OT: ? 2 the liberal minded....
maybe...@my-deja.com
Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display offensive?
Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
--
Maybelline
"A man can't be taken to hell, or sent to hell:
you can only get there on your own steam." --C.S.Lewis
THE DARK TOWER
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Maggie
and exclaimed:
> Just a question,
> Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display offensive?
Nope. Odd, maybe. Perhaps even pointless if I couldn't figure out what
the artist was trying to say.
Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another sees
garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic sensibilities. For
that reason, I don't consider art offensive. If I don't like what I can
just move on to the next piece, exhibit or gallery.
> Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
Absolutely.
See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public funding be
withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public funding be
withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies madness.
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.chocolatefiends.com
"The Dark was cold until she came, but she was Midnight, kissed by
Flame"-Rajiv Mote on rasfwrj
AMYS EMPEROR
>Just a question,
>Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
>bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display offensive?
I remember when shooting at blue jeans with a shotgun made some pretty
fashionable attire.
maybe...@my-deja.com
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> maybe...@my-deja.com <maybe...@my-deja.com> snarled at the
computer
> and exclaimed:
> > Just a question,
> > Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> > bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display
offensive?
>
> Nope. Odd, maybe. Perhaps even pointless if I couldn't figure out
> what the artist was trying to say.
The first thought I would think is hatred, violence. And I do believe
that it would be seen this way by the gay activists at least. Do you
agree?
> Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another
> sees garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic
> sensibilities.
You just sited "beauty" as a standard in art, and I have to disagree
here. I think that some are into "shock" art and there is nothing
artistic or beautiful about putting bullets through something.
> For that reason, I don't consider art offensive. If
> I don't like what I can just move on to the next piece, exhibit or
> gallery.
> > Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
> curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public
> funding be withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public
> funding be withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies
> madness.
I agree in theory. But the reason I ask is because at Sac State they
have, in an "art" display, a bible shot 13 times. (this is a
significant number in some stanic circles BTW).
I feel this is wrong for many reasons. For one thing, we keep having
rules and laws made that you cannot have any mention of God or Christ
in public. There is an effort to cut all Christman programs in school.
They refuse to acknowledge what the true meaning of Chriatmas is, (yet
telling what halloween is is just fine.) So, if we cannot promote it in
these settings, why should anyone be allowed to denigrate it on public
dollars?
Also, I trully believe that if a person shot up a gay magazine, or a
pink triangle or gay flag and brought it in as an art display, there is
NO way the school would tolerate that (and rightfully so) as it would
be seen as promoting violence to these people.
Anyway, just another interesting turn in this world we live in...
Maggie
and exclaimed:
> In article <MPG.14a0c85a4...@news.accesstoledo.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > maybe...@my-deja.com <maybe...@my-deja.com> snarled at the
> computer
> > and exclaimed:
> > > Just a question,
> > > Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> > > bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display
> offensive?
> >
> > Nope. Odd, maybe. Perhaps even pointless if I couldn't figure out
> > what the artist was trying to say.
>
> The first thought I would think is hatred, violence. And I do believe
> that it would be seen this way by the gay activists at least. Do you
> agree?
By some gay activists, yes. Others will look at it, shrug, and move on.
Not every gay and lesbian person in the world reads The Advocate, and
fewer still put it up on a pedestal as some sacred text. My friends are
more concerned with *real* violence and bigotry, as opposed to getting
themselves in an uproar over symbolic violence - if defacing the gay
community's equivalent of Newsweek can be considered symbolic violence.
As my friend Kenn says: "Even bigots and other morons are entitled to
freedom of speech."
> > Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another
> > sees garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic
> > sensibilities.
> You just sited "beauty" as a standard in art, and I have to disagree
> here.
I did no such thing. Windex your monitor and read that again.
I very clearly stated that art is *subjective*, and that how one views it
is entirely dependent upon an individual's aesthetic sensibilities.
There can be no standard for something purely subjective.
> I think that some are into "shock" art and there is nothing
> artistic or beautiful about putting bullets through something.
Again, it's subjective. Perhaps the artist is trying to make a
"statement". Perhaps s/he is experimenting in a new expressive medium.
Perhaps s/he was stoned and thought shooting up a couple books would be
cool art. Who knows?
Some people will look at it and scratch their heads and hope aloud the
artist wasn't paid too much for the effort, others will see some deep
philosophical meaning or social context, still others will protest in
outrage at some perceived threat.
Art is about emotion - and for that reason alone, no "standard" can be
applied. One man's trash is another's treasure, as the saying goes.
> > For that reason, I don't consider art offensive. If
> > I don't like what I can just move on to the next piece, exhibit or
> > gallery.
> > > Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
> > curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public
> > funding be withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public
> > funding be withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies
> > madness.
>
> I agree in theory. But the reason I ask is because at Sac State they
> have, in an "art" display, a bible shot 13 times.
And? It's a book, May. If you can shoot up The Advocate, you can shoot
up the Bible, the Bhagvad Gita, the Torah or Playboy - it's all the
same under the laws of our land. You'll have to ask the artist what s/he
intended to convey by filling it full of actual holes. Sure, it could be
read as a violent statement. It could also be a comentary on the
artist's beliefs - perhaps that s/she feels its philosophy is full of
holes?
Me, I'd be with the ones hoping s/he wasn't paid too much. <shrug>
> (this is a
> significant number in some stanic circles BTW).
I'm aware. It's also a significant number to triskaidecaphobics and
bakers. I remain unexercised.
> I feel this is wrong for many reasons. For one thing, we keep having
> rules and laws made that you cannot have any mention of God or Christ
> in public. There is an effort to cut all Christman programs in school.
> They refuse to acknowledge what the true meaning of Chriatmas is, (yet
> telling what halloween is is just fine.) So, if we cannot promote it in
> these settings, why should anyone be allowed to denigrate it on public
> dollars?
I don't know where you live, that it's not permissible to speak of God
and Christ in public places. Here in Ohio, we don't get beaten up and
carted off to jail for talking to our seatmate on the bus about
religion, and we aren't fined for mentioning God or Christ (or Buddha or
Zoroaster or Gaea). With the dozen or so variants of Christianity, along
with the Buddhist and Islamic temples, the Wiccan society and various and
assorted other faiths much in evidence throughout the city, it's obvious
to me that freedom of religion - *ALL* religions, not just yours - is
protected, as it should be.
I think you're confusing things. "Congress shall make no law respecting
religion". In other words, our government cannot *promote* or officially
sanction *any* religion. It goes against the very reason this country
was founded. If they promote *one*, they have to promote them *ALL*, a
highly impractical solution at best, impossible and downright dangerous
at worst.
Instead, they stay out of promotion of one religion or another, as they
should.
A side effect of this is that they may not interfere if an individual
denigrates one religion or another. It is our Constitutionally protected
right, May - the government can't do a thing about it, nor should they be
able to, as attempting to protect one religion or another is the same as
promoting one. Let the religious factions squabble amongst themselves,
leave the government to do more important things.
> Also, I trully believe that if a person shot up a gay magazine, or a
> pink triangle or gay flag and brought it in as an art display, there is
> NO way the school would tolerate that (and rightfully so) as it would
> be seen as promoting violence to these people.
The rules for schools and Universities are different, as well they should
be. Schools for children should be kept neutral, as most children lack
the emotional maturity and perspective to view controversial things with
an open mind. It can be assumed, however, that University students are
mature enough to understand that the world does not revolve around their
individual viewpoints. University is a time for exposure to conflicting,
and maybe even shocking opinions - and the time for students to learn to
make up their own minds about what they see and how they feel about it.
Again, art is a subjective thing. That hypothetical shot up pink
triangle could be meant to express:
- irrational hatred of the gay and lesbian community.
- disgust at gays and lesbians being put into a stereotype and labeled
(IOW, outrage at the symbol as a label.
- the artist feeling as if s/he were shot up when s/he "came out" to his
or her conservative parents.
- the feeling in the gay and lesbian community that their sexuality is
unjustly under fire.
- the gay and lesbian community's war with mindless bigots.
You can say a lot with a little paper and some bullets. What people
think you are saying depends utterly on their own life experiences,
beliefs and state of mind at the time of the viewing - a few viewings
later, maybe even the next viewing, a person may feel something entirely
different. It will mean different things to different people, at
different times, and that is what I find so intriguing and incredible
about artistic expression.
Karl Otto
> The first thought I would think is hatred, violence. And I do believe
> that it would be seen this way by the gay activists at least. Do you
> agree?
I would actually see it as a commentary that hatred and violence of that
sort are acceptable in our society, rather than as a promotion of said
violence. If someone gets upset looking at bullet holes in a magazine, are
they just as upset at other forms of violence leveled against gay and
lesbian people? Isn't a person more important than a magazine? And does
someone need to shoot at someone else to enact violence against that person?
Might it not be just as bad to deny someone health insurance, in effect
killing them, as it is to point a gun at them and pull a trigger? I would
suspect that those are the kinds of questions the artist was hoping to
raise.
> You just sited "beauty" as a standard in art, and I have to disagree
> here. I think that some are into "shock" art and there is nothing
> artistic or beautiful about putting bullets through something.
Art is really about both aesthetics and message, not exclusively one or the
other. I, for one, appreciate the chance to be challenged in my views, and
certanily think spending public dollars on something like this is a far
better use than many I can think of. But I also agree with Maybelline that
there is a double standard - we cannot use public dollars or forums to even
mention certain religous views (unless, ironically, they are minority or
fringe religous views) but can use public dollars to tear down those views.
Karl
>
> > Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another
> > sees garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic
> > sensibilities.
>
New Zealand
maybe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Just a question,
> Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display offensive?
Absolutely.
> Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
NOT.
Shellie
--
"Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
- John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
New Zealand
maybe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <MPG.14a0c85a4...@news.accesstoledo.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > maybe...@my-deja.com <maybe...@my-deja.com> snarled at the
> computer
> > and exclaimed:
> > > Just a question,
> > > Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> > > bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display
> offensive?
> >
> > Nope. Odd, maybe. Perhaps even pointless if I couldn't figure out
> > what the artist was trying to say.
>
> The first thought I would think is hatred, violence. And I do believe
> that it would be seen this way by the gay activists at least. Do you
> agree?
> NO way the school would tolerate that (and rightfully so) as it would
> be seen as promoting violence to these people.
Sure flies in the face of the pushing for Hate Crimes Bills--liberal
hypocrisy and the beauty of "Freedom of Speech" w/ untouchable
limitlessness...
Shellie
>
"Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
- John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
maybe...@my-deja.com
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> By some gay activists, yes. Others will look at it, shrug, and move
on.
> Not every gay and lesbian person in the world reads The Advocate, and
> fewer still put it up on a pedestal as some sacred text. My friends
are
> more concerned with *real* violence and bigotry, as opposed to
getting
> themselves in an uproar over symbolic violence - if defacing the gay
> community's equivalent of Newsweek can be considered symbolic
violence.
I picked the Advocate for no real reason other than to make a point. I
view shooting something as what it is. Destructive. To call it art is a
big stretch and IMO factually wrong. Now I realize that your argument
is the PC one and in many ways I do agree.
But the main thrust of my argument is not about art but about the
environment we are now living in. We have all kids of rules and
protections for "hate crimes." My possition is that all violence is
wrong and it isn't more wrong to harm a gay person than it is to harm a
white female, or black child, or anycolor. ALL people are God's
creation and deserving of protection under the law.
With the current climate about hatecrimes however, I think that we can
see that if a symbol of a gay whatever what shot up and displayed,
efforst would be made to find out what the person was trying to say.
And, if it was know that the person was anti-gay you and I both know
that it would not be tolerated.
I almost wish that it would be tried just as an experiment alone.
> As my friend Kenn says: "Even bigots and other morons are entitled
> to freedom of speech."
Yes, and he is correct. But you don't see a lot of that point of view.
We have an ever growing "thought police" force.
> > > Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another
> > > sees garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic
> > > sensibilities.
> > You just sited "beauty" as a standard in art, and I have to disagree
> > here.
> I did no such thing. Windex your monitor and read that again.
> I very clearly stated that art is *subjective*, and that how one
> views it is entirely dependent upon an individual's aesthetic
> sensibilities.
<putting down the windex bottle>
You said that "art is a subjective thing. Where one sees beauty,
another sees garbage." As if (and I agree) that art is to reflect or
portray beauty but that it will be different to different people. That
is assuming that the "artist" thought that it was pretty to see a bible
full of holes. I do not agree that all artist are trying to accomplish
beauty. And, further, I do not believe that a person who finds "beauty"
in something that is mean and hateful is all there.
> There can be no standard for something purely subjective.
I disagree. We have simply vacated our standards and called "art" what
is really destructive and ugly.
> And? It's a book, May. If you can shoot up The Advocate, you can
> shoot up the Bible,
That is the point. I really believe that it would not be allowed in.
> I don't know where you live, that it's not permissible to speak of
God
> and Christ in public places.
California. And it is really getting ridiculous.
Covenant
<maybe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:916s1a$n0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Just a question,
> Would you consider a copy of the "Advocate" magazine, shot full of
> bullet holes and put on display at a College "art" display offensive?
No. Not offensive... *Stupid* and certainly not what *I* would term *art*,
but certainly not offensive.
> Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
Personally, I abhor the fact that the *arts* are a self congratulatuing ,
incestuous, self fulfilling autonomy...
And I hate the fact that *the people* have little say in how tax payer's
money is spent on these wastes of time and space...
--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Covenant
"Maggie" <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
> See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
> curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public funding be
> withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public funding be
> withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies madness.
Sorry Maggie, I disagree...
There is a LOT of difference between someone having a patron and millions
being spent on certain things for an elite selection of people.
As an example...
*Pi** Christ*... a crucifix suspended in a vial of urine.
How much money would be required to produce *that* piece of..<cough> *art*?
The *artist* recieved tens of thousands.
The *Tate Bricks*... 300,000 pounds (IIRC) for a pile of bricks.
*Art*?
The problem (to my mind) with *art* these days is, that people are merely
looking for things to shock and/or be talked about.
Okay... fine... but the *amounts* of money that are being spent (via
people's taxes) are ridiculous, and it is only the art community that is
ensuring those *prices* are higher and higher all the time.
I have a friend who is a very good artist.
He is a fair to middling painter. He produces really nice original works
(mostly abstract) but he produces those paintings with ordinary every day
oils. Cheap brushes, and very cheap canvases.
I myself went into the town a few weeks ago and bought a LOAD of oils,
brushes, canvases and boards... It cost less than 30 pounds.
Now, some might say.. *But you are not a famous artist!*
I refer those people to an episode of *Filthy, Rich and Catflap* (I know, I
know.. you've never heard of it .. ;') )
Basically.. An artist gets to make The Money if he is a part of the self
formed Elite. And I simply refuse to believe that a mock up of someone's
bedroom (with used tampons and soiled underwear on the floor) an unmade bed
and empty gin bottles, can in ANY way be classified as *art*... yet it
almost won the Tate art prize this year. (Or *did* it win??? I Can't
recall...)
Why ?? Because the <HA!> *artist* is 'known'. She has been on TV.
Ooohhhhhhhh.... this *My Room* MUST be worth THOUSANDS then...
What a load of bullpoo...
I'm sure there are people in this very NG who had similar works of *art* in
their houses when they were younger!
;')
araldde...@my-deja.com
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Do you think it should be allowed at taxpayer $?
>
> Personally, I abhor the fact that the *arts* are a self
congratulatuing ,
> incestuous, self fulfilling autonomy...
