Catholic Religion Insulted by "Artist"
WJMiller8
label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. The
Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
similiar degenerate nonsense.
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has decided in the name of common decency
to try to put a stop to this outrage. Appeals to reason fell on deaf ears. He
is attempting to use the only leverage he has -- cutting off public funds for
the museum. Now in come the First Amendment folks with their "anything goes"
attitude -- they are the analog of the Second Amendment folks -- "guns and ammo
all around." Striking a patriotic posture they defend the dung-covered Virgin
Mary as "art."
It might be instructive to review the cast of characters who failed to support
Mayor Giuliani on this issue:
Arnold Lehman, Director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art (vigorously defends
"art")
Robert S. Rubin, Museum Board Chairman (To date has not condemned exhibit).
Norman Siegel, ACLU (need I tell you his position?)
Howard Golden, Brooklyn Borough President ("outrageous" but do not cut funds,
in other words -- go right ahead).
I wonder how many of the mayor's opponents attend Mass on any kind of regular
basis? I wonder how they would feel if some equivalent anti-Semitic "work of
art" were displayed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art? To ask the question is to
answer it.
Bill
NYC
LGA178
But since when is it the Mayor's job to decide what art is appropriate and
what isn't, especially with his wonderful track record in dealing with artists.
?
Also, the Brooklyn Museum has a lot more going on than just an elephant shit
exhibit. It would be a shame if, say, the amazing ancient egyptian collection
suffered because of Giuliani's fund cuts.
Randy
(LGA178) wrote:
> Sure it's offensive. The Virgin Mary with elephant crap? gimme a break.
> But since when is it the Mayor's job to decide what art is appropriate and
> what isn't, especially with his wonderful track record in dealing with
artists.
> ?
> Also, the Brooklyn Museum has a lot more going on than just an elephant shit
> exhibit. It would be a shame if, say, the amazing ancient egyptian
collection
> suffered because of Giuliani's fund cuts.
>
Purely a publicity position he has taken that will help his
Senate campaign upstate, should he decide to run. Can;t
someone besides him or her announce or I'll have to vote
for Grandpa Al Lewis.
Miky
spewing vitriol about Catholics, there is always a Jew to defend the hater.
Coincidence? I doubt it!
Jews claim to be the most tolerant people around, but when it comes to Catholics
their tolenrance evaporates quickly.
Miky
Robert Perlow
those of yours and mine. They are America's Red Guards.
WJMiller8 <wjmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990924135954...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Freedom Fighter
<19990925090056...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
>Surely there must be some limit. A British person acting under cover of
the
>label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant
dung. The
>Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with
other
>similiar degenerate nonsense.
< snip >
If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
Some people consider cows sacred. Would you allow them to legislate
against their slaughter for food, or even have a government official
advocate in their behalf? Freedom of expression includes ALL expression,
even if tasteless and offensive. Freedom of religion includes freedom
FROM religion, or the dictates of religion, for those that so choose.
This is
America, where good citizens tolerate the rights of others. Hypocrite
Giuliani does all he can to impose his and his church's concepts of
morality on everyone else, even though they cannot live up to them
themselves!
Jonathan Bobin
>
>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
Why should his tax money go towards paying for some asshole to insult him?
Miky
rosaphil wrote:
>
>
> ignorance is not bliss!
>
>
And Bigotry is not happiness!
Cfortunato
>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
You are wrong. As long as tax money is paying for it, I DO have to support.
Using tax dollars to desecrate someone's religion is indefensible.
BJF
WJMiller8 wrote in message <19990924135954...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>Surely there must be some limit. A British person acting under cover of the
>label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung.
The
>Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
>similiar degenerate nonsense.
>
Indeed. Could you imagine if a display depicting a picture of the Torah
splattered with elephant
dung, or a display showing the Star of David immersed in a beaker of
urine were allowed to
pass off as 'outrageous' art and showed up in a museum in NYC?????
The global outcry would
be unimaginable, as it should....
