• 22 Posts
  • 227 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: May 27th, 2024

help-circle

  • This is the exact bullshit we could brand someone that follows Islamist ideology with.

    The major difference: Islamist groups purposely (as I recall learning in a college level North American religions course taught me) twist actual Islamic ideology while the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.

    EDIT: Going to Trump rallies could be equated as the Christian Right version of terrorist training camps.

    EDIT 2: My point about describing someone who assassinated people as “religious”, will place a false connotation on a group. It either paints the killer as misguided or followers of that religious faith as bad people. This is what happened with 9/11.





  • Especially with true crime, the way things are presented could alter how the content is perceived. For example, Making a Murder took time to walk the audience through the entire trial (I’m not going to debate the perception the film makers left out important facts that influence the narrative).

    On the flip side a more recent series like This Is the Zodiac Speaking, only focused on one suspect, never questioned the testimony of the children as being faulty memories or fact checked well known details about the crimes mentioned. My point is, this documentary was on a subject that was better well known and didn’t aim to present the children as telling their own side of events; it straight up makes the assumption what they said must be true because they personally knew ALA. On top of this, they featured Robert Graysmith, the author of the book Zodiac which is well known for being factually inaccurate, and doesn’t challenge his research. And at the end, the film makers failed to get the DNA test results for a test they commissioned. What deadline existed that they couldn’t tell the viewer what the result was?

    Sorry, that documentary in particular irritates me for how factually inaccurate and onesided it was. My overall point is that true crime in particular seems to just be looking for whatever will get views. Not a lot of the documentaries that have come out in this period have produced well made series or ethically honest content. Is it entertainment or is it bringing awareness to what occurred or the people affected?




  • Wow, this is exactly what someone who 1. doesn’t practice real Evangelical Christianity would say 2. would believe not having studied the most basic of United States history.

    The separation of Church and State is exactly that. The Colonist came to North American because they didn’t like how the Church of England was being operated. In practice they might not have wanted other religious groups to have such freedom but if you try to take the Bill of Rights and Constitution at face value, then you as a person in the United States government have no reason to judge them for being a non-Christian. Much like how I much challenge you to prove you belong to a well regulated militia when you own a gun.


















  • You can find this on the album Inside Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry was asked to give an example of network notes. For context, just know Gene was a Humanist. He framed The Bible as if it was the script for a television show. Everything pretty much would have been deemed inappropriate.

    I know we tease people in modern times who would criticize Jesus of Nazareth for how he has been historically known, but it is wild how a religious text would not been deemed acceptable for 60s or 70s television.