Christianity and Islam
Mo
garden. Its upto him to prove it that it is true by taking
you there or shwoing you photographs . Its not upto me to go
each house to prove a river has not appeared .
If Allah existed he would be a powerful God and would
promise his followers riches in this life and not in an
after life which may not exist ..
AJ
>the Universe then who created Allah ? If you say Allah
>always existed and was never created then you can easily
>stop at the previous stage and say the Universe has always
>existed and was never created .
My responce: Where to stop ? Is where you defined what is God ?
God is the creator ! If say Universe has ALWAYS existed then UNIVERSE is
your GOD... but as muslim we understand that ALLAH is the one who created
the
UNIVERSE and ALLAH is the GREAT. ALLAH has always existed.
Srivatsan Seshadri
AJ wrote:
Huh!!! what sort of a logic is this? circular I dare say! You still haven't
answered the original question.
cheers
vatsan
Shaik Ubaid
the Koran and the Science.
Its available at amazon.com and soundvision.com.
it deals with sciences like embryology, archeology, astrophysics, geology
, etc and the beliefs of christianity and islam.
gulbeddinhekmatiar
>
> AJ wrote:
>
> > > The point is where do you stop ? If you say Allah created
> > >the Universe then who created Allah ? If you say Allah
> > >always existed and was never created then you can easily
> > >stop at the previous stage and say the Universe has always
> > >existed and was never created .
> >
> > My responce: Where to stop ? Is where you defined what is God ?
> > God is the creator ! If say Universe has ALWAYS existed then UNIVERSE is
> > your GOD... but as muslim we understand that ALLAH is the one who created
> > the
> > UNIVERSE and ALLAH is the GREAT. ALLAH has always existed.
>
> Huh!!! what sort of a logic is this?
are right because he says they are. If you need further proof they can
cut off you foot. Or hand. Or some other proof likek that.
AltWay
Re:- The point is where do you stop ? If you say Allah created
the Universe then who created Allah ? If you say Allah
always existed and was never created then you can easily
stop at the previous stage and say the Universe has always
existed and was never created .
My responce: Where to stop ? Is where you defined what is God ?
God is the creator ! If say Universe has ALWAYS existed then UNIVERSE is
your GOD... but as muslim we understand that ALLAH is the one who created
the UNIVERSE and ALLAH is the GREAT. ALLAH has always existed.
Comment :-
This is absolutely correct.
There must be something ultimately which is self-existant.
This is not the Universe as science now knows.
Whenever, we try to find an explanation for something A, we relate it to
something else B. which must be explained in terms of something C and so on
until we come to that which is itself inexplicable but explains all things.
Science, too, is trying to find this ultimate Truth.
If it is insisted that the series is infinite, then we have a cut off point
which is the finite limit of our knowledge. Beyond it is the infinite. If
our knowledge should increase then the limit is set further back and we can
say that this knowledge was obtained from Allah or it is a revelation of
Allah. This idea is compatible with Quran 24:35 where Allah is symbolised
as "light upon light". The purpose of creation is given in the Quran as to
receive the bounties of Allah and in the Hadith as to come to know Allah.
Whenever there is a change we want an explanation for it. This gave rise to
the Newtonian Laws of Motion. But when things remain constant and unchanged
we require no explanation. This unchanged state is assumed as underlying all
things. It is a self-existing mystery. But the change is attributed to a
force. The existence of this is also a mystery. It must be part of the
original self-existing mystery. We call the original mystery Allah and the
force causing changes we call the Word or Will or Command of Allah. The
things which arise from the Will of Allah are manifestations or revelations
of Allah and are creations which have limits in time and space.
It is obvious that neither Allah, nor His Will refer to any kind of human
beings, who are creations. Therefore, we reject the idea that Jesus or
anyone else is Allah.
However, a Prophet may be regarded as a Messenger of Allah or as
"God-on-earth" not because he is God, but because he represents the Will of
God for people on earth, he is a manifestation or revelation to us that
Allah exists. This point of view is seldom understood by Christians or
Muslims - misunderstanding leads one set to reject it and the other to take
it as literal truth.
Since the Quran and other Scriptures were revelations into a higher
consciousness they cannot be understood in such low terms as some naive
people try to do. This is mere stupidity. One has to learn the language
of the scriptures as one has to learn the language of science to understand
science.
"And when thou readest the Quran We place between thee and those who believe
not in the Hereafter an invisible veil (or hidden barrier). And We place
covers upon their hearts, lest they should understand it, and deafness in
their ears. And when thou dost mention thy Lord alone in the Quran they turn
their backs in aversion. " 17:45
"Verily, We have displayed in this Quran for men all kinds of similitudes
(parables, analogies); but man is ever contentious." 18:55
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on www.altway.freeuk.com
______________________/ .............
SdivaD
allah or allah's fart?
God fucking no exists. Its our imagination. But, its okay.
Just don't fucking go around saying arab's god allah is the
only god, or jesus is fucking some son of god or other
fucking nonsense.
SdivaD
In article <na.219a49494...@argonet.co.uk>,
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
flip-flop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_460000/460711.stm
Museums condemn New York mayor
New York's leading museums have warned the city's mayor he is setting a
dangerous precedent in trying to block a controversial art exhibition.
The BBC's David Sillito: "This exhibition is meant to shock"
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
subsidy to the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it opens the show as planned on
Saturday.
The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
Mr Giuliani has branded the ''Sensation Exhibition'' of contemporary British
art an attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is ''sick and offensive''.
He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
which is decorated with elephant dung.
But New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art and the
Guggenheim, say his threats will do lasting damage to the city's cultural
reputation.
And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
letter protesting at the funding cut.
The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
to free expression.
And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
Change of heart
The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
Mr Giuliani says the painting is ''blasphemous''
A Democrat, she sides with the museum against Mr Giuliani, a Republican who
is also a Roman Catholic.
Mrs Clinton said that while she would personally boycott the show, the
museum should not be condemned for staging it.
Mr Giuliani hit back, accusing the first lady of supporting the use of
public money "to attack and bash the Catholic religion".
The New York Civil Liberties Union is planning a rally to back the
exhibition, while conservative Republicans are planning one against it.
Deal collapses
The legal action came after compromise talks broke down.
The two sides had been close to a deal whereby Mr Ofili's painting would be
removed and the gallery's public subsidy cut for the duration of the show.
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
But Mayor Giuliani said the agreement collapsed when members of the museum
board and staff "got real upset" about the negotiations, and what they saw
as a potential threat to the museum's artistic freedom.
Robert Rubin, the chairman of the museum's Board of Trustees, said on
Tuesday the lawsuit was "being undertaken in the interests of all public
institutions".
The lead counsel representing the city, Michael Hess, countered: "There's
nothing in the constitution that says that taxpayers should pay for an
exhibition of that disgusting type of paintings."
'No need to defend it'
Mr Ofili, who is a churchgoing Catholic and former altar boy, said the
elephant dung was a cultural reference to his African heritage.
He told the UK's Times newspaper: "I don't feel as though I have to defend
it. The people who are attacking this painting are attacking their own
interpretation, not mine."
The picture depicts Mary with dark skin, African features and flowing robes.
The exhibition also contains controversial works from Damien Hirst, Jake and
Dinos Chapman and other young British artists. It includes dead animals and
a sculpture made from frozen blood.
