Columns Culture Faith Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Is Hollywood really the devil’s playground?: A Mormon screenwriter weighs in

Cinco Paul, the co-writer of animated Hollywood hits such as Despicable Me (and its equally funny sequels), The Secret Life of Pets, and The Lorax, weighs in here in a fine guest post about one of the questions he’s often asked by Mormons–basically, is Hollywood the playground of Satan and his minions?

No, not really, he says. In fact, such questions may reveal more about the people asking them than they do about Hollywood.

Welcome, Cinco! — JKR


Cinco Paul

A guest post by Cinco Paul

I can almost always tell when the question’s coming, whether it’s in an interview, a Q&A session, or just casual conversation. The person asking is generally religious, and more often than not a fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s usually some version of this:

“What’s it like working in Hollywood as a Mormon?”

In other words, how do you survive as a person of faith in a business as amoral and degrading and evil as the entertainment industry?

It’s a question that I’m always happy to answer, because it gives me an opportunity to tell the truth about my experience in Hollywood.

And here it is: my experience as a religious person has been almost unequivocally positive. I can’t speak to the experiences of others, but neither I nor my writing partner Ken have been subjected to any sort of discrimination because of our beliefs. Or been pressured to do something contrary to the teachings of our religion.

The truth is, the movie industry is just like any other industry, filled with a lot of people, some good and some bad.

Have I occasionally been lied to? Sure. Treated poorly? Of course. But I’ve had similar experiences at my other jobs, at school, and yes, even at church.

It’s true the movie and TV business has its share of Harvey Weinsteins. But thankfully my industry is finally leading the way in outing and condemning these sexual harassers and the horrible things they’ve done. And I hope that this sea change will spread to every other industry. Because this sort of behavior, sadly, is everywhere. Again, even at church.

(YouTube Screenshot)

Part of the prayer scene from “Despicable Me.”


I honestly have not seen Hollywood to be anti-religion. Both Despicable Me and Despicable Me 3 have scenes of the girls praying, and we never heard a single objection to that from anybody. My experience is that the reason there’s not a lot of depiction of religion in movies and TV shows is that everyone is terrified of getting it wrong and offending/angering religious people.

So it’s safer just not to go there. But I’m glad that some of my favorite movies and TV shows do—Jane the Virgin and Lady Bird are recent examples of great entertainment that includes religion as part of their characters’ lives.

I can understand where the questioners are coming from, though, because I think most of them were raised in a culture where Hollywood was vilified regularly and seen as the enemy. I’ve heard these attacks on my industry often, sometimes from the pulpit.

That sort of talk always reminds me of The Music Man. In that musical the con man Harold Hill descends upon River City, Iowa determined to sell them band instruments and uniforms (that actually will never materialize). But in order to do so he first picks something in town to attack—in this case, a pool table. He gets everyone in River City so riled up about the evils of this pool table that it’s easy to con them into buying the idea of a youth band as a solution.

So I say beware of anyone preaching about the evils of Hollywood—they are probably trying to sell you something.

In many ways I think the real issue with Hollywood for most religious people is more political than spiritual. Most creative people I know are more politically liberal, while the church members I know are conservative.

But I feel it’s wrong to make religion a part of this conflict. The truth is, the gospel is much bigger than that, so big that if we think it can be contained in one political party we’re probably only living half of it. I’ve always loved this quote from Dallin H. Oaks:

“As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”

Also, this great observation from C.S. Lewis:

“You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.”

It’s true that a lot of movies contain sex and profanity and violence. I personally have chosen to include less of that sort of stuff in what I write, and I believe that people have every right to avoid entertainment that they find offensive, or that they feel drives away the Spirit. But the fact is those things are in our movies and TV shows because, like it or not, they are a part of life. And art reflects life. It’s not because moustache-twirling villainous studio executives, screenwriters, and directors are determined to corrupt our youth. And the sooner we move on from that simplistic notion, the better.

So I always try to disabuse people of the notion that Hollywood is satanic and out to get them. First of all, look at the movies that are being made. Look at the box office. Every year the top ten movies are almost always those targeted towards the family audience, a trend which has been going on now for decades.

