MovieChat Forums > Last Ounce of Courage (2012) Discussion > What twisted universe does this take pla...

What twisted universe does this take place in?


Because there is no basis in reality here. Take for example the whole bible thing in the locker. The ACLU would and has defended the right of students to put religious materials in their lockers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2011/02/the-aclu-defends-the-ten-commandments-in-school/175143/

Why is it also that the only minority character, from what I've seen, in the entire movie is the evil, liberal lawyer?

Seriously this is some seriously messed up fantasy world that the film makers have made up. Here is a little tip for you: if the majority of your country follows your religious beliefs you can not claim to be persecuted.

Not only that, but I have to say I love the implication that anyone who supports the separation of church and state is the enemy and opposed to freedom. Not to mention the almost creepish militarism shown in the movie.

This would only appeal to those with a persecution complex.

reply


This would only appeal to those with a persecution complex.


Welcome to US Christianity in the 21st Century.

reply

I was gonna say the same thing... if it really happened as it did in the movie, where a CHURCH was forced to remove a cross, I know Christians won't believe me, but seriously, the ACLU would TOTALLY come to the defense of the church on that one - I mean it!

Many Christians seem uninformed that the ACLU has in fact defended the free speech rights of churches in the past.

reply

Why are you guys getting up in arms over this retarded movie. I'm just here to make fun of it.

4// itchy tasty

reply

[deleted]

Well said. But this is exactly the kind of myth-making that happens in the churches and truck stops of the nation. I guess it makes people feel righteously noble and martyrish, or something.

reply

While I agree that forcing a church to remove a cross would probably never happen...in say the next few months, sadly the truth isn't very far off. As a Christian I have been publically and legally persecuted for my faith - a right which "should" be protected under the law.

I am a photographer and I was sued after declining to offer my services during a gay marriage ceremony because it was in direct conflict with my personal views and my faith. I was very polite in my response, I made no attempt to belittle their lifestyle choice. I offered congratulations on their upcoming ceremony and wished them well. I even went a step futher and offered the contact info of (3) amazing photographers in the area who would have loved to cover their event. All (3) were comperable in artistic style, quality, pricing and availability. Unfortunately that just wasn't good enough. This couple felt the need to make an example of me. My choices were to cover their wedding or pay a huge fine. I don't get why they would even want me to do it knowing how I feel. If forced to participate, it would obviously be reflected in my work. What then? Sue me again for a sub-par result? In the end I opted to pay the outrageous $5k fine rather than compromising my beliefs.

As a photographer, I am an individual, not affiliated with any government agency or platform. My service is not compulsory, i.e. I am not a school photographer where there is only one option to get annual school photos. Yet because I am a for profit company that offers a service to the public - according to our local courts - I am obligated to quash my personal beliefs and become intimately involved in something that I find repugnant. Even before becoming a Christian (a few years ago), the idea of same sex coupling has never sat well with me. I know this is extremely counter-culture, but for me personally (YES I STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY OWN OPINIONS) it has always seemed very unnatural, even as an agnostic/athiest.

For those not involved in the industry, photography is very intimate and personal, I would describe is as art rather than a provided service, for me anyway. Yes, I get paid to do it, but painters often get paid for their work as well do they not? I get emotionally involved with every session and a part of me goes into creating these memories. With couples/wedding sessions in particular there are lots of guided-to-look-spontanteous moments such as kissing and other acts of intimacy and to get those amazing shots the photographer is right up in the action so to speak. So as a wedding photographer, not only could I not look away from intimate moments the couple shares, I have to zoom in and think about the best posible composition to highlight that moment. How can I be expected to direct and encourage something that I dont even enjoy catching a glimpse of? Let alone attempting to imagine the scene several times over before composing the shot to visualize the best angle in which to capture it. Again this feeling of revulsion has nothing to do with my current faith and has been a part of who I am for as long as I can remember. So compulsory participation in something I find vile and unnatural would be cruel and unusual punishment, and a clear violation of my personal rights.

Tell me how my having to pay a fine for refusal of services is fair, legal or just? I even have a "reserve the right to refuse service" disclaimer on my website and in my contracts. It didn't matter.

