What does not affirm Jesus must be banned



 Politics > Politics-USA > What does not affirm Jesus must be banned

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Politics > Politics-USA
User: "biniohas"
Date: 12 Oct 2005 04:22:16 PM
Object: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned
http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm
ON PIRACY
by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily
Occasionally, law enforcement discover pirated discs and/or tapes of
music and movies and brings charges against the people who reproduce,
distribute or exhibit them. But pirated music and movies are almost
always vain or immoral in nature. They are not depraved because they
are pirated, but they are so because the "legal copies" from which they
are pirated are usually studiously designed by their authors to appeal
to human innate depravity. It is the very vanity and/or depravity of
such music and movies that makes them popular. The depravity of the
legal copies is instrumental in causing much of the crime and moral
decay in America. But as is characteristic of many of America's laws,
the laws that apply to piracy of villainous movies and music deal with
the effects and not the causes. The laws criminalize and punish the
people who commit the lesser crimes and exonerate, reward and protect
the people who commit the greater.
The most unfortunate facts about the existence of depraved movies and
music are: it is the federal government who has given citizens the
first amendment so-called right to author such works. It is the federal
government who actually copyright the originals. The governments issue
the permits or licenses which allows the originals to be marketed. The
governments collect taxes from the sales of the originals. The
governments protect the unworthy copyrights of the originals. These
deplorable actions by the governments have served to give depravity
wrongful legitimate status in society, have made depraved music and
movies large commodities of the American economy for their criminal
authors, and have helped create whatever moral decay, heathen fads and
crimes that are associated with them. The greater crimes, therefore,
are being committed by the people who actually author the original smut
and by the levels of government who are working on the authors'
behalf's to protect and license their original works of vanity and
smut.
The laws against piracy of depraved movies and music are senseless in
view of the fact that since the original works themselves are vain
and/or depraved, they have no true right of existence. They are
senseless in view of the fact that the "legal copies" are as pernicious
to society as pirated copies. They also are extremely ludicrous in view
of the fact that the most important institution in society --
government -- the institution that is responsible to discourage all
forms of vice, is the culprit who allows and copyrights the original
works of depravity. What is accomplished for the good of society by
laws that criminalize and punish only the piracy of smut while allowing
the original smut to be authored and distributed by their authors?
Government should establish just penalties for all people who author,
copy, distribute, or exhibit such works? If the purpose of the law is
to promote the true moral welfare of the inhabitants of America, it
would prohibit the original works of smut and there would be no smutty
works of "art" with unworthy copyrights that could be violated.
.

User: "dh"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 07:05:20 PM
"biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129152136.146420.90730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily

Occasionally, law enforcement discover pirated discs and/or tapes of
music and movies and brings charges against the people who reproduce,
distribute or exhibit them. But pirated music and movies are almost
always vain or immoral in nature. They are not depraved because they
are pirated, but they are so because the "legal copies" from which they
are pirated are usually studiously designed by their authors to appeal
to human innate depravity.

Maybe it's just me but I'm thinking the war in Iraq is more depraved than,
say, "Pirates of the Caribbean." Why don't you focus your energy on
stopping the killing and then, when that's done, when the US shows the
respect for life that the teachings of Jesus demand, we'll take another look
at this depravity of entertainment business?
.

User: "kathryn"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 14 Oct 2005 11:32:29 AM
"biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129152136.146420.90730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily

Occasionally, law enforcement discover pirated discs and/or tapes of
music and movies and brings charges against the people who reproduce,
distribute or exhibit them. But pirated music and movies are almost
always vain or immoral in nature.

Some-what ironically you can download christian music online
.

User: "Robin"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 13 Oct 2005 05:27:23 PM
"biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129152136.146420.90730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

<snip WorldNutDaily garbage>
And people wonder how evil regimes like the Taliban ever manage to gain
control over entire countries. Religious zealots anyone?
.

User: "Jor-El"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 08:26:45 PM
"biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1129152136.146420.90730
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

What does not affirm Jesus must be banned

What does not affirm SCIENCE must be destroyed
.

User: "Soul food"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 13 Oct 2005 02:45:01 AM
Into alt.atheism shot "biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:

The laws against piracy of depraved movies and music are senseless in
view of the fact that since the original works themselves are vain
and/or depraved, they have no true right of existence

Psst! Wanna buy a copy of "The Passion of the Christ"?
------------------------------------------------
"If iron chariots make people immune to God (Judges 1:19), why do Christians drive cars?"
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
User: "biniohas"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 14 Oct 2005 12:48:32 AM
"THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" WAS HERESY
.
User: "The Secretary of HomInt3rn"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 15 Oct 2005 07:23:51 AM
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to biniohas:

"THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" WAS HERESY

So you recommend it, then? Well, OK. I thought it was just Mel Gibson and
his ego, but if you think it had something relevant to say, I suppose I can
consider it.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant *****-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
.
User: "Midjis"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 15 Oct 2005 07:43:35 AM
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý| wrote:

So you recommend it, then? Well, OK. I thought it was just Mel Gibson
and his ego, but if you think it had something relevant to say, I
suppose I can consider it.

