Should the Bible be given an 18 rating.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech

Two fundamental rights.

How on earth are you going to stop under 18 year olds going to church not ignoring the fact that the house church movement can facilitate this.

The whole point is that the Bible as a collection of books (very important to note) has something to say from the very youngest of us to the very oldest of us. Pretty much what I would anticipate from a holy text that gives us a description of the human condition, and a way to deal with the human condition according to the will of it's Creator.

Well it seems that to some people of no religion, Call of Duty Modern Warfare says something to them. I'm going to have to come straight out and ask you, can you accept that your religion's bible means absolutely nothing to some people and is instead (to some) nothing more than a collection of scary bedtime stories? Often extremely violently graphic ones at that.

The "should the bible be banned" question I always find interesting and demoralising at the same time for the same reasons. Of course it won't be banned and of course there won't be censorship but it's the power of asking the question and making that statement is what's most interesting. I don't agree with censorship and certainly not censorship of books (such as Last Exit To Brooklyn which was banned in the UK upon publication, and probably here too but then again the church banned anything and everything they wanted didn't they!) but catholicism is given far too much "freedom" in this country. It's in many state buildings and institutions such as hospitals and schools and hell, there was a bloody bible on each polling booth table in my polling station for the Lisbon referndum!

toiletduck wrote: »

No I don't think so. However I would say that for any book. And the bible certainly is a thoroughly unpleasant one.

I suppose there is a question as to why we rate certain media suitable for certain ages but not others.

I will never understand why The Passion of the Christ was 15PG though.

Sorry for being a smart arse here but it's not that hard to understand why it got that rating is it? It was to allow children to see that sick filth (such language has been levied upon films for decades, I use it purely for the polemic). Considering the country you're in and the ruling religion it should be of no surprise that it got the 15PG. As far as I remember (I worked in a cinema) the 15PG rating was relatively new at the time.

Seperation of church and state may be written into law but the Irish Film Censor (who acts under and reports to the Minister of Justice) laid out its cards on the table a few years ago when it, for some bonkers reason, made that decision that it was cool to let kids view the grotesque violence shown in the film The Passion of the Christ, albeit accompanied by a parent or guardian aged 18yrs or more. In this film you saw a man flogged with shards of metal and just about beaten to near-death - this is realistic and styilised violence and the scenes portrayed in teh film amounted to a prolongued torture sequence with no context other than the context christians added to it. This should've been absolutely no different compared to violence in any other film and should've been treated as such. Instead, it was given a special case and children as young as toddlers in parents arms viewed the horrificly pornographic scenes of violence in this picture.

The only difference between IFCO and the BBFC (British censor) is that the Irish certs are often higher and the IFCO take into account the "context" of a film on a national scale. In this little Q&A, they say Veronica Guerin was given a lower cert than the UK one because Irish people would've been familiar with the story. Same goes for Michael Collins I suppose as when released, it was given a PG for "historical significance" - I think then a special 12RA cert was created afterwards for its video release.

I may as well go out on a limb and say that The Passion got a lighter rating because Ireland's seen by the powers that be - in the Justice dept. and Censor's office- as a Catholic country (some priest said as much on Prime Time last week! secularism my foot). Maybe there was a phone call put in to the IFCO at the time to ensure The Passion cleared teh censor with no hassle? Maybe? maybe not.

Also, Catholocism + homosexuality = does not go, so Brokeback Mountain, when you take into account the context of releasing such a film in Catholic Ireland, allowing 15year olds and potentially younger teenagers view it, it had to get a restrictive certificate.


Here's a recap of the IFCO :

• Passion of the Christ was given this 15PG (under 15s can be accompanied by an adult over 18) - 18 in the UK
• Then Bad Santa came out and it wasn't quite worthy of the '18' so it got the lower grade which was '15PG'. Parents saw the "PG" attached and brought their kids to it and several complaints were lodged. It even made the 9PM RTE news - this film has a drunk foul mouthed Santa having anal sex!.
• After this debacle the IFCO just "created" yet another age limit - the 16 cert.
• Brokeback Mountain was released with a 16cert despite having very little graphic sexual or violent images (at least not out of context and it's all about context). It then of course was released with an '18' cert on video/DVD.

By the way Jakkas, isn't blasphemy outlawed in the constitution as well? And is soon to be passed in law (or has it already passed?)


*NB. IFCO = Irish Film Classication Office, formerly Irish Film Censor. They act under the the "Censorship of Films, 1923" and the "Video Recordings Act, 1989"

Zulu

In relation to the OP's question: No. We don't apply age ratings to books, so why would we start with the Bible?