I even offered a fairly grotesque example to try to illustrate my position. I likened my compulsory participation in a gay marriage to a vegan being forced to hunt, kill, cook, serve and eat a fluffy bunny for dinner. Or a pro-lifer being forced to assist in a voluntary "birth control" abortion. Whether anyone agrees with how I feel about gay marriage or not, it really shouldn't matter. It is my art, my business and my personal opinion. I am not seeking to convert any of my clients to my beliefs, nor does the topic even come up during sessions. In court they argued that it is more like my refusing to photograph an interracial marriage ceremony which I found ridiculous because it was completely different. That is motivated by racial hatred. Mine comes from a personal dislike. Just as there are some people who don't like kids for whatever reason and avoid interacting with them whenever possible. These people usually don't have a core hatred for children, rather they are simply personally disgusted by what kids often represent i.e. runny noses, dirty diapers, yelling, screaming, fighting, messes, damage, etc. and because that disgust is so prevelent they are actually quite unable to see beyond all of that to what many others see and celebrate such as smiles, giggles, cuddles, kisses, milestone triumphs, unconditional love and trust. I likewise am unable to look past the elements of gay couples to see what others are able to celebrate. I find I am equally disgusted by extreme differences in age i.e. a 60 yr old man marrying an 18 yr old girl. It is purely personal opinion and not the least bit descriminatory or based upon hatred. Bottom line, some things are just plain gross to some people.

Unfortunately my freedom to choose and practice my own beliefs no longer exists in the USA.

So to reitterate, while the extreme of a church being forced to remove a crossmay not be a reality yet - with small violations of personal rights such as what happened to me - I would be willing to bet that something like that will become a reality in the not sodistant future. Little by little personal rights and freedoms are being violated within the legal system every day under the guise of "equal rights". I doubt the ACLU would run to my rescue, and would in fact, likely defend my oposition.

reply

I guess it would also be OK if you refused to photograph a Jewish wedding ceremony because you don't like Jews; or a black wedding ceremony because you don't like blacks?

reply

Ahhh and there is the heart of the debate. In order for this comparison to hold any merit, it would have to be based upon a dislike of the person. I do not dislike gays for the people they are, but rather for the lifestyle they choose to engage in. Just as I would likewise refuse to photograph child or animal abusers in the act. Yet if the vile behavior was not displayed during my session (i.e. a couples session) then I would have no problem with the abuser as I would be oblivious to their vile behavior and would not be forced to take part by photographing it.

I know it is hard for someone with a different opinion to understand, but truly I do not dislike gay people simply for the person they are. If a gay person was included in a family session and not openly displaying their lifestyle choice, I would have no problem with it.

So to compare my choice to refuse to cover a ceremony that includes actions I find to be unnatural and repugnant, in no way compares to a refusal based upon skin color, nationality, or religion. My refusal was based upon the fact that the session itself would be focusing on those aforementioned actions, rather than the people. If a gay couple came to me wanting to do a session together, I would be happy to - with the express understanding that it would be shot as a "friends" or "family" session, not as a "couple" session and politely ask that they refrain from engaging in any intimate activity during the process.

reply

You say you don't dislike gays, but immediately follow that by trying to draw a comparison between photographing a gay couple to photographing people abusing children or animals, and you then go on to refer to gays' "vile behavior."

If you don't want to follow the laws governing owning and running a business, perhaps you should consider a career change.

reply

Right. You don't dislike gays, as long as they're not gay. Or at least as long as they hide the fact that they are. Such hypocricy (I guess that's why you only dislike gays who aren't hypocrites about the fact they are gay, unlike, say, Ted Haggard, who was such a good role model for Christians before people found out what a big hypocrite he was).

reply

Yes. Absolutely she could. It's called the RIGHT of an AMERICAN. But based on your sarcastic comment I would guess you no longer realize what that means.

reply

Indeed it should be allowed to refuse service to anyone you don't wish to engage in business with. If the pendulum were to swing in the opposite direction, and anyone who wants to engage in Commerce with you can compel you by law to participate, what is to stop them from demanding that you sell your property to them even if you never had the desire to sell to anyone? If the law deems that you sell products gays, what is to prevent a gay person from buying your house even though you have never had a desire to sell? After all, if you don't sell them your home, you MUST be a Homophobe, RIGHT???

reply

You my friend are sick in the head... you make it sound like the wedding was going to be pornographic simply because it was two men or two women. You act as if a homosexual couples wedding is any different then two other people who love each other and want to get married... And your example regarding birth control, a pharmacist can’t refuse to fill a prescription for the morning after pill or any other type of birth control, that’s the law and for good reason. You then went on to compare to men kissing to a vegan killing, butchering and eating, of all animals “a bunny”, I feel bad for you being that closed minded, to a healthy minded person that would be comparing apples and oranges but I’m sure in your xenophobic head those two situations are on par, taking a picture of two men kissing and being forced to kill something and chop it up cook then eat something you don’t eat.

