Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Yet Christianity is under attack in the US all the time.

This is obviously getting a little bit away from the art, but I'd love to hear some examples. The only instances of "Christianity under attack" I've come across from USA is when state support for Christianity is withdrawn after a law suit - i.e. when some special privilege that is against your constitution is ruled to be unlawful.

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'm not sure what the art shows - the best on-line pictures aren't exactly high-res. But I think the panel you refer to couldn't possibly be jesus - not unless s/he's undergone a male to female sex change operation. But I can't read the text.

But.... whatever. Is it relevant what it shows? Was her response proportionate? This time she only attacked the artwork. Will she go for the artist next time?

[sweevo]

Placebo effect:
http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html

A positive outlook, whether rational or not, can sometimes be beneficial.

Other people praying for a patient has no effect.

The question of whether irrational, beneficial beliefs should be encouraged could be an interesting one, but such beliefs are still irrational and seldom purely beneficial.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by sweevo

Anybody who can think rationally.

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?

it is not my beliefs (or lack thereof) that are in question here. it is who gets to decide based on your statement. do you get to decide? for me? for astra? elfwreck, arrdeegee? what makes your beliefs (or lack thereof) completely right and anyone elses completely wrong?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The problem isn't with the rationality, or lack thereof, of the beliefs. It's with the harmful actions taken because of the irrational beliefs. There's a limit to how much we allow a person's beliefs to excuse harmful behavior.

Force their kids to wear uncomfortable clothes? Okay. Scarves, turbans, plaid skirts in winter: all acceptable.
Force their kids to wear clothes that make their bodies unable to grow properly? Not okay. No foot binding, regardless of how important it is to your religion.

Force the neighbors to listen to annoying & disruptive chanting they don't want? Okay. For some levels of "annoying and disruptive."
Force the neighbors' garden to live without sunlight? Not okay; no building an 80' wall to the glory of your god.

Tell the person on the street that they're condemned to eternal punishment, hoping to shame and depress them into converting? Okay.
Start that punishment yourself, with fists? Not okay.

yes, exactly. it is the impact of beliefs on society and what harm they may cause.

if I believe the oak tree in my back yard is the home of a god and worship it, that doesn't cause any harm to anyone. on the other hand if I refuse to maintain that oaktree, claiming it may cause harm to the spirit in the tree and a branch falls off and kills someone, then my beliefs have a direct negative impact on society as a whole and need to be governed/cautioned.

Originally Posted by tompe

And I decide for myself that irrational beliefs should be minimised because that reduces the harm of irrational beliefs. I even think it is easy to argue convincingly for that opinion.

you can certainly decide for yourself what you believe to be rational or not, it is the action (or possibly inaction) that you take which are key and germane to the argument

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it is not my beliefs (or lack thereof) that are in question here. it is who gets to decide based on your statement. do you get to decide? for me? for astra? elfwreck, arrdeegee? what makes your beliefs (or lack thereof) completely right and anyone elses completely wrong?

EVIDENCE is how we know what is real and what isn't. What makes belief in elves irrational and lack of belief in elves rational?.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

if I believe the oak tree in my back yard is the home of a god and worship it, that doesn't cause any harm to anyone. on the other hand if I refuse to maintain that oaktree, claiming it may cause harm to the spirit in the tree and a branch falls off and kills someone, then my beliefs have a direct negative impact on society as a whole and need to be governed/cautioned.

Unfortunately, religious beliefs have a very bad track record here.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you can certainly decide for yourself what you believe to be rational or not[...]

Are you claiming there are no objective standards? That accepting the germ theory of disease is no more or less rational than accepting the claim that diseases are a result of evil spells?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by sweevo

EVIDENCE is how we know what is real and what isn't. What makes belief in elves irrational and lack of belief in elves rational?.



Unfortunately, religious beliefs have a very bad track record here.



Are you claiming there are no objective standards? That accepting the germ theory of disease is no more or less rational than accepting the claim that diseases are a result of evil spells?

you are carrying on this errr... conversation as though I am a staunch believer in *something*. my point is, that we should ALL be free to believe (or not) as we see fit, as long as it does not negatively impact anyone else. if someone says they are going to pray for you during times of crisis or illness, does it actually affect you? especially if you are a non-believer? if that person really cares for you, it might be what THEY need as they feel helpless at the time.

remember, unless my oak branch hurts someone, if it makes me a happier and more productive person, why fuss with it?

