Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the why-this-book-is-filthy dept.

Censorship 484

localman writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Through his hit Web site and three popular books, [author Brendan] Smith has spread the gospel of 'The Brick Testament.' But now, because of what it says are concerns about 'mature content,' Sam's Club, one of the nation's largest retailers, has banned in-store sales of the fourth book in the series, The Brick Bible.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I met him at a party (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160116)

He was, a bit sadly, exactly what you would expect from a guy who has devoted a significant portion of his adult life reproducing the stories of the bible out of legos. Still, it is pretty impressive work.

Re:I met him at a party (2)

revbps (546189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160710)

Stuart, is that you? I told you I wasn't interested.

Re:I met him at a party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160898)

It is pretty impressive work. I'm sorry your post has such a negative tone. This guy does what he enjoys, does it well, and I think the world is a better place with him.

To be fair (5, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160118)

If the Bible was judged purely on its contents, in the same way as other books, then it would require quite a warning label [nocookie.net] .

Re:To be fair (0)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160246)

I agree that there is a good bit of explicit material in the Bible, depending on how you define that. Funny link (so long as you've not actually studied the Bible... work of fiction?!?!?), though not sure what that has to do with the article.

Re:To be fair (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160324)

News flash: Christianity is only 33% of the world belief, so just by that measure, most of the world doesn't believe in the contents, making it a work of fiction in their view.

Then there's that the bible references plenty events that clearly didn't happen, such as a global flood or the plagues of Egypt, which definitely is fiction.

Re:To be fair (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160376)

"only"? That's a massive chunk of the populace! and by far the largest of any religion.

Re:To be fair (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160434)

McDonalds is by far the most popular restaurant in the world but that doesn't mean the food is any good.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160448)

Windows is by far the most popular operating system in the world but that doesn't mean it's any good.

Re:To be fair (5, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160516)

Nitrogen is the most popular gas to breath, but that dosn't mean it's any good.

Re:To be fair (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160492)

That may be the largest share, but it still doesn't reach over half. He used the word only to emphasize that point. More people believe the stories of christianity to be fiction than believe them to be truth.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160696)

Pedantics Nazi spotted.

Re:To be fair (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160442)

I am failing to follow your argument there. What does the % of population believing something have to do with it being fact or fiction?

Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one?
- flood... many Christians don't see the flood as global.
- plagues of Egypt (Note: a claim isn't an argument.): but to address your assertion, Hebrew people were there... Hebrew people left... Egypt didn't report defeats.

Re:To be fair (3, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160510)

I am failing to follow your argument there. What does the % of population believing something have to do with it being fact or fiction?

Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one?

Actually that's not how belief works. Unless someone is brainwashed as a kid, you have to provide evidence that something is real for them to believe any of it and not expect them to try and disprove it.

Re:To be fair (1, Funny)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160562)

Umm... that person was making the claim....
I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true.... and conversely, plenty of evidence to believe other worldviews are false.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160590)

Kid, it's all make believe.

Some day you will die. That's a fact. Then you will end. But that's fine. It may sound scary, but it's not.

Best of luck.

Re:To be fair (0, Flamebait)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160734)

Ad Hominem won't work on me... I'm too old for that. ;)

Yes, someday you and I will both die. The question is what happens after that. I don't think the evidence is stacked in your favor there.
I'm not scared at all (well, some forms of dying sound a bit scary, but of being dead, no).
Best of luck to you as well. I just hate to see people left in their ignorance.

Re:To be fair (2)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160652)

What is this evidence. Each time I am faced with this evidence, its only to discover that it's just circular, baseless, logic. I'd sincerely love to have some provided.

Re:To be fair (-1, Troll)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160714)

OK, consciousness, free choice, reason, logic, information. We'll start there.
You just have to spend a bit of actual time looking.
One way of approaching it is to recognize that the atheistic worldview utterly fails... which pushes one into the theist camp. Then you start ruling out religions. Pretty soon, you're left with Christianity and a couple others to actually consider. Then, you start matching up all the claims with reality and see which is a best fit. Then, you have to decide whether that religion is correct, or none and keep searching.