The show drew record crowds when it opened in London two years ago, and it
has also travelled to Berlin.
flip-flop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461493.stm
The President of Ecuador has appealed for calm after the southern part of
the country's capital, Quito, was covered with ash from a previously dormant
volcano.
The BBC's James Reynolds: 'Clouds of ash have covered parts of southern
Quito'
About an inch of volcanic ash fell on the area on Wednesday as part of the
Guagua Pichincha volcano - 12km (7.5 miles) away - began to crumble.
Quito and the surrounding area were placed on "orange alert" on Monday after
scientists estimated there was a 90% chance of an eruption in the next few
days or weeks.
Schools have been closed indefinitely, and emergency services are on high
alert.
"My car was covered in a thick coat, almost an inch thick, of ash," said
taxi driver Mauricio Narvaez.
President Jamil Mahuad said that although the developments were worrying, he
would let scientists decide whether an emergency should be declared.
"We haven't thought of declaring a red alert. If the situation merits that,
it will be up to the scientists," he said.
Seismologists have measured more than 2,000 earth tremors in the Quito area
over the past few days, caused by an increase in volcanic activity.
"We saw the western wall of the dome crumbling when we made an aerial survey
of the crater this morning [Wednesday] and we saw significant amounts of
smoke," said Hugo Yepez, the director of Ecuador's main geological
institute.
"The magma column is exerting enough pressure so it could deform the
mountain," he added.
Villagers evacuated
The ash forced a state hospital in southern Quito to transfer or check out
more than 100 patients.
"We can't function like this, the ash rain has stopped us from being able to
work," the hospital's director said.
Ash and vapour has poured out of the volcano since August
The volcano has been sending ash and vapour more than three kilometres into
the air since August.
Scientists said that if the volcano does erupt, it is likely that a large
cloud of ash would disrupt communications and force Quito's airport to
close.
About 2,000 residents from the nearby village of Lloa have been evacuated to
the capital, although another 500 have stayed behind to look after their
livestock.
Quito's 1.5m inhabitants have been urged to buy face masks and eye goggles
and to ensure they have emergency supplies.
Guagua Pichincha last exploded in 1660, raining ash and rock on Quito but
not spilling any lava.
flip-flop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
The United States Senate has taken sides in the row over a controversial
exhibition of British art at a New York gallery.
Senators agreed unanimously on Wednesday to a nonbinding measure calling for
the withholding of federal funds from the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless it
cancels the "Sensation" exhibit.
Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
$500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
"People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
Mr Giuliani has branded the "Sensation" show of contemporary British art an
attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is "sick and offensive".
He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
which is partly composed of elephant dung.
Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
On Wednesday, New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art
and the Guggenheim, said his threats will do "lasting damage" to the city's
cultural reputation.
And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
letter protesting at the funding cut.
The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
to free expression.
And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
Rudy vs Hilary
The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
flip-flop
http://cnnsi.com/golf/1999/ryder_cup/news/1999/09/27/british_media_ap/
British media rips 'ugly Americans' for celebration
British tabloids slammed the U.S. team for its emotional outburst after
Justin Leonard's putt. AP
LONDON (AP) -- The Daily Mirror headline summed up the British media's
bitter reaction to the U.S. victory over Europe in the Ryder Cup:
"United Slobs of America."
Monday's newspapers -- tabloids and broadsheets alike -- were scathing in
their criticism of the American celebrations on the 17th green after Justin
Leonard holed the 45-foot putt that capped the greatest comeback in Cup
history.
"Disgusting" blared The Sun.
"Disgraceful" said the Daily Mail.
"Bitter End" headlined the Express.
Columnists said the U.S. victory -- winning 14 1/2 to 13 1/2 after trailing
10-6 going into Sunday's singles -- was tainted by jingoism and poor
sportsmanship.
Players and fans were described as "ugly Americans" and their behavior
during the three-day competition at the Country Club in Brookline, Mass.,
was compared to that of soccer hooligans.
"American players and their fans belong in the gutter," the Sun said.
"Let us be painfully honest about it," columnist Matthew Norman wrote in the
London Evening Standard. "Yes, they are repulsive people, charmless, rude,
cocky, mercenary, humorless, ugly, full of nauseatingly fake religiosity,
and as odious in victory as they are unsporting in defeat.
"The only good thing to be said in favor of the American golfers, in fact,
is that, at golf if at nothing else, they are better than the Europeans."
The anti-American outpouring was provoked in particular by the scenes at the
17th green, when players, wives, girlfriends, caddies and spectators rushed
out to engulf Leonard after his huge putt.
Leonard's opponent, Spain's Jose Maria Olazabal, had to wait out the
celebrations before attempting a 25-foot putt to keep Europe's hopes alive.
He missed.
Sam Torrance, Europe's vice captain, called it "the most disgusting thing
I've ever seen," and accused American player Tom Lehman in particular of
improper behavior.
Olazabal described the celebrations as "a very ugly picture to see."
U.S. captain Ben Crenshaw apologized, saying, "It really was not something
that we need to be proud of. For that, we're truly sorry."
British papers cited other incidents of "appalling behavior," including a
fan shouting at the top of Olazabal's backswing during his approach shot to
the 17th green, verbal abuse directed by fans throughout the competition at
Colin Montgomerie and spectators sending rookie Andrew Coltart in the wrong
direction as he looked for a lost ball.
Montgomerie, a favorite target of U.S. golf fans, said his father left the
course Sunday because he was so upset at the "hurtful comments" being
directed at his son from the crowd.
The Evening Standard said the Americans showed "how to win a Cup but lose
all dignity."
"A fantastic competition was sullied by a football [soccer] terrace culture
outside the ropes and an appalling lack of consideration from Team America
inside them," the Standard said.
The Mirror said, "Football hooligans act better than the way the Americans
have treated the Ryder Cup over the last three days. Their antics whipped
the crowd into uncontrollably boorish behavior. Sporting relations between
the two nations have now slipped to an all-time low."
Said the Daily Mail: "Rednecks show it may be time to start trading punches,
not pleasantries."
The broasheets featured the controversy on front pages, and television and
radio networks continued to play it up in newscasts Monday.
The Daily Telegraph said the Americans "not only indulged in the worst
excesses of triumphalism during and after the match but also turned in a
repulsive display of bad manners" at the 17th green.
"The cavalry charge, led by the clear winner in the pass-the-sickbag award,
Hal Sutton -- was truly appalling, though, it has to be said, no more gross
than most forms of American tribalism," the Telegraph said.
The Guardian ran the headline, "Joy of Ugly Victory brings out the Ugly
American."
"The whole distasteful scene was watched by Crenshaw, who did nothing to
stop it," the paper said.
The Scotsman's headline read: "Americans celebrate victory the day
sportsmanship died."
"The partisan scenes ... wouldn't have looked out of place at an Old Firm
match," the paper said, referring to the bitter sectarian rivalry between
Glasgow's two big soccer clubs, Rangers and Celtic.
Henry
>
> British art an attack on Roman Catholicism
No. The Roman Catholic artist did not create a work of art in order to
"attack" Roman Catholicism and no sane Roman Catholic really feels that
Catholicism is on such weak "legs" that it might collapse because of
this painting.
