Should the Bible be given an 18 rating.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I would generally focus on a reasonable assessment of what the Bible is rather than an assessment based on people who have no interest in it, or who have taken no interest in assessing it's contents.

If you really think the Bible means nothing to you, have nothing to do with it at all seems to be the solution rather than trying to interfere with other peoples religion.



Freedom of religion and conscience is a right. As is freedom of speech.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I am glad that the censorship of books here has ended.

I want to be free to hold whatever religious belief I have chosen, and parents should be entitled to share that faith with their children.

See this is my problem with people who claim to argue for mere secularism, but actually want to do far more. I wish more people would be as honest as you are about what you want.

If you want to believe in your religion or whatever else, then go over there away from me and my publicly funded services. No religion should be involved with publicy funded schools, hospitals or indeed a classification board part of whose remit is to regulate what moving images people view.

Jakkass wrote: »

No doubt it was assessed on grounds of language, how sexually explicit it was and so on. In the case of the Passion of the Christ, in terms of it's message, and the value in that message philosophically and religiously they decided there should be some leeway in the matter. I'm quite sure that if other films contained such a strong and a pervasive message in a secular context or in any other religious context they would be given the same leeway.



Other cases then, of the same thing occurring as in the case of the Passion of the Christ.

Anyone believing t was evenly assessed on grounds of violence and the others is living in fairy land in my honest opinion.

There is no way this film was assessed fairly. It was given a rating that allowed young children view extreme violence and in every other context that would not be allowed. But of course this is the context of Christianity and a state body decided that it deserves special treatment. Funny that, despite there supposed to hvae been a separation of church and state we still get crap like that.

It may of course just be a coincidence that priests told their mass-goes that this is a great film, go see and bring your family.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it is. Most Christians in Ireland disagree with the blasphemy law. We believe it is more fruitful for people to express their objections to our faith freely. If it isn't free objection, how can we ever hope to provide a meaningful response?

I'm really quite surprised by that considering blasphemy within canon law.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

If you want to believe in your religion or whatever else, then go over there away from me and my publicly funded services. No religion should be involved with publicy funded schools, hospitals or indeed a classification board part of whose remit is to regulate what moving images people view.

Bear in mind, that public services are by no means just yours, they are ours. As such I believe that it is fair that these services should reflect both faith education, and secular education as in most reasonable countries. I've been through this with people on the forum before.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Anyone believing t was evenly assessed on grounds of violence and the others is living in fairy land in my honest opinion.

Thank goodness your opinion is subjective.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There is no way this film was assessed fairly. It was given a rating that allowed young children view extreme violence and in every other context that would not be allowed. But of course this is the context of Christianity and a state body decided that it deserves special treatment. Funny that, despite there supposed to hvae been a separation of church and state we still get crap like that.

Are 15 year old's young children? Without the discretion of parents attending with them you would have had to be at least 15 to see this on your own.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It may of course just be a coincidence that priests told their mass-goes that this is a great film, go see and bring your family.

Well, it was a great film, that showed a narrative that changed the world forever. I can't imagine what would be more relevant to show a child living in our culture.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I'm really quite surprised by that considering blasphemy within canon law.

Canon law is applicable to one respective church. It is not applicable to all people of every church universally. In assuming that you mean the Canon law of the Catholic Church. I'm sure you know that Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of Ireland, non-denominational, Pentecostal, and Apostolic account for over 5% of our population in Ireland, and a huge percentage worldwide.

Blasphemy is a sin, no doubt about it. However, whether or not a legal punishment is necessary for such a sin is a whole other question.

I'd prefer to hear blasphemous statements to my face (as it would allow me a contact point to clarify misconceptions), than have people suppress them out of fear. In the latter, the issues and objections remain, in the former there is a means of providing an answer.

Jakkass wrote: »

Are 15 year old's young children? Without the discretion of parents attending with them you would have had to be at least 15 to see this on your own.

.

15 year olds are legal children yes, they are minors.

You may have missed my point or I didn't make it correctly.


Parets brought their children, as young as toddler age, in to see this grotesque, vile film. They were afforded the oppurtunity to do so because a state agency (or semi-state, whatever the IFCO is, they sure the hell aren't indepdendent) ruled that this film was fit for viewing by persons under the age of 15 accompanied by an adult/guardian aged 18years or more. When Bad Santa was released it too got this '15PG' rating. Parents again brought their children in to see this "Santa movie @ Xmas". The film of course has themes not suitable for children of pre-teen age such as an alcoholic, swearing, smoking Santa Claus character than engages in anal sex.

So the outcry was "oh my, how dare you let our children view such horrible images". There's nothing in the film to really warrant it an 18 hence it getting a 15 which is acceptable as there wasn't much violence unlike The Passion which was loaded with violence.


Anyway, what all this means is that the State in effect sanctioned this film to be viewed by minors while films with less violence have been handled in a more strict manner. In the film there is little or no context or back story. All you see is one man claiming to be the son of (a) god and is then tortured for that claim.

slipss wrote: »

Didn't read the whole thread, but in case somehow no ones mentioned it. There is no age restrictions available to be placed on books in this country, there are for movies or video games, so the suggestion is ridiculous. Books can be banned entirely but usually only for slander.

Yes it's been said and yes we all know... We're getting hypothetical but of course that is what the "Should the bible be banned?" question is based on because of course, there's no way in hell that the bible could ever be banned even if a murderer tried to use it as a defense such as was the case with certain other works.