>
> And I hate the fact that *the people* have little say in how tax
payer's
> money is spent on these wastes of time and space...
Agreed.
Take care,
Arald
fai...@my-deja.com
So here's another issue where liberals consider me a traitor...
I think the National Endowment for the Arts needs to go
the way of the dodo. For all these reasons yall are
bringing up. I don't think you can withdraw funds from
the artist one group finds offensive, without withdrawing them
from the artists that any other group finds offensive...which
leaves the NEA with grants only given to...who? Who's
left? There may be a few subjects that nobody finds
offensive...but even Georgia O'Keefe's flowers offend
some people......
And then, we can't give them to everybody who applies,
so there has to be some kind of choice-making process,
and how can we even come up with a way to determine
the value of a work, or a body of work, of art?
WHY are we using government money for art? Is this
a function of government? I think it generally got going
under the WPA during the depression....but then
it was primarily artists/writers commissioned to do
specific projects for the community or the national
interest (the WPA guides to the states, murals for
public buildings, etc.) OK, not completely, but i
*would* be willing to bet that it was *more*
of that and a lot *less* of this paying artists to do
their own thing, than it is now. Really, i'm probably
showing my Libertarian colors here, but i'll go out
on a limb and say, dump the whole thing.
Now, of course, i'd understand if somebody cried
"All this bleeping *corporate* welfare?! Aren't the
arts at least as important to our quality of life, and as
deserving?" Heck, yeah! But then, i'd basically
end corporate welfare, too....
ruth
o lord, i'm gonna buy it for this, i just know it....
8~)
maybe...@my-deja.com
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
Amen...
Maggie
exclaimed:
<snipsnip>
> So here's another issue where liberals consider me a traitor...
> I think the National Endowment for the Arts needs to go
> the way of the dodo. For all these reasons yall are
> bringing up. I don't think you can withdraw funds from
> the artist one group finds offensive, without withdrawing them
> from the artists that any other group finds offensive...which
> leaves the NEA with grants only given to...who? Who's
> left?
I'll address this below...because I think there is a terrible
misconception about the purpose of the NEA, and your comment here
illustrates it perfectly.
> There may be a few subjects that nobody finds
> offensive...but even Georgia O'Keefe's flowers offend
> some people......
This is, incidentally, a perfect example of the subjectivity of art.
We were fortunate enough to have some of Ms. O'Keefe's work exhibited for
a time here at the Toledo Museum of Art. I was dismayed to hear a woman
carry on at length about the obscenity of Ms. O'Keefe's paintings.
What's so obscene about a dahlia, for heaven's sake? To me, they're
pretty flowers; to the woman complaining, they were loaded with
symbolism.
> And then, we can't give them to everybody who applies,
> so there has to be some kind of choice-making process,
> and how can we even come up with a way to determine
> the value of a work, or a body of work, of art?
>
> WHY are we using government money for art? Is this
> a function of government?
As much as any other education is a function of government - and that is
the NEA's primary function - art education and accessibility.
> I think it generally got going
> under the WPA during the depression....but then
> it was primarily artists/writers commissioned to do
> specific projects for the community or the national
> interest (the WPA guides to the states, murals for
> public buildings, etc.) OK, not completely, but i
> *would* be willing to bet that it was *more*
> of that and a lot *less* of this paying artists to do
> their own thing, than it is now. Really, i'm probably
> showing my Libertarian colors here, but i'll go out
> on a limb and say, dump the whole thing.
Actually, Ruth, you're mostly right here. The NEA *was* originally an
arm of the WPA, and mostly a community service endowment.
It still *is* mostly a community service endowment, believe it or not.
It is distressing and unfortunate that the only attention the NEA
receives is the negative press from funding controversial artists or
exhibitions, because the primary function of the endowment is to make art
*accessible* to *everyone*. Indeed, the majority of the NEA's spending
is on community and education projects, including:
- The Chamber Music Rural Residency program, which sends chamber
ensembles into areas which otherwise would not have the chance to
experience classical chamber performances. The musicians work with the
rural community to arrange both performances and music education, at no
cost to these often very poor communities.
- The National Dance Project, which provides funding to various dance
companies to enable them to create and present new dance works.
- The Arts Education program at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington,
DC. This program offers special presentations for students, enabling
them to experience the joys of theater, opera and dance, where they may
otherwise never be given the opportunity. (I have a special affection
for this program - the generosity of the NEA enabled my exchange group to
attend a performance of "Satchmo", the musical biography of jazz great
Louis Armstrong. That performance was the start of a love affair with
both theater and jazz that continues to this day.)
- Creative Partnerships for Prevention, a program to promote drug and
violence free kids. This partnership of the NEA and 15 arts
organizations has developed an arts based curriculum to get our kids to
spend their time creatively - painting, drawing, singing, dancing -
instead of out on the streets, where drugs beckon.
The NEA gives generously to Public Broadcasting television stations
nationwide to ensure the survival of programs such as Great Performances,
Masterpiece Theatre, Evening at Pops, Live From Kennedy Center and
numerous special performances. Chances are, if you're checking out the
presentation of Riverdance on your local PBS station, the costs
associated with the broadcast are at least partially funded by the NEA.
Ogling that super presentation of the Bolshoi Ballet's Nutcracker?
Weeping at the beauty of the Three Tenors singing Ave Maria? Sitting
awestruck as Michael Crawford croons "Music of the Night"? It wouldn't
be on TV without the NEA - such performances are damnably expensive and
most PBS stations can't afford to show them without help. The NEA
ensures that folks of modest means can also share the joys of
performances previously only accessible to the rich.
If a large exhibition of a well known artist comes to your city, the NEA
has likely had a hand in funding it. Thanks to the assistance of the
NEA, our own little museum in Toledo has been able to host exhibitions of
the works of El Greco, Van Gogh, Picasso, and Peter Paul Reubens (and a
number of his contemporaries), an exhibition of the art of Imperial
Russia, as well as an unprecedented exhibition of the relics of King Tut
some years back. The costs associated with such exhibitions is
*astounding* - a small Midwestern art museum usually has little chance of
gaining a spot on the lists, unless they've been favored with a grant
from the NEA. Thanks to these grants, my kids have been able to see
works that, when I was a kid, I was only able to read about in books and
dream of someday seeing. I feel their lives are richer for it, they can
appreciate Picasso's "Blue Woman", or a glorious Faberge egg from the
collection of Catherine the Great, or Peter Paul Reubens' stunningly rich
"Crowning of St. Catherine", having seen them up close and learned about
the artists who created these works.
The NEA also sponsors countless "artist in residence" programs, where
sculptors, painters, musicians, poets and novelists teach in a school for
a year, working closely with students to help them hone their skills in
these areas. These professionals give a year of their lives to work
toward the betterment of our students, and are only able to do so thanks
to the stipend they receive from the NEA. The NEA pays the bills, while
the artists, musicians and writers teach our children their crafts.
(My son's elementary school is hosting an AIR at the moment, a singer who
is teaching the children the different ways we can use music to express
ourselves - to tell a story, as in opera; to express joy or adoration, as
in hymns; to release tension, as in rock music. I fell over laughing
hysterically when my son wandered in singing the Toreador song from
Carmen the other day. He's decided Bizet is cool.
I have personal experiences with AIRs myself, we had two in my high
school, and I remain forever grateful to poet Scott Edelstein for showing
me that I could take my passion for writing and turn it into something
fun, comforting, and useful. He inspired me to learn the writer's craft,
and it has served me well, giving me a much greater appreciation for
literature and the work that goes into creating the stories I love so
much.)
Also overlooked is the NEA's contribution to music in schools. Though
there is precious little funding available in most schools for music
education, schools can apply to the NEA for grants to replace worn
instruments, purchase sheet music for school bands and choirs, and to
help send those who excel to state and national competitions.
You don't *really* want to do away with all that, do you?
> o lord, i'm gonna buy it for this, i just know it....
<*smooch*>
I still love you, Ruthie. I'm just disappointed that you've fallen for
the same horrible propaganda about the NEA that so many others have.
They do a lot of good, necessary work to help make our world a better,
more interesting place. We ought not ignore that just because a very few
exhibits have generated controversy and have gotten all the press.
There's much more to the NEA than meets the eye.
Maggie
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > By some gay activists, yes. Others will look at it, shrug, and move
> on.
> > Not every gay and lesbian person in the world reads The Advocate, and
> > fewer still put it up on a pedestal as some sacred text. My friends
> are
> > more concerned with *real* violence and bigotry, as opposed to
> getting
> > themselves in an uproar over symbolic violence - if defacing the gay
> > community's equivalent of Newsweek can be considered symbolic
> violence.
>
> I picked the Advocate for no real reason other than to make a point.
Wait...you're saying that this shot up copy of The Advocate is purely
hypothetical? So what's the problem again?
> I
> view shooting something as what it is. Destructive. To call it art is a
> big stretch and IMO factually wrong. Now I realize that your argument
> is the PC one and in many ways I do agree.
Stop right there.
I resent your implication that my opinion is based on some political
nonsense, instead of on personal experience and reflection. I've been a
member of the artistic community in one way or another for my entire
life, and feel very passionately about the arts and the necessity of
allowing *all* artists to exercise their right to express themselves. I
may not like the way they express it, but I will defend their right to
produce work I do not like, even as I defend the rights of those who
produce work I *do* like.
Political Correctness is for the feeble of mind. Don't ever ascribe it
to me again.
> But the main thrust of my argument is not about art but about the
> environment we are now living in. We have all kids of rules and
> protections for "hate crimes." My possition is that all violence is
> wrong and it isn't more wrong to harm a gay person than it is to harm a
> white female, or black child, or anycolor. ALL people are God's
> creation and deserving of protection under the law.
So what is the purpose of the display you're complaining about? Have you
actually viewed it? Read the brochures? Heard any accompanying
lectures? Who is the artist? What is the piece called? What is the
title of the exhibit? How does this exhibit have anything to do with the
environment we live in?
In short, do you know anything at all about the exhibit and it's purpose,
or are you making assumptions?
> With the current climate about hatecrimes however, I think that we can
> see that if a symbol of a gay whatever what shot up and displayed,
> efforst would be made to find out what the person was trying to say.
> And, if it was know that the person was anti-gay you and I both know
> that it would not be tolerated.
I think you're mistaken. After all, we have to permit the KKK to march
down main street screaming "Die, nigger, die!" and "Kill the faggots!"
and "Burn the Jews!". It's tolerated under the law - as is the right of
*decent* citizens to counter demonstrate.
Free speech works both ways - for that which we support *and* that with
which we disagree. I'm really not sure what you're getting at.
> I almost wish that it would be tried just as an experiment alone.
>
> > As my friend Kenn says: "Even bigots and other morons are entitled
> > to freedom of speech."
> Yes, and he is correct. But you don't see a lot of that point of view.
Maybe not among your peers, but it is prevalent among mine. We don't
like skinheads, the KKK or people who scream that Kenn is going to hell
because of his sexuality, but we recognize *their protected right* to
make asses of themselves. We also recognize *our* right to mock them for
their utter stupidity and mindless hatred.
Allowing a group we disagree with to speak in no way hinders our own
rights to express *our* views. We are not silenced by virtue of allowing
the bigots and their ilk "airtime", as it were.
> We have an ever growing "thought police" force.
Mmmmm...this from someone complaining about an artist's expression.
Irony, much?
> > > > Art is a subjective thing. Where one person sees beauty, another
> > > > sees garbage. It all depends on your personal aesthetic
> > > > sensibilities.
> > > You just sited "beauty" as a standard in art, and I have to disagree
> > > here.
> > I did no such thing. Windex your monitor and read that again.
> > I very clearly stated that art is *subjective*, and that how one
> > views it is entirely dependent upon an individual's aesthetic
> > sensibilities.
> <putting down the windex bottle>
> You said that "art is a subjective thing. Where one sees beauty,
> another sees garbage."
Yes.
> As if (and I agree) that art is to reflect or
> portray beauty but that it will be different to different people.
No. That is not what I said. Try the Windex again, you seem to have
picked up 409 instead, and hopelessly streaked your monitor.
I said:
* Art is a subjective thing.
Subjective means that different people will see different things,
even though they are looking at the same piece. With me so far?
* Where one person sees beauty, another sees garbage. It all depends on
* your personal aesthetic sensibilities.
This is not citing beauty as a standard for art. This is the classic
example of subjectivity - one person sees something beautiful, another
sees utter trash. One person finds a melody pleasing, another finds it
dissonant and harsh.
There is no statement of standards here, just an example of what
"subjective" means, for those folks who seldom have occasion to use the
word in conversation and may not know what it means.
Clear now?
> That
> is assuming that the "artist" thought that it was pretty to see a bible
> full of holes. I do not agree that all artist are trying to accomplish
> beauty. And, further, I do not believe that a person who finds "beauty"
> in something that is mean and hateful is all there.
There is nothing that says art must be beautiful. Art is not just about
beauty, it is about raw emotion, and converying that emotion to make a
statement or share a feeling, vision, opinion or passion.
I noted in my previous post that the artist may have been making a
statement of his/her beliefs - perhaps that s/he thought the premise of
the Bible was full of holes. You may not like the message the artist is
conveying, but the artist does have the right to convey it all the same.
Feel free to lodge a protest with the curator of the exhibit, your right
to do so is just as protected as the artist's right to express
him/herself. What's stopping you from expressing your opinion to the
people responsible?
> > There can be no standard for something purely subjective.
> I disagree. We have simply vacated our standards and called "art" what
> is really destructive and ugly.
Not all art is pretty, May. I can tick off half a dozen public
sculptures in my city that I find boring, pointless or just plain ugly.
That doesn't mean they aren't art, it just means that they don't appeal
to my aesthetic sensibilities.
This is what "subjective" *means*!
> > And? It's a book, May. If you can shoot up The Advocate, you can
> > shoot up the Bible,
> That is the point. I really believe that it would not be allowed in.
I don't. Particularly since you're trying to compare a news magazine
with what some people consider a sacred text. It's apples and oranges.
What I'm getting out of this is that someone shot up a Bible and you're
pissed about it, but you don't want to come right out and *say* that you
think this person shouldn't be allowed to exhibit his/her piece, and you
don't want to come right out and *say* that you think that people should
be muzzled or otherwise prevented from presenting a view that radically
differs from yours. It looks like you're trying to get someone else to
say that they don't think something *else* that has been shot up should
be displayed, so that you can use that to justify your own position.
In short, it sounds like you want to be able to yell at people that
they're going to hell if they don't believe what you believe, but you
don't want people to have the right to tell you to put it in your hat.
> > I don't know where you live, that it's not permissible to speak of
> > God and Christ in public places.
> California. And it is really getting ridiculous.
You're going to have to clarify, here. My best friend lives in Berkeley,
and grew up in San Francisco. He is a graduate of Lowell High School and
a Senior at Cal Berkeley. He has never mentioned any prohibition on
speaking about God in public places, and, when I asked him this evening
what the hell the deal in the land of crunchy granola was, he had no
idea to what you were referring.
In fact, when I went to visit him, there were numerous street preachers
(even on campus!), and leaflets advertising this church or that's
fellowship meetings were tacked to telephone poles all over the place.
Would you mind citing the law that prohibits a citizen from mentioning
God in a public place?
Spiro
vote!!!
AAAAARRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
L
You've bought the equipment, now where and of whom is the portrait?
Covenant <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:918m4h$uuv$3...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Maggie
exclaimed:
>
>
> > See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
> > curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public funding be
> > withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public funding be
> > withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies madness.
>
>
> Sorry Maggie, I disagree...