But when some fruitcake with no talent decides to desecrate the
Catholic Church and
Christianity by pawning off his collection of garbage to a NYC museum,
the few voices that
protest are ridiculed....
...
I can assure you that the majority of those representing all of the
religions here in NYC and elsewhere
are against these displays... As Giuliani commented "An attack on one
religion is an attack on all
religions"....
Most of these displays are created by talentless 'artists' who can only
draw an audience by putting
together a collection of shocking and disturbing displays... They draw a
crowd, not by the beauty of
their work, but by its ugliness.... They present to us nothing more than
the bloody sheet covered body
at a freeway accident in hopes that we will slow down to look.....
>
>Bill
>NYC
>
BJF
rosaphil wrote in message ...
>in certain parts of africa, elephant dung is the source of all life,
>especially after a drought as it incubates and provides nutrients for
>dormant eggs of various thingies and also seeds too.
In certain parts of Africa, slavery is still practiced. In certain parts
of Africa, civil wars are killing
thousands in the time it took me to write this sentence.... In certain
parts of Brooklyn, elephant dung is
not the source of all life...
>
>ignorance is not bliss!
>
>
>
>+********** Snail me yer rosehips if you liked this post! ************
>*Better Living Thru Better Living!* http://www.interport.net/~rugosa *
>
Michael David Jones
And where does someone's right to free speech intersect your right to
not be offended? Should some of the fringe religious movements like
Christian Identity not be allowed to claim tax exempt status because I
find their portrayal of the basic Christian beliefs (which I share)
offensive? What if I belonged to a sect that believed that Jews
carried the blood of Jesus on their hands (metaphorically speaking)
and that allowing them to practice their religion openly was offensive
to my beliefs? Should they lose their tax exempt status on that basis?
Should I? The principle of free speech is in part based on the reality
that in a pluralistic society it's practically impossible to do
anything significant without offending someone, and that the
government really shouldn't be in the business of policing offense.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Average number of miles an item of food consumed in the United States
travels before it is eaten: 1,200
- Harper's Index, April 1991
David Meyers
> >>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
> >You are wrong. As long as tax money is paying for it, I DO have to support.
> >Using tax dollars to desecrate someone's religion is indefensible.
>
> And where does someone's right to free speech intersect your right to
> not be offended? Should some of the fringe religious movements like
It's got nothing to do with free speech and everything to do
with taxpayer funding. The artist is free to put his display
on in any private showcase willing to show it. The problem
is the use of tax money to support this. Now, of course,
consistency dictates that if the Mayor can pull funding for
one museum because of the display, he needs to pull funding
from _all_ of them.
Of course, some of us think that allowing the government
to fund the arts at all opens the door to this kind of action,
and therefore _none_ of it should be funded publicly.
--d
Obwon
wheather or not Jews hate Catholics or vice versa, as
long as they keep their opinions of hatred to
themselves! We all have to live in this city!
Or do you believe it will be a better place if we
have Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Arabs, Irish etc.,
crusing around the city throwing bombs and shooting
each other? Get off the hate talk now! Our fore
fathers lived together in this city, they may not have
liked each other for various reason, but they did one
hell of a job of getting along together peacefully!
We're supposed to be doing better! Unfortunately it
seems we're doing much worse!
Obwon
Obwon
jona...@core.dumped.org (Jonathan Bobin) wrote:
>In article <7sitnm$76p$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>
>>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
>
>Why should his tax money go towards paying for some asshole to insult him?
Hooboy, this is an easy one!
Everybodies tax money goes towards paying for
A**holes who insult them, so why should he be any
different? Hahahaha... Lotto anyone? For the schools
of course! Yeah, right, you want a Museum, you want
art exhibitions, it's like free speech, you have to
take the bad to get the good!
Here's a clue, every art exhibit has offended
someone somewhere! So, to get rid of all offensive art
you have to outlaw art. There was no hue and cry when
the Museum exhibit portrayed slavery, blacks being hung
without trials or packed on ships like animals! What's
so inoffensive about that? Ghouli would of course say
that that is covered by freedom of speech, inspite of
the fact that many blacks would be terribly offended,
even if it's their history! But NO! That's acceptable
and no cause for alarm!
I'm sure there were exhibits that offended Jews,
Hindus, Japanese, Irish and just about anyone you can
name! It was just as well funded by your tax dollars
as the exhibit that offends you now! But... Why no hue
and cry back then? Why is it only so horrible now?
This isn't tolerance, it bigotry masquerading as
Heroism! It's false and we can see through it!
Obwon
Obwon
>You are wrong. As long as tax money is paying for it, I DO have to support.
>Using tax dollars to desecrate someone's religion is indefensible.
>
dollars were used to desecrate someone's race? If not,
how do you defend not doing that? Simply don't admit
it right? Give us a break with the holier than thou
etc., Tax dollars are used to offend/please all in
their turn! It's that way because real freedom of
speech requires tolerance and not regulation of either
art or speech! And don't try to fall back on that
tired "Fire in a theater" stuff either! That doesn't
apply here, it's not what's being done!
What's being done is a notable, if highly
controversial exhibit, is being offered to be viewed by
people who want to see it! Those who don't need not
go, no one is forcing you too! But -- If you don't
mind your tax dollars going for exhibits that happen to
please you, but in fact offend others, then you have to
take your "turn in the barrel" so to speak!
Obwon
Leonard Pulver
Let me disabuse those who are crying about abuse
of "their tax dollars".
The cost of the exhibit was fully paid by sponsors
and the Lip's ranting on network television has certainly
enhanced the gate no end. The receipts will certainly
reduce the museums operating deficit considerably.
Daniel X
splattered with elephant
dung, or a display showing the Star of David immersed in a beaker of
urine were allowed to
pass off as 'outrageous' art and showed up in a museum in NYC?????><<
Apples to oranges. The artists in question are both Catholic themselves, and is
offering a view of his own religion, much as Woody Allen and Jackie Mason did
with their Judaism. Of course, in the view of the Catholic Church, anything
done by a Catholic has to have the imprimatur of 80 year old Polish virgin.
-----------
Daniel X
-----------
You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the
people who are not afraid anymore. - Chavez
It is better to die on your feet, than to live a lifetime on your knees. -
Zapata
Daniel X
with taxpayer funding. The artist is free to put his display
on in any private showcase willing to show it. The problem
is the use of tax money to support this. Now, of course,
consistency dictates that if the Mayor can pull funding for
one museum because of the display, he needs to pull funding
from _all_ of them.
<<
By your idiotic logic, you should be at the New York Public Library threatening
to burn all books by James Joyce, because they speak of the Catholic Church in
a negative light; or we should ban Lord of the Flies because it has a rotten
animal head that someone might not like.
In essence, you are saying we should pull funding to the NY public library
system, the public school system, the city university system, the police, the
firemen - shit, damn near EVERYTHING that is funded by the government, because
someone may not like what they do. This is the sort of idiocy that has
blossomed as the Libertarian party has gained a foothold in serious politics.
Miky
They are similar, and the Museum would never have shown it. Or do you believe
Judiaism is beyond reproach, while Catholicism is always doubted and ridiculed?
The Pope married a (Jewish?) woman and had a child during the war, his wife died
and he became a priest. So, how many people did you free from the bonds of tyanny,
King Daniel? The Pope was an artist when it was illegal to do so under Nazi
Tyranny.
The "fecal artist" was educated by Nuns, he was never a true Catholic.
Daniel X wrote:
> >Indeed. Could you imagine if a display depicting a picture of the Torah
> splattered with elephant
> dung, or a display showing the Star of David immersed in a beaker of
> urine were allowed to
> pass off as 'outrageous' art and showed up in a museum in NYC?????><<
>
> Apples to oranges. The artists in question are both Catholic themselves, and is
> offering a view of his own religion, much as Woody Allen and Jackie Mason did
> with their Judaism. Of course, in the view of the Catholic Church, anything
> done by a Catholic has to have the imprimatur of 80 year old Polish virgin.
>