Slashdot Mirror
Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
I'm sure we'll get enough yahoos that hop up and down about how this is repressing freedom and ignore the fact it's a private company making a decision on what they choose to show. So let's skip that.
.. you just aren't going to make a profit by picking it up and it only makes sense from a business perspective.
/. readers of being particularly enlightened on this issue.
I simply don't see the problem here. If you take TFA on face value, and assume that the shows didn't have a very high production value AND they would be playing to audiences that are predominantly in non agreement with the focus
Of course, if this had been a story about an IMAX theatre choosing not to show a vid that discussed creationism there would be dancing and 200 comments on how awesome it is. But no one ever accused
I stole this
Has the religous looney right become so powerful that they really have this sort of influence in the US? Thank god I live in Canada...
Has an aside, nothing would get IMAX theaters crowded like having a bunch of loons protesting science themed movies would. In fact we should hope this happens as it might finally get the general public interested in science.
Letter To Iran
I guess that depends on whether one believes open hatred of another group is "a problem".
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Bush is a Methodist, and Cheney is (or was until recently) an Episcopalian. Both are mainline Protestant denominations. There's no "fundamentalist" control of the White House. The only administration member that was close was John Ashcroft, who's long gone. "Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing. Only fringe denominations like Holiness and Pentacostalism hold such, and they don't seem to have much sway in the administration. Plus, there are also Jewish people in the administration, and Judaism has no doctrine that could be called "fundamentalist".
The New York Times really does do a lot of liberal trolling. It's sad, really. The fact that slashdot repeats it for 500+ comments is even more sad. Everyone wants to feel persecuted, it seems. It's a phenomenon no different from all those crazy stories about liberals censoring Christmas that pop up on conservative blogs every year. Ultimately, western society may be unable to sustain intelligent discourse. Some would say we rarely had it at all. In any case, this could be a terminal problem. Our society is built on ideas.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Look, it's obviously because the americans are genetically predisposed to this kind of retardation. All the dregs of Europe have always been dumped on America - the Puritans, the jews, etc. Europe had the sense to get rid of what it could and have hte rest exterminated.
Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons, who would rather believe any kind of comfortable fantasy rather than an uncomfortable truth.
As I see it, the Bible is the truth and we live in an age or scoffers who would rather believe in the lies of man than understand the truth of God. Abortion? Yes! Let's kill any unborn whose mother wants to kill them. It's a mother's choice and, really, it's not a living thing yet, anyway.
Capital punishment? No! We can't kill someone who committed a crime. That wouldn't be right.
Pull Terri's feeding tube? Absolutely! She's a veggie anyway and her poor husband has been taking it on the chin for 15 years while she has been suffering and holding him back.
All those positions just seem backwards to me. Why kill the innocent? Why preserve the guilty?
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
I often hear the Bible refered to as a comfortable fantasy, but often wonder where that statement comes from. I can understand how people believe it is a fantasy, but comfortable? I'm not too sure about that. Basically, what the Bible says is that we are all sinners who are unworthy of God and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. Hell is our ultimate destination. However, there is an alternative and that was provided when God gave His son for the world. Through Jesus, mankind was given a sacrificial lamb. The only need is to humble yourself and realize that you can only save your soul by believing that it needs saving through Jesus. I don't see how this is a very comfortable idea. Well, I suppose being able to be saved is comfortable, but having to admit that you are a sinner and need saving, as well as trying to become a humble being is too much for some people. I've heard people who scoff at the idea that "they need saving".
So, why do people view the Bible as a "comfortable fantasy"?
On another note, even though I consider myself religious, I don't see why God and science have to conflict. After all, I see science as insight into the logic that God created to make the world work. Who cares how the universe was created as long as you believe God created it? Besides, the things we know about the universe right now are only a scratch on the surface, and I'm always exicted to learn about new developments in astrophysics or space exploration in hopes that we will gain a better understanding on how the universe works as a whole.
SIGFAULT
Actually, modern astronomy, physics, and geology don't conflict with prevailing theology as much as you may be lead to believe (or the science-inclined masses may be lead to believe). As for the theory of evolution ... it has so many problems that anyone trying to use it as a basis for an argument is akin to religious fundies anyhow. I'm not saying that evolution won't be proven in the future ... but in it's current state it is nothing more than a fringe idea with a cult-like following.
> What specific parts do you think are unproven?
. htm
There are many problems with biological evolution.
The main one: That the lineage can be traced back to a "root."
Who came from who? Because there is a problem with chromosome count and comparisons. It's all OVER the map with plants & animals. Species can't reproduce if one partner has a different number of chromosomes -- so how do we get (both male & female) offspring of a new generation that either GAIN or LOSE _multiple_ chromosomes?
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim03
Unfortunately the article is supported by "Creation Science" (which is another type of junk science.) but that doesn't change the question.
Peace
--
5 Years driving without a "Driver's Licence."
3 times being pulled over by the Police.
ZERO tickets for "driving without a license."
ANSWER: ALL [Man-Made] Law is Contract Law. (Admitted VERY grudgingly by a Lawyer friend.)