Check out my work at TilledSoil dot org or some of the resources I list. The truth is out there... ;)

Re:To be fair (2)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160880)

Three parts where you lose me, in order of importance:

1. The assertion that the atheistic worldview utterly fails. I haven't seen an argument to this effect that wasn't either absurd, or attacking an atheistic worldview that is not representative of all or most atheistic worldviews (the straw atheistic worldview).
2. If the atheistic worldview fails, that doesn't leave you ruling out religions. Even if I granted that the atheistic worldview cannot work, I can't see how you'd conclude that what remains is even remotely similar to any world religion. There's pretty much an infinite variety of things that nobody has ever thought of before, which could be said to be consistent with what we know of reality.
3. While I'm sure Christianity does beat out some alternative religions, I'm far from convinced that it's "up there" in terms of plausibility compared to other world religions. I'll grant that I'm more familiar with Christianity (many variations thereof) than any other religion and as such I might be missing some completely wacky things in other religions.

I had a quick look at your site but didn't immediately find anything addressing point 1 (clicking "atheist" led me to a couple antagonistic / preaching to the choir articles, but I'll take that in good humour), and it's a holiday so I won't be researching all day :).

Re:To be fair (2)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160896)

It took me three lines to spot your first grave mistake in an argument. "Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil". Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book. So is torturing alleged heretics, burning witches and a number of other acts. All those acts are more than plentiful evil enough to support the "you cannot have such events in the world, .together with an good, omnipotent and omniscient god".

Besides which, "evil" in this argument doesn't really need to be evil, just obviously bad for humans. Earthquakes, tsunamis and even ice storms comes under that heading.

Destroying the arguments of religious types is easy as stealing candy from children, but more fun and less objectionable :)

Re:To be fair (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160726)

I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true

I don't think "evidence" means what you think it means.

Re:To be fair (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160814)

I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true

I don't think "evidence" means what you think it means.

Well, that's obvious :) And I probably don't think "evidence" means what either of you think it means. For that matter, I probably don't even think "scientific evidence" (something shown as evident based on provable knowledge) means exactly what you think it means.

Back to the original topic, the Bible is almost all content that, in either a historical work or a work of fiction would get the book an "adult content" sticker these days. I'd say the only reason it doesn't have one is due to freedom of religion laws.

Maybe it should have one... or maybe it's time our society realized that our social morality needs a re-set (it's OK to talk about things that are Bad Things To Do, even in the context in which the people doing them think they're good)

Re:To be fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160838)

I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true

Citation required

Re:To be fair (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160560)

I am failing to follow your argument there. What does the % of population believing something have to do with it being fact or fiction?

66% of the planet doesn't think it's the truth. If a book doesn't contain truth then it contains something somebody made up, and we call that "fiction". So according to most of the planet, the bible is fiction.

plagues of Egypt (Note: a claim isn't an argument.): but to address your assertion, Hebrew people were there... Hebrew people left... Egypt didn't report defeats.

It doesn't matter if they reported something or not, anything like what's depicted in the bible would have been absolutely devastating to Egypt and left ample evidence.

Speaking of Exodus, there's no evidence of 600000 people packing up and leaving Egypt either. That would also have left traces.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160854)

Speaking of Exodus, there's no evidence of 600000 people packing up and leaving Egypt either. That would also have left traces.

It did.

Re:To be fair (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160526)

Global flood is fiction? If you say so. Of course, the Bible doesn't use the word "global", nor do any of the other legends, traditions, or whatever. The concept of your "global flood" is so widespread, it's awfully hard to simply dismiss it as never happening.

I remember that Noah's ark was found on top of a mountain, then I remember that story being "debunked", but no one ever explained how a huge freaking boat just happened to be on top of that mountain.

I'm not one to insist that every passage of the Bible be accepted literally, for several reasons. But Noah's flood hasn't been dismissed, either.