They should've learned from "The Passion of St Tibulus"...
.


User: "Midjis"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 14 Oct 2005 06:12:48 AM
biniohas wrote:

"THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" WAS HERESY

Ah - you mean it was not in accordance with your own personal belief
system.
Go on - tell us all about it. What offended you in particular?
Personally, my only reason for watching it (and the only reason I would
watch it again) is that it is fascinating to hear Latin and Aramaic spoken
conversationally rather than ceremonially.
.



User: "Craig Chilton"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 20 Oct 2005 09:11:52 PM
On 12 Oct 2005 14:22:16 -0700,
"biniohas" <biniohas@hotmail.com> cited:

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily

Ah, yes. WorldNUT! Always good for laughs! And nothing else.

...pirated music and movies are almost always vain or immoral
in nature. They are not depraved because they are pirated, but
they are so because the "legal copies" from which they are
pirated are usually studiously designed by their authors to appeal
to human innate depravity.

It's AMAZING that anyone who'd write such idiotic swill could
be that dumb and live.
<Garbage-flush>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.

User: "Smith W"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 13 Oct 2005 11:22:10 PM
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:22:16 -0700, biniohas wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

<snip>
So, copyrights are irrelevant, what matters is that the works are
"immoral", right. So, why talk about piracy at all - to distract?
And here comes the question: who decides what is moral and what is not?
By the way, one famous book which I will not name (hint: it is not
copyrighted) condones slavery, mass murder and human sacrifices.
Do we create moral police to decide what is moral? And then destroy
"immoral" things? We know where it leads.
"They that start by burning books will end by burning men."
Heinrich Heine, "Almansor" (1821) The characters of that play discussed
burning of the Koran, a book definitely not affirming Jesus.
.

User: "Craig Pennington"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 06:19:45 PM
Quoth biniohas <biniohas@hotmail.com>:

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm


Was this too wacky for even Wing Nut Daily? That link doesn't work and
a site search on "piracy" produced no results. Maybe they dumped it.
The original can be found here:
http://www.tencommandments.org/editorial.html
Good ole Robert Lee, wants to set up his own little Department for the
Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice here in the US.

ON PIRACY


by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily


[snip]

The most unfortunate facts about the existence of depraved movies and
music are: it is the federal government who has given citizens the
first amendment so-called right to author such works.

The federal government does not grant rights to the people, the people
cede power to the federal government via the Constitution. Some
exeptions to this grant of power are made explicit, such as those
listed in Amendment 1, but that does not mean that if a rights is not
explicitly listed, the government has the authority to infringe it.
Amendment 9 makes this explicit, but this is also the obvious intent of
the founders. The constitution does grant congress the power to make
laws granting exclusive rights for a *limitted* time to inventors and
authors.
[snip]

The laws against piracy of depraved movies and music are senseless in
view of the fact that since the original works themselves are vain
and/or depraved, they have no true right of existence.

Yes, yes, of course we only have the rights Mr. Lee thinks we should
have. Copyright protection is content neutral.

If the purpose of the law is
to promote the true moral welfare of the inhabitants of America, it
would prohibit the original works of smut and there would be no smutty
works of "art" with unworthy copyrights that could be violated.

If the law allows Taliban wannabes like Lee to copyright their truly
obscene rantings, then it has no business denying copyright to works
like _Saved!_.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.

User: "Midjis"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 07:47:59 PM
The most vain, immoral and depraved thing in this thread is the subject
line.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 05:19:10 PM
Ummm - huh ?
OK then, here goes.
If the majority of music listeners and video watchers had "high moral
values" then works of a depraved nature would have NO market.
No commercial business can be successful if nobody purchases the
product.
The laws of the US , as I understand them, say that if you produce a
work (written, picture, video) you have the right to control its sale
and distribution.
If you STEAL a work, by copying an authorised work without permission
then you may be prosecuted for infringing on the owners copyright. (I
believe this is civil law) You may also be open to criminal charges of
fraud if you claim to be selling authorised originals.
If the work is obscene the creator and distributors can be charged.
(this is largely local laws)
If you do not like what is offered then either don't listen (watch) or
get the law changed.
I do not agree with the description of "vain", I simply do not
understand the point being made.
Smut seems to be a major monymaking enterprise, or there are a lot of
websites and publications that are loosing money.
In my view there should simply be a test that if you can not tell the
difference between a game/ video / song and reality then you should
stick to things like the Smurfs, I want a Hippopotamus for Christmas
and Tetris.
The moment a defense attorney says "but the video game made him do it"
the person should be convicted.
.

