Slashdot Mirror
Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion
pajor writes "BBC News is reporting that that The Matrix Reloaded has been banned in Egypt. The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"
Hi,
:)
I've always used Windowz and I consider myself an exceptional Visual
Basic programmer, so I know computers pretty good. In fact I got an A-
in my programming class last term. But I'm a little wary of how much
power Microsoft has in the computer field. Many of my friends use
RedHat and I've recently installed it on my machine at home. Although
I haven't had as much chance to play with it as I'd like, I've been
greatly impressed.
This weekend I gave some thoughts to the things that are wrong with
Linux. I hope no one minds having some flaws pointed out. I'd like to
help make RedHat stronger so it can conquer MS. Hopefully RedHat will
hear this (crossing fingers) and address these. I think with a little
effort, RedHat's Linux can defeat Microsoft's Windows!
To begin with, there are too many different flavors of RedHat.
Browsing a list on Amazon, I saw they made varients under the
codenames of Mandrake, Debian and Slackware, just to name a few. I
know that I'm very new to RedHat so maybe this is obvious but it seems
like RedHat should just sell a few different flavors of its operating
system. Perhaps one for the desktop and one for a server? Could
someone explain why RedHat produces dozens of different versions of Linux?
Secondly did you know that anyone can view the source code to Linux! I
think that RedHat shouldn't make its code available. After all, what
keeps Microsoft from stealing RedHat's ideas and putting it into
Windows? My friend says that FreeBSD stole the TCP/IP stack from DOS a
long time ago and Microsoft is always looking for revenge for that.
Plus it seems to me like RedHat is just giving away its ideas for
free. And what keeps hackers or terrorists from tampering with the
code and putting a virus in every computer?
On a related note, why doesn't RedHat write Linux in assembly? My
friend says that's what Microsoft does for Windows, and that's why
Windows is faster and more stable than Linux.
Next RedHat definitely should kill -9 (ha, ha!) the command line.
Microsoft finally gave up DOS when Windows 2000 came out. I'm suprised
that RedHat hasn't migrated away from...whatever its version of DOS is
called (Bash, I think?) But maybe this is planned for a futurerelease?
Finally Linux needs games! RedHat will never be successful in the home
without games. They should also tell M$ to release a version of Office
for Linux too. And Internet Explorer!
Have a nice day! Go Linux!!
I'm not Seth.
Should go back to Africa
I suppose The Mummy was banned for the same reason...
How about an organization that helps the repressed people of the United States and stop flagrent violantions of human rights both within and outside their borders? .. These includes genocide, muder, rape and hollocast (tell that to the 100's of thousands of japanese they nuked.. not once but twice).
"coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy"
You must understand that there is no toy.
The movie promotes Zionist beliefs. The point he is making is that Egypt's government is openly antisemitic.
First of all a big fuck you to all the ignorant comments that failed to differentiate between the government of Egypt and the people of Egypt.
Yes they have a repressive system of government, but what the hell is slagging it off going to do? And it's not like we are free from governmental control, it is just (we think) we are freeER.
I'd liken our role to that of morpheus, there is little to no use is trash-talking the agents. We just have to move against them, through spreading a philosophy that promotes freedom.
But isn't that what the movie itself is doing? I don't know, the movie can be viewed in that way, sure. Another way to "read" the movie would be to see it as a huge American/Western wank that manages to dumb down and remove two ribs from philosophy so it can suck it's own dick. That's not philosophy, that's propaganda from a certain point of view. And you have to figure that into their reaction.
If you have had, from your perspective, your land stolen (or the land of your freinds) and the people who stole it are proped up by American funding and military hardware - and then a movie comes out that is virtually incomprehensible to your way of reading things... a movie which has loads of "saviour" imagery and talks about saving zion.... of course you are going to look harshly upon it.
We don't see much fundementalist islamic or arab nationalist movies or presentations in western democracies. What makes you think that the Matrix is any different, to them?
I am no condoning the ban, I am just saying there is a reason for it. And in our opposition to the said ban, the best course of action is not to slag people off. Sure, make your discontent known (don't go easy on them or ignore it)... but mindlessly slagging off governments AND the people does not construct anything: it only destroys.
Many of the responses here are so typical of the current dumbed down, two ribs removed, political climate that exists in the US. Be constructive, don't think you are better, because YOUR government is censoring things and applying rules and regulations to what you can and can't see - and to who owns the airwaves and who has access to government officials. We are very much under control, albeit a different form of control. This does not mean we are better - "only human".
What the fuck is Egypt?
They do not GET that someone actually wrote shuch a steaming load of shite, and then tried to pass it off as entertainment
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Mod him up you mother fuckers
There is no god
and:
I'm Discordian. I don't respect other religions, I make fun of them.
Batlock...
Attacking another country against international law for purposes of oil and might is not what I call civilized. As well I can't see anything civilized in holding captured and torturing hundreds of people outside the own borders.
Actually in long term the answer is Yes, because they do not want any west influence - thats the same like christians 600 hundred yrs. ago. Thats the offset between christian and moslem religions. So You have to wait something like 300 hundred years to get moslem religion to some civilized state. (if it will evolve the some way like christian one).
