Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Falcao

Wrong? Who can say what's right or wrong?

Well-informed rational folks can say that ill-informed irrational beliefs are wrong.

Originally Posted by Falcao

Dangerous to whom? If a belief is dangerous to unbelievers, then believers are not following Juarez's advice about respecting non-believers.

Believers in eugenics, racial apartheid, ethnic cleansing, suppression of women, killing non-believers, bombing abortion clinics, beating up homosexuals are all dangerous - regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously based or not. I cannot in all seriousness be expected to respect - in any meaningful sense of that word - the holding of, or the holders of, those beliefs. I might be expected to tolerate them, so long as they don't get in my face and start screwing stuff up.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by BenG

From South Carolina, where I lived at the time, they seemed pretty close together.

estes is b, the town is a, and the ski area is c

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by TGS

Believers in eugenics, racial apartheid, ethnic cleansing, suppression of women, killing non-believers, bombing abortion clinics, beating up homosexuals are all dangerous - regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously based or not. I cannot in all seriousness be expected to respect - in any meaningful sense of that word - the holding of, or the holders of, those beliefs. I might be expected to tolerate them, so long as they don't get in my face and start screwing stuff up.

I don't think this describes the average believer in Jesus, but a very small fringe. I grew up around Christians, and I don't think I ever met one who supported the things you listed.

Heck, atheists and agnostics have our fringers too.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by obs20

This is like a real life South Park episode.

Yep, the crowbar attacker sure sounds like a NASCAR driver.

[astra]

On a serious note.
I am agnostic.
I believe that people can believe whatever they want. It is their right. If they worship cannibalism or human sacrifice, it is their right AS LONG AS:
* It doesn't interfere with my way of life. As long as their traditions are contained within their society/country they have the right to practice it. It is my fault if I travel to another country without prior research and offend their believes by doing wrong things.
* They do not come to my home and impose their traditions on me.
* They respect other peoples' believes if they are travelling and outside of their native environment.

When I travel, I must respect people who host me.
I moved to the UK. Nobody asked me to come here. The people of the UK were kind enough to let me stay here and become a part of their society. Thus, even though I am Jewish, I must respect traditions and holidays of this country because in my opinion the UK is Christian country. Only because they are kind and let hordes of us, bloody foreigners of different religions and background to come and settle in, it doesn't mean it is not Christian country anymore and we can demand of native population to stop celebrate their holidays or interfere otherwise with their way of lives. In this case Christianity can interfere into my life to a certain degree. Such as I might be asked to work Saturdays, have holidays on Christmas instead of Jewish New Year etc.

Well, enough is enough. Too much talking

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I don't think this describes the average believer in Jesus, but a very small fringe. I grew up around Christians, and I don't think I ever met one who supported the things you listed.

Heck, atheists and agnostics have our fringers too.

No, it wasn't my point that the "average believer in Jesus" necessarily believes or supports the beliefs I listed. My point was in response to Falcao's post which asserted that we should respect people's beliefs - I was simply reponding that there are many things that people believe that are either wrong, dangerous, or both and that beliefs, religious or otherwise, are not worthy of respect simply in virtue of the fact that someone believes them.

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by Falcao

People should respect other people's beliefs.

Why?

Why do people who hold irrational, harmful beliefs think I should automatically respect them?

[GA Russell]

I'd like to inform those members who don't live in the US of two things:

1) Sacrilegious "art" is displayed in tax-funded museums here in the US from time to time. Most commentators feel that tax-funded museums should not display such art, but non-tax-funded museums (if there are any) should be free to do so.

I am unaware of any protests regarding offensive art in private galleries. The protests to my knowledge always occur at tax-funded museums.

2) It seems like 100% of the sacrileges are attacks against Jesus and Mary. I am unaware of any tax-funded museum in the US which has displayed art which is offensive to Jews or Muslims.

As a result, Christians are tired of it, and evidently this woman took matters into her own hands.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

2) It seems like 100% of the sacrileges are attacks against Jesus and Mary. I am unaware of any tax-funded museum in the US which has displayed art which is offensive to Jews or Muslims.

As a result, Christians are tired of it, and evidently this woman took matters into her own hands.

This isn't an "attack against Jesus and Mary"-- it is an attack against a Catholic hierarchy which places as a top priority protecting child-raping priests from justice. There are plenty of people who are tired of that-- but it hasn't reached the stage of taking crowbars to priests.

Yet.

Chagoya says he's sad that his book and the First Amendment were attacked.
"Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns? I made a collage with a comic book and an illustration of a religious icon to express the corruption of something precious and spiritual," Chagoya told FoxNews.com. "There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a dressed woman, a religious icon's head, a man showing his tongue, and a skull of a Pope in the upper right corner of the controversial page. I did not make a picture of Christ. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique corruption of the sacred by religious institutions."

Those institutions, he says, need to be criticized when they get corrupted and people have every right to dislike his criticism, just as he has a right to express it.

"Violence is the opposite of what Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha taught. I am amazed that some of the followers don't adhere to the teachings. Agree to disagree and love thy neighbor," he said.

from

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07...-art-colorado/

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

.

As a result, Christians are tired of it, and evidently this woman took matters into her own hands.

The background doesn't really matter, but the actions that took place were clearly wrong in the eyes of the law. To destroy someone's property, regardless of how much the destructor thinks they are in the right to do so does not make it so.

Dare I say it, like taking or distributing copyrighted books or information without permission.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I'd like to inform those members who don't live in the US of two things:

1) Sacrilegious "art" is displayed in tax-funded museums here in the US from time to time. Most commentators feel that tax-funded museums should not display such art, but non-tax-funded museums (if there are any) should be free to do so.

To me it is more important to allow anything in a tax-funded museum. That is because in a private museum you will be getting the owners personal taste and opinions influencing the choice of what to display. A tax-funded museum can and should be more non-biased.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

To me it is more important to allow anything in a tax-funded museum. That is because in a private museum you will be getting the owners personal taste and opinions influencing the choice of what to display. A tax-funded museum can and should be more non-biased.

I would agree.....there are some "rules" with the National Endowment for the Arts though....as well as much controversy over it as well.

[SneakySnake]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

This isn't an "attack against Jesus and Mary"-- it is an attack against a Catholic hierarchy which places as a top priority protecting child-raping priests from justice. There are plenty of people who are tired of that-- but it hasn't reached the stage of taking crowbars to priests.

Just a bit. Does anyone else think Geoffrey Robertsons latest campagin interesting?

Pope should resign

[nguirado]

Maybe her act was her own performance art.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

As a result, Christians are tired of it, and evidently this woman took matters into her own hands.

There seems to be a persistent idea that Christians are some kind of persecuted minority in the USA. This is incorrect. They are neither persecuted, nor a minority.

They do seem to be upset that people who aren't Christians are no longer remaining silent.