The painting is most similar to a Rorschach (inkblot) Test. Anyone
looking at it can find their own interpretation of what the artist has
created. If someone sees "an attack on Roman Catholicism" or "defaming
The Holy Virgin Mary" then you have an insight what that persons world
view is. Mostly there has been some screeching about Mayor Giuliani of
New York plus a number of other people who did not visit the museum to
make their own interpretation and "demand" the removal of the artists
work.
Perhaps by having a board of Art Censors wearing hooded robes and
shouting "Nyet" whenever they see a work of art that "they" do not
approve of?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_460000/460711.stm
> Museums condemn New York mayor
>
> New York's leading museums have warned the city's mayor he is setting a
> dangerous precedent in trying to block a controversial art exhibition.
>
> The BBC's David Sillito: "This exhibition is meant to shock"
> Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> subsidy to the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it opens the show as planned on
> Saturday.
>
> The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
>
> Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
>
> Mr Giuliani has branded the ''Sensation Exhibition'' of contemporary British
> art an attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is ''sick and offensive''.
>
> He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
> which is decorated with elephant dung.
>
> But New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art and the
> Guggenheim, say his threats will do lasting damage to the city's cultural
> reputation.
>
> And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
> letter protesting at the funding cut.
>
> The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
> the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
> to free expression.
>
> And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
>
> Change of heart
>
> The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
> thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
>
> Mr Giuliani says the painting is ''blasphemous''
> A Democrat, she sides with the museum against Mr Giuliani, a Republican who
> is also a Roman Catholic.
>
> Mrs Clinton said that while she would personally boycott the show, the
> museum should not be condemned for staging it.
>
> Mr Giuliani hit back, accusing the first lady of supporting the use of
> public money "to attack and bash the Catholic religion".
>
> The New York Civil Liberties Union is planning a rally to back the
> exhibition, while conservative Republicans are planning one against it.
>
> Deal collapses
>
> The legal action came after compromise talks broke down.
>
> The two sides had been close to a deal whereby Mr Ofili's painting would be
> removed and the gallery's public subsidy cut for the duration of the show.
>
> Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
Henry
>
> US Senate joins art row
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
>
> The United States Senate has taken sides in the row over a controversial
> exhibition of British art at a New York gallery.
> Senators agreed unanimously on Wednesday to a nonbinding measure calling for
> the withholding of federal funds from the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless it
> cancels the "Sensation" exhibit.
Union so "they" can decide which works of art will the Armerican public
be permitted to see. Permitting only Soviet Realism- oops only American
Realism. To hell with the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the
United States. Let the Government control art and artists. And you can
bet a whole load of "Conservatives" will jump on the Censorship
bandwagon!
> Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
> $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
>
> Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
> "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
> draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
>
> Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
>
> The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
>
> Mr Giuliani has branded the "Sensation" show of contemporary British art an
> attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is "sick and offensive".
>
> He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
> which is partly composed of elephant dung.
>
> Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
> On Wednesday, New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art
> and the Guggenheim, said his threats will do "lasting damage" to the city's
> cultural reputation.
>
> And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
> letter protesting at the funding cut.
>
> The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
> the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
> to free expression.
>
> And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
>
> Rudy vs Hilary
>
> The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
> thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
>
> Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
Henry
>
> US Senate joins art row
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
>
> The United States Senate has taken sides in the row over a controversial
> exhibition of British art at a New York gallery.
> Senators agreed unanimously on Wednesday to a nonbinding measure calling for
> the withholding of federal funds from the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless it
> cancels the "Sensation" exhibit.
What about hiring all the unemployed Censors from the former Soviet
Union so "they" can decide which works of art will the Armerican public
be permitted to see. Permitting only Soviet Realism- oops only American
Realism. To hell with the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the
United States. Let the Government control art and artists. And you can
bet a whole load of "Conservatives" will jump on the Censorship
bandwagon!
If the Government Censors decide that a work of art is "garbage"- so be
it. Who will be the Government Art Censors- Senators?
E. Barry Bruyea
>Union so "they" can decide which works of art will the Armerican public
>be permitted to see. Permitting only Soviet Realism- oops only American
>Realism. To hell with the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the
>United States. Let the Government control art and artists. And you can
>bet a whole load of "Conservatives" will jump on the Censorship
>bandwagon!
My main objection regarding this controversey is that is appears
fashionable in the U.S. to denigrate so called mainstream religions. I
wonder how much screaming those advocating the exhibit would be doing
if it was a painting of Mohamed covered in elephant shit?
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Henry
Sorry about your art ignorance. It is obvious that you have not seen the
art work and your give the readers that the artist in question intended
to denegrate "Mary" or that he flung shit on a painting of Mary.
Even if the artist did we cannot have a "politically correct" government
controlled art in America. We cannot Censor and deny the art going
American public to see it just because it does not meet YOUR moral
standards.
I'm sure that Mohammed covered with dung might bring torture and death
to the artist in some parts of the world. But this is the USA. We are a
civilized country and we have our First Ammendment to The Constitution
of the United States. Please don't try twisting,turnintg and worming out
of the First Ammendment and everything it stands for legally and by
intent.
Like a Rorscharch test, this painting is your belief that this art
"denegrates mainstream religion". It may not be the artist of the many
viewers with their own individual interpretations.
Here are the facts about the art-
The painting, "The Holy Virgin Mary," depicts Mary with
dark skin, African features and flowing robes. It features
a shellacked clump of elephant dung and two dozen cutouts
of buttocks from pornographic magazines.
The artist, Chris Ofili, 30, a black Catholic who was born
in England and lives there, has said he used the
pornographic images because classical images of Mary are
often "sexually charged."
He also told Salon magazine in February: "Elephant dung in
itself is quite a beautiful object."
Ofili began using elephant dung during a six-week stay in
Zimbabwe. He is now famous for using the material -- which
he gets from the London Zoo -- in virtually all his
artwork. In 1998, he won Britain's prestigious Turner
Prize, a $33,000 award for artists under 50.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: US Senate joins art row
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
...
: Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
: $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
: Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
: "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
: draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
That pretty much sums it up.
The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
Can't blame him.
Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
In any case this whole thing is political(to use the liberal viewpoint in
favor of Hillary in a crazy place like NY).
: The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
You certainly used enough words to describe yourself as a pretentious
ass and an expert on the Emporer's New Clothes. Notwithstanding the
fact that with all of your rambling, you didn't answer my question.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Henry
My answer is I believe in the First Ammendment and I do not want some
politically correct person censoring the art in my museum.
Here is a man like yourself who will defend the Second Ammendment but
worms his way out of defending the First Ammendment "because YOU don't
like the artwork".
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
>
>: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
>: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
>
>
>Can't blame him.
>
>Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
>
But neither can protecting any religion from free speech. The
constitution says flat out that the government can't favour or
disfavour any religion. By pulling their funds out of the museum,
they're showing favour to catholicism, sort of, but in a way, they're
discriminating against catholicism, since the artist is a devout
catholic and was merely using the dung as a representation of his
african heritage, by showing contempt for him, and the way he
practices his catholicism, they're discriminating against a catholic
at the same time favouring the official church.
Henry
>
> flip-flop (saty...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : US Senate joins art row
> : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
>
> ...
>
> : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
> : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
>
> : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
> : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
> : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
>
> That pretty much sums it up.
Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
correct art"?
And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
Realism" or "American Realism"?