>
> There is a LOT of difference between someone having a patron and millions
> being spent on certain things for an elite selection of people.
>
> As an example...
>
> *Pi** Christ*... a crucifix suspended in a vial of urine.
Actually, it was a *photograph* of a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine.
I recall the furor over that piece - it was part of a larger exhibition,
by no means the focus of the exhibition, though precious little
information about other pieces in the exhibit is available, thanks to
the furor surrounding this one photograph.
Have you even seen the piece in question? I mean, considering where you
live and what you stated the work to be above, I get the impression
you've not seen it.
I only just saw this photograph today, while researching for this
article. See, I find it really difficult to get upset over a piece I've
never seen, just because someone else finds it offensive or lacking.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/
502.html
If I didn't know what the medium was, I might have mistaken it for an
overexposed or oddly lit photograph. I don't particularly *like* the
photo, but I didn't find anything inherently offensive about it, either.
I think the medium is a bit extreme, certainly not what *I* would use to
create something, but who would have even known what the medium being
photographed *was* without the controversy surrounding the piece?
The original furor was created not by the medium, but by the *title*.
someone upset with criticism of religion threw a fit over the *title*,
and demanded the photograph be banned *sight unseen*. Some reporters
investigated, called Mr. Serrano to inquire, and shazaam, a controversy
was born. (This happened in Cincinnati, in my home state of Ohio, so we
heard all about the photo, but most people never even saw it.)
Mr. Serrano had this to say about the photo:
"The photograph in question, like all my work, has multiple meanings and
can be interpreted in various ways. So let us suppose that the picture is
meant as a criticism of the billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry and
the commercialization of spiritual values that permeates our society.
That it is a condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of Christ for
their own ignoble ends. Is the subject of religion so inviolable that it
is not open to discussion?"
He makes a good point. Granted, he made his point in a fashion that many
people find distasteful (myself included), even offensive. Still, it's a
point worth discussing and pondering, even if we don't like the way he
made it.
That's what art is all about.
> How much money would be required to produce *that* piece of..<cough> *art*?
>
> The *artist* recieved tens of thousands.
*Not* from the NEA, however. Though he did, in fact, make quite a sum of
money from exhibition of his work, it was mostly through private gallery
showings, not the controversial NEA exhibit. You cannot fault the NEA for
the actions of others, Joe.
> The *Tate Bricks*... 300,000 pounds (IIRC) for a pile of bricks.
I've not heard of this one. Got a URL for a photo?
> *Art*?
Not to you. Not to me. But obviously to someone. It's all in the eye
of the beholder, Joe. Maybe the bricks above were more about the play of
light and shadow, planes and angles? I don't know. But it appealed to
*someone*.
> The problem (to my mind) with *art* these days is, that people are merely
> looking for things to shock and/or be talked about.
I don't see this as a problem. Even Shakespeare was shocking in his
time. Is this necessarily bad?
> Okay... fine... but the *amounts* of money that are being spent (via
> people's taxes) are ridiculous, and it is only the art community that is
> ensuring those *prices* are higher and higher all the time.
I think you're unfairly laying the blame at the feet of the artists, when
you should be directing it at the rich who attempt to keep art out of the
hands of the "unwashed masses".
I *am* a member of the arts community, Joe. I danced with the local
ballet as a child, participated in choral music and drama in high school
and college, have acted in community theater, and give time and a small
portion of my very meager income to my local museum. I write, tutor
students in writing, attend the opera and the ballet whenever I can
afford it, and make a point of seeking out cheap seats at the symphony so
my children and I can enjoy such masterpieces as Stravinsky's "Rite of
Spring" the way they were meant to be enjoyed - live.
The artists of my acquaintance are not well off by any means, but they
aren't complaining about it. They do what they do for the pure *love* of
doing it. Sure, we all dream of being recognized and showered with the
same attention and financial gains that a few lucky souls garner, but we
don't blame them for the proclivities of the fickle, flighty rich.
If the people paying the big bucks want something avant garde and
controversial, it's the people who produce these pieces who will be
recognized, while the rest of us shake our heads and mutter "Lucky
bastard". Eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way.
Such is the nature of art, whether we like the art being produced or not.
Those that supply what the paying folk demand are those that get paid,
and the rest of us go on our merry way, creating as we wish to create and
dreaming of our fifteen minutes in the spotlight.
<snip artist friend>
> Basically.. An artist gets to make The Money if he is a part of the self
> formed Elite. And I simply refuse to believe that a mock up of someone's
> bedroom (with used tampons and soiled underwear on the floor)
Oh ick. I hope those aren't real. That's terribly unsanitary.
> an unmade bed
> and empty gin bottles, can in ANY way be classified as *art*... yet it
> almost won the Tate art prize this year. (Or *did* it win??? I Can't
> recall...)
>
> Why ?? Because the <HA!> *artist* is 'known'. She has been on TV.
> Ooohhhhhhhh.... this *My Room* MUST be worth THOUSANDS then...
>
> What a load of bullpoo...
Again, *somebody* thought it was art. Maybe not you, maybe not your
neighbors. I can't make an assessment, I've never heard of the piece,
but *someone* decided it had merit.
You know, I hear much the same criticism of Piet Mondrian - "Oh his
paintings only sell for what they do because he's *famous*!" As it
happens, I adore Mondrian. I love the simplicity of his canvases, the
interplay of the bold lines and primary colors, the balance of the color
blocks. Looking at his work makes me feel centered and serene, I see
order and balance.
My husband looks at the same piece and proclaims "It's hideous."
So who's right?
We both are. The work stirs different parts of each of us. That my
husband hates it doesn't make it any less art than my love for the piece
makes it any *more* art. Where he'd not be at all upset if the piece
disappeared, I'd happily pay a million dollars for it (if I could) to
have the work for myself, because of the feelings it stirs in me.
Art is, ever was, and ever shall be, completely in the eye of the
beholder.
Decrying an organization designed to bring art to the people just because
they have helped finance controversial artists who've gone on to make a
lot of money, just because one doesn't like what those artists have
produced, is disingenuous at best, "sour grapes" at worst (and I'd really
hate to think that you're displaying a case of sour grapes here, Joe).
fai...@my-deja.com
because your post was very educational! 8~) I really
did not know a lot of this stuff you wrote about....
Are you *really* energetic enough to be this articulate at
2:27 in the morning?
Maybe i do need to try some of that Tanzanian whiffleberry
coffee (i know it was something like that...)
`
`
`
Maggie wrote:
<*extremely big grin*> i love you, too...but you
really do NOT want to know what happened to the
*last* person who called me "Ruthie".....
(joking! just joking! It really was not my fault that
she...well, never mind...but i didn't do it!)
cheers!
ruth.
8~)
maybe...@my-deja.com
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> Stop right there.
>
> I resent your implication that my opinion is based on some political
> nonsense, instead of on personal experience and reflection. I've
> been a member of the artistic community in one way or another for my
> entire life, and feel very passionately about the arts
responsible and in good taste I agree. I am just willing to put limits.
Just as free speach has limits. Because I also believe in
responsibility for what we put out into this world. And, by the way,
art is not a protected right that needs this type of protection in my
view.
> and the
> necessity of allowing *all* artists to exercise their right to
> express themselves.
Here is where we part company.
> I may not like the way they express it, but I
> will defend their right to produce work I do not like, even as I
> defend the rights of those who produce work I *do* like.
Sorry to offend Maggie, but this is definitely PC or, if you feel
better, it is the modern thought. This position has not always been
embraced. It used to be that art was to point to that which is not only
beautiful but uplifting, not profane or harmful to others. That has all
changed. I was not trying to offend you just to let you know that I am
well aware of your possition and I reject it to a certain degree.
> Maybe not among your peers, but it is prevalent among mine. We don't
> like skinheads, the KKK or people who scream that Kenn is going to
> hell because of his sexuality,
Dang, you actually have experienced people *screaming* at him that he
is going to hell?
> Allowing a group we disagree with to speak in no way hinders our own
> rights to express *our* views. We are not silenced by virtue of
> allowing the bigots and their ilk "airtime", as it were.
The point.... As I said, Christianity is not allowed to be "promoted"
and yet they have an exibit denigrating it. That is NOT equal.
> > We have an ever growing "thought police" force.
> Mmmmm...this from someone complaining about an artist's expression.
Maggie you really are missing my point.
> Subjective means that different people will see different things,
> even though they are looking at the same piece. With me so far?
Maggie I am totally aware of what subjective is. My point is that there
are limits, reasonable limits to what you seem to think there are NONE.
I think that if I have this "freedom" then I can basically do anything
and call it art and that is NOT the purpose of art. It has been
degraded to include hatefull and disgusting things. Not all art is
equal and not all "efforts" rise to the tital of art.
> Not all art is pretty, May. I can tick off half a dozen public
> sculptures in my city that I find boring, pointless or just plain
> ugly. That doesn't mean they aren't art, it just means that they
> don't appeal to my aesthetic sensibilities.
And with this I will agree. I am not trying to dictate that only what I
find to be atractive is ok, I am saying that there are limits and to
call destruction art is nonesense and degrades all art really.
> What I'm getting out of this is that someone shot up a Bible and
> you're pissed about it, but you don't want to come right out and
> *say* that you think this person shouldn't be allowed to exhibit
> his/her piece,
Oh I am fine with sayng that. I do not think they should be allowed to
do this at taxpayer expense. This is a State College and there are all
these rules that shut up people of faith yet they allow this in. That
is wrong. It is also wrong in light of the fact that in our society I
am possitive that if a person came in with a representation of gay life
shot full of holes and tried to put that into the exibit we would be
hearing about it all over the country and it would be portrayed as hate
speach and promoting hate crimes and I am also very sure it would not
be there at all or at least not for long as they would not want to be
party to this offense.
> and you don't want to come right out and *say* that you think that
> people should be muzzled or otherwise prevented from presenting a
> view that radically differs from yours.
I am fine with people who radically differ from my opinions. Maggie, to
be a Christian and a republican, you have to get used to that very
quickly.
And If you are so sensitive about *your* reference (plain as day) to
art being beauty to some yet not to others and me reasonably
extrapolating that you are setting a standard that beauty is the
standard, then why the heck would you attribute to me things that I
never even came close to saying? I want to "muzzle" no one.
> It looks like you're trying to get someone else to
> say that they don't think something *else* that has been shot up
> should be displayed, so that you can use that to justify your own
> position.
Not at all. I mentioned this after listening to a radio program the
other night. I was amazed that it would be allowed in and I began to
wonder what if someone came in with a gay symbol and did this. I felt
fairly sure that it would be rejected for the reasons I already stated.
I proposed the question to see what others thought. Not picking a
fight, just interesting topic to me.
>
> In short, it sounds like you want to be able to yell at people that
> they're going to hell if they don't believe what you believe, but you
> don't want people to have the right to tell you to put it in your hat.
Maggie, I do not have a heaven OR HELL to put ANYONE in. And I have
NEVER yelled at a single person that they are going to hell. That would
be *against* the faith that I embrace for a persons eternal address is
between them and God, not me.
This has nothig to do with my faith which is my own business, it has to
do with our society and fair standards. I have laid out my argument and
I have not tried to pick a fight, why you insist on painting me in the
worst possible light only reflects your bias and prejudice.
> You're going to have to clarify, here. My best friend lives in
> Berkeley, and grew up in San Francisco. He is a graduate of Lowell
> High School and a Senior at Cal Berkeley. He has never mentioned any
> prohibition on speaking about God in public places,
As I said, in school. Yet Halloween is fine. YOu can tell the kids what
it is about, but there is a prohibition on telling the kids what
Christmas is. Christmas is not allowed to even be called that anymore
it is Winter Break. In fact teachers are told not to even use the word
in the letters home. Also this season there is much talk about getting
rid of all Christmas programs, and no Christmas Carols in government
places. It is all over the news....
> and, when I asked
> him this evening what the hell the deal in the land of crunchy
> granola was, he had no idea to what you were referring.
No surprise, it is not on the news. That is one of my points. If you
doubt me, have him call Sac State and see if they are displaying a
bible shot full of holes.
Who Me
>live and what you stated the work to be above, I get the impression
>you've not seen it.
The argument that someone has to see something firsthand to judge it offensive
is SO lame I don't even know how to begin to describe it. WHY should I even
attempt to see something I KNOW to be sacreligious?? FURTHERMORE, WHY do people
feel a need to blaspheme other people's religion????????
Bill
"Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamn amusement park"
-- Howard Beale
"You can find a cable channel that's just about your sweater"
-Paul Simon
Covenant
"Maggie" <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
> I think you're mistaken. After all, we have to permit the KKK to march
> down main street screaming "Die, nigger, die!" and "Kill the faggots!"
> and "Burn the Jews!".
This is not freedom of speech,.
This is *abuse* of freedom of speech.
This is incitement to riot.
(And in the UK is punishable by law.)
Covenant
"Spiro" <loui...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:y64_5.17642$xW4.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> You should come down for the Archbold Prize Cov! At least they count your
vote!!!
Heh heh heh......
;')
New Zealand
maybe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <MPG.14a24de29...@news.accesstoledo.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > Stop right there.
> >
> better, it is the modern thought. This position has not always been
> embraced. It used to be that art was to point to that which is not
only
> beautiful but uplifting, not profane or harmful to others. That has
all
> changed.
It used to be about "astheticism" and was a hobby...now it is whatever
the hell you want it to be and a right like breathing or voting.
Strange stretch.
I was not trying to offend you just to let you know that I am
> well aware of your possition and I reject it to a certain degree.
> > Maybe not among your peers, but it is prevalent among mine. We
don't
> > like skinheads, the KKK or people who scream that Kenn is going to
> > hell because of his sexuality,
> Dang, you actually have experienced people *screaming* at him that he
> is going to hell?
> > Allowing a group we disagree with to speak in no way hinders our own
> > rights to express *our* views. We are not silenced by virtue of
> > allowing the bigots and their ilk "airtime", as it were.
>
> The point.... As I said, Christianity is not allowed to be "promoted"
> and yet they have an exibit denigrating it. That is NOT equal.
Right now the motto In God We Trust is under fire from the ACLU....read
about it on Jay Sekalow's sight. This lady had an In God We Trust sign
in her office window...happened to be a govt job. The ACLU declared
war. She tried to talk to them about it and they would have none of
it. They kept ordering her to take it down...typicl liberal
intimidation tactics. She knew her rights and she did take it
down....AND SHE PUT A LARGER SIGN UP!!!! She added the bit in the
Consititution about the right to religious expression and the free
exercise thereof to it. She's going to court....if the ACLU has their
way, this will go all the way to SC.
But if you want to make child porn, they'll be there to fight for your
freedom.
Something is twisted in this picture....express sexual
perversion=aokay; express reverence for God=You're goin down.
My point is that there
> are limits, reasonable limits to what you seem to think there are
NONE.
The untouchable, limitless golden calf of freedom of speech....why do
we think it is the one right w/o limit or responisibility?
> > it is about, but there is a prohibition on telling the kids what
> Christmas is. Christmas is not allowed to even be called that anymore
> it is Winter Break.
That just sends me...spring break, winter break, happy holidays...get a
spine and acknowledge our heritage already....geeze, should Thailand
cleanse their nation of all Buddhism lest a Christian or Muslim or
atheist get bent? Cultural Genocide in the history and culture and
relidious sense so some godless whiner from the ACLU doesn't have a
tantrum?!
In fact teachers are told not to even use the word
> in the letters home. Also this season there is much talk about getting
> rid of all Christmas programs, and no Christmas Carols in government
> places. It is all over the news....