User: "Dionisio"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 13 Oct 2005 06:45:24 PM
biniohas wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm


URL does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

ON PIRACY


Title does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

by Robert T. Lee


Name does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

Special to WorldNetDaily


Does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

Occasionally, law enforcement discover pirated discs and/or tapes of
music and movies and brings charges against the people who reproduce,
distribute or exhibit them. But pirated music and movies are almost
always vain or immoral in nature. They are not depraved because they
are pirated, but they are so because the "legal copies" from which they
are pirated are usually studiously designed by their authors to appeal
to human innate depravity. It is the very vanity and/or depravity of
such music and movies that makes them popular. The depravity of the
legal copies is instrumental in causing much of the crime and moral
decay in America. But as is characteristic of many of America's laws,
the laws that apply to piracy of villainous movies and music deal with
the effects and not the causes. The laws criminalize and punish the
people who commit the lesser crimes and exonerate, reward and protect
the people who commit the greater.


Does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

The most unfortunate facts about the existence of depraved movies and
music are: it is the federal government who has given citizens the
first amendment so-called right to author such works. It is the federal
government who actually copyright the originals. The governments issue
the permits or licenses which allows the originals to be marketed. The
governments collect taxes from the sales of the originals. The
governments protect the unworthy copyrights of the originals. These
deplorable actions by the governments have served to give depravity
wrongful legitimate status in society, have made depraved music and
movies large commodities of the American economy for their criminal
authors, and have helped create whatever moral decay, heathen fads and
crimes that are associated with them. The greater crimes, therefore,
are being committed by the people who actually author the original smut
and by the levels of government who are working on the authors'
behalf's to protect and license their original works of vanity and
smut.


Does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.

The laws against piracy of depraved movies and music are senseless in
view of the fact that since the original works themselves are vain
and/or depraved, they have no true right of existence. They are
senseless in view of the fact that the "legal copies" are as pernicious
to society as pirated copies. They also are extremely ludicrous in view
of the fact that the most important institution in society --
government -- the institution that is responsible to discourage all
forms of vice, is the culprit who allows and copyrights the original
works of depravity. What is accomplished for the good of society by
laws that criminalize and punish only the piracy of smut while allowing
the original smut to be authored and distributed by their authors?
Government should establish just penalties for all people who author,
copy, distribute, or exhibit such works? If the purpose of the law is
to promote the true moral welfare of the inhabitants of America, it
would prohibit the original works of smut and there would be no smutty
works of "art" with unworthy copyrights that could be violated.


Does not affirm Jesus: Must be banned.
The entire piece fails to affirm Jesus. "Looks like we've got some
kindling for the book burning, boys!"
--
People need insults. Most people behave so abominably that they cry out for abuse. Charity moves us to meet this need. Abuse is a form of attention, and a little accommodating attention makes anyone feel human again. Now f*** off, oh clueless blatherskite!
.

User: "Colin Day"

Title: Re: What does not affirm Jesus must be banned 12 Oct 2005 06:24:43 PM
biniohas wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/editorials/20051012/piracy.htm

ON PIRACY

by Robert T. Lee
Special to WorldNetDaily

Occasionally, law enforcement discover pirated discs and/or tapes of
music and movies and brings charges against the people who reproduce,
distribute or exhibit them. But pirated music and movies are almost
always vain or immoral in nature. They are not depraved because they
are pirated, but they are so because the "legal copies" from which they
are pirated are usually studiously designed by their authors to appeal
to human innate depravity. It is the very vanity and/or depravity of
such music and movies that makes them popular. The depravity of the
legal copies is instrumental in causing much of the crime and moral
decay in America. But as is characteristic of many of America's laws,
the laws that apply to piracy of villainous movies and music deal with
the effects and not the causes. The laws criminalize and punish the
people who commit the lesser crimes and exonerate, reward and protect
the people who commit the greater.

The most unfortunate facts about the existence of depraved movies and
music are: it is the federal government who has given citizens the
first amendment so-called right to author such works. It is the federal

That's not what Madison would have said. He would say that the First
Amendment is the government's recognition that people have such rights
independently of the government.
Colin Day aa #1500
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER