PDA

View Full Version : The Christian Thing To Do?


molotov
October 11, 2010, 13:09
What's your take?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/us/11loveland.html?_r=1&hpw

I'll chime in after a couple replies.

PBR Streetgang
October 11, 2010, 13:17
She didn't try to kill the artist.

SWOHFAL
October 11, 2010, 13:26
I'm not religious, but the artist expressed his opinion and a member of the viewing public expressed theirs. Art is usually designed to get a reaction (rather than please the aesthetic) and this got one.

Heat
October 11, 2010, 13:37
Wow, people are surprised to get a very human response from a human that feels as if her belief system is constantly under attack?
You push peoples buttons enough and they may push yours!

chet
October 11, 2010, 13:56
Christian behavior on the woman's part, the art museum, or the artist? Obviously none of the above.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather not have any tax funded public "art galleries" at all.
Citizens of any religion shouldn't be forced to financially support "art".

molotov
October 11, 2010, 13:58
She didn't try to kill the artist.

No, but she damaged his artistic property, which would count as his livelihood.

Art is usually designed to get a reaction (rather than please the aesthetic) and this got one.

Modern art, more so. Older art, not so much by subject but by technique and neither vulgarity nor blasphemy to that great of degree.

Wow, people are surprised to get a very human response from a human that feels as if her belief system is constantly under attack?

Just the media. This kind of art has gone on before. Don't know if anyone recalls the infamous piss christ funded by tax dollars? I wouldn't put it past the artist doing it as a publicity stunt or psychological operation. No such thing as bad publicity. I'm sure the artists next vile creation will exceed the destroyed one in offensiveness and "value".

I fear the social backlash coming against these far left types.

mutter
October 11, 2010, 16:19
To bad it wasn't a painting of Muhammed helping a Christian child across the street.

The rag heads would have killed the so called artist, burnt the gallery to the ground, called for a new world jihad, requested; and then received permission from Obama to build a mosque on the buildings ashes at the U.S. taxpayers expense as the first step in apologizing to all the misunderstood muslims in the world.

If you follow the leftard train of thought then this woman is absolutely innocent of any charges. Under their train of thought, No person may publicly display any religious signs in public and especially if they are paid for by any kind of public funds, whatsoever.

Being as this is a publicly sponsored gallery, the display of anti-christian material is a direct support of atheism. This demonstration of anti-religion atheism is a religion unto itself.

Therefore, this POS, was displaying inflammatory religious beliefs that incited protests, riots, and violence. They need to let her go and arrest his ass.

Otherwise, who knows what is going to happen. Us Christians may decide to wage jihad and kill all the infidels. Holy war is holy war and non-believers are non-believers. Just because the language changes doesn't mean the meaning of the word changes or that the rights of the individual changes.

I guess I just ran out of cheeks to turn.

TideWater 41009
October 11, 2010, 17:08
From the article;
"Mr. Chagoya said he intended the image to be viewed as a commentary on corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, not a sex act involving Christ,..."

If that is true, then why didn't the are-TEEST use an illustation of the current pope's face? Wouldn't that have made his point more clearly?

PBR Streetgang
October 11, 2010, 17:16
Originally posted by mutter
To bad it wasn't a painting of Muhammed helping a Christian child across the street.

The rag heads would have killed the so called artist, burnt the gallery to the ground, called for a new world jihad, requested; and then received permission from Obama to build a mosque on the buildings ashes at the U.S. taxpayers expense as the first step in apologizing to all the misunderstood muslims in the world.

If you follow the leftard train of thought then this woman is absolutely innocent of any charges. Under their train of thought, No person may publicly display any religious signs in public and especially if they are paid for by any kind of public funds, whatsoever.

Being as this is a publicly sponsored gallery, the display of anti-christian material is a direct support of atheism. This demonstration of anti-religion atheism is a religion unto itself.

Therefore, this POS, was displaying inflammatory religious beliefs that incited protests, riots, and violence. They need to let her go and arrest his ass.

Otherwise, who knows what is going to happen. Us Christians may decide to wage jihad and kill all the infidels. Holy war is holy war and non-believers are non-believers. Just because the language changes doesn't mean the meaning of the word changes or that the rights of the individual changes.

I guess I just ran out of cheeks to turn.


BINGO!

bakerjw
October 11, 2010, 18:38
Notice how artists will always pick on Christians (I'm not btw) but are ever so leery of offending muzzies? Had they done some "art" depicting Mohammed in the place of Christ the artist would already be in hiding as multiple fatwas would have been issued calling for their death.

brunop
October 11, 2010, 21:28
I'm sorry I don't have the balls that that woman does.

If the whole country had her spine, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Now before someone tells me about religion generally, and Christians specifically, stepping on other people's rights historically, and about the protections afforded in the Constitution regarding freedom of religion, etc., let me say this:

No. Doubt. About. It.

But I love that there is a person who will take the punishment (class 4 felony?) for standing straight up and saying "enough is enough", and "I don't desecrate your holy stuff, so don't desecrate mine."

I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that we should all be so brave and committed. We'd be much, much better off.

And if there were more starving hippy artists whose shit didn't sell, and whose crap weren't subsidized by taxes, the art that DID make it would be a whole lot better. Doubt me? You should look at more art.