Besides, take a random sample of childrens tales, theres normally a witch or two that gets murdered with no due process, people getting eaten etc. however you aren't looking to get an age rating applied to them.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Zulu wrote: »

In relation to the OP's question: No. We don't apply age ratings to books, so why would we start with the Bible?

No but books can be banned.

Zulu

Alan Rouge wrote: »

No but books can be banned.

Thats a lot different to giving it an 18s rating.

philologos

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Well it seems that to some people of no religion, Call of Duty Modern Warfare says something to them. I'm going to have to come straight out and ask you, can you accept that your religion's bible means absolutely nothing to some people and is instead (to some) nothing more than a collection of scary bedtime stories? Often extremely violently graphic ones at that.

Well, I would generally focus on a reasonable assessment of what the Bible is rather than an assessment based on people who have no interest in it, or who have taken no interest in assessing it's contents.

If you really think the Bible means nothing to you, have nothing to do with it at all seems to be the solution rather than trying to interfere with other peoples religion.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The "should the bible be banned" question I always find interesting and demoralising at the same time for the same reasons. Of course it won't be banned and of course there won't be censorship but it's the power of asking the question and making that statement is what's most interesting. I don't agree with censorship and certainly not censorship of books (such as Last Exit To Brooklyn which was banned in the UK upon publication, and probably here too but then again the church banned anything and everything they wanted didn't they!) but catholicism is given far too much "freedom" in this country. It's in many state buildings and institutions such as hospitals and schools and hell, there was a bloody bible on each polling booth table in my polling station for the Lisbon referndum!

Freedom of religion and conscience is a right. As is freedom of speech.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I am glad that the censorship of books here has ended.

I want to be free to hold whatever religious belief I have chosen, and parents should be entitled to share that faith with their children.

See this is my problem with people who claim to argue for mere secularism, but actually want to do far more. I wish more people would be as honest as you are about what you want.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Sorry for being a smart arse here but it's not that hard to understand why it got that rating is it? It was to allow children to see that sick filth (such language has been levied upon films for decades, I use it purely for the polemic). Considering the country you're in and the ruling religion it should be of no surprise that it got the 15PG. As far as I remember (I worked in a cinema) the 15PG rating was relatively new at the time.

No doubt it was assessed on grounds of language, how sexually explicit it was and so on. In the case of the Passion of the Christ, in terms of it's message, and the value in that message philosophically and religiously they decided there should be some leeway in the matter. I'm quite sure that if other films contained such a strong and a pervasive message in a secular context or in any other religious context they would be given the same leeway.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The only difference between IFCO and the BBFC (British censor) is that the Irish certs are often higher and the IFCO take into account the "context" of a film on a national scale. In this little Q&A, they say Veronica Guerin was given a lower cert than the UK one because Irish people would've been familiar with the story. Same goes for Michael Collins I suppose as when released, it was given a PG for "historical significance" - I think then a special 12RA cert was created afterwards for its video release.

Other cases then, of the same thing occurring as in the case of the Passion of the Christ.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

By the way Jakkas, isn't blasphemy outlawed in the constitution as well? And is soon to be passed in law (or has it already passed?)

Yes, it is. Most Christians in Ireland disagree with the blasphemy law. We believe it is more fruitful for people to express their objections to our faith freely. If it isn't free objection, how can we ever hope to provide a meaningful response?

Alan Rouge wrote: »

No but books can be banned.

In a Western society with freedom of speech and conscience, why on earth would we?

Dubhghaillix

Jakkass wrote: »

In a Western society with freedom of speech and conscience, why on earth would we?

*Facepalm*. Problem is, you're assuming we have freedom of speech in this country.(BTW nice bit of "Quote mining" you did back there with Bunreacht na hÉireann, very convincing when you left out the disclaimers) Under the Irish constitution, freedom of speech is not an absolute right. You have the right to say anything that isn't "blasphemous, seditious or indecent" and all of your rights under this section of the constitution, are subject "to public order and morality" ( see Bunracht na hÉireann, article 40.6 http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm ) The whole idea of restrictions upon freedom of speech is repugnant to a Liberal Democracy. It's pretty much saying:
"Hi, welcome to Ireland. You can say what you like, but not this, this or that, even if you feel really really strongly about it."
[DEMOCRACY FAIL]

philologos

I thought I made my position on the blasphemy law clear?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought I made my position on the blasphemy law clear?

You did.

Dubhghaillix

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought I made my position on the blasphemy law clear?