>
> The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
"liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
Are you a Communist?
> : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
>
> Can't blame him.
>
> Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
non offensive religious art will be allowed?
Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
> In any case this whole thing is political
You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
that HE did not like.
What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
like it?
Henry
> >: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> >
> >
> >Can't blame him.
> >
> >Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
> >
>
> constitution says flat out that the government can't favour or
> disfavour any religion. By pulling their funds out of the museum,
> they're showing favour to catholicism, sort of, but in a way, they're
> discriminating against catholicism, since the artist is a devout
> catholic and was merely using the dung as a representation of his
> african heritage, by showing contempt for him, and the way he
> practices his catholicism, they're discriminating against a catholic
> at the same time favouring the official church.
Thank you for your post. There was no protest from some people like
Mayor Giuliani when the award winning artist used elephant dung as a
medium for his art. There were some art ignorant people who heard, not
viewed, the art and believed it was offensive. It is not the function of
government to prevent citizens from viewing art. Thank God!
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F3E1...@mindspring.com>...
>
>Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
>art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
>non offensive religious art will be allowed?
This is a very convoluted question, so forgive me if I have mis-read it.
There is no need to rewrite the Constitution. I do not fine anything in the
Constitution that grants the Federal Government the authority to fund any
kind of art. And in the 10th Amendment we find that: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So
you see the government should not be funding this or any kind of art at all
and therefore to remove funding is a legitimate act, if any or all of the
funds withheld are Federal funds. Certainly those portions of the funding
which come from the Federal government may be withheld.
Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Henry
No one is complaining about Federally funded money or State of New York
Funds. We are talking about the Fist Ammendment to the Constitution
protecting free speech rights in which a Mayor is attempting to muzzle a
British art work.
The Mayor of New York arbitarily censored an art work because HE decided
it was offensive to HIM and threatened to withold funding for The
Brooklyn Museum as punishment.
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F402...@mindspring.com>...
Who provided funding for it's purchase and/or display?
E. Barry Bruyea
>> ass and an expert on the Emporer's New Clothes. Notwithstanding the
>> fact that with all of your rambling, you didn't answer my question.
>>
>> Barry Bruyea
>> si...@sympatico.ca
>
>My answer is I believe in the First Ammendment and I do not want some
>politically correct person censoring the art in my museum.
>Here is a man like yourself who will defend the Second Ammendment but
>worms his way out of defending the First Ammendment "because YOU don't
>like the artwork".
Now you're just being pompous. I asked you a simple question and you
haven't got the guts to answer it; mainly because in your world, it is
"Politically Correct" to trash only "Mainstream Religions." Now, as
to my views; I don't give a dam if they portray The Virgin Mary,
Buddha, Mohamed or Joseph Smith with Cowshit and display it: I just
don't think tax dollars should be used in the exercise. If his art is
so damn good and so damn meaningful, Why the hell does he need tax
dollars to show it?
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Colin Rosenthal
E. Barry Bruyea <siberRE...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Now you're just being pompous. I asked you a simple question and you
>haven't got the guts to answer it; mainly because in your world, it is
>"Politically Correct" to trash only "Mainstream Religions." Now, as
>to my views; I don't give a dam if they portray The Virgin Mary,
>Buddha, Mohamed or Joseph Smith with Cowshit and display it: I just
>don't think tax dollars should be used in the exercise. If his art is
>so damn good and so damn meaningful, Why the hell does he need tax
>dollars to show it?
Which can be rephrased as "If his art's so good how come it can't make
a massive profit on it's own". Do you always measure worth in dollars?
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > >: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> > >: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> Thank you for your post. There was no protest from some people like
> Mayor Giuliani when the award winning artist used elephant dung as a
> medium for his art. There were some art ignorant people who heard, not
> viewed, the art and believed it was offensive. It is not the function of
> government to prevent citizens from viewing art. Thank God!
Is it the Government's function to subsidize (what passes for) art ?
Henry
It is NOT the Governments function to censor selected works of art.
In the case of Mayor Giuliani, Mayor of New York, arbitrarily decided to
censor the work of a renowned black British artist because HE did not
like that work. The Mayor threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn
Museum and punish the art going public. If that isn't blackmail, what
is?
Henry
I don't know. But even if it was purchased with public funds should the
Mayor have dictatorial powers to censor a work of art based on his
personal belief system and threaten to cripple funding to the museum?
Henry
>
> >> You certainly used enough words to describe yourself as a pretentious
> >> ass and an expert on the Emporer's New Clothes. Notwithstanding the
> >> fact that with all of your rambling, you didn't answer my question.
> >>
> >> Barry Bruyea
> >> si...@sympatico.ca
> >
> >My answer is I believe in the First Ammendment and I do not want some
> >politically correct person censoring the art in my museum.
> >Here is a man like yourself who will defend the Second Ammendment but
> >worms his way out of defending the First Ammendment "because YOU don't
> >like the artwork".
>
> haven't got the guts to answer it; mainly because in your world, it is
> "Politically Correct" to trash only "Mainstream Religions."
There was no trashing of any religion in this art work by the British
artist. But if any citizen, using his First Ammendment rights, chooses
to critisize any religion it is their right to do so.
You cannot enforce "politically correct" art because YOU want it
censored.
You are saying that public funds should not be available if an artist:
1. May not use Elephant dung as an art material
2. May not portray a religious theme if Barry Bruyea believes it is
offensive.
> Now, as
> to my views; I don't give a dam if they portray The Virgin Mary,
> Buddha, Mohamed or Joseph Smith with Cowshit and display it: I just
> don't think tax dollars should be used in the exercise. If his art is
> so damn good and so damn meaningful, Why the hell does he need tax
> dollars to show it?
>
> Barry Bruyea
> si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:51:47 GMT,
>E. Barry Bruyea <siberRE...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Now you're just being pompous. I asked you a simple question and you
>>haven't got the guts to answer it; mainly because in your world, it is
>>"Politically Correct" to trash only "Mainstream Religions." Now, as
>>to my views; I don't give a dam if they portray The Virgin Mary,
>>Buddha, Mohamed or Joseph Smith with Cowshit and display it: I just
>>don't think tax dollars should be used in the exercise. If his art is
>>so damn good and so damn meaningful, Why the hell does he need tax
>>dollars to show it?
>
>Which can be rephrased as "If his art's so good how come it can't make
>a massive profit on it's own". Do you always measure worth in dollars?
Obviously the artist does, doesn't he? I don't see him refusing tax
dollars to exhibit his work. Is the museum charging an entrance fee?
Is the artist getting any personal cash out of this?
>
>--
>Colin Rosenthal
>Astrophysics Institute
>University of Oslo
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Henry
What difference does it make?
Are you willing to let some public official decide to prohibit a work of
art instead of you making up your own mind?
Manu
>
> It is NOT the Governments function to censor selected works of art.
> In the case of Mayor Giuliani, Mayor of New York, arbitrarily decided to
> censor the work of a renowned black British artist because HE did not
> like that work. The Mayor threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn
> Museum and punish the art going public. If that isn't blackmail, what
> is?
I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
other minorities. What I don't understand is the argument that
in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
anyone. Seems like these art for arts sake is a sign of the
salman rushdie syndrome.
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F493...@mindspring.com>...
