Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
It doesn't say anywhere in the article that this film hasn't found a distributor because of religious America. That is assumed by the Producer.

There has been a saturation of English victorian era movies like The Queen and whole pile of other movies. Maybe America is just a bit tired of English period pieces right now?

And I think trying to stir up Christian and religious animosity to get a film extra attention has been used so many times over the last decades that it no longer works.

I'm sure a lot of British films didn't get a release in America either. Is that because of religious America too?


With movies like the Saw series and other horror and macabre movies showing in U.S cinemas all the time, it's almost laughable that these industry types still keep trying to make out that the religious christians have any power over what gets released to cinemas and what doesn't these days.


again...are you kidding?? here in california, we had a ballot measure to be voted on that would keep californian gays from getting married legally. the mormons of utah poured millions of dollars into california to make sure it was defeated, and the religious right from other states did the same. i ignorantly believed that this was no big deal, because here in calif. i figured this being a progessive state, it had no legs to stand on. and there were alot of people stunned by the decision to outlaw it. I AM MARRIED (26 years) HETEROSEXUAL MALE, and i was stunned by the lack of progressive thought, and personel freedom.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The numbers of scientists and sheeple that believe in evolution is not the result of them being more intelligent than those who believe the evidence more reasonably supports creation. In fact, the majority view is most often held by fools. For proof, one only needs to look at the democratically elected leaders in the world.....who are elected by the majority.


One can also look to the bible which states, "the fool says in his heart, there is no God."



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


A question to you john matrix: Thunder and lightning: Is it thor or a discharge?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You might want to recheck your data on that title change...

The publisher and the author are the ones who changed the title, and not because of any pressure...

In America, philosopher isn't associated commonly with magic...sorcerer is. Really rather simple, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
i can't believe what i'm reading here, are you people seriously that stupid?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
"Philosopher" is not in any way synonymous with "witch" or "sorcerer" in the UK. The phrase "philosopher's stone" refers to the quest of alchemy, for the substance or "stone" that would transmute base metals to gold. Also thought of as a perfecting elixir which would enable eternal life & as a metaphor for unified wisdom.
Given some of the responses to Harry Potter in the USA, that by mentioning magic in a traditional mythological fashion it is satanic (lol so hard I could pee), I expect Rowling probably did want to avoid providing the loons with any further ammunition. "Sorcerer" was well within the same category of potential criticism that was already being ignored by her US fanbase. Alchemy might have opened the moronic debate all over again.
Btw, how anyone could take Rowling's work seriously is beyond me, & as satanic? ROFL! But I'd be willing to bet a teste that those that do are part of the 61% in question.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I just found some very interesting statistics here.



Once again I find myself speechless, why do the American general public have such a mistrust for science?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


hahahahhahahaha it seems that the americans are too stupid for this movie. Let alone the eternal war between evolution and creation, it is just a movie. You can judge someones's intellect by his capacity to respect someone else opinion and debate in a civil manner. Obviously the american can't do that so this movie gets censored.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders
I just found some very interesting statistics here.



Once again I find myself speechless, why do the American general public have such a mistrust for science?


Ask people how to define either category and most people will be speechless.

The American general public doesn't have a mistrust for science. Evolution is not a science, its a hypothesis and a way to explain the evidence.

You are taking cheap shots at the American people because you are jealous and envious. Jealousy and envy are expressions of hatred.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Jealous and Envious of what??..of a total screwed up belief..of a total lack of understanding of Evolution and science....of a backward society??



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Jealous and envious of what? How is that a cheap shot? I saw something relative to the subject was astonished by it and posted it.

Not science? Really?




a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of ...

noaa



Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

wikipedia



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
How weak in faith must the 'American Christian' be to be threatened by a film?

If religion wasn't a control system, the movie would face this kind of censorship. It just shows the sham of valueless Christian values.

This is quite ridiculous. What's next? Ban Star Wars in case people begin to follow 'The Force'?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
How weak in faith must the 'American Christian' be to be threatened by a film?

If religion wasn't a control system, the movie would face this kind of censorship. It just shows the sham of valueless Christian values.

This is quite ridiculous. What's next? Ban Star Wars in case people begin to follow 'The Force'?


It was the US film distributors that did not buy the film......because they did not foresee any substantial profit from it.......so it was a business decision....nothing more. The OP is reading far too much into this.

I believe in creation and have seen films like this all my life. I've had evolution rammed down my throat from the time I was born. You cannot escape the evolutionists propaganda in North America, or anywhere for that matter.

If the US distributors bought the film it would be shown in the US and people would watch it....and hopefully go to the right source to hear the explanation of the evidence from a creation science perspective.

To the OP. If you think the USA is a backwards society you are very ill informed. Also, the USA is the envy of the civilized world. That's why people spend weeks hiding and starving inside the hulls of cargo ships to get here. That's why people hide in the wheel wells of airplanes crossing the oceans to get hear....and sometimes freezing to death in the process. That's why people launch their bath tubs from the shores of Cuba to try and get to the shores of the USA. That's why Mexicans have died crossing deserts to get to the USA. If the USA is so backwards and has nothing to be jealous or envious of, then why would people risk their lives to get here...LOL.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. There are many other theories that make more sense than the atheist-monkey-god Darwin.

You guys can believe you evolved millions of years from monkeys to humans. But I know they are not my ancestors.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jvm222
 


Again, another ragamuffin misrepresenting evolution.

Common ancestor (which we share with apes) we evolved from, not literally apes. Honestly, can you read?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jvm222
 


Evolution for Dummies
From a Scientific American list of 15 common attacks on evolution. I'll spare the more mundane or ridiculous items (semantics about 'theory', no one has seen evolution, etc).

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

Source .. scaryquestions.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Where did i say that the "US is a backwards country"? Not once, In fact if you care to read back I have not stated anything apart from being very surprised and then asked questions.

Envy of the civilized world... Ha! Keep telling yourself that, I can assure you many people think otherwise.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


It was me that said the US was a backward country...

..see..these people don't know how to get the facts right



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I don't understand the reaction here, since when do movie distributors speak for an entire country? Or some specific religious watchdog organization for that matter.

Personally the movie would draw very little interest from me, it does not sound very entertaining. I would have to think movie distributors are more concerned about dollars than anything else.

Coincidentally I just finished reading the origin of species for a third time in my life. For the record, after reading this again I am even less convinced in the theory on the macro level.

I do believe evolution exists on micro levels, that much can be proven. Not to mention the incredible odds neccessary for abiogenesis. No less incredible than the belief in God.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Yeah I understand all of that but this is about a movie being released to cinemas. This producer didn't get his movie released into America and instead of thinking of alternatives reasons like other posters have suggested....it looked like a flop or it was crap, he instead decided to blame it on Christians and religious America with no proof that was the reason.....


I'm a non practicing catholic who likes movies of all genres. It often gets my goat how in horror flicks christian symbols and churches are always trashed.
It's never a Mosque or Imams or Synogues and Rabbies. Its always Christian.
So if Christians are so OTT why are horror flicks being shown in movie cinemas and they haven't been banned by extremist Christians then?


The whole concept is absurd.....and only to upset christians and garner attention to a movie that otherwise no one would have heard of...

Chrstians had strong debates about the Da Vinci Code when it first came out too but I didn't see it get dropped from being shown . What does that tell you ? That obviously Christians are a lot more tolerant than they are often portrayed as.





top topics
 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join