tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2984983338692409906..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: An extract from Visions of EcstasyRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87556647184183313402011-08-17T05:09:48.538+10:002011-08-17T05:09:48.538+10:00No, "blasphemy" is not something that sh...No, "blasphemy" is not something that should have a legal definintion. The very notion smacks of tyranny. Individual conscience should be free, because religious experience, whatever else it may be, is extrememely various. <br /><br />"Hate speech" is a bad thing, but there's more to it than somebody having their sensibilities offended; this clip is not hateful. And except in extreme cases (such as the Westboro funeral protesters), there's a question about whether trying to define enforceable rules is worthwhile. Societal pressure is the thing that works when anything does.<br /><br />In this case, we should give some thought to cutters. Some memes are hard drugs that some can handle and some can't. But the answer isn't laws against drugs, it's available therapy.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10215784276660875929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73489476596159667882011-08-12T17:59:51.675+10:002011-08-12T17:59:51.675+10:00"There is no such thing as an anti-war movie...."There is no such thing as an anti-war movie."<br /><br />I'm skeptical of "glamourising" as an argument.Svlad Cjellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-5013695699129058922011-08-12T15:19:56.898+10:002011-08-12T15:19:56.898+10:00First, I would put the film in the context of the ...First, I would put the film in the context of the source material -- the writings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila" rel="nofollow">Saint Teresa of Ávila</a> -- and other works of art inspired by her writing.<br /><br />For example, this link for Bernini's <a href="http://smarthistory.org/bernini-ecstasy-of-st.-theresa.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Ecstasy of Saint Theresa</i></a> shows a passage of her writing, plus a nicely narrated video. Russell's questions above the film above could be asked about Saint Teresa's original writing, and Bernini's sculpture (or impressive <i>installation</i>). Was Saint Theresa blasphemous, or Bernini? I mean, what about that smile on that angel's face, about to jam that arrow into her guts, to make it hurt so good? And what about the men seated around the installation, they like to watch?<br /><br />Second, listening to the video narration about Bernini's installation, the words "framing" and "privilege" made me smile from other affairs. But as I'm writing this, I'm thinking of those words more seriously now, that the (anticipated) offense is not about some thing X being expressed -- the (anticipated) offense is about violating the "privilege" of <i>who</i> has the right to express something, and in what "framing". And I see the director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Wingrove" rel="nofollow">Nigel Wingrove</a> has a business (Salvation Films) to sell his other films on the Internet, like <i>Satanic Sluts I</i>, <i>II</i>, and <i>III</i>. Which supports my second point, that in practice, the law is applied against <i>who</i> should be denied the right of expression on a topic.<br /><br />Third, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunsploitation" rel="nofollow">nunsploitation</a> is a genre, and I would have a hard time defining what makes one film illegal versus the others. If this was a street crime, could we pick the blasphemer out of a (NSWF) <a href="http://salvation-films.com/WebForms/Browse.aspx?DepartmentID=1&CategoryID=35" rel="nofollow">lineup</a>?Dave Ricksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48173561732718130822011-08-12T05:57:16.310+10:002011-08-12T05:57:16.310+10:00I'll bite. Having watched it a couple of time...I'll bite. Having watched it a couple of times, and trying to envision the perspective of christians/catholics, I can <i>understand</i> the feelings that would prompt such objections. I think that it's a clear case of the owners of this perspective expressing a perceived right to not be offended. Of course, in the UK, that's the implicit purpose of blasphemy laws.<br /><br />From here in the US, I would strongly object to any such legal maneuverings in this vein, but given the legal atmosphere in which it arises, <b>I think this is simply a symptom of the problem rather than a problem in it's own right</b> (and is most likely legally justified under the current system).<br /><br />It doesn't matter if it objectively, or even uniformly, denigrates any particular position. If enough people claim offense, or blasphemy, it would seem to fall under the purview of the aforementioned law.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.com