And secondly, look at what movies are about. The core values of almost every movie are love, courage, honesty and integrity. Most tell stories of flawed characters trying to change and become better. Of good defeating evil. Of love turning bad people into better people (like a certain misanthropic villain who adopts three little girls). That’s the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So let’s not be the gullible citizens of River City, buying everything Harold Hill is selling. And let’s not be Harold Hills, either, demonizing one thing in order to sell something else. Hollywood is not evil. They are not the enemy.

However, that being said, I would like to publicly apologize for the minions. Sorry about that.

More on religion and Hollywood from RNS:


About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (Random House/Convergent, 2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church" (Oxford University Press, 2019). She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.


Click here to post a comment

  • Mr.Paul is 100% correct that most U.S. members are politically conservative.The funny thing is that if Jesus were on the earth today, he would be a liberal. Don’t believe me? Read the scriptures and you will see.

  • Hmm, gay marriage is a liberal cornerstone now so no, ascribing that to Christ is another willfully blind concept born of absolute selfishness.
    Anyone who believes that homosexual union is Christian doesn’t understand the many allegories to the olive tree. Bad olive trees or branches thereof that produce no fruit are simply cast into the fire.

    Christ himself is the olive who is metaphorically squeezed at Gethsemane (the name Gethsemane literally means olive crush btw) and under that immense pressure, he takes upon himself the sins and pains of the world.

    Anyone who believes and casts away their worldliness can be forgiven and healed, no matter how deep their wounds or how natural their desires for sin are.

    Christ’s laws are not created in the mire of political correctness- his laws are eternal and cannot be unmade simply because same sex attraction is a trend spearheaded by obama, a cunning lawyer.

    Sorry, but Christ never condoned homosexuality in any way- to imagine so is to miss-understand the scriptures entirely.
    You will not find a single verse in either old nor new testament admonishing sodomy and neither is there a single verse in the Book of Mormon justifying such sin.

    Scream and rant at me all you want in reply for it doesn’t alter the truth.

  • >Anyone who believes that homosexual union is Christian doesn’t understand the many allegories to the olive tree. Bad olive trees or branches thereof that produce no fruit are simply cast into the fire.

    It’s sad that you think “fruit” means literal offspring. A gay couple that marries and takes on the duty of adopting orphans produces fruit, that is it produces good acts. Also, you raise the question: Are infertile couples evil? Are they bad olives, to be cast into the fire?

    >Sorry, but Christ never condoned homosexuality in any way-

    Christ also never condemned homosexuality in any way. Also, you should read Matthew 19:10-12 very carefully until you get what Christ actually was saying about marriage.

    >You will not find a single verse in either old nor new testament admonishing sodomy and neither is there a single verse in the Book of Mormon justifying such sin.

    You clearly don’t know what the word admonishing means. You should look it up. It’s obvious from your context you meant the exact opposite of admonishing.

  • Looking up “sodomy” would also benefit him, methinks—the word itself has historically been far broader than modern usage tends to give it credit for, and then Ezekiel 16:49 explicitly states what the “sin of Sodom” even was…and doesn’t mention sex at all.

  • Yes, the worst sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was selfishness- despising the poor.

    Sodomy is not a city the Lord destroyed though.


    Yes Miles, admonishing is deployed incorrectly by myself there. Good pick up.

  • Sodomy is not a city the Lord destroyed though.

    The word “sodomy” is a derivative of and reference to the destroyed city, Sodom. That’s the etymology. It’s a really basic application of the –y suffix, without any changes to the root word.

  • It isn’t a city and that wasn’t the topic.

    Own your mistake, don’t fertilize it.

  • You’re the one harping on cities. Own your own mistake. I specifically referenced “the sin of Sodom” and the verse defining it, as part of mentioning the definition of “sodomy”.

  • And yet you still contend that what you had to add is about sodomy when what you had to add is a history of the word having no relevance to the act.

    Here’s the dictionary reference:
    # Sodomy: anal intercourse.

    Q- Was I talking about the sin of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah?
    A- NO.

    Q- Who brought up Sodom and Gomorrah?
    A- YOU did.

    Q- Who was talking about the act of sodomy?
    A- I was.

    # Maybe you need to consider why it is that you need to troll the web desperately trying to ascribe words to people that they never deployed? You’re argument wouldn’t hold up in court.

