Роман Соколов ([info]rsokolov) wrote,
@ 2009-06-10 05:57:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Вспомнил сейчас: в фильме "Джуно", получившем в целом весьма положительные отзывы от христиан вообще и католиков в частности, в одном из кадров показан стикер с эмблемой Bad Religion (на внутренней стенке школьного шкафчика для личных вещей Джуно).

Реакция католиков на стикер примерно такая:

The sticker, which was large and obvious, advertizes a (politically aware and intelligent, highly educated)punk-rock group, named "bad religion". The emblem is not intended as an affront to anyone or any god.

As for the group Bad Religion I am a fan, but the heavily atheistic lyrics drive me crazy at times. Though I also love Rush despite Neil Pearts ode's to materialistic atheism.

As for the "no religion" message I think that really makes the pro-life message even stronger ... in a way proving to those who don't want religion mixed in their lives that there is more than "one reason" to choose life. So in a way it could be seen as a positive for the overall life message.

http://catholicmediareview.blogspot.com/2008/01/movie-review-juno-pg13.html
http://www.scificatholic.com/2008/01/movie-review-juno.html

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ati
2009-06-10 12:06 pm UTC (link)
Я не понимаю, чему вы удивляетесь.
Это же предусмотренные при выборе логотипа группы реакции. Маркетинг.
Символы, особенно религиозные - это не просто краска на бумаге.

Посмотрите вот на
United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1
The Flag.

"The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing."

"Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America ... shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court."

Это по-вашему нормально?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rsokolov
2009-06-10 12:13 pm UTC (link)
В данном посте я не столько удивляюсь, сколько восхищаюсь адекватностью реакции американских католиков.

Первая цитата - эта некая загодочная метафизическая декларация, которую непонятно даже как и к чему применять в юридической практике.

То, что написано во второй цитате, противоречит конституции.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ati
2009-06-10 12:23 pm UTC (link)
Я же говорю, это UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 36 CHAPTER 10.
Google it. Какая уж тут метафизика и противоречие конституции.

The United States Code is the official, subject matter order, compilation of the Federal laws of a general and permanent nature that are currently in force.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rsokolov
2009-06-10 12:29 pm UTC (link)
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that, due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States

The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.[10] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression.

After the Johnson decision, Congress quickly passed a new Flag Protection Act, which was also struck down by the Supreme Court the following year by the same 5-4 majority in the case United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). The Court decided that expression through flag burning was constitutionally protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ati
2009-06-10 12:31 pm UTC (link)
Я в растерянности. Кому же верить?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ononado
2009-06-10 02:51 pm UTC (link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ati
2009-06-10 12:27 pm UTC (link)
Американские католики безусловно молодцы, но по вашей ссылке я вижу в основном

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

так что реакция именно каких-то более-менее явных католиков is yet to be seen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rsokolov
2009-06-10 01:04 pm UTC (link)
1.Действительно, Anonymous.
2.A former atheist who after spending forty years in the wilderness finds himself with both astonishment and joy a member of the Catholic Church.
3.The most important thing about me? I'm Catholic!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ati
2009-06-10 02:09 pm UTC (link)
Есть простая ситуация.
Взяли символом группы протестный символ, получили протест.

Если нашлись добрые люди, которые считают, что сам символ "не протестный, а просто логотип", то видимо это противоречит задумке создателей символа.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rsokolov
2009-06-10 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Есть некая разница между протестом и запретом, и между протестом и оскорблением, но суть не в этом.

Можно уважать право друго человека на протест, а можно не уважать совсем. Это всё, что я хотел тут продемонстрировать.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…