My point is that the Federal government has no authority under the
constitution to fund art, so if the funding for this exhibit came from the
feds then it should never have gotten those funds in the first place. I am
not conversant with the constitution of the state of New York, but for
argument sake let's say that it also does not give the State the authority
to fund the arts. Then the only funds the museum should get are private,
county and city funds. One would then need to look at the authority for the
City of New York granted probably in it's charter. It may be that there is
no authority for any government funding of the arts, I don't know. But
these may be discretionary funds given or taken away by the chief executive
of the City of New York for whatever purpose he sees fit( Taking into
account his desire to be re-elected) The legal environment of New York City
is arguably the most labyrinthical in the U.S. The people who created it
probably can't tell you whether he has the legal right to withhold funding.
As to your Hypothetical question, Should the Mayor have the right? Depends
on who you ask. Cultural exhibits are a wonderful thing but I prefer to see
them funded from some source other than government because if government
funds them there will always be the danger of government defining what is
acceptable and what isn't whether it be by censorship or by promotion
doesn't matter. One is just the opposite side of the coin from the other.
If people choose what they wish to see and wish others to see by paying
admission or by donating funds then the law of averages will give a true
expression of the culture.
Henry
There was no insult of religion to begin with. The artist, a Black Roman
Catholic did the art work. A art ignorant mayor decided that the artwork
was offensive to HIM is trying to stop others from seeing it.
Who is to decide whether art is good or bad,insulting or not except the
individual adult viewers of art museums? Should it be hired censors like
in the former Soviet Union? Or should a mayor decide what you can see?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
<ran...@realtime.net> wrote:
>
>Is it the Government's function to subsidize (what passes for) art ?
>
If the goverment wants any kind of culture, yes.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>
>I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
>there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
>other minorities.
Sure, the KKK, Aryan Nations, Creators Rights Party...racist
organizations bent on genocide.
>What I don't understand is the argument that
>in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
>insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
>anyone.
But an insult is only the perception of viewers, or in the case of
Mayor Giuliani, a second hand account of the work, not the intent of
the artist, at least in this case. when you take things out of
context, anything can be an insult.
There's a painting in a church in Rome painted by a gay man. It shows
God touching a naked man whose penis is showing!
We should ban it, it's blasphemy, and insulting to christians!
Let's call for a ban of the Sistine Chapel!
Yuri Kuchinsky
: 'United Slobs of America'
: http://cnnsi.com/golf/1999/ryder_cup/news/1999/09/27/british_media_ap/
:
: British media rips 'ugly Americans' for celebration
:
: British tabloids slammed the U.S. team for its emotional outburst after
: Justin Leonard's putt. AP
:
: LONDON (AP) -- The Daily Mirror headline summed up the British media's
: bitter reaction to the U.S. victory over Europe in the Ryder Cup:
:
: "United Slobs of America."
Just be happy with your American overlords, British media. The lackeys
of Uncle Sam should be the last ones complaining.
"To their everlasting shame, our NATO leaders have chosen war over peace
in Kosovo. They have abandoned diplomacy in favor of bloodshed. They
have taken us back to the Cold War and the arms race. They have smashed
the framework of world security. They have guaranteed that we will start
the new century as we did this one, with killing and carnage. They have
left us with a terrible legacy. With six months to go before the
millennium, they have taken us back to barbarism." -- James Bissett,
former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia (in NATIONAL POST, May 31,
1999)
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.prorev.com/
http://www.iacenter.org
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/kosovo.htm
http://www.transnational.org/
About earlier Yugoslavian conflicts -- were American intentions in this
area always humanitarian? Also, a prophecy from Cato Institute came true,
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/wk2balkans.html
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db031099.html
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
Maybe the U.S.golfers had watched too many films of British Soccer
Fans.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
I don't think any public official should have the right to prohibit
any art. But, that public official should have the right to say where
the public's money should be spent. If a writer can't get a publisher
to buy his book, they can always self publish; as many do. Why should
artists be any different?
>
>
>> >
>> >--
>> >Colin Rosenthal
>> >Astrophysics Institute
>> >University of Oslo
>>
>> Barry Bruyea
>> si...@sympatico.ca
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: > : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
: >
: > ...
: >
: > : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
: > : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
: >
: > : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
: > : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
: > : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
: >
: > That pretty much sums it up.
: Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
: correct art"?
: And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
: Realism" or "American Realism"?
: >
: > The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
: Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
: States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
: "liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
: Are you a Communist?
At best I am an anti-communist.
I don't beleive in state funding for insulting one/any religion. Even
private funding for 'art' that offends gets into trouble and law suits
are the rtecourse as has been vitnessed recently.
: > : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
: > : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
: >
: > Can't blame him.
: >
: > Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
: Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
: art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
: non offensive religious art will be allowed?
Political correctness has become the new disease practised by one and all
interested in public life chosing who they don't want to offend very
careful, except some rustic radical dudes like Jesse Ventura ;-)
: Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
:
: > In any case this whole thing is political
: You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
: that HE did not like.
: What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
: like it?
If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult... it
doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
Regards,
Rama.
--
: >(to use the liberal viewpoint in
Manu
>
> There was no insult of religion to begin with. The artist, a Black Roman
> Catholic did the art work. A art ignorant mayor decided that the artwork
> was offensive to HIM is trying to stop others from seeing it.
> Who is to decide whether art is good or bad,insulting or not except the
> individual adult viewers of art museums? Should it be hired censors like
> in the former Soviet Union? Or should a mayor decide what you can see?
There already are laws like that. For example, I believe there
are laws regarding pornography, particularly if it involves
children. How does one decide X is pornography whereas Y is art?
(I've seen nude "art", so clothing is not necessary). Mayor should
be able to decide what people can see in an art gallery funded
using money collected to run the city. If you don't want mayor to
interfere, don't ask for public money.
Manu
That depends on whether sistine chapel is funded using public
money. If it is, and if the public doesn't like it, it should
be banned. If it is funded using private money, anything goes.
There are tons of strip clubs in most american cities, and most
of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
clubs as well?
knick-knack
By DAVID HOLDEN
Times Staff Writer
09/25/99
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/Sep1999/25-e23727.html
An engineer who says he was discriminated against because he is an American
Indian is suing The Boeing Co. for unspecified damages.
A federal jury is scheduled to hear this and other allegations in a trial
beginning here Monday in U.S. District Court.
Mark Barfoot, a member of the Ondaga nation, sued Boeing in 1997.
Barfoot started work for the airplane manufacturer in Huntsville in 1990 as
an engineer. Immediately after he was hired and until he was laid off in
1994, he was subjected to harassment because of his national heritage.
Barfoot was laid off six months later.
The harassment had taken the form of derogatory remarks, which included war
whoops and other demeaning gestures.
His supervisors knew about the harassment and even participated in it.
After he filed the EEO complaint, he says, he was retaliated against. He was
ostracized by managers and co-workers and isolated from normal work
activities. Meanwhile, his work received low performance marks from his
superiors.
Boeing has been involved in other discrimination litigation this year. Some
Huntsville workers joined about 20,000 African Americans, currently or
formerly employed by Boeing, who were eligible to share in a $15 million
settlement of a class-action lawsuit reached with Boeing this year.
Workers in Washington and Philadelphia claimed Boeings hiring and promotion
practices were unfair to African-American employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>There are tons of strip clubs in most american cities, and most
>of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
>that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
>quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
>for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
>clubs as well?
