Monty Python Life of Brian - Friday Night TV Debate

[LordHawHaw]

Originally Posted by Baron_Corvo

Turned out he hadn't seen the film. It was banned in Cornwall too.

Banned in Scotland too. At my church we were told to not see it. Couldn't see it if we had wanted to. Crazy to imagine now that we live in the Social Democratic Tolerence Republic.

[delete]

Originally Posted by LordHawHaw

Banned in Scotland too. At my church we were told to not see it. Couldn't see it if we had wanted to. Crazy to imagine now that we live in the Social Democratic Tolerence Republic.

It was banned in Norway too for a while.

In Sweden the film was marketed as "so funny that it is banned in Norway", IIRC.

[Errigal]

I'd rather live in a world where local communities can and do openly ban films than the way things are now.

[Jake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I'd rather live in a world where local communities can and do openly ban films than the way things are now.

Yes. "The Life of Brian" is not a film that needed to be banned, but its better to have an occasional wrong call, then to have what we have now.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Yes. "The Life of Brian" is not a film that needed to be banned, but its better to have an occasional wrong call, then to have what we have now.

Should they be able to EFFECTIVELY ban films (spy on people's internet, employ informers to see whether they have them) or just prevent them from being shown in public.

I understand the desire for localism, but I don't want to give them all that much enforcement powers in this either...

[Angler]

I can understand people wanting to keep certain films away from children. Beyond that, there's no justification for banning any films. Adults can make up their own minds about what they want to watch. Let those who don't think they're capable of that go ask their parents, friends, or clergy for advice. Beyond that, they should butt out of what other people want to watch.

Who wants to ban films, books, etc.? People who fear that the content might change minds. The truth can stand on its own, but many people fear the truth. This is why, for example, the Jews have labored to ban the expression of doubts about the Holocaust and other ethnic sacred cows. Only lies have anything to fear from an open forum.

[Ixion]

Arthur Mervyn Stockwood (27 May 1913 – 13 January 1995) was Anglican Bishop of Southwark from 1959 to 1980.

Mervyn Stockwood was born in Bridgend, Wales, to a middle-class family. His solicitor father was killed during the First World War. He was introduced to Anglo-Catholic worship at All Saints' Church, Clifton[disambiguation needed ], which reinforced his love of ritual and sense of the dramatic. He was educated at The Downs School and Kelly College; in 1931 he entered Christ's College, Cambridge, where he graduated in 1934. Having studied for the Anglican ministry at Westcott House theological college in Cambridge, he was ordained deacon in 1936, priest in 1937. First curate, then Vicar of St Matthew's, Moorfields for nineteen years, he was also missioner to Blundell's School.[1] In 1955 he was appointed Vicar of Great St Mary's, Cambridge where his preaching drew large congregations of undergraduates, gaining him a national reputation.[2] A flamboyant figure, he was for a time a Labour councillor, having converted to socialism while at theological college.

In 1959, at the suggestion of Geoffrey Fisher, Harold Macmillan appointed Stockwood to the see of Southwark. Under him, Southwark became one of the best known dioceses in the Church of England. Stockwood encouraged both the radical and conservative wings of the church. On the one hand he encouraged priests wearing jeans in public, marches against racism and the training of "worker priests" in the Southwark Ordination Course, yet he was also the first Church of England diocesan bishop to preach at the National Pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, of which he later became an honorary guardian. A legal case however, when a police constable was sent to enforce the closure of an Anglo-Catholic church at Carshalton, indicated limits of accepted ritual practice. A consistory court hearing (under diocesan chancellor Garth Moore) in another sphere of behaviour[clarification needed] was followed by a formal service of deposition from orders.

During the 1960s the term 'South Bank religion' became synonymous with radical theology and public controversy. Its most famous expression was the book Honest to God (1963) by John Robinson, whom Stockwood had appointed as his suffragan at Woolwich in 1959. Another controversial work was No New Morality (1964) by Douglas Rhymes, a gay priest on the staff of Southwark Cathedral, which questioned the traditional view that Christian morality was based upon absolute laws.

