Subject:
|
Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:43:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1747 times
|
| |
|
|
Regarding the Brick Testament being under review:
In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes:
<snip>
>
> Why?
>
> Why set them aside for further review?
>
> What is in question?
>
> I've seen his pictures, they're not pornographic. The majority deals with the
> bible and its topics, and does not every christian church give free and full
> access of the bible to children? I've read your 'guidelines' you posted in
> direct response to the original post, and this content does not go against
> either. It is safe for children, at least the 1 billion Christians would say
> it is, it's on topic with lego, as it is made of lego (albeit some of it has
> been modified), and it doesn't even infringe on any copyright.
> <snip>
> I have taken a breath. And this is the question I came up with. Please...
> PLEASE correct me if am mistaken in what is staring me in the face. Go ahead
> and flame me if that's what makes you happy.
Well, I'll take a crack at correcting you. Firstly, despite the fact that
minifigs do not have genitalia, that does not mean it is not possible to pose
them in sexually explicit positions. Such positions are offensive to some
people, and parents may not want their children to see them. For an example,
see the first picture in Brendan Smith's depiction of the Cain and Abel story.
Yikes!
Secondly, let's take a reality check regarding the Christian church. Every
church I've ever been to has been very careful to sanitize the Bible stories
when telling them to children, and to exclude completely many of the stories
that are particularly explicit. Even been in a church where the daily reading
included Judges 3:21-24 or Isaiah 36:12? Probably not. And I believe most
Christians would disagree with you that all stories in the Bible are
appropriate for children. Many of them are not. Where did you get the
impression that they were?
Thirdly, Brendan Smith has stated (in the Spin magazine interview available on
his site) that "If there's an unspoken intention to the site, it's to have
those who believe in an all-loving and merciful, family-values-supporting God
be confronted withthe barbaric, heinous, and grotesque stories from the
divinely inspired book their religion is based on." So according to Smith, the
site highlights the non-family-values aspects of the Bible.
So that's why.
That's why they have been set aside for further review.
That's what is in question.
Does that help?
Rick C.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
| (...) Why? Why set them aside for further review? What is in question? I've seen his pictures, they're not pornographic. The majority deals with the bible and it's topics, and does not every christian church give free and full access of the bible to (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