This is a good point. No, I don't, but on the other hand, public
funding wouldn't be needed for a strip bar, because there's bound to
be a clientele before the thing even opens. Whereas, a showing of
paintings is not likely to be so instant in finding it's clientele...
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
>If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult... it
>doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
>the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
>supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
>
In other words, censorship, and limiting self expression. I personally
would rather be insulted by an art exhibit than attacked by a
frustrated artist whose need to create and express his hatred for
me,due to censorship, has been repressed.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>ayor should
>be able to decide what people can see in an art gallery funded
>using money collected to run the city. If you don't want mayor to
>interfere, don't ask for public money.
Nonsense, the mayor doesn't own the museum, it's a public building,
therefore, if an exhibit is shown that he disapproves of, he can
boycott, protest, and otherwise express his disfavour, but to cut
funding for something that serves the public simply because he's
offended by a single exhibit reeks of fascism.
Manu
>
> therefore, if an exhibit is shown that he disapproves of, he can
The "public" who owns the building elected him to make such
decisions for them. Sort of like the CEO of a company. If CEOs
can make decisions that they deem right for the company, so can
the mayor. If they don't like his decisions, don't elect him next
time. It becomes fascism only if the mayor decides to shut down a
privately owned and funded museum.
Mo
Allah ' ? . Surely he must have been created as nothing ,
not even Allah can happen without being created ! So who
created Allah's creator ?
Its a conundrum which cannot be answered by religion or
science yet . But at least with science we can keep
searching and expanding our knowledge while with religion
even to question Allah's creation by another mystery
creation is blasphemy and so under Islam no scientific
progress is ever possible as most fields - cosmology ,
evolution etc are haram..AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <7t1hhe$e4d$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, Adnan
<kar...@softhome.net>
wrote:
Theists believe that God created the world, but they can't
answer who
created God. If every thing must have a creator, then God
must have been
created. If not, then the argument is worthless. "We
don't know how
universe came into existence. Therefore, God must have
created the
universe." That's an argument from ignorance. All it shows
is that we
don't yet know. It doesn't prove that God created it. If
you think the
cosmological argument proves God's existence, why don't
you respond to
some of the articles on this page?
Comment :-
The writer has not understood what the problem is and
cannot, therefore,
understand the answer.
Pure formal logical thinking has been replaced and this
gives rise to
science. That is, we have to begin with empirical data. We
examine sense
data and construct our concepts on these. And when we
construct a theory to
relate various phenomena by means of reason and logic we do
not just accept
it as true, but test it against nature again by observation.
It is nature
which gives us the answer, or rather our perception of
nature.
Science is now looking for the Unified Field Theory which
will explain all
physical phenomena. It is not the case that there is an
infinite regression
of causes - A causes B, B causes C, C causes D etc as the
writer assumes.
Suppose we construct a formulae which encapsulates this
theory. That would
be the end of science except, of course, to fill in all the
details. But the
exstence and validity of this formula will remain a mystery.
There is
nothing else in the physical world which can explain it. Any
further
explanation takes us out of the realm of the physical world.
But the formula is only a verbal decription. Something must
cause the
Universe to conform to it. It is this which we call God.
Note further that the formula is really a thought, a pattern
in
consciousness. If the formula is objective then this pattern
is not created
by our consciousness, but something outside our
consciousness constrains all
human consciousnesses to contain that pattern. So we now
have to explain the
existence both of all these consciousnesses and that which
constrains it, as
well as the relationship between all these.
We explain all this by the notion of God. This is no
different from
explaining a change of motion by a force. It is not the case
that we begin
with a notion about God which we have ourselves constructed
(at least, not
in Islam) and then try to find it in nature or impose it on
nature. No, by
definition Allah is the Originator and Creator of all things
including
consciousness. And yes He is mostly unknown except for what
He reveals, i.e
the Universe, consciousness, and the experiences people have
of the
transendental.
Of course, if someone denies all this there is nothing to be
done. Not all
can perceive the same things, and insight varies. Denial or
the ostrich
syndrome is also a common phenomena.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _
_____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on
www.altway.freeuk.com
______________________/ .............
Henry
Would it be okay if the mayor decides to fire Indians,Hindus or British
employees just because he is a CEO?
Henry
>
> "Rev. Carroll D. Kraston" wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
> > >there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
> > >other minorities.
> >
> > Sure, the KKK, Aryan Nations, Creators Rights Party...racist
> > organizations bent on genocide.
> >
> > >What I don't understand is the argument that
> > >in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
> > >insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
> > >anyone.
> >
> > But an insult is only the perception of viewers, or in the case of
> > Mayor Giuliani, a second hand account of the work, not the intent of
> > the artist, at least in this case. when you take things out of
> > context, anything can be an insult.
> > There's a painting in a church in Rome painted by a gay man. It shows
> > God touching a naked man whose penis is showing!
> > We should ban it, it's blasphemy, and insulting to christians!
> > Let's call for a ban of the Sistine Chapel!
>
> That depends on whether sistine chapel is funded using public
> money. If it is, and if the public doesn't like it, it should
> be banned. If it is funded using private money, anything goes.
>
> of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
> that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
> quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
> for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
> clubs as well?
Public Libraries use public funds. Do you think Mayor Giuliani can or
should order the removal of books from the libraries because "HE" finds
them "offensive"?
Henry
>
> Henry (her...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
> : >
> : > flip-flop (saty...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : > : US Senate joins art row
> : > : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
> : >
> : > ...
> : >
> : > : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
> : > : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
> : >
> : > : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
> : > : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
> : > : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
> : >
> : > That pretty much sums it up.
>
> : Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
> : correct art"?
> : And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
> : Realism" or "American Realism"?
>
> : >
> : > The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
>
> : Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
> : States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
> : "liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
>
> : Are you a Communist?
>
> At best I am an anti-communist.
>
> I don't beleive in state funding for insulting one/any religion.
And who decides what "insulting one/any religion" is? Mayor Giuliani?
A group of hooded censors? The NKVD?
How about American adults under the First Ammendment look at the art
work and decide for themselves? Or are you willing to surrender your own
judgement and let a censor "purify" the art first?
> Even
> private funding for 'art' that offends gets into trouble and law suits
> are the rtecourse as has been vitnessed recently.
>
> : > : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> : > : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> : >
> : > Can't blame him.
> : >
> : > Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
>
> : Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
> : art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
> : non offensive religious art will be allowed?
>
> Political correctness has become the new disease practised by one and all
> interested in public life chosing who they don't want to offend very
> careful, except some rustic radical dudes like Jesse Ventura ;-)
>
> : Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
>
> :
> : > In any case this whole thing is political
>
> : You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
> : that HE did not like.
>
> : What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
> : like it?
>
> If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult..
And how do you know that the artist Olifi "intended" to insult?
Do you really believe that a devout Catholic would intend to insult the
Virgin Mary?
And if he did should his First Ammendment rights be denied?
