2 ms·
The other guy wasn’t better. His assumption was that because 14 years old don’t know much about Christ or Christianity, after watching this obvious satire comed
by joering2 7y ago
The other guy wasn’t better. His assumption was that because 14 years old don’t know much about Christ or Christianity, after watching this obvious satire comedy made by people who produce many more comedy inthe past, all of sudden that’s all they would believe regarding a Christian religion as a whole. There is so many problems with this even when you go back in times it was debated. I would say there was more harm actually to give someone like that a voice on nationl TV to fearmonger parents that their kids are in danger. It also gives an author too much credit. I mean think about making a silly movie that has altered thinking process of a whole nation. There is never been a single movie like that and there never will be. And baning that movie just proved again why US had to part from Brits frankly, and how different America really is.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoI don't follow your last point. It was Ireland and Norway that banned the movie, not Britain. Some British and American towns banned it, I believe mainly as a result of lobbying by evangelical Christian groups, and all did so sight unseen. America was the place with the most widespread demonstrations against the movie though. So how does USA and Britain doing the exact same thing, to roughly similar extent prove any difference or historic need to separate?