And folks wonder why we opt for homeschooling...
>
> > and, when I asked
> > him this evening what the hell the deal in the land of crunchy
> > granola was, he had no idea to what you were referring.
> No surprise, it is not on the news. That is one of my points. If you
> doubt me, have him call Sac State and see if they are displaying a
> bible shot full of holes.
Isn't it ironic that you can sell child porn at Barnes and Noble and
have the Clinton regime do nothing...that you can shoot a Bible full of
holes....that you can get federal funding to experiment on aborted
babies but God forbid that you say Christmas or sing Caroles or put In
God We Trust in your window.
Wake up America!
Good Post May.
Shellie
"Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
- John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
That is pretty cool of you being that you are in the arts....like your
response....
So am I Scottish or what?!
Shellie
>
--
"Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
- John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
New Zealand
bkaw...@aol.comBITEME ( Who Me) wrote:
> >Have you even seen the piece in question? I mean, considering where
you
> >live and what you stated the work to be above, I get the impression
> >you've not seen it.
>
> The argument that someone has to see something firsthand to judge it
offensive
> is SO lame I don't even know how to begin to describe it. WHY should
I even
> attempt to see something I KNOW to be sacreligious?? FURTHERMORE, WHY
do people
> feel a need to blaspheme other people's religion????????
Dude! You're so conservative for a liberal....greatly amusing!
Covenant
" Who Me" <bkaw...@aol.comBITEME> wrote in message
news:20001214133548...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >Have you even seen the piece in question? I mean, considering where you
> >live and what you stated the work to be above, I get the impression
> >you've not seen it.
>
>
> The argument that someone has to see something firsthand to judge it
offensive
> is SO lame I don't even know how to begin to describe it. WHY should I
even
> attempt to see something I KNOW to be sacreligious?? FURTHERMORE, WHY do
people
> feel a need to blaspheme other people's religion????????
Excellent point Bill..
Whether it is the real thing OR a photograph...
(Religion... cause of more and bloodier wars etc etc etc..
Covenant
> Covenant <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> snarled at the computer and
> exclaimed:
> >
> > "Maggie" <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > See, you can't protect your own freedom of expression while trying to
> > > curtail someone else's. If you're going to demand that public funding
be
> > > withdrawn for this artist, you must also demand public funding be
> > > withdrawn for artists you approve of. Down that road lies madness.
> >
> >
> > Sorry Maggie, I disagree...
> >
> > There is a LOT of difference between someone having a patron and
millions
> > being spent on certain things for an elite selection of people.
> >
> > As an example...
> >
> > *Pi** Christ*... a crucifix suspended in a vial of urine.
>
> Actually, it was a *photograph* of a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine.
Nope.
Real thing.
And BTW... I don't recall calling it offensive. Stupid, pathetic, NOT art,
ludicrous... which, to my mind, is even *worse* than *offensive*
fai...@my-deja.com
> In article <91avqg$2r3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> maybe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >It used to be that art was to point to that which is not only
> >beautiful but uplifting, not profane or harmful to others. That has
> >all changed.
>
> It used to be about "astheticism" and was a hobby...now it is whatever
> the hell you want it to be and a right like breathing or voting.
Uh...you don't believe it *is* a right to create
art of any kind you want? I once took a very artsy
photo of the dirty dishes piled next to my sink.
Sorry, i'm being flip again. But aestheticism has
never in history been the only reason for art. Art was
made to create magic to help the hunt (one theory
of the cave paintings, anyway). It's been used to
create a god, or a vessel in which a god was believed
to dwell. It's been a teaching device, to illustrate the Bible
when the general populus was illiterate. It's been
used to evoke bad feelings as well as good - Picasso's
Guernica is a very un-pretty depiction of war. And Heironymous
Bosch's nightmarish paintings of hell and the damned. Breughel
wasn't too bad at that stuff, either.
It's had a gazillion different faces, but few civilizations
have relegated it to "hobby".
>
> Isn't it ironic that you can sell child porn at Barnes and Noble and
> have the Clinton regime do nothing...
What in the world is there at B&N that's
child porn?! And don't Republicans believe in
communities setting their own standards?
Local control? Shouldn't the community
handle the local porn dealers?
> that you can shoot a Bible full of
> holes....
And you can shoot the ACLU Manual full of holes,
too, if you want. OK, you don't want. But you *can.*
> that you can get federal funding to experiment on aborted
> babies but God forbid that you say Christmas or sing Caroles or put In
> God We Trust in your window.
>
i do think it goes too far and gets ridiculous. Yes, i
*firmly* believe that no public institution should promote
any particular religion. But i do think the law is being
waaay overinterpreted to prevent private individual
religious expression, and that needs to change. Like i
said once before...i'm a radical liberal who believes in
freedom of speech for everybody, including conservatives.
pax
ruth
Maggie
> >Have you even seen the piece in question? I mean, considering where you
> >live and what you stated the work to be above, I get the impression
> >you've not seen it.
>
>
> The argument that someone has to see something firsthand to judge it offensive
> is SO lame I don't even know how to begin to describe it. WHY should I even
> attempt to see something I KNOW to be sacreligious??
This illustrates my point beautifully...
Did you look at the URL? Can you honestly tell me that if you were to
view the photograph, you would instinctively know that it was a photo of
a crucifix submerged in urine? Just by looking at it? If you didn't
know, and thought it was merely lit strangely, or thought the film had
been deliberately overexposed for effect, would you still think it a
sacrilege?
Bill, the only reason people cried foul is because someone told them what
the medium was. Had it not been made known, I doubt that rather
unremarkable photograph would have received any attention at all.
> FURTHERMORE, WHY do people
> feel a need to blaspheme other people's religion????????
Beats the hell out of me. Probably for the same reasons that some
religious people find the need to browbeat anyone who doesn't conform to
their beliefs.
Everyone likes to think that theirs is the One TRVTH, not wanting to
acknowledge that maybe God isn't what they think he is. It's silly. We
all have different beliefs, best to live and let live, rather than waste
time and foster hostility by insisting that only one faith is the correct
one.
Maggie
exclaimed:
>
>
> > I think you're mistaken. After all, we have to permit the KKK to march
> > down main street screaming "Die, nigger, die!" and "Kill the faggots!"
> > and "Burn the Jews!".
>
> This is not freedom of speech,.
<shakes head> Unfortunately, it is.
> This is *abuse* of freedom of speech.
>
> This is incitement to riot.
Absolutely. I think it's repulsive and abhorrent.
I also think the people who would shout such things are lacking in brain
activity.
> (And in the UK is punishable by law.)
This isn't the UK, though. Here, it's protected. It's repugnant, but as
long as they don't hurt anyone physically, riot or cause property damage,
they are protected by the Constitution.
I don't like or support these people, but their right to make their
stupidity known is just as protected as my right to tell the bleeding
morons to FOAD.
New Zealand
"fai...@my-deja.com" <fai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> New Zealand wrote:
>
> > In article <91avqg$2r3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > maybe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >It used to be that art was to point to that which is not only
> > >beautiful but uplifting, not profane or harmful to others. That has
> > >all changed.
> >
> > It used to be about "astheticism" and was a hobby...now it is
whatever
> > the hell you want it to be and a right like breathing or voting.
>
> Uh...you don't believe it *is* a right to create
> art of any kind you want? I once took a very artsy
> photo of the dirty dishes piled next to my sink.
Dirty dishes, while mundane, are not morally repugnant like pics of
nude pubescent girls or gays doing their thing or a Bible shot through
with holes.
>
> Sorry, i'm being flip again. But aestheticism has
> never in history been the only reason for art. Art was
> made to create magic to help the hunt (one theory
> of the cave paintings, anyway). It's been used to
> create a god, or a vessel in which a god was believed
> to dwell. It's been a teaching device, to illustrate the Bible
> when the general populus was illiterate. It's been
> used to evoke bad feelings as well as good - Picasso's
> Guernica is a very un-pretty depiction of war. And Heironymous
> Bosch's nightmarish paintings of hell and the damned. Breughel
> wasn't too bad at that stuff, either.
Yeah, yeah, yeah but go back to my first point.
>
> It's had a gazillion different faces, but few civilizations
> have relegated it to "hobby".
It is not a right...I used hobby to deflate the notion it is a basic
inalineable right to do whatever evil thing one wants and call it good
and a right.
>
> >
>
> > Isn't it ironic that you can sell child porn at Barnes and Noble and
>
> > have the Clinton regime do nothing...
>
> What in the world is there at B&N that's
> child porn?!
The work of Jock Sturges and someother dude who put out child porn
books and they have not been shut down for it. When the books were
bought to courtrooms in different parts of America and they showed the
judge the photos with the young girls and the classic poetic captions
and asked him what the whole was saying to him he said--"It says 'Rape
me.'" Under Reagan or Bush Barnes and Noble and the authors would have
been prosecuted. Under the Injustice Dept and Janet Reno, nothing is
done to prosecute such things. They have turned a blind eye to the
violations in the porn industry--the porn lobby who has been such a
huge supporter of the DNC.
And don't Republicans believe in
> communities setting their own standards?
No. Not on issues like this. These are matters of Consitutional
interpretation either as a fluid spineless goo that changes with the
immorality of the times or a document with an original intent that
should not be defiled.
> Local control? Shouldn't the community
> handle the local porn dealers?
Well, in this case, this battle was fought city by city court by court
but that takes a lot of money to do the job the federal govt is
neglecting to do...we should not have to enforce the national laws.
>
> > that you can shoot a Bible full of
> > holes....
>
> And you can shoot the ACLU Manual full of holes,
> too, if you want. OK, you don't want. But you *can.*
Sorry but to even put the ACLU manual on the level of the Bible is
disrespectful at best. And I wouldn't do something so lame to
something so much less valuable...why must they do such evil to the
VERY Word of God?
>
> > that you can get federal funding to experiment on aborted
> > babies but God forbid that you say Christmas or sing Caroles or put
In
>
> > God We Trust in your window.
> >
>
> i do think it goes too far and gets ridiculous. Yes, i
> *firmly* believe that no public institution should promote
> any particular religion.
We have Christianity at our roots.....we have In God We Trust on our
money and inscribved on our hallowed halls of our govt
intitutions...why must we cleanse our roots? Why must we hide our
practice of religion?
But i do think the law is being
> waaay overinterpreted to prevent private individual
> religious expression, and that needs to change.
Again, the govt is not protecting us. We win one battle on an issue
with the ACLU and it crops up again and again and again and if we ever
run out of energy and money, they win. End of story. We should not be
having to give our life blood to get our basic rights preserved. Basic
rights should far and away be protected over the right to deface the
Bible and the right to kill the unborn and the right to burn a flag or
the right to write books on how to kill and get away with it or books
on how to rape.
Like i
> said once before...i'm a radical liberal who believes in
> freedom of speech for everybody, including conservatives.
But we should not be having to fight so hard for our basic rights while
folks are freely doing child porn and murdering folks and getting all
the support..something is fundamentally wrong here. Please say you see
that...we have things so twisted and the ACLU has us convinced and
running scared.
fai...@my-deja.com
> In article <3A398E96...@my-deja.com>,
> "fai...@my-deja.com" <fai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Uh...you don't believe it *is* a right to create
> > art of any kind you want? I once took a very artsy
> > photo of the dirty dishes piled next to my sink.
>
> Dirty dishes, while mundane, are not morally repugnant like pics of
> nude pubescent girls or gays doing their thing or a Bible shot through
> with holes.
> >
> But aestheticism has never in history been the only reason for art.
> Yeah, yeah, yeah but go back to my first point.
Wasn't that the aestheticism point..? Or was it the
point that there's a double standard....i.e, that it's
considered ok to denigrate Christianity, but not to
denigrate gays or women etc...?
> It is not a right...I used hobby to deflate the notion it is a basic
> inalineable right to do whatever evil thing one wants and call it good
> and a right.
Well, since art is a representation of an idea....and
is *one step removed* from acting on that idea...i
think it is a right to create ugly/nasty/stupid art. The right to
have a stupid idea -- which i think shooting a Bible is -- is
protected, while the right to harm someone by acting out
that stupid idea, is not.
There could be a bunch of different interpretations of the
shot-up Bible, but i'm willing to assume the worst and,
for argument's sake, say that the artist is saying "Christianity
should be destroyed." Should he NOT have the right to say
that? I don't think he should have the right to shoot
Christians or burn churches....but if he wants to express
his feeling that Christianity is lousy....isn't that what the
Constitution protects?
>
> > > Isn't it ironic that you can sell child porn at Barnes and Noble and
> > > have the Clinton regime do nothing...
> >
> > What in the world is there at B&N that's
> > child porn?!
>
> The work of Jock Sturges and someother dude who put out child porn
> books and they have not been shut down for it. When the books were
> bought to courtrooms in different parts of America and they showed the
> judge the photos with the young girls and the classic poetic captions
> and asked him what the whole was saying to him he said--"It says 'Rape
> me.'" Under Reagan or Bush Barnes and Noble and the authors would have
> been prosecuted. Under the Injustice Dept and Janet Reno, nothing is
> done to prosecute such things. They have turned a blind eye to the
> violations in the porn industry--the porn lobby who has been such a
> huge supporter of the DNC.
I've never heard of Sturges! This, i'll need to see for
myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
repugnant and should not be protected
> We have Christianity at our roots.....we have In God We Trust on our
> money and inscribved on our hallowed halls of our govt
> intitutions...why must we cleanse our roots? Why must we hide our
> practice of religion?
Individually...we shouldn't have to.
> (still ruth) >But i do think the law is being
> > waaay overinterpreted to prevent private individual
> > religious expression, and that needs to change.
>
> Again, the govt is not protecting us. We win one battle on an issue
> with the ACLU and it crops up again and again and again and if we ever
> run out of energy and money, they win. End of story. We should not be
> having to give our life blood to get our basic rights preserved.
Yes, i believe the founders *tried* (i emphasize "tried") to write
a Constitution that would protect our basic rights,
and preclude attempts to defy our rights. But, after such
living as i've done, i've started to (only just started to) accept
the fact that life is a battle, and nothing is ever settled.
Someone else will come along and try to violate it, and
the battle comes around again. Actually, i rarely accept
that. It actually sucks, but there it is.
> Basic
> rights should far and away be protected over the right to deface the
> Bible and the right to kill the unborn and the right to burn a flag or
> the right to write books on how to kill and get away with it or books
> on how to rape.
The "Hit Man" how-to book...well, that's a nasty one, and
i don't categorize with purely symbolic artistic expression...
But....defacing the Bible and burning the flag are
*expressions*, *symbolic* acts, and i can't see how
they are in the same category with *real* actions
like the real killing of a real unborn child!
Please tell *me* that *you* see the difference! 8~)
Symbolic acts are the same as just standing on a street
or publishing a flyer, and boringly stating "I think
Christianity is a basic mistake and should be eliminated."
Doing a painting or a sculpture of that idea is the same
thing. With more impact on the viewer/reader. But
if he has the right to state it in a boring monotone, he has
the right to state it in a more attention-getting manner. It's
still *just a statement*....and please understand that when
i use the term "just", i don't mean "merely" a statement,or
that statements are unimportant. In fact, free speech is
jealously guarded by liberal and conservatives because the
dissemination of ideas IS powerful.
By "just," i only mean that artistic statement is on the same
side of the line as flat verbal statement. It has not
crossed the line from statement, over into action. Someone's
right to say "Christianity is bunk" does not in any way
violate my right to believe and live the Christian faith!