Yar matee, indeed ye did. But I was talkin' 'bout ye olde Irish Constitution, the fundamental laws of landlubbers such as yerselves, which sets restrictions of yer freedom of speech, not tha' infernal Defamation Act 2009, me hearties.

Mike 1972

There is no such thing as an age rating for books so its pretty much a moot point. In any case I find it a bit suprising that any atheist/agnostic living in Ireland would be particularly keen on the notion of censoring any book ???

ADDS: IIRC The Bible was refered to the Censorship of Publications board sometime in the mid to late 1980's (albeit by an author whose work was banned by that same outfit who was doing so in order to make a point)

Dubhghaillix

We could censor really really **** books. XD I don't think anyone would object to that.

Sam Vimes

Mike 1972 wrote: »

There is no such thing as an age rating for books so its pretty much a moot point. In any case I find it a bit suprising that any atheist/agnostic living in Ireland would be particularly keen on the notion of censoring any book ???

We're not. Calling for the bible to be given an 18s rating or be banned is to highlight the absurdity of the people who call for x y and z to be banned because it's not to their taste

patmartino

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're not. Calling for the bible to be given an 18s rating or be banned is to highlight the absurdity of the people who call for x y and z to be banned because it's not to their taste

I do not believe in any form of censorship

BUT

I want to see critical investigation into the bibles origins mapped out in the Preface so people know they are reading a fictional book.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I would generally focus on a reasonable assessment of what the Bible is rather than an assessment based on people who have no interest in it, or who have taken no interest in assessing it's contents.

If you really think the Bible means nothing to you, have nothing to do with it at all seems to be the solution rather than trying to interfere with other peoples religion.



Freedom of religion and conscience is a right. As is freedom of speech.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I am glad that the censorship of books here has ended.

I want to be free to hold whatever religious belief I have chosen, and parents should be entitled to share that faith with their children.

See this is my problem with people who claim to argue for mere secularism, but actually want to do far more. I wish more people would be as honest as you are about what you want.

If you want to believe in your religion or whatever else, then go over there away from me and my publicly funded services. No religion should be involved with publicy funded schools, hospitals or indeed a classification board part of whose remit is to regulate what moving images people view.

Jakkass wrote: »

No doubt it was assessed on grounds of language, how sexually explicit it was and so on. In the case of the Passion of the Christ, in terms of it's message, and the value in that message philosophically and religiously they decided there should be some leeway in the matter. I'm quite sure that if other films contained such a strong and a pervasive message in a secular context or in any other religious context they would be given the same leeway.



Other cases then, of the same thing occurring as in the case of the Passion of the Christ.

Anyone believing t was evenly assessed on grounds of violence and the others is living in fairy land in my honest opinion.

There is no way this film was assessed fairly. It was given a rating that allowed young children view extreme violence and in every other context that would not be allowed. But of course this is the context of Christianity and a state body decided that it deserves special treatment. Funny that, despite there supposed to hvae been a separation of church and state we still get crap like that.

It may of course just be a coincidence that priests told their mass-goes that this is a great film, go see and bring your family.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it is. Most Christians in Ireland disagree with the blasphemy law. We believe it is more fruitful for people to express their objections to our faith freely. If it isn't free objection, how can we ever hope to provide a meaningful response?

I'm really quite surprised by that considering blasphemy within canon law.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

In a Western society with freedom of speech and conscience, why on earth would we?

Oh but why on earth are films and video games banned?

If I go kill someone and say that watching a film or playing a video game made me do it then there'll be mass outcry and how the film/game should be banned. And many films have been "linked" to crimes and duly banned. Manhunt 2 is still banned in this country for instance because of a UK tabloid story that falsely linked a murderer to the video game.


But what if I go kill someone and say the bible made me do it?

philologos

Alan Rouge wrote: »

If you want to believe in your religion or whatever else, then go over there away from me and my publicly funded services. No religion should be involved with publicy funded schools, hospitals or indeed a classification board part of whose remit is to regulate what moving images people view.

Bear in mind, that public services are by no means just yours, they are ours. As such I believe that it is fair that these services should reflect both faith education, and secular education as in most reasonable countries. I've been through this with people on the forum before.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Anyone believing t was evenly assessed on grounds of violence and the others is living in fairy land in my honest opinion.

Thank goodness your opinion is subjective.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There is no way this film was assessed fairly. It was given a rating that allowed young children view extreme violence and in every other context that would not be allowed. But of course this is the context of Christianity and a state body decided that it deserves special treatment. Funny that, despite there supposed to hvae been a separation of church and state we still get crap like that.