>. it
> doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
> the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
> supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
>
Henry
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 07:20:18 -0400, Henry <her...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 Oct 1999 06:45:34 GMT, col...@toliman.uio.no (Colin Rosenthal)
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:51:47 GMT,
> >> >E. Barry Bruyea <siberRE...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Now you're just being pompous. I asked you a simple question and you
> >> >>haven't got the guts to answer it; mainly because in your world, it is
> >> >>"Politically Correct" to trash only "Mainstream Religions." Now, as
> >> >>to my views; I don't give a dam if they portray The Virgin Mary,
> >> >>Buddha, Mohamed or Joseph Smith with Cowshit and display it: I just
> >> >>don't think tax dollars should be used in the exercise. If his art is
> >> >>so damn good and so damn meaningful, Why the hell does he need tax
> >> >>dollars to show it?
> >> >
> >> >Which can be rephrased as "If his art's so good how come it can't make
> >> >a massive profit on it's own". Do you always measure worth in dollars?
> >>
> >> Obviously the artist does, doesn't he? I don't see him refusing tax
> >> dollars to exhibit his work. Is the museum charging an entrance fee?
> >> Is the artist getting any personal cash out of this?
> >
> >What difference does it make?
> >Are you willing to let some public official decide to prohibit a work of
> >art instead of you making up your own mind?
>
> I don't think any public official should have the right to prohibit
> any art. But, that public official should have the right to say where
> the public's money should be spent. If a writer can't get a publisher
> to buy his book, they can always self publish; as many do. Why should
> artists be any different?
So a public official who felt like removing a book from the Public
Library he could do that? Could you imagine Mayor Giuliani submitting a
list of books he wqants "purged" from the Public Library because "HE"
believes it is offensive to "HIM"?
Manu
>
> Public Libraries use public funds. Do you think Mayor Giuliani can or
> should order the removal of books from the libraries because "HE" finds
> them "offensive"?
I'm yet to see "hustler" in a public library. Obviously, someone
is making such decisions. Hustler is far more popular than the
usual junk in public libraries.
Manu
>
> Would it be okay if the mayor decides to fire Indians,Hindus or British
> employees just because he is a CEO?
too good.
William Barwell
In article <7stcbh$qb1$1...@news4.jaring.my>, AJ <ame...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
>> The point is where do you stop ? If you say Allah created
>>the Universe then who created Allah ? If you say Allah
>>always existed and was never created then you can easily
>>stop at the previous stage and say the Universe has always
>>existed and was never created .
>
>
>My responce: Where to stop ? Is where you defined what is God ?
>God is the creator !
Proof? Hard evidence now!
If say Universe has ALWAYS existed then UNIVERSE is
>your GOD... but as muslim we understand that ALLAH is the one who created
>the
>UNIVERSE and ALLAH is the GREAT. ALLAH has always existed.
You understand wrong. It was Jehova that created the Universe.
No, Atman created this illusion we call the Universe. No. It was
the ancient gods of Rome, or was that greece? Or the ancient gods of
Egypt or Sumeria?
You see, everybody in history has made foolish claims and called that
"understanding".
Myths are not understanding. Mere empty, useless
assertions made by ancient fools and false prophets are not
understanding, but empty claims.
No hard evidence for any of it.
We see, hear, smell, touch and tasts the Universe around us.
But see absolutely not evidence whatsoever god gods, and certainly
not this Allah.
And we look at what has happened ever since Islam won out
in the 13nth century and finally stamped outthe philosophers and zendiks
and stamped out critical thinking and made Allah central to
all 'understanding' of anything in Islamic civilization.
Islam fell asleep for centuries and did nothing except Turkish
attempts to invade Europe.
To this day, following Allah's rules according to your 'understanding',
made up centurioes ago by a false prophet named Mohammed, we see
ignorance, poverty, cruelty, illiteracy, backwardsness, religous
fanaticism and little else.
If it was not for oil, which the West discovered, developed,
and buys and uses, Islam would produce nothing more than
religous fanatics, rug weavers and goat herders.
One shall know a tree by its fruits.
Islam is not a good tree, Allah explains nothing worth knowing.
Islam does nothing except expand by fair means or fowl.
Like a fungus, where ever it expands is ruined.
And far from getting better from seeing how other civilizations fare,
Islam learns nothing and seems intent on moving backward, the
Talibanization of Islamic civilization is well underway.
Islam is not true, nor is it understanding.
Its just another cult.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <37F28E4B...@worldnet.att.net>,
Srivatsan Seshadri <sriv...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>AJ wrote:
>
>> > The point is where do you stop ? If you say Allah created
>> >the Universe then who created Allah ? If you say Allah
>> >always existed and was never created then you can easily
>> >stop at the previous stage and say the Universe has always
>> >existed and was never created .
>>
>> My responce: Where to stop ? Is where you defined what is God ?
>> your GOD... but as muslim we understand that ALLAH is the one who created
>> the
>> UNIVERSE and ALLAH is the GREAT. ALLAH has always existed.
>
>answered the original question.
This is the heighth of Islamic religous logic.
The best they can do.
There is no hard evidence for Allah or Mohammed being what he claimed.
So they have only low grade argument by assertion left to them.
Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet.
Reverand Moon is the true father.
God, Jesus and the holy ghost are the trinity, one being.
Joseph Smith recieved golden plates from Angel Moroni.
Empty assertions are a dime a dozen.
bad apologism is all you can expect from such believers.
SdivaD
revca...@godihatespamhotmail.com (Rev. Carroll D.
Kraston) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:40:41 +0000, Manu
> <ksm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >I'm yet to see "hustler" in a public library.
> Obviously, someone
> >is making such decisions. Hustler is far more popular
> than the
> >usual junk in public libraries.
> Penthouse, and the like
> in a library before. Not to mention many libraries
> have web stations,
> where you can sign up for like a half hour on the net,
> and unless
> voters called for censorship software, a person can
> jump on there and
> look at whatever filth catches their fancy...
The point is public libraries do not subscribe to adult
magazines like Hustler even though they are popular. This
means some one is making the decision to not subscribe.
And, thats the point Manu is making.
I join this discussion late, but Rudy is right. The artists
are taking too much illegal drugs and getting all these
crazy ideas about art. The artists should not be supported
with public money if the artists are taking illegal drugs
and coming out with crazy weirdo art. many of these artists
need psychological help and definitely need to be admitted
to drug rehap centers.
SdivaD
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
Manu
>
First of all, computers are a recent thing (ie, the web). People
still haven't figured out how to control that, so it really can't
be classified as a feature of the library. An employee in mayors
office can also look at whatever they want.
Secondly, I was just using hustler as an example. It certainly
isn't the limit. How about child pornography? Certainly there are
laws regarding that, even on the web. All I'm saying is that the
totally free society is a myth proponents of fake art wants people
to believe.
SdivaD
revca...@godihatespamhotmail.com (Rev. Carroll D.
Kraston) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 23:39:58 +1700, SdivaD
> <sdivadN...@india.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >The point is public libraries do not subscribe to
> adult
> >magazines like Hustler even though they are popular.
> This
> >means some one is making the decision to not
> subscribe.
> >And, thats the point Manu is making.
> the library.
> >
> >I join this discussion late, but Rudy is right. The
> artists
> >are taking too much illegal drugs and getting all
> these
> >crazy ideas about art. The artists should not be
> supported
> >with public money if the artists are taking illegal
> drugs
> >and coming out with crazy weirdo art. many of these
> artists
> >need psychological help and definitely need to be
> admitted
> >to drug rehap centers.
> your views...