> But we should not be having to fight so hard for our basic rights while
> folks are freely doing child porn and murdering folks and getting all
> the support..something is fundamentally wrong here. Please say you see
> that...
I do. I was outraged over the boy who was not
allowed to read a Bible passage during
read-your-favorite-story time in class. HOW did the
principle of the *institution* not espousing religion
get so perverted that now *individuals* can't?!
Like i said above, there are battles that shouldn't have to be
fought, but as long as they crop up anyway, that kind of
becomes an academic question. If the battle occurs, gotta
strap on the armor.
pax
ruth
Covenant
"New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> That is pretty cool of you being that you are in the arts....like your
> response....
Never let it be said that I don't call a fault a fault.
Regardless of whether or not I benefit from it! ;')
(That said.... I never HAVE!) ;')
> So am I Scottish or what?!
In Spirit anyway ! ........
;')
Covenant
"Maggie" <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
> I don't like or support these people,
Heh.. Don't worry, I never thought *that* for a millisecond ! ;')
>but their right to make their
> stupidity known is just as protected as my right to tell the bleeding
> morons to FOAD.
Y'see, I think *this* is the thing that people need to take into account in
these situations.
True, one person's version of morality and correct behaviour will rarely
coincide with everyone else's, but isn't it the case that , whilst these
*parades* are goping on, if you *do* attempt to dirupt them , even
verbally, *you* will be facing posible arrest?
I totally bow to the fact I may be talking from my posterior here..
(As we all know.. I am from Scotland... ;') )
Covenant
A Man Unused To Using His Sphincter As A Chordal Membrane....
Maggie
>
> > I don't like or support these people,
>
> Heh.. Don't worry, I never thought *that* for a millisecond ! ;')
>
> >but their right to make their
> > stupidity known is just as protected as my right to tell the bleeding
> > morons to FOAD.
>
> Y'see, I think *this* is the thing that people need to take into account in
> these situations.
>
> True, one person's version of morality and correct behaviour will rarely
> coincide with everyone else's, but isn't it the case that , whilst these
> *parades* are goping on, if you *do* attempt to dirupt them , even
> verbally, *you* will be facing posible arrest?
It depends on how one tries to disrupt them. See, we are guaranteed the
right to assemble *peacefully*. So, if one of these empty-headed fringe
groups wants to have a parade, they can, and we can stand on the sidewalk
(we can't get in their faces any more than they can get in ours) and yell
that they're empty-headed (or whatever).
*BUT* - if I throw anything, be it a rock or a punch, sure, I'll get
carted off to the pokey lickety-split. That's because I'd no longer be
peacefully protesting. My right to swing my fist ends just shy of the
point it would connect with my opponent's nose, as it were.
I can wave a sign, I can scream "moron", but I have to keep my distance
and not touch 'em. That's fair, IMO, since the same rules apply to them.
> I totally bow to the fact I may be talking from my posterior here..
>
> (As we all know.. I am from Scotland... ;') )
>
> Covenant
> A Man Unused To Using His Sphincter As A Chordal Membrane....
<*GIGGLE*>
--
Maggie - a chick howling with glee at the most cretive Euphemism she's
seen in a long, long time!
New Zealand
"fai...@my-deja.com" <fai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> New Zealand wrote:
>
> > In article <3A398E96...@my-deja.com>,
> > "fai...@my-deja.com" <fai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Uh...you don't believe it *is* a right to create
> > > art of any kind you want? I once took a very artsy
> > > photo of the dirty dishes piled next to my sink.
> >
> > Dirty dishes, while mundane, are not morally repugnant like pics of
> > nude pubescent girls or gays doing their thing or a Bible shot
through
> > with holes.
> > >
>
> > But aestheticism has never in history been the only reason for art.
>
> > Yeah, yeah, yeah but go back to my first point.
>
> Wasn't that the aestheticism point..? Or was it the
> point that there's a double standard....i.e, that it's
> considered ok to denigrate Christianity, but not to
> denigrate gays or women etc...?
Just that Morally Repugnant stuff isn't something worthy of funding or
protection. Denigrating anybody especially their most cherished and
honored values.
>
> > It is not a right...I used hobby to deflate the notion it is a basic
> > inalineable right to do whatever evil thing one wants and call it
good
> > and a right.
>
> Well, since art is a representation of an idea....and
> is *one step removed* from acting on that idea...i
> think it is a right to create ugly/nasty/stupid art. The right to
> have a stupid idea -- which i think shooting a Bible is -- is
> protected, while the right to harm someone by acting out
> that stupid idea, is not.
Why should we in any way condone the acting out of something that
violates, or should violate, the collective conscience of the nation?
In picture, word or deed we shouldn't promote rape or murder or
desecration of cherished beliefs. It is hypocritical and only a few
degrees of separation away from the acts to say you can shout, write or
do art about molesting girls, for example, but just don't do
it....where does the act come from? The ideas--the seedbed of the
heart and of actions.
>
> There could be a bunch of different interpretations of the
> shot-up Bible, but i'm willing to assume the worst and,
> for argument's sake, say that the artist is saying "Christianity
> should be destroyed." Should he NOT have the right to say
> that? I don't think he should have the right to shoot
> Christians or burn churches....but if he wants to express
> his feeling that Christianity is lousy....isn't that what the
> Constitution protects?
I sure hope not and I doubt it being that half of the founders, feeble
sinners as they may have been , loved and honored God's Word. That
sort of act in light of our history/heritage is like flag burning--it
is treasonous.
>
> >
> > > > Isn't it ironic that you can sell child porn at Barnes and
Noble and
> > > > have the Clinton regime do nothing...
> > >
> > > What in the world is there at B&N that's
> > > child porn?!
> >
> > The work of Jock Sturges and someother dude who put out child porn
> > books and they have not been shut down for it. When the books were
> > brought to courtrooms in different parts of America and they showed
the
> > judge the photos with the young girls and the classic poetic
captions
> > and asked him what the whole was saying to him he said--"It
says 'Rape
> > me.'" Under Reagan or Bush Barnes and Noble and the authors would
have
> > been prosecuted. Under the Injustice Dept and Janet Reno, nothing
is
> > done to prosecute such things. They have turned a blind eye to the
> > violations in the porn industry--the porn lobby who has been such a
> > huge supporter of the DNC.
>
> I've never heard of Sturges!
Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
This, i'll need to see for
> myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> repugnant and should not be protected
Should or should not?
>
> > We have Christianity at our roots.....we have In God We Trust on
our
> > money and inscribed on our hallowed halls of our govt
> > intitutions...why must we cleanse our roots? Why must we hide our
> > practice of religion?
>
> Individually...we shouldn't have to.
Individually my beliefs are with me, they are who I am, and to be
expressed when and where I want to, not just at home.
>
> > (still ruth) >But i do think the law is being
> > > waaay overinterpreted to prevent private individual
> > > religious expression, and that needs to change.
> >
> > Again, the govt is not protecting us. We win one battle on an issue
> > with the ACLU and it crops up again and again and again and if we
ever
> > run out of energy and money, they win. End of story. We should
not be
> > having to give our life blood to get our basic rights preserved.
>
> Yes, i believe the founders *tried* (i emphasize "tried") to write
> a Constitution that would protect our basic rights,
> and preclude attempts to defy our rights.
Why is the ACLU not just thrown on their heads when they bring these
cases then....cuz we have liberal judges giving liberal rulings and
allowing such atrocity to be promoted and pushed time and again.
But, after such
> living as i've done, i've started to (only just started to) accept
> the fact that life is a battle, and nothing is ever settled.
> Someone else will come along and try to violate it, and
> the battle comes around again. Actually, i rarely accept
> that. It actually sucks, but there it is.
Try violating abortion "rights" or free unlimited out of control
speech...with the liberal courts that would be laughed out but
Christians have to fight for a hymn or a prayer or a Boys Scouts
meeting w/o a pedophile for a leader. Help!
>
> > Basic
> > rights should far and away be protected over the right to deface the
> > Bible and the right to kill the unborn and the right to burn a
flag or
> > the right to write books on how to kill and get away with it or
books
> > on how to rape.
>
> The "Hit Man" how-to book...well, that's a nasty one, and
> i don't categorize with purely symbolic artistic expression...
Try getting it outlawed....no don't. It would be much easier to stop
prayer at a graduation or stop people from peacefully protesting the
murder of the unborn.
>
> But....defacing the Bible and burning the flag are
> *expressions*, *symbolic* acts, and i can't see how
> they are in the same category with *real* actions
> like the real killing of a real unborn child!
>
> Please tell *me* that *you* see the difference! 8~)
The acts are acts of a heart full of intent and evil.
In college, I walked into a corner convenience store and saw a bunch of
porn on the shelves. I asked the owner how responsible it was to carry
such material in light of the recent rapes we had on campus. He said
it was a right and free speech and not hurting anyone. I challenged
him that all the porn does is sow seeds in one's heart w/o any outlet
for th lust that is created....I told him that rape is an acting out of
those photos that debase women down to a cum rag. Do you know that the
next time I went in he had taken the porn out. He heard my logic and
he acted!
>
> Symbolic acts are the same as just standing on a street
> or publishing a flyer, and boringly stating "I think
> Christianity is a basic mistake and should be eliminated."
> Doing a painting or a sculpture of that idea is the same
> thing. With more impact on the viewer/reader. But
> if he has the right to state it in a boring monotone, he has
> the right to state it in a more attention-getting manner. It's
> still *just a statement*....and please understand that when
> i use the term "just", i don't mean "merely" a statement,or
> that statements are unimportant. In fact, free speech is
> jealously guarded by liberal and conservatives because the
> dissemination of ideas IS powerful.
There you said it all....ideas are not benign. They are powerful cuz
they move the heart to action.
There is a verse in the Bible that directly conflicts with that notion
that it is just a harmless idea...
But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and
enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and
sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Desire is hatched or sown in the heart, ie the thought or idea, which
leads to sin, ie the act, which leads to death, ie the fruit or full
ugle result.
>
> By "just," i only mean that artistic statement is on the same
> side of the line as flat verbal statement. It has not
> crossed the line from statement, over into action. Someone's
> right to say "Christianity is bunk" does not in any way
> violate my right to believe and live the Christian faith!
>
> > But we should not be having to fight so hard for our basic rights
while
> > folks are freely doing child porn and murdering folks and getting
all
> > the support..something is fundamentally wrong here. Please say you
see
> > that...
>
> I do. I was outraged over the boy who was not
> allowed to read a Bible passage during
> read-your-favorite-story time in class. HOW did the
> principle of the *institution* not espousing religion
> get so perverted that now *individuals* can't?!
That is what I am speaking about so passionately...this sort of thing
is happening every day and we oughtta all get shaken up by it, shaken
that it happens, shaken that the judges are so unjust that they
evenhear the cases let alone rule the way they do on the issues. But
the media is silent unless your gay or into porn or killed
somebody...then your rights are vehemently protected. Upside down and
backwards and no one is shouting about it.
>
> Like i said above, there are battles that shouldn't have to be
> fought, but as long as they crop up anyway, that kind of
> becomes an academic question. If the battle occurs, gotta
> strap on the armor.
We won't stop fighting. I only wish things weren't so inside out,
twisted back to front, ya know? It is wearisome fighting for what
should be a given according to our C and fighting against what the
founders had no intention of validating.
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > That is pretty cool of you being that you are in the arts....like
your
> > response....
>
> Never let it be said that I don't call a fault a fault.
Congrats...you are NOT so open minded your brain fell out!
>
> Regardless of whether or not I benefit from it! ;')
>
> (That said.... I never HAVE!) ;')
>
> > So am I Scottish or what?!
>
> In Spirit anyway ! ........
You know it!!
Did you get and "get" my lineage?!
Covenant
"New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Did you get and "get" my lineage?!
Didn't I tell you??
I got it fine!
I checked it through with one of the researchers who wrote The Bruce
movie...
He said it was all true up until *Second husband of Margret Cambell, and
then it is actually a different families lineage!
That is actually where it goes wrong...
According to him, the second husband bit.. was actually to;
MargAret CamPbell
a totally different woman, so almost every thign after that is erroneous up
until the Priscilla Ellen Beale bit...
Oh, also..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
April Fool !!!
;')
Warning, this mesage not to be opened until April First 2001...
Oh..... Should I have put that at the start!???
fai...@my-deja.com
> .... Morally Repugnant stuff isn't something worthy of funding or
> protection. Denigrating anybody especially their most cherished and
> honored values.
What about works that have more than one interpretation?
When a family got burned out here recently, the
local newspaper shot and published some real
heart-tugging pix....and one of them was the family's
charred Bible lying in the ruins.
8~) Before you say that the fire was an accident, while
shooting is done with intent.....my point is that another
*interpretation* of the shot Bible is a statement of horror at what
happened to the kids who were at the morning prayer meeting,
when a boy came in and shot them....or the tragedy of the
"she said yes" girl.....
I don't claim to know
what the shot-Bible artist's message was.....but hypothetically
i can see a *possible* interpretation of
a Bible damaged by violence, as a statement of outrage and
meant to evoke *pathos* in the viewer, for the persecution
Christians often undergo.
I'm sure that the artist's intent is documented in an interview
someplace, and may be anti-Christian. I only mean to be
hypothetical. WHAT if a work is presented with NO
explanation, no artist name, no info as to where he/she
stands or what he/she meant? Then you put a bunch of people
in a room to discuss it, and a bunch of different interpretations
come up!
Maybe a better example is the Georgia O'Keefe flowers, which
Maggie and I were discussing elsewhere in this thread. One
woman she heard of -- and i know for a fact, from many art
history courses, *many* other people -- have seen them as
obscene. Should something lose 1st amendment protection if
somebody somewhere finds an obscene or violent interpretation?
Doesn't that get the government into the interpretation business,
and should a governemt *assign* an interpretation to an
ambiguous work of art?
How do we decide what to ban and what to allow? There
are SO many different interpretations for some things....
>
> Why should we in any way condone the acting out of something that
> violates, or should violate, the collective conscience of the nation?
> In picture, word or deed we shouldn't promote rape or murder or
> desecration of cherished beliefs. It is hypocritical and only a few
> degrees of separation away from the acts to say you can shout, write or
> do art about molesting girls, for example, but just don't do
> it....
I think the *intent* of the 1st amendment is that
*allowing* expression of an idea does not *at all*
mean that the government *condones* that idea.
But i do agree that it's natural for an impressionable
mind to *believe* that, when the idea's expression is
OK with society, that means the idea, and carrying out
the idea, is acceptable. I don't deny that it's very hard
for this society to send the message that the expression
is a right, but the carrying-out is unacceptable. And i admit
i don't have an answer to that one. Laws against certain
materials being shown to children are a big step. But, i admit,
not the whole answer.
> > I've never heard of Sturges!
>
> Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
amendment situation that gets any publicity.
I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
description won't show me the content. Maybe my
local B&N has one on the shelf....
> >This, i'll need to see for
> > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > repugnant and should not be protected
>
> Should or should not?
?? Not a typo. Should not.
> Try violating abortion "rights" or free unlimited out of control
> speech...with the liberal courts that would be laughed out but
> Christians have to fight for a hymn or a prayer or a Boys Scouts
> meeting w/o a pedophile for a leader. Help!
I thought the Boy Scouts won that one....?
>
> > But....defacing the Bible and burning the flag are
> > *expressions*, *symbolic* acts, and i can't see how
> > they are in the same category with *real* actions
> > like the real killing of a real unborn child!
> >
> > Please tell *me* that *you* see the difference! 8~)
>
> The acts are acts of a heart full of intent and evil.