Are 15 year old's young children? Without the discretion of parents attending with them you would have had to be at least 15 to see this on your own.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It may of course just be a coincidence that priests told their mass-goes that this is a great film, go see and bring your family.

Well, it was a great film, that showed a narrative that changed the world forever. I can't imagine what would be more relevant to show a child living in our culture.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I'm really quite surprised by that considering blasphemy within canon law.

Canon law is applicable to one respective church. It is not applicable to all people of every church universally. In assuming that you mean the Canon law of the Catholic Church. I'm sure you know that Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of Ireland, non-denominational, Pentecostal, and Apostolic account for over 5% of our population in Ireland, and a huge percentage worldwide.

Blasphemy is a sin, no doubt about it. However, whether or not a legal punishment is necessary for such a sin is a whole other question.

I'd prefer to hear blasphemous statements to my face (as it would allow me a contact point to clarify misconceptions), than have people suppress them out of fear. In the latter, the issues and objections remain, in the former there is a means of providing an answer.

Linoge

Flamed Diving wrote: »

People will convince themselves of anything, if they are emotionally tied to it.

Carl said it better:D

"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves"
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), Cosmos (Blues for a Red Planet)

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Bear in mind, that public services are by no means just yours, they are ours.

With respect to education, what you say is unfortunately quite true.

slipss

Xluna wrote: »

Recently,there was a lot of fuss over a scene in a popular video game,Modern Warfare 2,which earned it an over 18 rating. Parents,Politicians and the media appeared to be concerned that despite it's adult rating it could fall into the hands of children,who would not be able to discern fantasy from reality to the same extent a teen or an adult would. In essense people were concerned that they would emulate the violent scenes in real life.

Now by my logic the Bible should certainly be given an adult rating also,and we should be concerned that it would fall into the hands on a child. Unlike a video game,society in general encourages the Bible to be fact. Now I know there's plenty of decent morality in the New testament but a child could easily be confused as to which laws to follow and emulate.

The Old Testament encourages violent homophobia,genocide,racism and sexism.
So should the Bible be given an 18 rating so that it may not fall into innocent minds?

Didn't read the whole thread, but in case somehow no ones mentioned it. There is no age restrictions available to be placed on books in this country, there are for movies or video games, so the suggestion is ridiculous. Books can be banned entirely but usually only for slander.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

Are 15 year old's young children? Without the discretion of parents attending with them you would have had to be at least 15 to see this on your own.

.

15 year olds are legal children yes, they are minors.

You may have missed my point or I didn't make it correctly.


Parets brought their children, as young as toddler age, in to see this grotesque, vile film. They were afforded the oppurtunity to do so because a state agency (or semi-state, whatever the IFCO is, they sure the hell aren't indepdendent) ruled that this film was fit for viewing by persons under the age of 15 accompanied by an adult/guardian aged 18years or more. When Bad Santa was released it too got this '15PG' rating. Parents again brought their children in to see this "Santa movie @ Xmas". The film of course has themes not suitable for children of pre-teen age such as an alcoholic, swearing, smoking Santa Claus character than engages in anal sex.

So the outcry was "oh my, how dare you let our children view such horrible images". There's nothing in the film to really warrant it an 18 hence it getting a 15 which is acceptable as there wasn't much violence unlike The Passion which was loaded with violence.


Anyway, what all this means is that the State in effect sanctioned this film to be viewed by minors while films with less violence have been handled in a more strict manner. In the film there is little or no context or back story. All you see is one man claiming to be the son of (a) god and is then tortured for that claim.

slipss wrote: »

Didn't read the whole thread, but in case somehow no ones mentioned it. There is no age restrictions available to be placed on books in this country, there are for movies or video games, so the suggestion is ridiculous. Books can be banned entirely but usually only for slander.

Yes it's been said and yes we all know... We're getting hypothetical but of course that is what the "Should the bible be banned?" question is based on because of course, there's no way in hell that the bible could ever be banned even if a murderer tried to use it as a defense such as was the case with certain other works.

Xluna

slipss wrote: »

Didn't read the whole thread, but in case somehow no ones mentioned it. There is no age restrictions available to be placed on books in this country, there are for movies or video games, so the suggestion is ridiculous. Books can be banned entirely but usually only for slander.

How is it ridiculous? There was no age restrictions on video games until quite recently. It's quite possible to put age restriction on books. All it needs is a change of law.

Ridley

PDN wrote: »

Restricting access to the Bible by under-18s is practiced by the regime in the People's Republic of China. I'm sure those in the corridors of power in Beijing will appreciate that there are like-minded people in the West.

Late for this discussion but that process is helping push the Chinese toward Christianity.