  • I won’t scream at you, I’ll just inform you that you are not god, you don’t speak for god, and until I see a letter of patent from god naming you as his personal spokesjerk, I’m not going to believe that god has appointed you his representative on earth, that he has given you the power to determine who is a true follow of his and who is not, or has personally confided in the likes of you the state of his relationship with any other person on the planet.

    If you actually read your Bible, you would probably understand that when Jesus was talking about the laying of burdens and whited sepulchres, that you were the very person he was warning you against.

  • One of the wonderful things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that the all wise God who leads the church, had the foresight to mandate that bishops are volunteers.
    Such a simple little thing and yet populist governments that attempt to force gay marriage into churches have no power to force volunteers to do anything.

  • You’ve demonstrated my point that looking into the definition of the term could benefit you. You’re using a single modern definition of “sodomy” and ignoring multiple other definitions, including the historic ones.

  • This article merely proves that Cinco Paul’s own stuff isn’t the devil’s playground. Kudos to him for keeping it halfway clean and positive.

    But, umm, Hollywood has already proved (as in totally nonstop proved) that it is anti-Christian. Not neutral or non-Christian, but visibly Anti-Christian. Way past debate on this one. No way Paul can clean up all that mess.

  • Sodomy includes oral sex and it pertains to male/male, female/male and female/female couplings.

  • I won’t scream at you.

    I’ll just inform you that Mr. Powell did not not claim to be god, did not claim to be a prophet, did not claim to have an appointment from god to be his representative on earth, and did not claim to have any special ability to read minds or souls.

    If you actually read a Bible – perhaps a borrowed copy, you would probably understand that when Jesus talked about laying of burdens and whitened sepulchers, he was not indicating that pointing out what the Bible teaches is what the Pharisees were up to.

    Were I you, I would get used to the idea that the entire world, including most of the Abrahamic religions, are not about to endorse your view of morality.

  • “One of the wonderful things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that” it is a vivid modern-day lesson in how religions have always been created out of human delusion and/or fraud. Having been created by Joseph Smith in the United States during the 19th Century, any rational non-gullible person should be able to easily discern that the LDS religion is entirely grounded in delusion and/or fraud.

  • No one ever tried to force gay marriage into any church whatsoever. However, the Mormon church certainly try to force it’s particular versions of reality onto a lot of people, Including ministers, churches, an entire denominations, who don’t share them.

    As usual, the force of projection is strong among religious conservatives

  • No, you’ve shown how ridiculous your argument is.
    If I name someone as a sycophant, are you also going to stick your nose in and tell all about the etymology of the word meaning fig smuggler?

    Hunting for things to be offended about might cut it with dreary liberals but it’s meaningless in the real world.

  • Well, then Richard why can’t all the great science minds on earth make a simple single cell ?
    You know, the single simple cell that Darwin claimed all life sprang from. Seeing as how it’s so simple, it should be easy for scientists to assemble matter to make this ‘simple’ single cell.

    # Oh and btw, a ‘genius’ scientist who takes a cell already in existence and alters it, doesn’t prove anything.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

  • If I name someone as a sycophant, are you also going to stick your nose in and tell all about the etymology of the word meaning fig smuggler?

    If you were using “sycophant” in a manner that professed historicity while only involving a single modern definition and thereby lying about what the word meant in that historic context, then sure, I’d bring up that the word derives from the idiom “to show the vulva” (which was called the “fig” at the time). That would be pertinent for understanding the word meant in the historic context.

    Your claimed definition for “sodomy” cites no sources, which makes it plagiarism. I assume you forgot to cite Oxford, which is standard for modern UK English. Merriam-Webster, the standard dictionary for modern US English, includes oral, which is where Jim Johnson’s getting his definitions.

    Even so, that’s still a modern meaning. Originally, the term was far broader in meaning, and ignoring that is silly. You could support your argument a lot better if you just paid attention to the historicity, logic, and definitions, but you insist on undermining your own points.

    Hunting for things to be offended about might cut it with dreary liberals but it’s meaningless in the real world.

    I wouldn’t know, as I’m not even offended, much less hunting for anything to be offended about. I also only know dreary conservatives, not liberals. I don’t know very many liberals.

    As for things that are “meaningless in real world,” your use of “cut it” is a fantastic example—cut what? If you meant it as a reference to “make the cut”, make what cut? Is the blog holding a comment competition?

    If you meant to say that word definitions and etymologies have no pertinence in everyday life, that may be true for you. In my case, they’re actually quite relevant to my line of work.