Stockwood was adept at making unusual and radical, but usually highly successful, appointments. Chief among these were David Sheppard as Bishop of Woolwich in 1969 (after John Robinson's return to Cambridge), Hugh Montefiore as Bishop of Kingston in 1970, Michael Marshall to Woolwich in 1975 and Keith Sutton to Kingston in 1978.

Stockwood is remembered for his appearance on the BBC chat show Friday Night, Saturday Morning, with Christian broadcaster Malcolm Muggeridge, arguing that the film Monty Python's Life of Brian was blasphemous. He memorably told John Cleese and Michael Palin at the end of the discussion that they would "get their thirty pieces of silver".

Stockwood was a celibate gay bishop. Within the Church of England he was liberal in his view of the morality of homosexual behaviour (although a Cambridge sermon alluded unfavourably to English historical monarchs with that reputation). He spoke in favour of homosexual law reform, included gay couples among the guests at his dinner parties, and on at least one occasion blessed a gay relationship.

In his autobiography, Chanctonbury Ring, Stockwood claimed to have had numerous paranormal experiences.[4] A supporter of the Churches' Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Study, he said of the matter, "Our job is to examine the evidence without presupposition or jumping to conclusions. The weakness of the Church has been its refusal to consider the evidence and discuss it."

Michael De-la-Noy's biography, Mervyn Stockwood: A Lonely Life, paints him as a socialist who loved the trappings of wealth, privilege and royalty. In 1980 he retired and went to live in Bath. Shortly before his death he was one of ten Church of England bishops 'outed' by the radical gay organisation OutRage!.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Angler

I can understand people wanting to keep certain films away from children. Beyond that, there's no justification for banning any films. Adults can make up their own minds about what they want to watch. Let those who don't think they're capable of that go ask their parents, friends, or clergy for advice. Beyond that, they should butt out of what other people want to watch.

Who wants to ban films, books, etc.? People who fear that the content might change minds. The truth can stand on its own, but many people fear the truth. This is why, for example, the Jews have labored to ban the expression of doubts about the Holocaust and other ethnic sacred cows. Only lies have anything to fear from an open forum.

Would banning films be alright if I could show that monkeys often ban films themselves when in their natural habitat?

Seriously though, I do think in a better world it would be reasonable for local communities to ban certain films from their town. This wouldn't be reasonable in larger cities because there wouldn't be a close enough community to make such a ban legitimate. Political and social factions would be banning the films and works of their enemies. That's where your Jews come in.

[Vindex]

I do understand the moral right to prevent certian flims from being made. Its a barrier to prevent different individuals and groups from using them as a medium for psychological warfare on the populaces minds. Jews anyone?

I don't buy the adults can make up their own minds line. As most "adults" minds are made up for them by advanced social conditioning done via meda and other avenues. Hence why I always seem to hear the exact line from all of their mouths.

After living in this version of the Juadized West. In the event of a new social revolution and sane systems coming back to power. I would support a state panel of censors for meda. The only time hollywood ever did anything not anti-White was when they had to answer to a panel of White Gentile censors it seems. Take that control off and....

A people have a right to protect their own from propaganda fashioned to destroy them. Giving hostile groups the power to wage a destructive psyche campaign on your own people in the name of freedom, is just freedumb.

Originally Posted by Angler

I can understand people wanting to keep certain films away from children. Beyond that, there's no justification for banning any films. Adults can make up their own minds about what they want to watch. Let those who don't think they're capable of that go ask their parents, friends, or clergy for advice. Beyond that, they should butt out of what other people want to watch.

Who wants to ban films, books, etc.? People who fear that the content might change minds. The truth can stand on its own, but many people fear the truth. This is why, for example, the Jews have labored to ban the expression of doubts about the Holocaust and other ethnic sacred cows. Only lies have anything to fear from an open forum.