But intent is not illegal. I look at it this way.
The Constitution protects our right to do things that
are not good for us. Drinking is an example. Getting
drunk, even regularly, even being an alcoholic, is not
illegal. It is not good, and nobody, by allowing it, is
saying it is. But it is my right to drink myself literally
to death in my own home. By allowing me to do it,
the gov is not saying, it's fine and good.
It's NOT my right to drive
drunk. It's NOT my right to abuse anybody else, hit
them, shoot them, throw racial slurs at them, under the
influence of alcohol. There's a line.
> > Symbolic acts are the same as just standing on a street
> > or publishing a flyer, and boringly stating "I think
> > Christianity is a basic mistake and should be eliminated."
> > Doing a painting or a sculpture of that idea is the same
> > thing. With more impact on the viewer/reader. But
> > if he has the right to state it in a boring monotone, he has
> > the right to state it in a more attention-getting manner. It's
> > still *just a statement*....and please understand that when
> > i use the term "just", i don't mean "merely" a statement,or
> > that statements are unimportant. In fact, free speech is
> > jealously guarded by liberal and conservatives because the
> > dissemination of ideas IS powerful.
>
> There you said it all....ideas are not benign. They are powerful cuz
> they move the heart to action.
Hope i articulated it well enough above....that ideas
are definitely not benign, and the issue of allowing
versus condoning is not as clear as 1st amendment absolutists
may want to think.
>
>
> There is a verse in the Bible that directly conflicts with that notion
> that it is just a harmless idea...
>
> But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and
> enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and
> sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
>
> Desire is hatched or sown in the heart, ie the thought or idea, which
> leads to sin, ie the act, which leads to death, ie the fruit or full
> ugle result.
......
>That is what I am speaking about so passionately...this sort of thing
> is happening every day and we oughtta all get shaken up by it, shaken
> that it happens, shaken that the judges are so unjust that they
> evenhear the cases let alone rule the way they do on the issues.
I was disturbed that liberals did not come out and
speak for the 1st amendment rights of the boy who
wanted to read from the Bible in class. I don't understand
it, fully, and i don't like it.
> It is wearisome fighting for what
> should be a given according to our C and fighting against what the
> founders had no intention of validating.
I hope my endless arguing isn't making you weary, but i do
appreciate your taking time to read my points, and talk
reasonably to me about your own!
pax
ruth
Maggie
exclaimed:
> New Zealand wrote:
<snip a lot, because I'm too tired to deal with all of Shellie's
misinformation tonight>
> > > I've never heard of Sturges!
> >
> > Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong. It isn't pornography. And before you start screaming
about morals again, there is nothing immoral about being a naturist.
> Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
> Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
> haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
> amendment situation that gets any publicity.
Mr. Sturges has suffered at the hands of the ignorant, who refuse to
acknowledge that Mr. Sturges photographs "naturists" (we call them
"nudists" here in Ohio) with whom he's had a long standing, almost
familial relationship with. These are people who rarely wear clothes,
and are comfortable in their own skin.
He has photgraphed these people over a period of years, a sort of
chronicle of the changes the human body goes through as the years pass.
Each subject (and their families, in the case of minors) give him
permission to use their photos *each and every time they are used -
either for publication in a book, or for exhibition, even if it has been
20 years since he took the photo.
He does *not* photgraph children in sexual situations. He does not
photgraph *anyone* in sexual situations. He just takes pictures of
people who happen to go about most of their lives in the buff.
You can find an interview with Mr. Sturges here:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html
> I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
> description won't show me the content. Maybe my
> local B&N has one on the shelf....
It's actually a lovely book. The human form is an awesome, beautiful
thing, and Mr. Sturges has a touch for capturing that.
> > >This, i'll need to see for
> > > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > > repugnant and should not be protected
> >
> > Should or should not?
>
> ?? Not a typo. Should not.
Just want to note here that Shellie seems to have conflated "nudity" with
"pornography". Just to make sure that we're clear on definitions:
pornography and nudity are not the same thing. Pornography depicts
sexual activity. Simple nudity does not. (Not that I have to tell *you*
that, Ruth, but some people seem to be confused.)
Child pornography should not be protected. It isn't free speech, it's
child abuse.
But child nudity? Well, I guess I'm a porn criminal, because one of my
favorite snapshots of my Alexander is of him naked as a jaybird at the
age of about 18 months, running gleefully, trailing his towel from the
bath behind him.
I guess Anne Geddes engages in child pornography, too, for all of her
images of naked baby behinds.
> > Try violating abortion "rights" or free unlimited out of control
> > speech...with the liberal courts that would be laughed out but
> > Christians have to fight for a hymn or a prayer or a Boys Scouts
> > meeting w/o a pedophile for a leader. Help!
>
> I thought the Boy Scouts won that one....?
They did.
They also won court cases allowing them to exclude homosexuals and
atheists because they are a private institution - you can't force your
way into a private organization if you don't meet their "standards".
<snip more>
I've something to say on the subject of symbolic acts and their
repercussions, but I'll address it later, because I'm just way too wiped
out to be coherent for longer than a few more minutes - family get
togethers are very tiring, even for a night-owl like me.
fai...@my-deja.com
> Mr. Sturges has suffered at the hands of the ignorant, who refuse to
> acknowledge that Mr. Sturges photographs "naturists" (we call them
> "nudists" here in Ohio) with whom he's had a long standing, almost
> familial relationship with. These are people who rarely wear clothes,
> and are comfortable in their own skin.
>
> He has photgraphed these people over a period of years, a sort of
> chronicle of the changes the human body goes through as the years pass.
> Each subject (and their families, in the case of minors) give him
> permission to use their photos *each and every time they are used -
> either for publication in a book, or for exhibition, even if it has been
> 20 years since he took the photo.
>
> He does *not* photgraph children in sexual situations. He does not
> photgraph *anyone* in sexual situations. He just takes pictures of
> people who happen to go about most of their lives in the buff.
>
> You can find an interview with Mr. Sturges here:
>
> http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html
>
> Just want to note here that Shellie seems to have conflated "nudity" with
> "pornography". Just to make sure that we're clear on definitions:
> pornography and nudity are not the same thing. Pornography depicts
> sexual activity. Simple nudity does not. (Not that I have to tell *you*
> that, Ruth, but some people seem to be confused.)
8~) Glad you can tell i don't see nudity as porn.....
I mean, *think* of the generations of guys who've
ogled 'National Geographic"!
> Child pornography should not be protected. It isn't free speech, it's
> child abuse.
>
> But child nudity? Well, I guess I'm a porn criminal, because one of my
> favorite snapshots of my Alexander is of him naked as a jaybird at the
> age of about 18 months, running gleefully, trailing his towel from the
> bath behind him.
>
> I guess Anne Geddes engages in child pornography, too, for all of her
> images of naked baby behinds.
>
> I've something to say on the subject of symbolic acts and their
> repercussions, but I'll address it later, because I'm just way too wiped
> out to be coherent for longer than a few more minutes - family get
> togethers are very tiring, even for a night-owl like me.
Truly looking forward to your take on the subject....it seems obvious to *me*
that the framers of our constitution were making a concerted effort
to draw a clear line between expression and "real" action,
and that they held STRONG beliefs that expression did not violate
the rights of opponents. (o lord, here i go again...)
anyway.....hope you recover and share it, before
i fly out on Thursday! 8~)
pax
ruth
Maggie
<snip>
> Are you *really* energetic enough to be this articulate at
> 2:27 in the morning?
Usually!
After dealing with hubby, kids and everyday stuff, the wee hours are my
time - no one needs me thing, and I can think and write in peace!
> Maybe i do need to try some of that Tanzanian whiffleberry
> coffee (i know it was something like that...)
Tanzanian Peaberry. And it's wonderful!!
New Zealand
"fai...@my-deja.com" <fai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> New Zealand wrote:
>
> > .... Morally Repugnant stuff isn't something worthy of funding or
> > protection. Denigrating anybody especially their most cherished and
> > honored values.
>
> What about works that have more than one interpretation?
>
> >
> someplace, and may be anti-Christian. I only mean to be
> hypothetical. WHAT if a work is presented with NO
> explanation, no artist name, no info as to where he/she
> stands or what he/she meant? Then you put a bunch of people
> in a room to discuss it, and a bunch of different interpretations
> come up!
I just cannot imagine anyone with a love and reverence for the Word
justifying shooting it up and especially w/o explanation. If they had
any sensitivity to how othres view the Bible they would not do it. IOW
care more about the effect on others than about their own selfish
desire to do "art". Thinking of others and the ramifications of one's
acts isn't a popular pastime these days but one that needs reviving.
>
> Maybe a better example is the Georgia O'Keefe flowers, which
> Maggie and I were discussing elsewhere in this thread. One
> woman she heard of -- and i know for a fact, from many art
> history courses, *many* other people -- have seen them as
> obscene. Should something lose 1st amendment protection if
> somebody somewhere finds an obscene or violent interpretation?
People tend to give extreme examples like this when protecting
this "right". When concerned parents want trashy books taken out of a
school library, a school library where there are no Bibles or Christian
books, we get told that people have wanted such things as Charolottes
Web taken out. That is a stupid excuse to leave the obviously gross in
the library. Common sense should sonehow come into the equation.
> Doesn't that get the government into the interpretation business,
> and should a governemt *assign* an interpretation to an
> ambiguous work of art?
> How do we decide what to ban and what to allow? There
> are SO many different interpretations for some things....
It is a challenge worthy of taking on I reckon like all evils we fight
day and night in a world of sinners.
>
> >
> > Why should we in any way condone the acting out of something that
> > violates, or should violate, the collective conscience of the
nation?
> > In picture, word or deed we shouldn't promote rape or murder or
> > desecration of cherished beliefs. It is hypocritical and only a few
> > degrees of separation away from the acts to say you can shout,
write or
> > do art about molesting girls, for example, but just don't do
> > it....
>
> I think the *intent* of the 1st amendment is that
> *allowing* expression of an idea does not *at all*
> mean that the government *condones* that idea.
The intent of the 1st amendment was NOT filth and pollution and
consecrating every nasty thing that hits ones perverted mind...it was
meant to do as most of the things the framers established...to allow us
freedom of religion and the right to peaceably protest a totalitarian
govt...the very reasons they left England.
>
> But i do agree that it's natural for an impressionable
> mind to *believe* that, when the idea's expression is
> OK with society, that means the idea, and carrying out
> the idea, is acceptable. I don't deny that it's very hard
> for this society to send the message that the expression
> is a right, but the carrying-out is unacceptable. And i admit
> i don't have an answer to that one. Laws against certain
> materials being shown to children are a big step. But, i admit,
> not the whole answer.
>
> > > I've never heard of Sturges!
> >
> > Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
>
> Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
> Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
> haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
> amendment situation that gets any publicity.
Does the Clinton News Network or any of his news outlets report
anything *we* are fighting that makes Clinton's Injustice Dept look
bad, like not dealing with child porn?
>
> I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
> description won't show me the content. Maybe my
> local B&N has one on the shelf....
Enjoy.
>
> > >This, i'll need to see for
> > > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > > repugnant and should not be protected
> >
> > Should or should not?
>
> ?? Not a typo. Should not.
>
> > Try violating abortion "rights" or free unlimited out of control
> > speech...with the liberal courts that would be laughed out but
> > Christians have to fight for a hymn or a prayer or a Boys Scouts
> > meeting w/o a pedophile for a leader. Help!
>
> I thought the Boy Scouts won that one....?
I heard recently they are now headed for the SC about meeting in
National Parks etc...they will be fought at every turn and who has the
funds to fight the ACLU day and night?
>
> >
> > > But....defacing the Bible and burning the flag are
> > > *expressions*, *symbolic* acts, and i can't see how
> > > they are in the same category with *real* actions
> > > like the real killing of a real unborn child!
> > >
> > > Please tell *me* that *you* see the difference! 8~)
> >
> > The acts are acts of a heart full of intent and evil.
>
> But intent is not illegal. I look at it this way.
> The Constitution protects our right to do things that
> are not good for us. Drinking is an example. Getting
> drunk, even regularly, even being an alcoholic, is not
> illegal. It is not good, and nobody, by allowing it, is
> saying it is. But it is my right to drink myself literally
> to death in my own home. By allowing me to do it,
> the gov is not saying, it's fine and good.
> It's NOT my right to drive
> drunk. It's NOT my right to abuse anybody else, hit
> them, shoot them, throw racial slurs at them, under the
> influence of alcohol. There's a line.
And the same sick, hypocritical govt profits by the ills via sin taxes
and the huge tobacco killings they've made....a habit that adult people
chose stupidly to participate in and then tobacco gets nailed...then
this suit happy nation takes it to the Election...when will the madness
end withour courts?
> > even hear the cases let alone rule the way they do on the issues.
>
> I was disturbed that liberals did not come out and
> speak for the 1st amendment rights of the boy who
> wanted to read from the Bible in class. I don't understand
> it, fully, and i don't like it.
>
> > It is wearisome fighting for what
> > should be a given according to our C and fighting against what the
> > founders had no intention of validating.
>
> I hope my endless arguing isn't making you weary, but i do
> appreciate your taking time to read my points, and talk
> reasonably to me about your own!
I appreciat the talk as well.
New Zealand
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> fai...@my-deja.com <fai...@my-deja.com> snarled at the computer and
> exclaimed:
> > New Zealand wrote:
>
> <snip a lot, because I'm too tired to deal with all of Shellie's
> misinformation tonight>
>
> > > > I've never heard of Sturges!
> > >
> > > Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. It isn't pornography. And before you start screaming
> about morals again, there is nothing immoral about being a naturist.
Showing pre-teen girls with come hither looks on their faces NUDE
with "rape me" style captions doesn't violate that girl's purity...rob
her blind for money, I mean, art?!!?!??!?!?!??!?
Several judges disagreed with you, Maggie. Just not the pervert
Clinton and his perverted regime.
>
> > Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
> > Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
> > haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
> > amendment situation that gets any publicity.
>
> Mr. Sturges has suffered at the hands of the ignorant, who refuse to
> acknowledge that Mr. Sturges photographs "naturists" (we call them
> "nudists" here in Ohio) with whom he's had a long standing, almost
> familial relationship with. These are people who rarely wear
clothes,
> and are comfortable in their own skin.
These are children being violated!
>
> He has photgraphed these people over a period of years, a sort of
> chronicle of the changes the human body goes through as the years
pass.
Nice try.
> Each subject (and their families, in the case of minors) give him
> permission
So you have twisted parents...so what? Take the kids away.
Gosh, you people think if you use poetic enough lovely language you can
do ANYTHING. AAUUGHH.
>
> You can find an interview with Mr. Sturges here:
>
> http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-
9811.html
>
> > I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
> > description won't show me the content. Maybe my
> > local B&N has one on the shelf....
>
> It's actually a lovely book. The human form is an awesome, beautiful
> thing, and Mr. Sturges has a touch for capturing that.
It is lovely and awesome...so awesome that is is private.
>
> > > >This, i'll need to see for
> > > > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > > > repugnant and should not be protected
> > >
> > > Should or should not?
> >
> > ?? Not a typo. Should not.
>
> Just want to note here that Shellie seems to have conflated "nudity"
with
> "pornography".
I am not sure if it was the Sturges book or the other guy in the
article that had the nasty poetry captions with it.....but it was porn.
And regarless of poetic intent, perverts will by the book to spank
their carrots with and that is reason enough to not put out such a book.
>
> But child nudity?
Most of Playboy is just photos in different settings nude..not a bunch
of sexual acts like say Hustler....are yousaying Playboy is just nude
not porn...spare me your silly distinctions.