  • Oxford Dictionary definition of Sodomy: buggery.

    Sodomy is not a city, it is an act and was deployed by me as an act.

    # You yourself cited *modern usage* of the word sodomy and then you began to attack the modern usage with your dreary account of the history of the word.

    Your hobby of finding things to be offended about is dull. Might get you a job on samantha bee’s dreary gab as a writer but it doesn’t make you interesting or helpful.

  • If you find me so uninteresting, unhelpful, and dull—and if you’re so convinced that I’m offended and lying about it—I have to wonder why you even bother to respond. Seems a waste of time.

  • I respond for a few reasons:

    Firstly, you have a liberal habit of correcting people on their language so as to deliberately create a politically correct nightmare, as you think the globe should be. Your view of how the globe must be forced to its knees is not mine and I will not allow you to use deceit to make it such.

    As a Latter Day Saint with an interest in North East Asia, I recall an article in the Church’s Ensign magazine around 7 years ago where a South Korean sister said ‘American culture is not church culture’.
    An interesting and dynamic comment- in some ways I agree wholeheartedly with her and yet, the church is going backwards in Korea precisely because of abhorrent aspects to South Korean culture.

    # Your culture Misti, that of hunting for outrage, must not be construed as widespread American culture lest it leads to more people hating the USA.

  • “American culture is not church culture.”

    Precisely. That’s why I suggested you would benefit from investigating the word meaning and history. The meaning you’re assuming and applying is very US evangelical Christian.

    You keep injecting and assuming a lot of things I haven’t actually said or done, in ways that require you to misquote me, to violate basic English syntax, or to assume I’ve lied. It was my understanding, from conversations with LDS friends, that such misrepresentation was against your doctrine, but I’m sure you know more than I do about that.

  • “The meaning you’re assuming is US evangelical Christian.”

    No, I’m an Australian- we speak English, not American and sodomy means anal sex in English.

    # You yourself cited *modern usage* of the word sodomy and then you
    began to attack the modern usage with your dreary account of the history
    of the word. That “modern usage” must be the culture in which you exist or you wouldn’t cite it as modern usage.

    So, which is it now? “Modern usage” or “US evangelical Christian” ?

    Remember you already acknowledged “modern usage” but now you’re switching to “US evangelical Christian”. If you now state that it is a US evangelical Christian usage that you fight against then you are negating the FACT that you stated it was “MODERN USAGE” and you have proved everything I’ve said about you in that you are waging a politically correct war where you try and remake words to your liking- a nightmare for the rest of the globe.

  • So, which is it now? “Modern usage” or “US evangelical Christian”?

    It’s not an either-or. A definition being common with the US evangelical Christian community is going to be a modern usage, because the US evangelical Christians exist in the modern day. I am familiar with the application you’ve been making as a US thing. You are familiar with it as an Australian thing and seem to be assuming that my response to you stems from US Christianity rather than my experiences with global Christianity.

  • Oh, so you attacked it on the grounds that it was modern usage while also attacking it on the grounds that it is a US Christian Evangelical usage AND used in global Christianity.

    Hmm, that means you’re a global politically correct warrior fighting on all fronts for glorious political correctness!
    Oh hooray for you and your brave ‘global’ cause.

    Good luck with that battle brave liberal American internet warrior and always remember what the makers of South Park have shown:

    *If you mock the LDS faith via a Book of Mormon parody the globe will laugh along, but if you mock islam, your offices will be blown up as Charlie Hebdo proved- so always opt for the easy Christian target*

  • You’re the one attacking, not me. Maybe that and your other reading comprehension issues stem from having more familiarity with attack than discussion. Or maybe you’re doing it on purpose, since you’re also ridiculing me for details that you cited as positives in yourself.

    Either way, you’re being incredibly unkind to yourself, your faith, and your witness. It’s sad.

  • In a country like America where business is open 24/7 we cannot always produce top quality movies, music, books, etc.

    ut if we control or censor what we think is not right or good according to our philosophy of life, then the vital right of freedom of speech goes down the drain.

    I think that we must educate ourselves to be selective, but I will say here that, when Hollywood or-any other entity that exists to entertain us- turns our poor quality stuff, it does not sell and that is the end of it.

    I was enjoying myself, just one our ago, watching, here at home, ”The King and I,” a Hollywood production, and some excellent acting and music.

