Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

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.

That's my view on it too. Pandering to purely one section; whether out of fear of losing money, losing support, or actual violence; is a waste of taxpayers money and to a degree betraying the trust of those taxpayers who don't have such a vocal community.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

This is something that's always puzzled me, too.

[nguirado]

I don't think people should fund the art they want personally and not force others to fund art that offends them. Can the KKK get a grant? What if he's talented?

Government support makes a political statement that this is approved and good, however, so it's important to some.

At this point, insulting Christianity to the cheers of their like-minded colleagues in the academy is banal, immature, cowardly conformity.

The US is a diverse country. In some parts and in some industries, being Christian can be a liability. The entertainment industry. People were fired in CA for supporting prop 8. A professor was fired for teaching Catholicism in a Catholicism class. Studies show that joining conservative-leaning groups hurts one's chances of getting into some colleges.

In other parts of the country, being a non-Christian might be a bad thing.

Nobody in the Us is persecuted like Christians are in the Middle East, China, and some other parts of the world. We need to keep things in perspective.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

pd, 85% of Americans claim to be Catholic or Protestant. Yet Christianity is under attack in the US all the time.

Non-Christians are welcome to speak positively of their beliefs. A few, like Oprah Winfrey (who is a New Ager), do. The objection is to the those who attack Christianity.

In this instance, the "art" is apparently a portrait of Jesus giving a man a blow job. 85% of the American public find that offensive. That is not rational discourse.

Forty-five years ago the US Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is to be judged by "community standards". I know nothing about Loveland, Colorado, but I suspect that this "art" in a tax-funded museum violated Loveland's community standards.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

pd, 85% of Americans claim to be Catholic or Protestant. Yet Christianity is under attack in the US all the time.

Please provide objective statistics which support the Under Attack All the Time?

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Non-Christians are welcome to speak positively of their beliefs. A few, like Oprah Winfrey (who is a New Ager), do. The objection is to the those who attack Christianity.

Free speech is a right in the united states. We get to say and express what we believe in or state what we think is wrong. If we are talking burning down churches or destroying statues in front of churches (which happened recently here in CO) that is against the law.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

In this instance, the "art" is apparently a portrait of Jesus giving a man a blow job. 85% of the American public find that offensive. That is not rational discourse.

I don't know that that figure (85%) is correct. I think that is an assumption on your part.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Forty-five years ago the US Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is to be judged by "community standards". I know nothing about Loveland, Colorado, but I suspect that this "art" in a tax-funded museum violated Loveland's community standards.

Again, I think this is an assumption on your part. It may or may not be true. But regardless does not give anyone the right to destroy it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

In this instance, the "art" is apparently a portrait of Jesus giving a man a blow job. 85% of the American public find that offensive. That is not rational discourse.

Would you not agree, though, that the right to express unpopular or controversial points of view is what needs to be protected? That's what "Freedom of Speech" (or artistic expression) is all about. Popular viewpoints don't require protection.

As somebody whose name escapes me once said, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by nguirado

The US is a diverse country.

Yep. Bet there were diverse themes in the museum display, where "the piece is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark."

Of course, any view that a True Believer doesn't like is subject to being vandalized.

So much for diversity.

Wonder how many of the exhibits that show a pro-Christianity theme (i.e. a very large percent of Western art for the past 1500 years) have been vandalized by those awful, immoral, hateful atheists?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ure_godles.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...e_classroo.php

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

pd, 85% of Americans claim to be Catholic or Protestant. Yet Christianity is under attack in the US all the time.

I've posted this link before, but:

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor.archive/lioaca.html

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by nguirado

The US is a diverse country. In some parts and in some industries, being Christian can be a liability. The entertainment industry. People were fired in CA for supporting prop 8. A professor was fired for teaching Catholicism in a Catholicism class. Studies show that joining conservative-leaning groups hurts one's chances of getting into some colleges.

None of those things are a result of "being Christian."

If "supporting Prop 8" was a "Christian" activity, than the law was an attempt to impose religion on the state, and should've been overturned earlier.