Well, I guess I'm a porn criminal, because one of my
> favorite snapshots of my Alexander is of him naked as a jaybird at
the
> age of about 18 months, running gleefully, trailing his towel from
the
> bath behind him.
That is NOT what these pictures depict and you know it.
>
> I guess Anne Geddes engages in child pornography, too, for all of her
> images of naked baby behinds.
Nice try.
Come hither looks on adolescent girls are not the same as babies in
tubs.
>
> > > Try violating abortion "rights" or free unlimited out of control
> > > speech...with the liberal courts that would be laughed out but
> > > Christians have to fight for a hymn or a prayer or a Boys Scouts
> > > meeting w/o a pedophile for a leader. Help!
> >
> > I thought the Boy Scouts won that one....?
>
> They did.
>
> They also won court cases allowing them to exclude homosexuals and
> atheists because they are a private institution - you can't force
your
> way into a private organization if you don't meet their "standards".
>
> <snip more>
>
> I've something to say on the subject of symbolic acts and their
> repercussions, but I'll address it later, because I'm just way too
wiped
> out to be coherent for longer than a few more minutes - family get
> togethers are very tiring, even for a night-owl like me.
Can't wait...like Ms. Ginsburg, I dissent.
Shellie
--
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > Did you get and "get" my lineage?!
>
> Didn't I tell you??
>
> I got it fine!
>
> I checked it through with one of the researchers who wrote The Bruce
> movie...
>
> He said it was all true up until *Second husband of Margret Cambell,
and
> then it is actually a different families lineage!
>
> That is actually where it goes wrong...
>
> According to him, the second husband bit.. was actually to;
> MargAret CamPbell
>
> a totally different woman, so almost every thign after that is
erroneous up
> until the Priscilla Ellen Beale bit...
So, are yousaying there were two diff women? My aunt typed that stuff
in, it could be her misspellings or typos...I'll ask.
>
> Oh, also..
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ..
> .
>
> April Fool !!!
>
> ;')
>
> Warning, this mesage not to be opened until April First 2001...
>
> Oh..... Should I have put that at the start!???
So are you joking or what!!!!???????!!!! I am slow as molasses in
January!
New Zealand
dated March 16,1998.
The two men discussed were Jock Sturges and David Hamilton. Sturges
was cited in the Alabama case in which B&N was indicted but the foucs
here was david Hamilton. I was confusing the two guys work so here is a
clarification:
He, the writer in Time, starts with:
"My personal opinion is that the photos do cross the line."
David Hamilton's work is Age of Innocence.
"Me, a liberal member of the media elite who doesn't have a problem
with genuine obscenity when it involves adults. (I do) But here I am
advocating censorship, I suppose-or let's say voluntary censorship on
the part of the bookstores...
The Age of Innocence is really something, though: page after page of
pubescent girls in poses reminiscent of those in a Playboy layout circa
1975 (I saw those, they aren't innocent). The camera's gaze is solemn,
the lens gauzy, the light that of a perpetual late afternoon. Half-
formed breasts are bared, fingers are coyly sucked, panties pulled at,
genitalia caught 'artfully' winking out of bathing suits. In order to
remind us that this is art and not, say, a file on the hard drive of
some about-to-be-arrested principal, the photos are catpioned with
musings on adolescent sexuality from literary folks like Spenser ("Her
nipples like young blossomed jessamine"), Dryden ("Young I am and yet
unskilled"), and, most appallingly, Anne Frank ("Am I only 14? Am I
really still a silly little school girl?") One photo of a pert but
defiant looking young thing is labeled with an uncredited "Ne touchez
pas." Another reads, "Not unless-or until-I say so!" Could you
possible not be wincing? I found myself both amused and repelled by
AOI-it is ass campy as it is creepy. But that's no defense.
...Hamilton's pictures...are inteded to be arousing...
'It is erotica'(admits Hamilton)..."
He too claims his subjects are naturists...hmmm so any kid you want to
photograph to let folks get off on you simply need to call naturistis
and that justifies everything that was stolen from them of their
virginity and purity? Contrary to popular opinion, virginity is one
the most sacred predious things not to be sold as art for money. I was
a virgin till age 22 and am still proud of it. Virginity is priceless
and the naturalist label notwithstanding, it is a crime to steal it.
"That's not really a defense either, but it is the catch in these
matters. How to define "lascivious exhibition of the exhibition of the
genitals" as federal child porn laws put it? I know it when I see it,
as SC Justice Potter Stewart famously said regarding obscenity, while
offering a neat inadvertent definition of relativity. Point conceded.
It's a slippery slope and all that (please let's err on the side of the
minor girls not the perverted photographers who would be lying if he
said he didn't have a hard-on the whole time he does his shoots) But I
still have a hard time understanding support for a book that portrays
girls as ripening, imminently deflowerable teases. Doen't that make
them fair game, and isn't that what children are never supposed to be?"
Well said even for a liberal.
In another article by Dr Dobson I believe is where one judge said that
the photo he was shown said to him, "Rape me."
There you have it.
Free "speech" should not be the ONE uncontrollable w/o reason thing on
the planet. ALL things need balance and self-control and dignity to be
a privelege that isn't abused and misused.
Again like abortion, it's child, not a choice.
Maggie
> In article <MPG.14a62017...@news.accesstoledo.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > fai...@my-deja.com <fai...@my-deja.com> snarled at the computer and
> > exclaimed:
> > > New Zealand wrote:
> >
> > <snip a lot, because I'm too tired to deal with all of Shellie's
> > misinformation tonight>
> >
> > > > > I've never heard of Sturges!
> > > >
> > > > Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
> >
> > You're wrong. It isn't pornography. And before you start screaming
> > about morals again, there is nothing immoral about being a naturist.
>
> Showing pre-teen girls with come hither looks on their faces NUDE
> with "rape me" style captions doesn't violate that girl's purity...rob
> her blind for money, I mean, art?!!?!??!?!?!??!?
What part of "There is nothing immoral about being a naturist" do you not
comprehend? Mr. Sturges does not force these people to disrobe
specifically for pictures - they *live* that way. They go without
clothes or in very few clothes, all day, every day.
And what book exactly are you referring to, that girls are depicted with
"rape me" captions?
I own Mr. Sturges' book. Captions are simply the subject's name, and the
location the photo was taken, if there is any caption at all. "Marie on
the North Beach" *can not* be confused with "Marie is asking to be
raped". No caption can hardly be seen as an invitation to rape, either.
Several Sturges photos hang in the collection of the Toledo Museum of
Art. Nothing in the titles of the photos invites rape.
Where *do* you get your "information"?
> Several judges disagreed with you, Maggie. Just not the pervert
> Clinton and his perverted regime.
Cite, please. I want facts, not your usual "Well I heard..."
Because the fact of the matter is, Mr. Sturges was cleared of *ALL*
wrongdoing. If anyone should be arrested, it should be the idiots
marching into Barnes & Noble, destroying merchandise they have not
purchased.
> > > Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
> > > Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
> > > haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
> > > amendment situation that gets any publicity.
> >
> > Mr. Sturges has suffered at the hands of the ignorant, who refuse to
> > acknowledge that Mr. Sturges photographs "naturists" (we call them
> > "nudists" here in Ohio) with whom he's had a long standing, almost
> > familial relationship with. These are people who rarely wear
> > clothes, and are comfortable in their own skin.
>
> These are children being violated!
Really? Violated in what way? These are people who are raised to be
comfortable in their own skin, they feel no shame at being unclothed, nor
should they. Where is the violation in that?
His subjects maintain total control over their photos, throughout their
lifetimes. If in 5 years, a subject decides that the photograph taken of
her at age 10 is no longer something she wants displayed, the photos are
not used again. Period. They are pulled from all exhibits and never
published again unless the subject gives her permission later.
So again, where is the violation?
> > He has photgraphed these people over a period of years, a sort of
> > chronicle of the changes the human body goes through as the years
> pass.
>
> Nice try.
Can't you do any better that that?
I'm going to take your non sequiter to mean that you are unable to refute
the *fact* stated above with anything more than your usual bluster.
Reply with something meaningful or don't bother.
> > Each subject (and their families, in the case of minors) give him
> > permission
>
> So you have twisted parents...so what? Take the kids away.
You cannot take children away simply because they and their families
don't wear clothes.
Some people don't have the prudish horror of the human form that you
have. I'm afraid you'll just have to get over it, dear. We don't all
march to *your* tune, thank the Gods.
> Gosh, you people think if you use poetic enough lovely language you can
> do ANYTHING. AAUUGHH.
No, we *can* say anything we want, because our Constitution says so. If
you don't like the law of the land, and you want to be where free speech
is curtailed, pack it up and move to China.
> > You can find an interview with Mr. Sturges here:
> >
> > http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-
> 9811.html
> >
> > > I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
> > > description won't show me the content. Maybe my
> > > local B&N has one on the shelf....
> >
> > It's actually a lovely book. The human form is an awesome, beautiful
> > thing, and Mr. Sturges has a touch for capturing that.
>
> It is lovely and awesome...so awesome that is is private.
Sure. That's why Adam and Eve were created fully clothed, and encouraged
to remain clothed at all times, right? Because being naked is a sin,
right? And no one should ever see the naked human body, right?
> > > > >This, i'll need to see for
> > > > > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > > > > repugnant and should not be protected
> > > >
> > > > Should or should not?
> > >
> > > ?? Not a typo. Should not.
> >
> > Just want to note here that Shellie seems to have conflated "nudity"
> > with "pornography".
>
> I am not sure if it was the Sturges book or the other guy in the
> article that had the nasty poetry captions with it.....but it was porn.
I see. Once again, you can't even be bothered to check facts before
spewing your nonsense. You rail against Jock Sturges, though you've
clearly never seen his work, and have never bothered to investigate any
of the claims you make.
Nudity does not equal pornography.
> And regarless of poetic intent, perverts will by the book to spank
> their carrots with and that is reason enough to not put out such a book.
You cannot ban something just because someone *might* masturbate to it.
(Yes, Shellie, the word is *masturbated*. Even my 4 year old uses the
real word - *he* won't sink to silly euphemism, so why do you?)
Ever watch Seinfeld? Catch the episode where George was caught
masturbating to "Glamour" magazine? So does that mean that "Glamour"
shouldn't be published, because someone masturbated to it?
A friend of mine likes to tell the tale of the day he walked in on a lab
partner masturbating to Gray's Anatomy. So because someone was aroused
by an anatomy textbook, that must also be pornography, right? We dare
not publish *that*!
For someone who talks about sex and "perverts" as much as you do, you
have strikingly little understanding of human sexuality. If you propose
to take away everything which *might* arouse someone, you'd have to take
away *everything*, period.
> > But child nudity?
>
> Most of Playboy is just photos in different settings nude..not a bunch
> of sexual acts like say Hustler....are yousaying Playboy is just nude
> not porn...spare me your silly distinctions.
No, I'm not. Playboy is published specifically for sexual purposes, and
they make no secret of it.
Don't be an idiot.
> Well, I guess I'm a porn criminal, because one of my
> > favorite snapshots of my Alexander is of him naked as a jaybird at
> > the age of about 18 months, running gleefully, trailing his towel from
> > the bath behind him.
>
> That is NOT what these pictures depict and you know it.
I *do* know what the pictures depict, and it is not pornography. The
pictures are of people on the beach, in their homes, in their yards.
Sometimes it is of mother and child snuggling, sometimes of mother
chasing child down the beach or of siblings holding hands, or of entire
families nestled together...sometimes just of a child looking off over
the ocean, or into the camera, sometimes clothed, sometimes not.
You can find his work all over the web. Why don't you try *looking* at
it, instead of just declaring it obscene because you heard that the
subjects were nude?
> > I guess Anne Geddes engages in child pornography, too, for all of her
> > images of naked baby behinds.
>
> Nice try.
<*snort*>
You'll need to do much better than that. I honestly wonder why I so
often waste my time on someone who can't express herself above third
grade playground retorts.
Oh, I know - it's because the sane people deserve to be heard over the
din the minority of wingnuts has created.
> Come hither looks on adolescent girls are not the same as babies in
> tubs.
Who said my kid was in the tub?
And what is this garbage about "come hither" looks"? You have absolutely
no idea what you're talking about.
You know what your problem is? Your mind is always on sex, and because
you're ashamed of that, you try to cover it up by lashing out at
everyone else.
No one in this newsgroup brings up sex as often as you do! You even took
mention of the Veggie Tales and turned it into something related to sex!
And have the nerve to call *other* people perverts, after asking if my
children were asking for genitalia in the grocery store!
You've got a hell of a nerve, calling *other* people sick and perverted.
<snip>
> Can't wait...like Ms. Ginsburg, I dissent.
Don't try to put yourself in the same realm as a brilliant jurist. You do
her a terrible disservice.
And don't be stupid enough to disagree with something you've not even
read yet.
Oh, wait, my bad. You do that all the time, why should I expect any
different now?
New Zealand
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> New Zealand <nukef...@my-deja.com> snarled at the computer and
> exclaimed:
> > In article <MPG.14a62017...@news.accesstoledo.com>,
> > Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> > > fai...@my-deja.com <fai...@my-deja.com> snarled at the computer
and
> > > exclaimed:
> > > > New Zealand wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip a lot, because I'm too tired to deal with all of Shellie's
> > > misinformation tonight>
> > >
> > > > > > I've never heard of Sturges!
> > > > >
> > > > > Look it up at Amazon and tell me I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > You're wrong. It isn't pornography. And before you start
screaming
> > > about morals again, there is nothing immoral about being a
naturist.
> >
> > Showing pre-teen girls with come hither looks on their faces NUDE
> > with "rape me" style captions doesn't violate that girl's
purity...rob
> > her blind for money, I mean, art?!!?!??!?!?!??!?
>
> What part of "There is nothing immoral about being a naturist" do you
not
> comprehend?
What part of the idea that the body being innately titilating poses or
intent not withstanding do you not comprehend? What part of the
indecency of selling a young girls' body for art or money or perverted
pleasure do you not comprehend?
Mr. Sturges does not force these people to disrobe
> specifically for pictures - they *live* that way. They go without
> clothes or in very few clothes, all day, every day.
And for some reason he enjoys photographng them....and I doubt the
reason is G-Rated.
>
> And what book exactly are you referring to, that girls are depicted
with
> "rape me" captions?
>
> I own Mr. Sturges' book. Captions are simply the subject's name, and
the
> location the photo was taken, if there is any caption at all.
Read my post to Ruth....Sturges was mentioned in the case that was
against B&N but the book with the captions was actually David
Hamilton's....my poor memory.
"Marie on
> the North Beach" *can not* be confused with "Marie is asking to be
> raped". No caption can hardly be seen as an invitation to rape,
either.
Since when to men merely look at a naked female and not get a rise no
matter what they are doing in the photo?
If we had photos of Amy just gardening or baking naked who of the guys
on the group would not be beside themselves with lust?
The human body is titilating and why should we feed that lust for
adolescent virgins in perverts?
>
> Several Sturges photos hang in the collection of the Toledo Museum of
> Art. Nothing in the titles of the photos invites rape.
>
> Where *do* you get your "information"?
My own beliefs...you may not want to rape those girls but I know the
lion's share of folks who *must* have this book in their collection go
home to get off to it.
>
> > Several judges disagreed with you, Maggie. Just not the pervert
> > Clinton and his perverted regime.
>
> Cite, please. I want facts, not your usual "Well I heard..."
See the post about the Time article...I'll have to look to see if more
than just Alabama pursued it to the SC level.