    No, Hollywood is not the Kingdom of the Devil but when a writter, producer or director creates a product that diminishes or ridicules women, depicts meaningless sex, and promotes drug use or bad behavior, we the people, know better.

    Here, near where I live in Saint Cloud, Florida, I patronize a Walmart store. The store pushes the selling of some movies for $3.75, why? They are not being sold. No one bothers to buy them. We are getting tired of senseless violence that these films depicts.

    The entertainment industry is getting the message and there is-these days- a better selection of proudcts to choose from.

  • Hey, the more you fertilize your mistakes with dung, the bigger they grow.

    Your very typical ‘informed’ liberal mistake is that you are trying to force all toward contrived definitions that you champion.

    YOU launched an attack after admitting that sodomy was “modern usage”.

    Did you or did you not do that?
    Hmm, I didn’t begin going into the history of words- it was you being a dreary liberal internet troll who did that.

    # Why the puerile need to force your dreary historical revisionism onto global Christianity? Is it because Christians are easy targets and your comrades will applaud your astonishing liberal bravery?

    What, will Obama give you a medal for your fierce trolling before you appear on Colbert?

    Hmm, can’t help but see that your web trolling assuages some sort of personal guilt in you somehow… maybe, just maybe you need to get an actual life instead of your lame identity as Misti the Wonder Troll.

  • You will not find a single verse in either old nor new testament admonishing sodomy and neither is there a single verse in the Book of Mormon justifying such sin.

    As an openly gay man, I completely concur with the first sentence in your pericope that I have quoted. In fact I have told Sandinwinsor that almost a dozen times! It’s funny what folks state when they have no concept of what a particular word actually means.

    As to your second sentence, the BoM doesn’t say anything about homosexuality at all. It is completely silent on the subject, as was Jesus, AFAWK. Which doesn’t prove or disprove anything.

  • Well then Richard, why can’t all the great science minds on earth make a simple single cell ?
    They created v3.0 in 2016.

  • You: X means Y!

    Me: X means Y in situation A. Might help you to look at X’s other meanings, too, like Z, which comes from situation B.

    You: You’re attacking me and trying to force me to accept your definitions!

  • Misti, stop wasting your comments (we only get a set number you know! 🙂 ) this Aussie is dumber than a rock. Don’t argue with rocks, it makes you frustrated and the rock doesn’t like it.

  • So you don’t like a mirror being held up to you for a change?

    Yeah, Christians really are the easy target in the liberal world, which you prove yet again.

  • There can be amusement and usefulness in allowing the rock to illuminate their mulish insistence on being a rock, though. [wink]

    I do understand your intent, and I appreciate the thought. 🙂

  • Your head must be a strange, strange place, if you think contradictions are mirrors and Christian moderates must be liberals who attack Christians.

  • Pfft, the only thing strange here is that liberals have come to believe your trolling behavior is perfectly acceptable.
    After the failure of clicktivism, trolling the web looking for uses for etymological ‘marvels’ must be the new trend for ‘informed’ liberal super heroes.

    What a wise use of your time, brave super misti.

    Oh and btw your actions are not those of a Christian but, they are those of a misguided crusader.

  • “They created v3.0 in 2016.”

    Hmm, I don’t want to embarrass you but you might want to read that article you linked to as that cell wasn’t made from nothing you know.

    ( It was made from organic material that already existed in a life form )

    Any scientist can tinker with what already exists but all Darwinian theory is predicated on a simple single cell coming into existence from nothing.

    Are you really going to risk your reputation as an outspoken homosexual on a double helix forming in a mud pool with no other living organisms for it to copy from?

  • ( It was made from organic material that already existed in a life form )

    You make that claim from facts not in evidence. The article states nothing of the sort. It states multiple times that the DNA for the cell was synthesized after years of determining the genetic code they wished to create.

  • “This article merely proves that Cinco Paul’s own stuff isn’t the devil’s playground.”

    After seeing the The Lorax, I would beg to differ. That movie was terrible on so many levels. I feel bad for the legacies of Dr. Seuss and Chuck Jones for that one. 🙂

  • Funny enough, that is a great book recommendation for people interested in early Hollywood. Even if you meant it in an “Eddie Haskell” sort of way.