Referring to two men (or women) kissing, hugging and holding hands as veil is ridiculous. This is something two straight women (and even men, yet less often) do as well.

It’s no different then someone refusing you a service because they see a cross around your neck or knows its going to be in a catholic church as apposed to protestant church or vice versa… I would have typed this up more if my keyboard wasn’t broken, this would only be the draft of the first page, as I would go into greater detail about you not being comfortable with your own sexuality and may possibly be a homosexual yourself in denial.

reply

While I agree that forcing a church to remove a cross would probably never happen...in say the next few months, sadly the truth isn't very far off.
...
So to reitterate, while the extreme of a church being forced to remove a crossmay not be a reality yet - with small violations of personal rights such as what happened to me - I would be willing to bet that something like that will become a reality in the not sodistant future. Little by little personal rights and freedoms are being violated within the legal system every day under the guise of "equal rights". I doubt the ACLU would run to my rescue, and would in fact, likely defend my oposition.


So it's been 2 years. What horrible things have the liberals wrought upon thee?

reply

You don't think there are city/county building codes and property usage codes that prohibit certain things on church property? Hmm...Visit any city in the South (don't know about Yankeeland or the far left coast) and you will find lots of prohibited uses.

I'm not saying those rules or laws are not for the greater good but they do exist and do limit not only churches but all other property owners. I wish they were stricter on some religious property usage, again for the greater good of people living nearby who have to put up with the noise, traffic, and parking.

And of course those particular bloody crucifixes displayed out of doors. The showing of such cruel and inhumane punishment should make anyone want to barf up their lunch. If the mosques displayed some of their bloody beliefs the public would be up in arms.


**************************************
My favorite: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

reply

The reason the ACLU has such a rotten reputation is their past actions.

They do indeed advocate for Christians, on rare occasions, but in general they only do so when the person they are protecting is undeniably in the right.

In the cases which are closer to the line, the ACLU looks more like the "Anti Christian Litigation Unit" more than the "American Civil Liberties Union".

More often than not the ACLU sides with those that hold with the teachings of the "Freedom From Religion Fouindation" than the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution states that we have a "freedom of worship", and the Constitution's supporting documents clearly demonstrate that the rule is NOT a 'Seperation of Church' and state, which is loosly based on Jefferson's reference to the "Wall" that Jefferson mentions in his Danbury letter. The "wall" Jefferson spoke of was one that restricted government, not the individual or the Church.

reply

"but in general they only do so when the person they are protecting is undeniably in the right."
Name one case.


"Weirdness was all he cared about. Weirdness and sex and plenty to drink."

reply

You use quote marks for the phrase "freedom of worship," indicating you're directly quoting the Constitution. Could you please tell us where this expression is within the document?

The First Amendment guarantees "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that Christians are protected from having to endure a Hindu prayer, a Muslim prayer, a Scientologist rundown, or anything else, should Christians happen to be in the minority under any circumstances. It protects people from those who would use the auspices of governmental authority their own personal beliefs on others. If the ACLU seems to seldom defend Christians in your eyes, perhaps that's because it's easier for the majority to try and impose their beliefs on the minority than vice versa.

reply

The idea that I was directly quoting the Constitution is 'your assumption' not 'fact'.

The fact is that I was quoting the phrase often used by pundits who comment on the subject, not the Constitution.

