I'll ask again here?

Question

I asked this question before under another categorie and I think I'll confirm my suspicians here.
I just finished watching the movie Carrie on a cable movie channel. Now if you've never seen this movie, it shows several people in a high school being killed in rather gruesome ways as the gymnasium burns. It shows Carrie’s mother hanging by knives stuck in her hands and shows seven knives in total sticking out of the woman after Carrie supposedly killed her. It shows a couple of people rolling in a fiery death of a car crash. It shows John Travolta supposedly beating a pig to death.
It showed all of these people being killed but they cut out Carrie's nude scene when she washes the blood off.
What kind of country is it that will show people being burned and stabbed and wrecked and buried and crushed, but cuts out a very placid scene with a naked human body? Are American values overly screwed up when we see this happen? Are religious values responsible for these warped morals?

So blood death and violence is good and human bodies, which we all have, is a bad thing?

So far judging by the answers, I'm getting the impression the religious types think that by taking god from the schools is the reason things are messed not the fact that it could be the rampant wholesale violence on TV that's the problem. My suspicions are being confirmed, people like these are too messed up to know what's right.

One respondent said "TV tried to censor it for children. It should never be shown to children at all." So that is my point, they are saying that graphic violence is OK for children to see, but non-violent non-sexual nudity is bad for children. This is situation is really messed up.

I think I’ve got enough to know what’s going on. In the US guns on the streets are ok nipples are not. When you combine the guns on the streets with the violence on the screen, whether that be a computer screen or big screen, you then have a problem and the US is one of the worst countries on the planet for murder rates. Then when you consider countries that view nudity as no big deal and allow it in the open without censorship have lower sexual offences. By hiding the human body from view, you create an appetite of curiosity leading to sexual offences. This prove out in the statistics around the world. We really need to rethink what is right and wrong in this country, because it's obvious the US is getting it wrong and it’s the religious right that is pushing these messed up morality laws.

Answer 1

It came out of early 20th century United States and is sadly still with us today. The religious idea is that seeing nudity will cause bad thoughts, however if you scientifically studied the effects of different things on TV, it would be pretty obvious that the killing and violence would have a much more ill effect. It is messed up, but we live in a democracy, which means if a lie is believed by enough people, we make rules that support that lie.

Answer 2

"What kind of country is it that will show people being burned and stabbed and wrecked and buried and crushed, but cuts out a very placid scene with a naked human body?"

Western civilization is dying, and has been for quite some time, so to answer the first question:

There is a big difference between murder and sexuality, in fact, I consider them near opposites of one another, however, the biggest difference is the emotional effect. See, dying a virgin in the U.S. is pretty uncommon, but dying without have taking someone out first, is even more uncommon. What I'm saying is,

"Are American values overly screwed up when we see this happen?"

If you are asking if violent television is bad, then I would say

If you are trying to ask if people reexamine their own morals to follow this phenomenon you observed, then you are implying that people are so mentally suggestable that the editing process of movies will alter their entire moral alignment. My answer is, .

"Are religious values responsible for these warped morals?"

I hope you aren't trying to make some pitiful argument that religion is causing another social problem. but I will answer this none the less:



I didn't decide on what is/isn't appropriate, but I can almost guarantee anything that can be appealing sexually is considered a larger problem, because parents are more worried about their children developing sex lives early on, rather than worrying their kids will be turned into murderers.

Answer 3

I’ve always thought that their use of the phrase ‘sex and violence’ provided a good insight into the Christian psyche (and sexual preferences as well). Religious and social conservatives always say ‘sex and violence’ as if they are one word or naturally go together.

That may be one reason for their irrational insistence on torturing prisoners even though our own intelligence experts agree that it is of no, or even counterproductive, value. Maybe, torture and human suffering are the only things that provide them sexual excitement.

The hysterical outrage over a breast appearing unexpectedly during the Super Bowl a few years ago was funnier than the Three Stooges. It was as if the entire nation was emotionally stuck in the second grade.

I’m not sure of the total number of breasts is in the world, but it is somewhere in the double-digit billions. You would think that people should have gotten use to them by now, but apparently they still scare the h*ll out of Christians.

