend his book, "The Future of MAN".
Another book recommendation is Bernard J. F. Lonergan's "Insight" subtitled "a Study of Human Understanding". He progresses though observation, science, metaphysics, transcendence and God. According to the Time magazine review of the book, "Lonergan is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century." Well worth a look if you're so inclined.

There is nothing incompatible between religion and humanity. The religious impulse is man's highest call to realize his potential.

I get very upset when people bend religion to their own selfish agendas. Jesus washed the the feet of his disciples at the last supper and said words to the effect of "Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me master and so I am. Now go and do likewise." Pretty friggin' unambiguous to me!

I'll close with this, as Christopher Burkett, the photograper (see, Sean, I'm back on topic!) of magnificent 8x10 color landscapes said that people are very uncomfortable with his artist's statement because he credits God as his motivation to photograph. I don't mind making people uncomfortable, especially secular humanists
and I think it is germane to to the Ethics and Philosophy forum.

Although many of us hold divergent views I think we handled this type of topic fairly well. I do hope gregdavis reconsiders his departure. APUG is really the nicest group of people on any photography bulletin board.
Take care,
Tom

edit: corrected the name to gregdavis, I misread it, initially.

 

[lee]

I do hope gregdavis reconsiders his departure.

Maybe he just ventured off to get some more of the Republican koolaid.

lee\c

 

[Aggie]

You can all disagree with me, but I will say this anyway. (as if I ever hold back from talking)

This forum for those that speak up, conservative politics is evil in most (that is not saying all) peoples minds. As for if you dare to be a republican you are more evil than satan. What ever happened to a debate that didn't digenerate into name calling? What ever happened to freedom of speech ? Well it is alive and well and being run off. Talk about censorship!

 

[jd callow]

You can all disagree with me, but I will say this anyway. (as if I ever hold back from talking)

This forum for those that speak up, conservative politics is evil in most (that is not saying all) peoples minds. As for if you dare to be a republican you are more evil than satan. What ever happened to a debate that didn't digenerate into name calling? What ever happened to freedom of speech ? Well it is alive and well and being run off. Talk about censorship!

Well, I don't think you are evil.

 

[blansky]

Tom wrote:

There is nothing incompatible between religion and humanity. The religious impulse is man's highest call to realize his potential

.

Or is it his spiritual impulse? Big difference.

I'll close with this, as Christopher Burkett, the photograper (see, Sean, I'm back on topic!) of magnificent 8x10 color landscapes said that people are very uncomfortable with his artist's statement because he credits God as his motivation to photograph. I don't mind making people uncomfortable, especially secular humanists

You pre-suppose that secular humanists don't believe in God. Incorrect, a lot of us do, we just don't believe in religions and the dogma attached to them.


Later,

Michael

 

[blansky]

Aggie wrote:

As for if you dare to be a republican you are more evil than satan.

Aggie we don't hate the sinner, we just hate the sin.

We are just trying to help you see the errors of your ways. We have great hope for you. We think you can perhaps absolve yourself of those dreadful people and come back into the fold.

We wait with open arms.


Michael

 

[Jeremy]

I think you're trying to create a freedom vs. religion comparison when one has nothing to do with the other. "Christians are not free to believe that Jesus was not the son of god..." Why would you want to, if you're a Christian?

The consensus at the Jesus Seminar was that Jesus did not perform miracles (i.e. he was an ordinary man). Hypotheses past this majority opinion range from Jesus as a fictional character, Jesus as the conglomeration of many ordinary men, Jesus as an ordinary man who walked the life of an apocolyptic visionary, and many more. This Seminar included many Christians.

For more information about a historical Jesus (both for and against) look at books by:

G. A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Hyam Maccoby, Lee Strobel, and Josh McDowell


*edited to correct the link

 

[jd callow]

Frontline had an interesting show on Jesus. It can be found on the web here

 

[Aggie]

Now how do I put this the best way? Father helped put many DEMOCRATs into office, aunt was the state democratic leader of Utah. Another aunt was very infamous in the state as a democrat (heaven forbid she was the state liquor commissioner). Another uncle was of all things a senator who was a democrat. (not from Utah) I was a page at the 68 democratic convention. But you know what? I found I didn't like a lot of what I saw. I do not vote for Republicans or Democrats. I vote for the best person who I deem to have the same views on an issue as I do. I look at all sides of it, I find out what is really going on. Then vote that way. As for coming back into the fold? hell no, I want more freedom than that. I like to think for myself. If a democrat is best suited I vote for them. If a Republican is best suited I vote for them. If a tree hugger is best suited I vote for them. It depends on the issue at hand. I do not like the knee jerk two step that infects most politics.

 

[Jeremy]

hear, hear, aggie!

 

[Jeremy]

Callow, thanks for the link! I bookmarked it to check later. I have a feeling though, that many of the theories suggested in the program will be middle-of-the-road theories that appease the audience. There will probably be no staunch fundamentalist theories nor fictional Jesus hypotheses as this would piss of the audience, who would turn off their televisions and not see the ads, which will piss off those who paid for the ads, and Frontline would lose lots of revenue and make less of a profit--therefore they will try to appease. Hopefully I am mistaken and they at the issue from all angles.

 

[jd callow]

Callow, thanks for the link! I bookmarked it to check later. I have a feeling though, that many of the theories suggested in the program will be middle-of-the-road theories that appease the audience. There will probably be no staunch fundamentalist theories nor fictional Jesus hypotheses as this would piss of the audience, who would turn off their televisions and not see the ads, which will piss off those who paid for the ads, and Frontline would lose lots of revenue and make less of a profit--therefore they will try to appease. Hopefully I am mistaken and they at the issue from all angles.

Frontline is a PBS program and therefore doesn't suffer from the the self imposed restraint you refer to. It is actually considered one of if not the best news magazine of its kind (20/20, dateline 60min being the commercial variants).

This program focuses on early Christiondom and touches upon the gnostics (some great links too), the politics, people etc...

 

[David R Munson]

Any bi-partisan system is immediate degeneration. As soon as you divide people into sides, dogma begins to take over and reason goes out the window. I am fairly liberal, but I do not call myself "a liberal." While I oppose a lot of conservative policy, I am not intrinsically against conservatism or conservatives. I refuse to register under either the Republican or Democratic parties. Remember that saying that a nation divided against itself cannot stand? This is manifested in politics every single day in the United States. We are falling down, and fast.

Anyhow, at least we got some discussion going, right?

And now a slightly controversial comment from yours truly that I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard originally (probably a bumper sticker): freedom is not something any government can give - it can only take it away. If we do not actively oppose censorship and demand that our freedoms remain, they will be (and are being) impinged upon, reduced, and eventually removed. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. They're all under attack, and censorship applies to all of them in both artistic and and non-artistic ways.

 

[clay]

Just read a great quote applicable to most political discussions:

'Truths are split into half-truths in order to sharpen their edges'

Hegel

 

[David R Munson]

Heh. Figures that one of my least favorite philosophers (the translations I've read, anyway) would say something cool like that.