Re:To be fair (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160672)

So did this huge boat really have 2 of every animal on it? Given its size, you think this is still plausible?

Geology says you're wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160680)

There's not really much more to it than that.

I remember that Noah's ark was found on top of a mountain,

Link pls?

Re:To be fair (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160528)

The plagues most likely did happen..except, you know...it's called "natural disaster".

Re:To be fair (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160678)

It just smells funny when there's only one side to that story, and nothing else to corroborate it.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160546)

News flash: Christianity is only 33% of the world belief, so just by that measure, most of the world doesn't believe in the contents, making it a work of fiction in their view.

Then there's that the bible references plenty events that clearly didn't happen, such as a global flood or the plagues of Egypt, which definitely is fiction.

You forgot to add Jews who believe in most of the Bible, and muslims who at least in theory believe in Bible (in addition to Quran)

Re:To be fair (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160786)

News Flash: Islam also regards the Bible as a Holy book, and Judaism believes in the Old Testament.

Re:To be fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160366)

the Bible... work of fiction?!?!?

Works of fiction can still contain references to (or be based on) real people, places, and events.

Re:To be fair (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160464)

True, though I'm not sure what you seem to be asserting follows.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160426)

>>Bible... work of fiction?!?!?

For the sake of argument, here's the beginning of the wikipedia entry on fiction:

Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author. [...] Fiction contrasts with non-fiction, which deals exclusively with factual (or, at least, assumed factual) events, descriptions, observations, etc. (e.g.: biographies, histories).

When applied to the bible (turning water into wine, talking clouds, creating people out of ribs) the label would seem to apply.

>>depending on how you define that
Could you give a definition of fiction that does not include the Bible?

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160542)

Sooooo, it isn't a work of fiction? It's all true?

Re:To be fair (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160258)

That warning label neglects to warn of the Bible's descriptions of acts of pedophilia and underage sex, which could make it illegal child pornography in say Australia.

Re:To be fair (1)

TxRv (1662461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160384)

I don't understand why anyone today would follow a deity that raped a child. According to Jewish custom, Mary would have married at age 12. Jesus was born about a year later.

Re:To be fair (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160478)

Maybe that's why Christianity doesn't teach that.

Re:To be fair (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160508)

Well, according to some interpretations it was aural sex, which wouldn't (quite) qualify as rape, but rather probably some kind of sexual abuse of a minor.

Re:To be fair (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160582)

Aural? In the ear? Like that Family Guy scene with Meg and her boyfriend?

Re:To be fair (5, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160580)

Forceibly inpregnanting a child is one of the lesser of God's crimes according to the bible. How about several murders, numerous genocides - both direct and ordered - the creation of a realm of eternal torture... God is a nasty piece of work.

Even those ten plagues are more evil than they seem. God manipulated Pharoh into refusing his instructions purely in order to give himself an excuse to let loose the plagues upon the rest of Pharohs country - and even goes so far as to admit to Moses that he didn't *need* to kill a substantial portion of the population of Egypt, but did so simply to ensure the people of Israel would never forget their debt to him.

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160636)

God did it for teh lulz.

would explain a lot actually

Re:To be fair (2)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160642)

I wish more Christians/Jews/Muslims understood this. Even after the conceptual hurdle that is belief in a higher authority, their God is a colossal dick. Who the fuck wants to hop on that bandwagon?

Re:To be fair (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160766)

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

Heinlein

Re:To be fair (4, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160304)

"It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going."

"I read all about the scourging and the crowning with thorns and all that, and I could viddy myself helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in the height of Roman fashion."

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160340)

MOD UP PLS

Re:To be fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160306)

Yes. And here's some of the parts that are probably among the "racy" ones: http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_law/rape/dt22_23a.html [thebricktestament.com] etc...

Re:To be fair (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160344)

Heh, yea, I don't see racy there.... stupid, yes, racy, no.
And atheists complain about Fundamentalists.... sheesh!