I guess that it is acceptable to have their children learn about torture and death – but it will damage their fragile psychology (and their God will forsake them) if they see some woman’s tit – go figure.

Answer 4

I'll try to share my opinion without taking sides and early presumptions too much. Will use an economical example - the benefit of first market player. It instantly (or over time) gets a market share of product/etc. People are affected by advertising and number of consumers increases. However, when a new product supplier comes, the first market player is interested not to let the second one take away it's clients, even if it uses similar marketing to the first company. In this scenario: Monotheism offers it's new "clients" to "open heart" and allow god to take it. Yet, when it gains followers, it says them to "close hearts", because other religions and prophets are supposedly false and evil and in any ways leading to oblivion. It is not fair, but it is the very cornerstone of all monotheistic religion existence. They don't allow you to take interest in other religions, even though they wanted you to take interest in theirs the very same way. This shows that major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity) never preserve the followers by showing why their religion is better. They simply deny the other religion. That is very similar to inquisition and church of the XIV - XVII ages : they didn't burn the heretics because they were telling lies. They burnt heretics because they were telling things different from the church. In conclusion, religions are quite illogical and most of religion aspects can even be explained by comparing them with the methods of corporations. If you're really interested, I've got a seven-page study which analyzes religions in such way, made to my philosophy teacher a few months ago. I may translate it to English, given enough time and motivation. Sorry for taking your time with this wall of text.

Answer 5

January 23, 2007

SUNDANCE FESTIVAL IS VINTAGE HOLLYWOOD

Here’s what Catholic League president Bill Donohue had to say today about the Sundance Film Festival:

“Now that officials of the Sundance Film Festival, and those associated with the movie ‘Hounddog,’ have been blasted for exploiting 12-year-old Dakota Fanning, they have tried to blunt the attacks by saying that the film contains a ‘carefully choreographed rape scene’ that was done in an ‘artistic way.’ Simulated child rape, then, is okay as long as it doesn’t offend Hollywood sensibilities. The problem is that no one knows what offends Hollywood save for a movie about the death of Jesus.

“It certainly doesn’t bother Hollywood to feature a movie about a man having sex with a horse, which is what the Sundance entry ‘Zoo’ is all about. Indeed, this movie was deemed by Sundance judges as a ‘humanizing look at the life and bizarre death of a seemingly normal Seattle family man who met his untimely death after an unusual encounter with a horse.’ To be blunt about it, the movie tries to sanitize the sick death of an obviously deranged Seattle pervert who perforated his colon after he molested a horse.

“Kenneth Turin of the Los Angeles Times was unhappy with Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ because of its ‘almost sadistic violence,’ but he loved the bestiality in ‘Zoo,’ calling it ‘an elegant, eerily lyrical film.’ What he liked best was that it was ‘a poetic film about a forbidden subject.’ But it’s forbidden no more. Next year look for Sundance to introduce a movie about same-sex incest.

“I have only a few questions. Whatever happened to the horse? Did he survive this ordeal? Has PETA filed suit alleging that his animal rights have been violated? And because the horse was an Arabian stallion, does this constitute a bias crime?”




see also http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070118_hounddog.htm

Answer 6

The morality is very warped.
Nudity is bad but violence is good????
The movie seems to appeal to a teenage crowd, and this is the message we send our youth.

It forces us to think about our media and our society doesn't it?

I don't know if religious values are the cause, but they may have an influence.

Answer 7

It does not have to do with moral, it has to do with LAW. In some states it might be ilegal to show nudes in certain hours or restricted by times... so to avoid legal consecuences they cut the scenes. They don't cut the other bad scenes because no law prohibits them...

Answer 8

It is a great movie for adults.TV tried to censor it for children. It should never be shown to children at all.

Answer 9

Sex and sexuality is an expression of freedom.

Violence is an expression of oppression.

So yes, your example does tell us something about the true nature of our country (USA) .

Answer 10

ya wanna know what's warped? a hugely fat man is allowed to waddle around in public without a shirt showing off his big hairy hanging man boobs but if a woman with 3rd the breast size flashes a nipple it's called "indecent exposure" and she can be jailed and fined. figure that one out.

so yeah. big hairy hanging man boobs and blood and gore aren't anywheres near as offensive as a young woman's naked breasts.