[GA Russell]

Harry, here in the US people make the distinction between what is tax-funded and what is not.

If this fellow had displayed his painting (or print in this case) in a private gallery, it is very unlikely that there would have been a protest. For the most part, people don't care what happens on private property.

In fact, there is no indication that this work has never been on display before. If it was, then where were the protests? The protests arise when the work is at a tax-funded facility.

In recent years there were a couple of tax-funded museums in New York (including Brooklyn in at least one case) where the works of "art" included a crucifix resting in a jar of urine (entitled Piss Christ) and another where a portrait of Mary had been splattered with fecal material. I am not aware of "art" attacking non-Christian religions being displayed in American tax-funded galleries.

Now here's my editorial: In a sane world sacrilegious junk would not be considered art. In America today, what is considered art is merely whatever the galleries' curators say it is. It is therefore my opinion that the curators (even more than the "artists") should be condemned.

Now let me make this point. If you don't think there is a bias in the US media against Christianity, why do you think that so many news reports fail to show the work of art and fail to adequately describe what it is that the protesters find objectionable?

By the way, some here seem to think that I am condoning what the woman did. I am not. I only made my statement above to explain the situation to foreigners not familiar with the current situation in the US.

Now let me turn the tables. I am a little bit aware of Nazi art in which the Jews were displayed as evil people with sinister grins and large hook noses. I will guess that this anti-semitic art was displayed in tax-funded German galleries.

Do you folks support that? Would you folks think that it is OK for an American tax-funded gallery to display contemporary anti-semitic "art"? Would you condemn a Jew who took matters into his own hands as quickly as you condemn the woman in Loveland, CO?

[kindlekitten]

these same tax funded galleries put in collections of garbage, or outdoor chairs that are stacked creatively and called art. to be perfectly honest, that pisses me off WAY more than any controversial religious piece would.

re" the "jewish art". afaik that was used for propaganda. I doubt it showed up in any galleries

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

my point is, that we should ALL be free to believe (or not) as we see fit, as long as it does not negatively impact anyone else.

That's fine; I'm not advocating passing laws making it illegal to hold specific beliefs. You are free to believe (or not). Just don't expect other people to respect them or refrain from criticizing them.

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

In a sane world sacrilegious junk would not be considered art.

In a sane world, there would be no religion, hence no "sacrilegious junk".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

re" the "jewish art". afaik that was used for propaganda. I doubt it showed up in any galleries

See, however, the Wiki article about Degenerate Art, for example.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by TGS

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.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

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

Racism is a kind of bigotry. I was making an analogy. Analogies compare two different things.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by sweevo

In a sane world, there would be no religion, hence no "sacrilegious junk".

What would modern artists do? Splash paint on a canvas?

[nguirado]

Are you claiming there are no objective standards? That accepting the germ theory of disease is no more or less rational than accepting the claim that diseases are a result of evil spells?

Yes, there are standards in the metaphysical as well. Your elf analogy suggests you're not familiar with them.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Now let me turn the tables. I am a little bit aware of Nazi art in which the Jews were displayed as evil people with sinister grins and large hook noses. I will guess that this anti-semitic art was displayed in tax-funded German galleries.

1.) GODWINED!

2.) As a rehash of the "racism" vs. "bigotry" post, there is a VAST difference between attacking race and attacking ideas.

The Nazi part was not attacking Judaism as a set of religious beliefs-- they were attacking the Jewish as a race of people. And that is an utterly, utterly different thing. I'd have a big problem with an art exhibit displaying Jews as hook-nosed, baby-eating racist caricatures. I'd have no problem at all with a display making fun of beliefs in indestructible bones and head boxes, though.

[nguirado]

This is obviously getting a little bit away from the art, but I'd love to hear some examples. The only instances of "Christianity under attack" I've come across from USA is when state support for Christianity is withdrawn after a law suit - i.e. when some special privilege that is against your constitution is ruled to be unlawful.

There's no "special" privilege. That would mean that it would be illegal for a town made up of a non-Christian majority to celebrate an aspect of their religion. There isn't. It so happens that most cities are majority Christian.