Wait, Christianity is "civilized"? You got your radical fundamentalists, your racists, your snake handlers, and your war-hawk right-wing leaders. Christianity is by no means civilized. On top of that, take a look at the world of Islam on the order of a thousand years ago. It was far more educated and "civilized" than any of the Christian world at the time (who were still practicing feudalism, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc).
Islam today sees a lot of political and social unrest because of the vast resources Islamic nations have: oil. You can be quite certain that the United States and other big oil consumers have quite a bit to do with that. The oppression which leads to violent radicals is no accident; it's engineered that way. That's why the US gives and has given tons of modern weapons (including WMD) to Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria... well gee, a lot of the countries of a religion you claim is uncivilized.
Now, to what ends, you might ask? It's textbook Machiavelli politics. You have a large group of people kept oppressed and subjugated by a small group of people. Oil consuming nations give weapons and money to this small group of oppressors to make the population has a whole easier to deal with because they can get away with pleasing fewer people. As a result, the consumers set the price on oil, not the producers. The problem is that a lot of the little guys figured out who is really causing their problems. Because the situation is so bad, they turn to violence in an attempt to break the establishment.
Please get off your righteous high-horse. Christianity and Christian nations are not the only one's with a valid viewpoint. More importantly, they're not the only ones who should have a say in how the world works.
Join Tor today!
banning for explicit crapness would have been a better reason. or explicit waste of time. or explicit waste of money. or explicit waste of energy. or ...
Hmmm... not too bright here.
What you've suggested is that it's a good idea to risk the beginning of what could be a bloody and oppressive sectarian revolution in a large north african state in which exists with some measure popular support for international terrorism, all because it's somehow wrongheaded not to allow a few people to see "The Matirx Reloaded"?
If a film like this one contributes to unrest among the populace that leads to the forceful replacement of the current regime (one of the few that has made peace with Israel) with a religious state, those few who wanted to see it would likely not see another western film for decades to come.
This is not a matter of a few busybodies "picking on" others because they just don't like movies too much, and what you call "facing up" in this case would actually be a decision made without any regard for or understanding of the larger political and social realities in the region.
Could it be that your analogy is simply not a good one? Or that it is, in fact, silly?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
you're a lying jew
LAME POST ENCOUNTERED...removing "Dark Lord Seth" from friends list
There's been plenty of discussion of this already but Zionism got it's start in the late 1800's when the notion of the "Nation State" (or of tying a particular race to a particular country) was gaining general popularity. Nazi Germany, claiming to be the country of the Aryan race, was an extreme example of this notion.
Unfortunately, as often happens, the victims have become the victimizers. In Nazi Germany, people claiming to represent the Aryan race set about building their empire (for reasons of "National Security") by eliminating the "threat" of the Jewish race. Now, in modern day Israel, people claiming to represent the Jewish race are setting about building their empire (again, for reasons of "National Security") by eliminating the "threat" of the Arab race. The most recent undertaking is forcing the Palestinians in the occupied territories into a Warsaw Ghetto type arrangement and permanently disavowing any responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians who were forced out of what is now Israel and who are in refugee camps in other countries.
Given that a movie that was sympathetic to what went on in Nazi Germany might generate opposition in the United States, it is understandable that a movie that appears sympathetic to what is going on in modern day Israel would generate opposition in Egypt (not that banning it is the right approach).
Now, this is a bit tricky, because some godhead might say that the bible is a "trustworthy record". However, you must weigh a number of things when deciding what to trust - the circumstances in which records were created, the reputation of the authors, independently verifiable/verified facts, and so on. The bible, by an athiest's standards, can not stand up to such challenges. A believer, typically, will not even scrutinize the bible, instead they'll blindly accept it (and insist that it MUST be true). Other believers will link it to circumstancial evidence and use other suspect means of validation. You could debate how trustworthy the bible/koran/Juggs (vol. 1, issue 2)/etc is, but people who are educated and rational (note the use of and) do not just blindly trust a source. As per my explanation above, I'll trust Apple's press release saying that the iPod is available, much more readily that I'd trust a multi-millenia old self-contradictory book, written by numerous (and sometimes unknown) authors, which is full of fanciful events that do not correspond to the behavior of the world in which I have spent the entirety of my life. Apple has a history of announcing the release of a product, and then that product actually showing up in the market. You see how that works...?
Yeah, it sounds like he is, but he seems a bit less wishy-washy that some agnostics. The stereotypical agnostic says "I don't know if there's a god." This guy says, "I don't believe in god(s)... I just don't believe it, that's all." Um, isn't that the basis for not believing anything?
Do you believe that the world exists on the shell of a giant turtle (some people do, or at least they did, before we killed them off)? Do you believe in a/an god(s)? Do you believe that I have a monster 36" pudd? I'm guessing you don't believe some (and hopefully all) of those things, because they defy logic, do not coincide with your experiences, are not backed up by valid tangible evidence, were not recorded by a reliable source, and so on.
You assume the world isn't on the back of a turtle, because you can't see the turtle from space and if you dig you won't hit shell. You don't believe in gods because you've never met any. You don't believe I have a 3' dong, because that's 6 times the average and quite a few standard deviations from the mean (I also doubt you've ever seen any human hung like that).
You always start out with a default assumption, based on what you know about the world. The natural/logical default is to believe that there is no god. Afterall, how many supreme beings were carpooling in the lane next to you this morning?
See how that works? It's called not being a gullible idiot.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!