That being said... the Constitution does protect the freedom to worship, as you clearly cited from the Constitution "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", such a law from Congress is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

This is where the Freedom From Religion Foundation gets it totally wrong. There is no guarantee anywhere in the Constitution that demands that any person hide their religion. If the Hindu you named, wants to pray in public there is no Constitutional basis for prohibiting such an act, there is a prohibition on the Hindu demanding that you remain in the vicinity and participate, but you have no power under the Constitution to demand that the Hindu cease and desist. The Hindu you mention has the Constitutionally protected right to pray, you have no Constitutional protection against being insulted. Praying in public does not demand that you take part, you are perfectly permitted to walk away. A clear demonstration of this is the practice common in the 1970's and 80's of the Hari Krishna's accosting people at airports, the law allowed them to approach people, and the people had the right to ignore them. I did so quite often, but I had no right to tell them that they could not chant in public.

reply

It wasn't a church that was forced to remove the sign, it was the mission. But, wait, it's coming.

reply

No, it's not. You're just delusional, much like the makers of this "film".

-----------
With trenches full of poets,
The ragged army, fixing bayonets to fight the other line

reply

and Liberals...and Homosexuals...and Muslims...

The list goes on. You're blind if you think [certain] Christians are the only people with a persecution complex.

reply

[deleted]

"This would only appeal to those with a persecution complex."

In other words, the entire religious right.

And in case anybody's wondering, I'm saying this as a Christian myself, a former theology student, and a licensed minister. I'm begging some of you to tell me just how much more serious you are about Christianity than I am.

reply

I'm begging some of you to tell me just how much more serious you are about Christianity than I am.


I'm not serious about Christianity - I'm serious about God.

Yours in Christ,
~Molly~
www.hcdoxies.com

"Elephants are not purple. This is wrong."

reply

Come on. I'm not playing with words. I understand your point, but I'm not making a different one. I'm only trying to make the distinctionb between myself and the usual crowd of anti-religionists who would criticize any film with religion, God, etc., as the subject matter no matter how good or bad the actual film was.

reply

[deleted]

I agree, although this is not a lecture I needed. The answers are yes and yes. I mentioned the externally verifiable info only to distinguish myself from the usual crowd of anti-religionists who reflexively jump all over _any_ film that even remotely tries to treat this subject.

reply

[deleted]

Sorry at my end too--maybe I wasn't clear enough. Really, I was trying to head off any "you're not Christian, so you wouldn't understand" nonsense that would have been avoiding the substance of what I was saying.

Regardless, the main point is that I just see no reason whatsoever why these artistic efforts have to be so third-rate. Seems to me it ought to be exactly the opposite. And it was not always this way, contrary to popular opinion. Much of the greatest music and art ever done was done under the auspices of church sponsorship or support, or in some cases as a legitimate Christian reaction to the oppressive or institutionally bankrupt ways of organized religion.

reply


Is that what this movie is about? The commercials and trailer I've seen couldn't possibly be more vague. Oh now I have to see it, if only for a good laugh and for "The Hammer" of course.


I'll torture you so slowly, you'll think it's a career.

reply

Why is it also that the only minority character, from what I've seen, in the entire movie is the evil, liberal lawyer?

You must have slept through the movie, then.

reply

The reason the ACLU often seems to be fighting Christians is that it's often the religious right that are trying to take away people's liberties.

ACLU will defend anyone who's rights are being threatened.


Anyway, I haven't seen this movie, and I don't think I will. The whole idea that the US is trying to destroy Christianity just because they want ALL people, regardless of religion, to be equal. As has been said before, freedom or religion doesn't mean always getting your way.

reply

Simply reading these blog entries about this movies makes me worry even more about the direction of this great country. Wow! Unbelievable!

reply

To the OP:

I went and saw this movie. Wasn't the cross taken off the church building when it ceased being a church and became some kind of community center or something?

I didn't view "the evil, liberal lawyer" as being portrayed as evil. He had his viewpoint and it was at odds with the hero's. More of an antagonist than an outright villain. Nor do I deem it necessarily a bad thing when a black character is a villain; the way I've always looked at it, it bucks the stereotype of people of color being any less human than white people. All people of every tone of flesh have their "good guys and bad guys" in real life. And Wesley Snipes, for instance, made a terrific "bad ass" villain in Demolition Man.

It was also explained in the movie that the young man hadn't broken any rules by having a Bible in his locker and that it was just the knee-jerk reaction of the school's gutless wonder of a principal.

I am religious and I am conservative. That and the rest of the above being said, I was disappointed in LOOC and its simplistic approach throughout.

