Expelled sued by Yoko Ono

“Expelled the movie” is being sued by Yoko Ono, in what may be the best thing she ever did.It seems our less-than-honest friends at Expelled not only lied to viewers about the intellectual viability of an invisible man in the sky, but they also used IMAGINE without permission. Lennon’s song is anything but religious, and Yoko wants to make sure her husband’s name is not used for such tripe.

Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song “Imagine” without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of “selling out.” …Ono’s lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they could not get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way “Imagine” is listed in the film’s credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song’s use had been approved. “Internet ‘bloggers’ immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of ‘selling out’ by licensing the song to defendants,” says the complaint, filed this week. The lawsuit calls “Imagine” Lennon’s signature song, saying it “has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon.” The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon’s sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.

Instead, check out the Forgiving the Franklins Movie, which looks more interestinghttp://www.forgivingthefranklinsthemovie.com/press/atheist.pdf

This entry was posted on Friday, April 25th, 2008 at 13:32 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

361 Responses to “Expelled sued by Yoko Ono”

alatham says:

June 2, 2008 at 13:51

jcc,

Not just memory; but distinct manifestations of personality traits that are not ?thought driven.? As I said to KIP, this is considerable evidence that consciousness is a separate entity from the physical brain.

No, it’s considerable evidence that something strange happened. It’s far too anecdotal to draw any conclusion stronger than that.

Also, can you give an example of a personality trait that isn’t thought driven? What does that mean? To the best of my understanding, how we act is based on two things: Memories and current input. Change the memories or change the current input and we change the behavior.

You consider a ?mere? seventy cases (that were studied, not to mention how many others that may actually exist) to be ?statistically insignificant,? or just ?anomalous data?? That sounds like a scientific double standard on your part.

I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying the case hasn’t been made. I have no idea where this “double standard” statement comes from.

[Regarding Philip K. Dick's conversion:] I would be interested in hearing more about that.

For a very quick intro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis_%28book%29

Anything more than that and you really need to read VALIS. But again, it’s not an easy read, though you’ll get more out of it than I did since he uses lots of religious language. It’s also unclear what is supposed to be fiction and what isn’t, I haven’t researched it much.

[I was talking about inexplicable experiences.] Again, referring to what I said to KIP, it doesn?t require omniscience to be able to recognize another presence.

In that case, I’ve never recognized another ‘presence’ behind the inexplicable things I’ve experienced.

Regarding Christian Existentialism:
alatham: But if a “true Christian” is defined as someone who ?[confesses] with [their] lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead,? then I don’t consider Kierkegaard’s Christianity to be lacking.

jcc: But if one believes in the resurrection then one must also believe in the existence of the soul?which is irreconcilable with existence preceding essence.

alatham: Why is it impossible for a Christian to believe that the human soul is created upon the beginning of life? The distance between negative infinity and positive infinity is just as infinite as the distance between zero and infinity.

jcc: Because there?s nothing Biblical to indicate otherwise. We are created beings that have a distinct moment of creation. There is nothing Scriptural to support the notion that our souls have existed prior to our conceptions.

My second quote doesn’t make a lot of sense since I had forgotten the context of the original quote. However, your response brought us back on topic.

At this point, you’re saying that Christians can’t be Existentialists because Existentialists believe “existence precedes essence” and that this is incompatible with the concept of a soul. I need to take a step back and ask why “existence precedes essence” is incompatible with the concept of a soul? Part of my problem is that I have no idea what definitions of “essence” and “soul” you’re using.

Furthermore, you said that there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that our souls existed before we were created. Is there anything to indicate that they weren’t? Or is the Bible silent on that?

Language, by its very nature is an imperfect tool, but it?s all we have to understand each other and our history. Educating oneself of the cultural and archaeological environment that a document was written in sheds enormous light on what can be taken as its intended meanings.

Unfortunately, this method is fraught with guesswork. Tell me again who’s deciding which passages to take literally and which passages to take figuratively? Why is their method flawless? If it’s not flawless, then why are you so certain that your interpretation is the correct one?

I’ll ask again, why do you believe Existentialism is incompatible with an absolute morality?

Because, by definition, it reduces the concepts of right and wrong to a subjective, personal choice.

It’s too bad that doesn’t clash with your definition of what a “true Christian” is.

It seems to me that one could then conclude that God didn’t dictate morality, he simply extrapolated it from reality.

But that statement is logically self-defeating. If God is God, then He created reality.

Not if there’s a higher deity than God who actually did the Creating and God is now simply the vice-president without realizing it.

So what choice have I made regarding the existence of a deity?

You said it yourself. Presently, you have chosen not to believe one way or the other.

Let me re-phrase your quote:
“Presently, you have not chosen to believe one way or the other.”

I regard [the question, ?does God exist?] as trivial because I haven’t encountered an acceptable way to test any answer to it.

And that?s why I was asking about personal experiences. In order to love someone, do you not have to have a relationship with that person? And doesn?t a relationship consist of shared experiences? And in order to enter into a relationship, don?t both parties have to mutually be willing to do so?

Why would I want to enter into a relationship with someone if I don’t believe they exist?

Prove the base case first, then we’ll start talking specific deities and which one is most believable to me.

Log in to Reply