Re:To be fair (1)

Tarsir (1175373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160742)

Try this [bricktestament.com] . I may just be a prude or paranoid, but if I lived in the States, I wouldn't want to be caught showing that to a child. I'd end up on the Sex Offender Registry.

Re:To be fair (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160446)

Don't forget endorsing bioterrrorism! (See the 10 plagues)

Okay, ALMOST gave a damn (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160140)

BUT then I read the article and found out that Brendan Smith SELF-CENSORED his book at the request of Sam's Club in order to make more money.

So... I am supposed to care that a guy who willingly took a dick up his ass got more then he bargained for?

Hell no. Smith approves of censor ship in name of the almighty dollar well, then he has to go all the way. If you want me to care about your lack of freedom you shouldn't have given it away first. This guy has no principles clearly, he only cares about selling less books.

Let this be a warning, you can NOT negotiate with religious extremist. Give them a finger and they rip of your arm then beat you with it. Why do you think Larry Flint the smut peddler was defended by civil rights groups? Not for the sake of porn itself.

Hello!!! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160172)

Direct quotes from the Old Testament .... Illustrated by Lego characters ... People thought it was a childrens book.

It's the Old Testament! THAT, isn't a childrens story!

Sam's Club is bending to the will of a few ignorant souls. Poor form, Sam's Club. Poor form.

Re:Hello!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160394)

The New Testament isn't exactly a child friendly story either.

What is this doing on Slashdot? (0, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160196)

Modern man holds religion in contempt and doesn't care about silly shit like internal superstitionist squabbles.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (0)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160260)

Modern man holds religion in contempt? Seriously? You need to get out more.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160286)

What's wrong with his claim? Just because 70+% of the population isn't modern doesn't mean the rest of us aren't holding them in contempt.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160352)

What would be modern about holding religion in contempt?

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160460)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modern [merriam-webster.com]

I'd say it's a relatively recent phenomenon for people to hold all religions, rather than a specific subset in contempt.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160302)

Modern man holds religion in contempt? Seriously? You need to get out more.

If you actually believe in the magic man in the sky that sees all, knows all, and needs money, you need to start using your head.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160364)

Nope, don't believe anything like that.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160858)

Let me guess. A liberal, tolerant of the beliefs of others? Oh wait.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1, Insightful)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160326)

What is this doing on Slashdot? Let's see...

  • indirect religion bashing, check
  • omg censorship, check
  • hating on megacorps, check
  • hyped up and misleading summary, check
  • no actual content to this story, check

Has all the hallmarks of a Slashdot story.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (2)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160498)

Your awesome commen.... priceless! :)

Actually, Slashdot has lots of great stuff... which is why I read it. It just seems to collect a super high concentration of overly ignorant atheists.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160514)

Inane and/or self-important comments, check

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160706)

Yes. But "modern man" is a minority in this country. Eventually you are going to have to step out of your house and deal with the masses.

On the other hand, "modern man" doesn't do much shopping at Sam's Club or WalMart [peopleofwalmart.com] .

Not censorship... (5, Insightful)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160206)

Umm, no matter what happened (I'm not familiar with the book), a store deciding they don't want to sell a product isn't censorship.

Re:Not censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160268)

Umm, no matter what happened (I'm not familiar with the book), a store deciding they don't want to sell a product isn't censorship.

Well, no, not necessarily, but a store ordering a huge supply, then canceling that order in direct response to one person complaining that it was written by an atheist, is.

Re:Not censorship... (2)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160290)

It may or may not be a good business decision, but isn't censorship.

Re:Not censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160280)

Actually, it is. It's just not Government censorship (and so has nothing to do with the First Amendment, or "freedom of speech"). But it fits the definition of censorship nevertheless.

Re:Not censorship... (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160386)

They aren't suppressing anything.... just not selling it.

Re:Not censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160536)

So any product WalMart/Sam's Club doesn't sell is now the victim of censorship? No wonder Slashdotters have such a warped vision of the world.