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

Exactly! We do live in a twisted universe called PC America. How hard is it to think of an example of the ACLU attacking religious symbols, wanting a cross removed, wanting the 10 commandments removed, duh. The twist is that people don't recognize what is going on and are willing to give in to tyrannical PC. We are not going to sit down and shut up any longer.

reply

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It is unconstitutional to display religious symbols on public property.

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Albert Einstein

reply

I would be nice if someone would point out where this is in the constitution. Apparently it wasn't until the 20th century that it was discovered. Their are religious symbols all over the buildings in Washington DC. Laos Deo. However, I know that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I would be on your side if congress tried to establish a national religion.

reply

"Respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't just mean creating a national religion. It means endorsing or supporting one religion over another. The government has to remain neutral to all faiths.

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Albert Einstein

reply

You missed the keyword 'Law'. Congress did not make a law that the relief center put up a cross, the people of the community felt that it was a valuable symbol for a church related relief center. I know you will never agree that people should be allowed free choice, so we will agree to disagree.

reply

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about PEOPLE not being allowed free choice. Government officials, acting in their official capacity, have to obey the laws, including the first amendment. That means they cannot approve religious displays on public property.

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Albert Einstein

reply

I'm sure if the lawyer was 'an evil conservative lawyer' no one would give a rats ass.

www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

Because most of you neocons are evil and complete POS's.

reply

Thank you for proving my point. Talk about a people too ignorant and hateful to live with anyone who shares a different opinion then they do.

www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

You (and the makers of this s****y film ) are the ones full of hatred, not I. You're also full of what I also said before, and a lot more.

reply

Talk about hypocrisy. Open your eyes.

www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

Open yours, you fundie motherfracker, and stop reading and re-reading the Bible every day like some kind of drug addict.

There's a world out there beyond the obvious fairy tales that you've been brainwashed with, and you're not living in it-just existing at the margins. One book for you to start reading instead of the Bible would be God Is Not Great; another would be The God Delusion. Both would go a long way in helping you to survive in the 21st century a lot better than you are doing so now constantly reading & re-reading the same fairy tale book.

reply

Holy crap, take two steps back and read your own posts. You're the only one in the conversation who sounds like he's got a stick up deep.

All this conversation has done is make you look ignorant and hateful.

Grow up.



www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

The only ones in this world (and on this board) with 'sticks up their asses' are people like you with your ridiculous persecution complex about how Christianity is perceived; I was just responding to you and what you were saying. It's the other way around, in fact; you, your fellow Christian fundies, and the makers of this film should be the ones to 'grow up'.

reply

Are you insane? Did I mention Christianity or fundamentalism once? Did I ever state that I was a conservative? All I did was point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of people like you.


www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

I doubt that you could even spell the word 'hypocrisy', much less know what it means.

reply

By this point I really hope that you're just trolling. Otherwise this is sad.



www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

I'm only a troll to intolerant bigoted sheeple like you who believe in the message that this POS movie is spewing, not to anybody else. Join the 21st century, put down the Bible, pick up some books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and base your life upon something else other than fairy tales.

reply

Again, what makes you think I'm religious? Because I realize the duality and hypocrisy put forth by those of the extreme left like yourself?

www.last.fm/user/Muinaiset

reply

Yeah because those books made you such a wonderful and happy person. ;-)

reply

Why does every movie have to have a minority character? Seriously, why?

Certain parts of this world are monochrome(get over it); all one color one religion or both. To place an outsider into mix ruins the realism.

If you are an egalitarian, then cry your heart out.

reply

Certain parts of the world only have one group of people with specific melanin levels, race is a human construct and racists just hate themselves for arbitrary reasons, but the majority of America is not monochromatic. Unless you go deep into the south you are not likely to find a town that only has white people.

There are people of multiple ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and political background in all towns of america.

reply

Let's get back to what universe this movie takes place in. I like to think it's something like the Matrix, and in this Matrix there are alien overlords running simulation tests on humans and their political and religious motivations. This is further supported by the Space Alien theme which is brought in through the school play, which if you recall was written by the school's principal who along with Fred Williamson are obviously the Agent Smith characters in this reality, there to test and shake up the human psyche.

Wigga Please

reply