I suspect the professor was not fired for "teaching Catholicism," but for attempting to teach that it was better than other religions.

And as much as I'm prone to thinking otherwise, "Christian" is not a synonym for "conservative."

In other parts of the country, being a non-Christian might be a bad thing.

There are tiny pockets of the US where being a non-Christian doesn't subject a person to the constant risk of public censure and sometimes attack. There are no parts of the US where non-Christians have equal consideration given to their religious beliefs... government offices are closed on Christian worship days, not on the worship days of other religions.

Nobody in the Us is persecuted like Christians are in the Middle East, China, and some other parts of the world. We need to keep things in perspective.

It is not legal to persecute other religions like Christians are persecuted in some parts of the world. That doesn't mean people aren't attacked and sometimes murdered for other religions.

That Christians don't own the world doesn't mean they lack any privileges in the US. And there are plenty of Christians in the US who *want* a system like that in the Middle East, only in their favor--they want the right to imprison or kill people of religions they don't approve of.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suspect the professor was not fired for "teaching Catholicism," but for attempting to teach that it was better than other religions.

Nope, he was fired for teaching homophobic bigotry. When it was accepted that homophobic bigotry was an integral part of offical Catholic beliefs, and thus part of his teaching, he was reinstated.

http://www.christianlawjournal.com/f...is-reinstated/

[nguirado]

OK. Let me correct my statement. Christians aren't discriminated against for being Christian, but expressing their views in a place dominated by anti-Christians.

If stating the Christian view of sexual morality is the new racism (bigotry), then Christianity is deserving of censure. Christians are the new racists. Pretty clever.

Likewise, the artist and his work weren't targeted for being anti-Christian, but for being displayed in a public place. If the artist had displayed the art in his house, there wouldn't have been a problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Likewise, the artist and his work weren't targeted for being anti-Christian, but for being displayed in a public place. If the artist had displayed the art in his house, there wouldn't have been a problem.

As I said in an earlier post, though, it is controversial viewpoints, whether in speech or art, that need the legal protection that guarantees freedom of speech. If you allow anyone the right to attack and destroy these works of art that they personally find "offensive", then you attack one of the purposes of art, which is to be provocative, and to make people think.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by nguirado

If stating the Christian view of sexual morality is the new racism (bigotry), then Christianity is deserving of censure. Christians are the new racists. Pretty clever.

No, stating that Christians have those views isn't bigotry. Stating those views as being true (as the prof did) is bigotry.

And "racism" and "bigotry" are not interchangeable terms. Don't try to equate them for rhetorical purposes.

Racism is:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

Bigotry is:

"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

(Both from dictionary.com.)

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Likewise, the artist and his work weren't targeted for being anti-Christian, but for being displayed in a public place. If the artist had displayed the art in his house, there wouldn't have been a problem.

And on some definitions it wouldn't have been art. If artists intend, through their art, to communicate something, then it is necessary that people come into contact with it. Your suggestion is a bit like saying that freedom of speech exists and is protected, so long as nobody hears you expressing your views.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by sweevo

Why?

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

who gets to decide what are irrational and harmful? can't you just respect and honor people and your own integrity by letting them have a voice?

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

who gets to decide what are irrational and harmful?

Deciding what is rational *should* be easy. Hint: beliefs without any evidence whatsoever to support them are not rational.

Would you call belief in elves rational?

As for harmful, here's one example:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...s-8/episode-1/

How do you get people to stop killing witches, never mind stop believing such things exist, if they believe in a book that says witches should be killed?

How many innocents have died throughout history, and keep dying?

Also read: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/gr...ts-and-an.html

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

can't you just respect and honor people and your own integrity by letting them have a voice?

I can respect and honor people. I cannot respect irrational, harmful beliefs, and am puzzled why you think I should.

As for "letting them have a voice" - I'm not trying to silence such beliefs, just to point out how irrational and harmful they are.

Would you like to review the ways the currently dominant religions came into power, and the "respect" they had for dissenting views?