Re:Not censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160684)

No, that's not the argument at all. The argument is that Sam's Club reviewed the material and refused to carry it on the basis of the content. That is, by definition, censorship. They could have refused to carry it for other reasons, perhaps such as "we have enough books already" and it wouldn't be censorship in those particular cases.

Re:Not censorship... (4, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160762)

So any product WalMart/Sam's Club doesn't sell is now the victim of censorship? No wonder Slashdotters have such a warped vision of the world.

So, logically, if/when WalMart/Sam's Club and maybe a handful other megacorporations own all production and distribution of everything, there will be no censorship, since it isn't called that when you use the power of money and connections instead of the power of law and police?

Yay, future!

Re:Not censorship... (2)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160846)

Correct. That is not censorship.

Once they send in the uniformed goons to stop you from setting up a printing press in your backyard and distributing it yourself...that's where it crosses the line.

Freedom of speech does not bring any obligation for others to provide you with a platform for that speech, nor does it force others to pay attention to said speech.

Re:Not censorship... (1)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160806)

So... what if it was a country refusing entry to the book? Would that be censorship, then?

Hypocritical (4, Insightful)

Thesis (1983882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160212)

There is rape, incest, homosexuality, torture, as well as murder in the King James Bible. Perhaps they should ban it as well.

Re:Hypocritical (4, Funny)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160314)

There is rape, incest, homosexuality, torture, as well as murder in the King James Bible. Perhaps they should ban it as well.

but the gays were slaughtered by fire and brimstone, the raped mothers didn't get an abortion, of course adam and eves kids had sex with each other (how else would mankind go on?), and the terrorists had to be interrogated. How is this bad?

Bad Excerpt! (4, Informative)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160236)

The point of TFA is that the book was pulled after one or two complaints based on an unedited preview version of the book and website, NOT the final version that was going to be sold in the stores! The author took out the "objectionable" material for the final version.

It's about as stupid as all the FCC complaints sent in en masse by religious groups who never watch the shows they're supposedly objecting to.

Re:Bad Excerpt! (2, Insightful)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160316)

Haven't seen the book, but given that it was authored by an atheist, is it possibly taking a jab at the Bible, rather than being a 'bible told through Legos'? If so, maybe after some complaints, someone looked at it more closely and decided they didn't want to sell that kind of product.

Re:Bad Excerpt! (3, Interesting)

lina70 (120571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160700)

This is exactly the problem I have with what Sam's Club did. The only complaints I actually could find posted about the book were actually complaints about the author's OTHER work and the fact that he is an atheist. Pulling the book because of complaints about his other work seems wrong to me. Pulling the book because the author is an Atheist is incredibly wrong to me, and I doubt Sam's Club did that (let's hope, anyway!). More likely they believed the concerns at face value and thought "oh my, this book contains sex and might be given to kids" without actually verifying the complaints they got. I just don't understand or agree with the logic of pulling one work because the author's other work offends some.

Summary (2)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160252)

So he makes this book doing the Old Testament, and makes scenes of minifigs "begatting" (there's a lot of that going on in the OT), and the Sams Club buyer has a problem with it. So the author removes those scenes.

Meanwhile, the parental shitstorm stirring crew goes about spreading info about how there are all these sex scenes, and they astroturf a bunch of complaints without actually looking at the version that is being sold. Then someone else at Sams Club decides that it needs to be pulled because of all the complaints from the idiot busybodies.

(I wonder if how much brick house [wikipedia.org] was in those minifig sex scenes.)

I can breathe easier now... (1)

d3vpsaux (587601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160262)

"Although Sam's Club no longer sells "The Brick Bible," the book is still available through a number of online retailers."

This sentence from TFA might give people the wrong impression that Sam's Club is the sole, omnipotent Super-Mega shop in the United States. I'm glad to know that I can still get my suggestive Lego books from any one of a couple thousand other retailers.

Kind of ironic that Wal-Mart (a corporation that often makes sales arguments based on religious overtones) would be willing to censor a book that is a direct interpretation of religious literature. I shutter to think what their reaction will be if someone decides to ink an uncensored graphic novel based on the Bible...