  • Wow you are so obsessed that you came to an article about a Mormon screenwriter to talk about a completely unrelated topic. How rude.

  • Not really.

    I made mention of the fact that liberals (in the entertainment industry) pick on Mormons because they’re the easy target when compared to muslims who will simple shoot liberals if they mock islam.

    How brave.

  • It’s too embarrassing to your POV, I know. 🙂

    You guys are so short sighted and hateful that you would declare buggery to be perfectly OK rather than remove unenforceable laws used to attack gays.

    Or maybe it’s just an admission as to how freaky and twisted you guys really are.

    Yes I will run with this story for as long as it remains funny to reference it.

  • Except that wasn’t what the article said.

    You decided to attack people in an unprovoked and unwarranted manner and then get upset when they respond.

    The only Mormon being attacked here is the one who chose to pick a fight in the first place.

    When a group lobbies to attack the civil liberties of a given community, they invite criticism for it. Oh well.

    As it seems, Mormons like yourself want to pretend to be victims when they are really the ones looking to offend and attack

    “when compared to muslims who will simple shoot liberals if they mock islam.”

    Something you would love to do yourself if you could. Fatwa envy of Bible thumpers is palatable.

  • Look, you don’t need to taste crap to know that it’s crap. Use that brain of yours to discern.

  • LOL. Used the same expression, myself. 🙂

    But it is rather embarrassing for your view and from this very site.

    Oh well.

  • Proof you didn’t read the article? Yes, it made no such reference. There done.

    You were better off trying to show me up with a quote to support yourself. Assuming you were correct. Your dodge of a question demonstrated otherwise.

    Prior to your initial comment the discussion was more Hollywood related. You fired the broadsides to attack people for its own sake.

  • “Look, you don’t need to taste crap to know that it’s crap.”

    Then one look in a mirror should enable you to know that your are an
    Aggressively Sanctimonious Scoundrel Habitually Oozing Loathsome Excretion.

  • Nah, you are embarrassed. Like I said earlier, you can ask the moderator to remove your shame if you really need that.

  • Oh, did that hurt your feelings?

    Look, get some help Richard. I wouldn’t want you trying to end it all on stage in a gay nightclub by publicly eating a tube of dermatitis cream to the sound of the pet shop boys.

  • LOL. I am even gave you the means to show me up and win the argument. You balked. So funny. Nuff said.

    BTW Sparky, you can delete your own posts without a moderator. If you shameful that is. 🙂

  • The article you link to is about v1.0. The key information about that organism is;

    The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

    They placed DNA they manufactured in the lab from chemicals into an existing cell from which they had removed the original DNA.

    There is no such explanation regarding v3.0.

  • Use your brain David.
    When that happened some 6 years ago there were a lot of people who complained about the reporting and the use of the word ‘synthetic’. In response the guardian went further with the ‘magically created from nothing’ diatribe their d-grade reporters love.
    The agenda of the guardian is to persuade you that science and socialism are the saviors of mankind so facts are usually not present in their reports unless the facts fit their agenda.

    Version 1 is exactly the same as version 3.0- they splice different genes in and out of the double helix to make different things happen which, they readily admit, they know nothing about and they use a cell in existence to house their Frankenstein genes.
    But hooray for the scientists according to the left because apparently the scientists used less info from already existing double helix’s this time which is marvelous for some reason.

    Do you really believe they created a cell David ?

    I don’t mean to question your intelligence but are you really going to claim these scientists invented a cell by building up molecules of matter along with all the bits and pieces that make a cell function David ?

    You can buy ‘synthetic tomatoes’- they are not built by man but they do have genes spliced in and out of them. Hardly synthetic now is it?

    Wake up, turn your gay porn off and turn your brain on.
    All they do is tinker with what is in existence already and then they try to patent their tinkering while the guardian lauds them with demented leftist praise.

    Come back when you have something worthwhile David because what you are arguing is that science can build a double helix from nothing but lifeless mud.

  • Moving on.

    You’re one of the biggest asses that I seen post here. And if you are as member of the LDS Church, it is that church which should be embarrassed that it has a member like you.

    And for all to know, I’m a devout Christian with a happy life and I have no need for any form of porn.

  • Yes indeed, Bobby joe or joeblob. One guy, once, thought about it. He got zero support, and it went nowhere.

    Sorry for my huge, huge mistake.