Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Books It's funny.  Laugh. Toys Idle

Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club 484

Posted by timothy
from the why-this-book-is-filthy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club

Comments Filter:
  • I met him at a party (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thue (121682) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:05PM (#38160118) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:25PM (#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.

      • by artor3 (1344997)

        So, is GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire series also considered illegal child pornography? A quick Google search says no. And yet the descriptions of sex involving people who'd be considered children by modern standards are numerous and far more graphic than anything in the Bible.

        Oh, but I'm sorry, your point was to take a shot at religion, not to actually say anything true or interesting.

    • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:33PM (#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."

    • by sconeu (64226)

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

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:08PM (#38160140) Journal

    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.

    • by mgiuca (1040724)

      And what in the world is wrong with self-censorship?

      If you tell me that I cannot say a particular thing, then I despise you, for you are limiting my basic human right to freedom of speech -- that is censorship.
      If I decide that it would be inappropriate for me to say a particular thing, then I am exercising my right to freedom of speech (which includes freedom to not say something) -- that is self-censorship.

      There is nothing wrong with self-censorship. If I think that I can make more money by not saying a pa

  • Hello!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

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

      It also is of dubious artistic merit, contains explicit sex scenes and glorifies violence. If one is going to justify censorship at all, I can see no reason why the sale and possession of this filth should not be banned.

  • Not censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SteveW928 (2030878) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:18PM (#38160206) Homepage

    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.

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If the store decided to not carry this book due to its contents, then yes, it is censorship (just not government censorship in this case). At least, as far as the English language definition of censorship is concerned. According to Merriam-Webster:

      censorship - 1a. the institution, system, or practice of censoring

      censoring - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news); also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)

      Mainly, it

  • Hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thesis (1983882) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:18PM (#38160212)
    There is rape, incest, homosexuality, torture, as well as murder in the King James Bible. Perhaps they should ban it as well.
    • by jesseck (942036) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:34PM (#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?

      • FYI the folks in sodom and gomorrah werent killed because they were gay, they were killed because of their attempt to sodomize visitors to a town by violence.

        Totally innocent, right?

        And FYI the Bible explicitly endorses sex, theres an entire book of the bible devoted to it (Song of Songs).

        Yay +5 ignorant.

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        of course adam and eves kids had sex with each other (how else would mankind go on?)

        There are two points of creation of humans in the Bible. Adam and Eve in the second chapter of Genesis (as a flashback, note the mention of what day it is...), which talks only about Eden, sort of a proving ground for everything that would be created after solid ground. Then, on the sixth day (first chapter), God creates humanity all over the Earth. Thus, Cain went to Nod and got a wife from these other humans. Seth and the rest of Adam's brood didn't have to be incestuous, and there's no direct mention

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      And those are the tame parts!

  • Bad Excerpt! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pope (17780) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:21PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SteveW928 (2030878)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lina70 (120571)

      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 co

  • 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

  • Fewer kids get religious propaganda this way. Seems fine to me.
    • This is religious satire. More kids need to be exposed to religious satire.
    • by lina70 (120571)

      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

  • by Paul Slocum (598127) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:44PM (#38160380) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by drb226 (1938360) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:47PM (#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.

    • 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.
    • by vadim_t (324782) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @03:24PM (#38160656) Homepage

      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.

  • warning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kwikrick (755625) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @04:43PM (#38161106) Homepage Journal

    It's not for nothing that the brick bible website has this warning:

    "The Bible contains material some may consider morally objectionable and/or inappropriate for children. These labels identify stories containing: nudity, sexual content, violence, cursing"

  • what else is new? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khipu (2511498) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:07PM (#38161484)

    "I have just been informed that Sam's Club is pulling 'The Brick Bible' from the shelves of all of their retail locations nationwide due to the complaints of a handful of people that it is vulgar and violent,"

    That probably has something to do with the fact that the Bible itself is vulgar and violent: it contains human sacrifice, genocide, infidelity, and incest, much of it actually approved by God!

  • by Jawnn (445279) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:34PM (#38161672)
    ...film at eleven. Come on, folks. WMT is based deep in the Bible Belt. Their market demographic includes a large chunk of poorly educated, religious fundamentalists who believe that nudity, let alone sex, is "sinful". So a few dozen hypocrites called in and complained of "dirty pictures" in yet another edition of "The Good Book", and WMT nearly falls over itself to "correct" this horrifying assault on Christian children. And this surprises anyone, why?

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...