Re:I can breathe easier now... (1)

SteveW928 (2030878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160320)

Direct interpretation? Do I need to do a scholarly review on this as a Bible translation? :)

Re:I can breathe easier now... (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160332)

I shutter to think what their reaction will be if someone decides to ink an uncensored graphic novel based on the Bible...

I'd buy a copy.

Re:I can breathe easier now... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160588)

Eze 23:20.

Re:I can breathe easier now... (1)

OctaviusIII (969957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160666)

Hell, read the whole of Ezekiel 23 [bible.org] sometime.

Seriously: the prodigal son? Spent his money on booze and whores. Jesus' death on a cross? About the most brutal, sanctioned way to die in that time period. Noah's daughters got him drunk so they could get themselves pregnant by him; Jacob lied and backstabbed his way through life and stole his brother's inheritance; and Abraham whored out Sarah so he wouldn't have trouble in Egypt. Not for kids. Lego Bible? Definitely not for kids.

Re:I can breathe easier now... (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160754)

Kind of ironic that Wal-Mart (a corporation that often makes sales arguments based on religious overtones)

Do you have an example of this? And perhaps an explanation of what an "argument based on religious overtones" means, because that is vague, bordering on non-English...

good (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160310)

Fewer kids get religious propaganda this way. Seems fine to me.

No, not good (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160408)

This is religious satire. More kids need to be exposed to religious satire.

Re:good (2)

lina70 (120571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160778)

It's not unheard of for people to become Atheist after reading the Bible. That's what did it for Penn Jillette!

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20808

Facebook Post Suggests the Website is the Problem (5, Interesting)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160380)

The woman who posted on Facebook seems to be saying that the content that is inappropriate for children is not in the book, but on the website. The book was edited for kids, but she's saying that kids these days know to look for a website for more content if they like something, and the website contains adult-oriented violent and sexually charged themes that were edited from the book, which is marketed towards kids. I don't know that I totally agree, but I can kinda see her point that if a franchise like this is marketed towards kids, then you kinda expect the entire franchise to be that way. Just because you think the bible is the word of God doesn't necessarily mean you want to teach all of the most violent and sexual parts to your 6-year-old.

Re:Facebook Post Suggests the Website is the Probl (5, Insightful)

lina70 (120571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160738)

Don't parents know how to manage kids' use of computers & the internet?

Completely logical actions... (4, Insightful)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160398)

Parents pick up what appears to be a children's book, later discover it uses legos to illustrate sex in a few of the images. Sam's gets numerous complaints, pulls the book off the shelves, and tells the author the book sells well, but they won't stock more unless he removes the few sexual images. He does, and his books continue to sell rather well. Honestly, the whole "Bible" detail of this story is simply a confounding factor to make slashdotters say OMG religion so dumb! Censorship! etc. Does the KJV speak in plain terms about sex? Sure, if you speak English euphemisms from the 1600s. This is why parents are a lot more comfortable reading the KJV to their kids, rather than showing them lego people having sex. Let's all go back to our caves now; nothing to see here.

Re:Completely logical actions... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160596)

You did miss out one part: The book was actually revised to remove the sex, but it appears that most of the complaints were from busybodies who never actually read the books they complain about, and so they continued to protest the sexual content even after it was removed.

Re:Completely logical actions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160732)

it appears that most of the complaints were from busybodies who never actually read the books they complain about
 
Sounds like most of the comments on articles around here. So the difference between religious busy bodies and Slashtards is the choice of materials they bitch about?

Re:Completely logical actions... (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38160656)

Ah, so it's okay to read to children so long they don't actually understand what it means? And the problem of representing it graphically is that it makes it understandable?

I think there should be consistency: Either both the book and the bible should be removed, or both the book and the bible should be fine to sell.

Re:Completely logical actions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38160776)

Hold on there. It's fine to teach kids how babies are made but it's not ok to show them porn.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?