>
> Because the fact of the matter is, Mr. Sturges was cleared of *ALL*
> wrongdoing. If anyone should be arrested, it should be the idiots
> marching into Barnes & Noble, destroying merchandise they have not
> purchased.
>
> > > > Did you think i was saying you made that up? I wasn't,
> > > > Shellie. All i meant was that it does surprise me that i
> > > > haven't heard of him. I usually keep up with any 1st
> > > > amendment situation that gets any publicity.
> > >
> > > Mr. Sturges has suffered at the hands of the ignorant, who refuse
to
> > > acknowledge that Mr. Sturges photographs "naturists" (we call them
> > > "nudists" here in Ohio) with whom he's had a long standing, almost
> > > familial relationship with. These are people who rarely wear
> > > clothes, and are comfortable in their own skin.
> >
> > These are children being violated!
>
> Really? Violated in what way? These are people who are raised to be
> comfortable in their own skin, they feel no shame at being unclothed,
nor
> should they. Where is the violation in that?
They are being looked at and photographed for money with the full
knowledge that the average bear who wants this sort of material is a
pedophile already or in the making.
>
> His subjects maintain total control over their photos, throughout
their
> lifetimes. If in 5 years, a subject decides that the photograph
taken of
> her at age 10 is no longer something she wants displayed, the photos
are
> not used again. Period.
If they are in a book, the go down in infamy for posterity even if at
25 they feel like their innocence was robbed. I would be outraged as
an adult if those kinds of photos has been published of me. Most
people are embarrassed about their childhood naked photos that few
people see,,,,what about being sold down the river cuz you are part of
some bizarre commune who thinks it's okay if you get exploited in
perverts thoughts fro money.
They are pulled from all exhibits and never
> published again unless the subject gives her permission later.
>
> So again, where is the violation?
The purity is taken in that those girls know this is about lust. They
are not stupid.
>
> > > He has photgraphed these people over a period of years, a sort of
> > > chronicle of the changes the human body goes through as the years
> > pass.
> >
> > Nice try.
>
> Can't you do any better that that?
>
> I'm going to take your non sequiter to mean that you are unable to
refute
> the *fact* stated above with anything more than your usual bluster.
> Reply with something meaningful or don't bother.
The bodies of those girls are theirs, their husband's some day and
God's...no one elses to ogle, photograph or sell.
I told my E list about these books in '98 when they came to my
attention. My bro-in-law who is a lit major got mad and gave me a
lecture about free speech. I responded by asking how he would feel
about his daughter, then age 7, being photographed for such a cause.
He freaked! He told me not to get so personal. But my point was
that...that if it would violate his conscience to do such things to his
precious daughter, why then should it not violate the national
conscience that other little girls are being so used??? Why is my
daughter protected and another's child fair game?
>
> > > Each subject (and their families, in the case of minors) give him
> > > permission
> >
> > So you have twisted parents...so what? Take the kids away.
>
> You cannot take children away simply because they and their families
> don't wear clothes.
Last I knew, it was called indecent exposure but now it's naturalism
and that makes it all benign?
>
> Some people don't have the prudish horror of the human form that you
> have. I'm afraid you'll just have to get over it, dear. We don't
all
> march to *your* tune, thank the Gods.
I am no prude....I enjoy sex as much as you do to be sure. I love the
human body to be sure. But evertyhing has its' place and time. I just
feel that the body is private..The God of the Bible agrees. Before the
fall, all was well, and all were butt naked. Then they brought sin in
and lust and inappropriate looking upon others and, as heinous as they
are, tada, clothes. God started it...take it up with Him....I doubt
He's prude. He thought up sex int he first place.
>
> > Gosh, you people think if you use poetic enough lovely language you
can
> > do ANYTHING. AAUUGHH.
>
> No, we *can* say anything we want, because our Constitution says so.
And I am sure that was not their original intent. Violating
children's virginity and privacy for $$$ was not their goal.
If
> you don't like the law of the land, and you want to be where free
speech
> is curtailed, pack it up and move to China.
Where they bombed 240 churches this month while Clinton looks on....not
today.
>
> > > You can find an interview with Mr. Sturges here:
> > >
> > > http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-
> > 9811.html
> > >
> > > > I guess i'd have to order the book...the Amazon
> > > > description won't show me the content. Maybe my
> > > > local B&N has one on the shelf....
> > >
> > > It's actually a lovely book. The human form is an awesome,
beautiful
> > > thing, and Mr. Sturges has a touch for capturing that.
> >
> > It is lovely and awesome...so awesome that is is private.
>
> Sure. That's why Adam and Eve were created fully clothed, and
encouraged
> to remain clothed at all times, right? Because being naked is a sin,
> right? And no one should ever see the naked human body, right?
See above...God killed animals--HuH! Don't scuk all the air out of the
room PETA fans--and made them clothes.
>
> > > > > >This, i'll need to see for
> > > > > > myself, but i do agree in principle that child porn is
> > > > > > repugnant and should not be protected
> > > > >
> > > > > Should or should not?
> > > >
> > > > ?? Not a typo. Should not.
> > >
> > > Just want to note here that Shellie seems to have
conflated "nudity"
> > > with "pornography".
No. Me naked at home with my husband is nudity. Me naked before
millions for their entertainment value is porn. Nicole and Tom doing
it at home is cool. Nicole and Tom doing it on the big screen for
their kids and Grandparents to see (something I doubt they do at home)
is porn.
> >
> > I am not sure if it was the Sturges book or the other guy in the
> > article that had the nasty poetry captions with it.....but it was
porn.
>
> I see. Once again, you can't even be bothered to check facts before
> spewing your nonsense. You rail against Jock Sturges, though you've
> clearly never seen his work, and have never bothered to investigate
any
> of the claims you make.
I had the guys back to front but I still do not buy the nudity V porn
idea.
Again, if I gave the males on this group a photo of Amy innocently
drinking coffee in her kitchen in all her glory, how many hard ons
could we count? If you found a stack of photos of your neighbor's
daughter in your husband's possession, would you buy it if he said he
and they were just naturalists and it was all innocent? Then why do we
allow young girls to be violated when no matter what the so-called
intent of the photographer was, the outcome is the same. Pedophiles by
it by the stack. The end is evil so it is all wrong and a violation.
Please, stop with the swiss cheese.
>
> Nudity does not equal pornography.
See above. I disagree.
>
> > And regardless of poetic intent, perverts will buy the book to spank
> > their carrots with and that is reason enough to not put out such a
book.
>
> You cannot ban something just because someone *might* masturbate to
it.
Might is not an issue. You bought it but you are the rare chick and
most of the books bought are bought for one reason only. The big
M...to nurtrue a lust. The same folks who watch Lolita buy these books
by and large.
>
> (Yes, Shellie, the word is *masturbated*.
I prefer spanking the carrot. I know, I know, it is a travesty to
teach my kids the incorrect term. But by goodness, I can by allmeans
photograph them naked and sell them for profit cuz a few readers won't
get off on them.
Even my 4 year old uses the
> real word - *he* won't sink to silly euphemism, so why do you?)
Free speech ;8)
>
> Ever watch Seinfeld? Catch the episode where George was caught
> masturbating to "Glamour" magazine? So does that mean that "Glamour"
> shouldn't be published, because someone masturbated to it?
I wish a lot of things would get cleaned up...I know guys whose porn
problem started from Victoria's Secret catalogs. And it is not just
men that get stumbled by the ads and movies etc. Women struggle with
body image cuz of it. So, yeah, it would be great if this society as a
whole could bring back some mystery to the beauty of sex and the body.
>
> A friend of mine likes to tell the tale of the day he walked in on a
lab
> partner masturbating to Gray's Anatomy. So because someone was
aroused
> by an anatomy textbook, that must also be pornography, right? We
dare
> not publish *that*!
Dr. Kevorkian when he was young?
Not. Someone with with an extremely cultivated perversion will get off
on anything. I'd just like to protect my sons and mu husband for
starters from having a losing battle with porn. Give the men a
fighting chance who are not already in that deep.
A man I heard speaking on Dr D once said that he asked a certain gas
station to stop carrying porn. The man got defensive and figured he
was being self-righteous. He asked, "Cuz you don't like it?" And the
man answered, "No, because I DO." The attendant was really floored and
opened up that he had been struggling and his wife was really hurt
etc...that is what I am talking about. Guys have enough trouble
keeping sex off the brain w/o everyone everywhere dressing like Madonna
or forgetting to dress I should say.
>
> For someone who talks about sex and "perverts" as much as you do, you
> have strikingly little understanding of human sexuality.
Okay...how so?
If you propose
> to take away everything which *might* arouse someone, you'd have to
take
> away *everything*, period.
No, but we don't have to shovel the crap out their in unavoidable heaps
do we?
>
> > > But child nudity?
> >
> > Most of Playboy is just photos in different settings nude..not a
bunch
> > of sexual acts like say Hustler....are you saying Playboy is just
nude
> > not porn...spare me your silly distinctions.
>
> No, I'm not. Playboy is published specifically for sexual purposes,
and
> they make no secret of it.
But most of the poses are the chicks just standing there not
masturbating or getting it on...so why are they different than the
children of naturalists just standing there...is it only the label on
the zine that makes it different?
> Don't be an idiot.
Likewise.
>
> > Well, I guess I'm a porn criminal, because one of my
> > > favorite snapshots of my Alexander is of him naked as a jaybird at
> > > the age of about 18 months, running gleefully, trailing his towel
from
> > > the bath behind him.
> >
> > That is NOT what these pictures depict and you know it.
>
> I *do* know what the pictures depict, and it is not pornography. The
> pictures are of people on the beach, in their homes, in their yards.
> Sometimes it is of mother and child snuggling, sometimes of mother
> chasing child down the beach or of siblings holding hands, or of
entire
> families nestled together...sometimes just of a child looking off
over
> the ocean, or into the camera, sometimes clothed, sometimes not.
>
> You can find his work all over the web. Why don't you try *looking*
at
> it, instead of just declaring it obscene because you heard that the
> subjects were nude?
Cuz I know what the heart of most viewers is regardless of intent.
>
> > > I guess Anne Geddes engages in child pornography, too, for all of
her
> > > images of naked baby behinds.
> >
> > Nice try.
>
> <*snort*>
<*BIGGER snort*>
>
> You'll need to do much better than that. I honestly wonder why I so
> often waste my time on someone who can't express herself above third
> grade playground retorts.
You know that I am a decent debater or you wouldn't bother. You just
enjoy getting the last word by declaring yourself the undeniable
winner. Whatever. We just come from different sides of the planet as
we both feel the other is mad.
>
> Oh, I know - it's because the sane people deserve to be heard over
the
> din the minority of wingnuts has created.
>
> > Come hither looks on adolescent girls are not the same as babies in
> > tubs.
>
> Who said my kid was in the tub?
I am just generalizing home nude photos--whatever pose your son was in
that millions aren't viewing.
>
> And what is this garbage about "come hither" looks"? You have
absolutely
> no idea what you're talking about.
>
> You know what your problem is? Your mind is always on sex, and
because
> you're ashamed of that, you try to cover it up by lashing out at
> everyone else.
Come watch me with my husband some time...no don't, it is still sacred
and private here.
>
> No one in this newsgroup brings up sex as often as you do!
Fun to watch you freak, eh?!
You even took
> mention of the Veggie Tales and turned it into something related to
sex!
> And have the nerve to call *other* people perverts, after asking if
my
> children were asking for genitalia in the grocery store!
You still haven't forgiven me have you?
>
> You've got a hell of a nerve, calling *other* people sick and
perverted.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Can't wait...like Ms. Ginsburg, I dissent.
>
> Don't try to put yourself in the same realm as a brilliant jurist.
You do
> her a terrible disservice.
Please. She was the only one who wouldn't acknowledge that equal
access was being violated by 20 zillion standards of counting worst
being the standardless, Carole Robert's Broward (sp).
>
> And don't be stupid enough to disagree with something you've not even
> read yet.
I don't need to see a bunch of naked chicks to know how they are being
enjoyed in most homes.
>
> Oh, wait, my bad. You do that all the time, why should I expect any
> different now?
Keep coutning on it when it comes to trash. I'll not read Lolita and
I'll not look at Hamilton or Sturges work out of respect for the girls.
Covenant
> January!
> Shellie
Sorry Shellie...
Yeah, I was kidding!!
;')))
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > So are you joking or what!!!!???????!!!! I am slow as molasses in
> > January!
> > Shellie
>
> Sorry Shellie...
>
> Yeah, I was kidding!!
So.....for Christmas can you say that I have real authentic Scottish
cheap as anything, stubborn and strong as hell genes!!??
MacShellie
MERRY NON PAGAN NON REGULATED ALL GET OUT CHRISTMAS!!!
Covenant
"New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> So.....for Christmas can you say that I have real authentic Scottish
> cheap as anything, stubborn and strong as hell genes!!??
Weeeeeeelll... Seeing as how it's you !! ;')
> MacShellie
Not McShellie then??
;')
> MERRY NON PAGAN NON REGULATED ALL GET OUT CHRISTMAS!!!
Heh heh heh...
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > So.....for Christmas can you say that I have real authentic Scottish
> > cheap as anything, stubborn and strong as hell genes!!??
>
> Weeeeeeelll... Seeing as how it's you !! ;')
>
> > MacShellie
>
> Not McShellie then??
Does it have to be just plain Mc to be correct ...my Grandparents are
McKaigs..know that name?
Mc Shellie Then.
> ;')
>
> > MERRY NON PAGAN NON REGULATED ALL GET OUT CHRISTMAS!!!
>
> Heh heh heh...
Rock on Christmas Partiers Everywhere!! In a G-Rated sort of way!!
Shellie
Covenant
"New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > MacShellie
> >
> > Not McShellie then??
>
> Does it have to be just plain Mc to be correct ...my Grandparents are
> McKaigs..know that name?
Mc or Mac, doesn't matter! (But Mc is more prolific...)
McKaig.. nope new one to me...
McKay (pronounced... MickEye) is quite well known though.
New Zealand
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > MacShellie
> > >
> > > Not McShellie then??
> >
> > Does it have to be just plain Mc to be correct ...my Grandparents
are
> > McKaigs..know that name?
>
> Mc or Mac, doesn't matter! (But Mc is more prolific...)
>
> McKaig.. nope new one to me...
> McKay (pronounced... MickEye) is quite well known though.
I have never met one not ONE McKaig! We have the family name Beall but
used to be Bell and we have Bell.
When I was in Oz I went to Mackay, I believe it is spelled. We have a
Mackay School of Mines at the University of Nevada pronounced MACK-EE.
I made the mistake of saying it that way and was nearly laughed out of
the Hostel!
In NZ I made the mistake of calling the Bank of NZ, the B-N-ZEE, and
was nearly laughed out of the country as it is B-N-ZED there. As I
stupidly brought up on the Schulz thread....
Do you worry about the whole mad cow thing there? I have seen two
fulllength docu things on it....and I ate sheep in NZ 13 years ago.
Hope they have had no episodes there.
Shellie
>
"Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
- John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
Covenant
"New Zealand" <nukef...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Do you worry about the whole mad cow thing there?
Nope...
BSE has been eradicated in the UK...
And AFAI remember, there were *never* any incidences in Scotland.
Spiro
L
<snip>
New Zealand
Something like that....the sheep had some other form of the disease
butI have a horrible memory for things like that. But they are still
studying which species can get the disease from other species. I just
recall the sheep had some form first and then it turned up in cows...I
definitely need to watch the Frontline special again, eh?