> You wouldn't know art if it bit your ass. Art is all
> about self
> expression, and that includes "crazy, weirdo, drug
> induced"
> things...just as it does religious things. That may be
> part of your
> problem, you obviously don't even have a basic idea
> what art is, as a
> language, and thus anything that appears "different"
> to you, you are
> quite happy to lie about, including other religions,
> art, etc...
Try displaying your muslim Mohammad screwing a camel or a
little 6 year old girl in public while others are watching,
in a modern art exibition and see what happens to you and
that museam. Or, try portraying your muslim god allah as a
camel in a museam, and see what happens.
Why should people not be ouraged by the insulting portrayal
of their gods, saints or whatever. I would not blame a
catholic getting upset and demanding his/her elected mayor
to not support the museam which displays Mary, mother of
Jesus as a figurine made out of elephant dung.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>First of all, computers are a recent thing (ie, the web). People
>still haven't figured out how to control that, so it really can't
>be classified as a feature of the library. An employee in mayors
>office can also look at whatever they want.
Well, I don't know where you live, but the library here has several
computers for using the net, and the one in Portland Oregon has them
all ove the library, if that's not a "feature", I don't know what is.
>
>Secondly, I was just using hustler as an example. It certainly
>isn't the limit. How about child pornography? Certainly there are
>laws regarding that, even on the web. All I'm saying is that the
>totally free society is a myth proponents of fake art wants people
>to believe.
What are you saying? This appears to go one way, then finishes up with
a statement that's at best subjective.
There's laws about child porn, obviously, because children are harmed
by that.
Nobody's having their lives shattered by a painting of Mary made with
elephant shit...nobody's going to need therapy, nobody's going to die
from seeing it.
I still don't understand your last point at all. Art is art...there's
no such thing as "real" or "fake" art...if anything all art is "fake"
because it's manmade, and another word for "fake" is "artifice"...note
the first 3 letters..ARTifice....I've never seen fake art.
I've seen art that was a forgery of another artist's work, I've seen
very commercial versions of art, I've seen art meant to look fake and
plastic, but there are so many types of art, some of them totally
dependent on the individual artist, that it's impossible to say which
is fake and which is real, just as "good" or "bad" art is entirely
subject to personal taste. In this country, art is protected free
speech, so while there are certain things you can't do, art is one
thing you can do to make your statements....whether you're Robert
Maplethorpe, or one of those guys that paints landscapes..
Manu
>
>
The point is that there still are some subjects (like child
pornography) that is taboo. In other words, there are magazines
like hustler (and perhaps underground magazines about child
pornography) that no public library will touch. In other words,
there are limits to what is covered under first amendment that
is purely subjective.
Manu
>
> computers for using the net, and the one in Portland Oregon has them
> all ove the library, if that's not a "feature", I don't know what is.
My point was that the internet is a recent phenomenon. The web as
we see today came about in 1994 or so. Before that, there were ftp
sites and newsgroups, but they were not easily accessible and therefore
few paid attention. Since the web is so new, the world
is yet to figure out a way to control it (if you sensor sites in
US, one can always go to Europe or Asia and so on).
> What are you saying? This appears to go one way, then finishes up with
> a statement that's at best subjective.
My point is that there is it is purely subjective to decide one
is acceptable and one is not (say child pornography is bad whereas
all other kind of pornography, however disgusting, is ok). The
same applies for art also. In my perspective, the "salman rushdie"
approach for art is just a publicity stunt.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
<sdivadN...@india.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Try displaying your muslim Mohammad screwing a camel or a
>little 6 year old girl in public while others are watching,
>in a modern art exibition and see what happens to you and
>that museam. Or, try portraying your muslim god allah as a
>camel in a museam, and see what happens.
Well, I own neither Allah nore Muhammed, and I'm not a muslim, so I
don't get why you're refering to meas though I am.
But anyway....
>
>Why should people not be ouraged by the insulting portrayal
>of their gods, saints or whatever.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but insult is in the mind of the
reciever. It has no basis in fact, and certainly is nothing to base
museum funding on.
>I would not blame a
>catholic getting upset and demanding his/her elected mayor
>to not support the museam which displays Mary, mother of
>Jesus as a figurine made out of elephant dung.
Neither would I, but to my knowledge, that hasn't happened.
The artwork in question is a painting, not a figurine, and the artist
uses african elephant ding in his work, not *just* this painting, but
many others that he's done, to express his heritage. So he painted an
african version of Mary, with dark skin, african features, and
surrounded by "angels" made from pictures of buttocks...it just
happens that he used his signature paint(the dung) for Mary's
skin.Yes, it could be shocking to some people, but some people could
find the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel shocking as well, with Adam's
penis hanging out in plain site...or the famous statue of
David...taking religious figures and exposing their genitals, some
could find that rather blasphemous, but we can't, especially in a
country where free expression is part of the foundation, even
unpopular expression, base policy on whether or not something that is
harmless is "shocking" to such and such group.
Is India going to ban the practices of Aghori just because someone is
shocked to see a man smear himself with grave ashes?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>"Rev. Carroll D. Kraston" wrote:
>>
>>
But child pornography is illegal, so they wouldn't touch it, just like
they don't kill people in the basement. Hustler isn't illegal. Can you
say with absolute certainty that *NO* library in the U$A has EVER had
a subscription to Hustler? I can't. In fact, I've heard about
libraries that do or did...though I've only seen Playboy and Penthouse
in a library. I can tell you that Penthouse is pretty "naughty"...we
aren't just talking naked women here, we're talking lesbian
poses...though of course, Hustler goes further than that. But
seriously, can you honestly say that no library in America has a
subscription, or ever had the subscription at one time?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>My point is that there is it is purely subjective to decide one
>is acceptable and one is not (say child pornography is bad whereas
>all other kind of pornography, however disgusting, is ok). The
>same applies for art also. In my perspective, the "salman rushdie"
>approach for art is just a publicity stunt.
Salman Rushdie just wrote a novel with a fictional account of what
Muhammed went through...that's all it was, fiction. The only publicity
that came from The Satanic Verses actually didn't come from him, but
from the Ayathollah. None of us would have even heard of the Satanic
Verses if the Ayathollah didn't publicly denounce it, and call for
Rushdie's head. Then Rushdie spent years in hiding, because there was
a possibility of getting killed. That's not planned publicity, that's
simply religious fanaticism(rather than the authour) generating
publicity for something they hate. The same thing happened with the
Sensation exhibit, I bet if Giuilliani never made such a stir, there
wouldn't be the record number of people flocking to the exhibit. Or
Marilyn Manson, I've seen much more shocking band performances, but
because the religious nuts protested so much, and made up stories
about what happens at Manson shows, more people got into
them...otherwise, they wouldn't be the stars they've
become.....course, in Manson's case, Manson was fully aware that this
would happen, and took advantage of the Christian Right's "If we hate
you, we will advertise you for free" stance on "satanic" things...but
he's theexception to the rule, and it can't be argued that the
Christian Right lied about him...
Manu
>
> Muhammed went through...that's all it was, fiction. The only publicity
> that came from The Satanic Verses actually didn't come from him, but
> from the Ayathollah. None of us would have even heard of the Satanic
> Verses if the Ayathollah didn't publicly denounce it, and call for
> Rushdie's head. Then Rushdie spent years in hiding, because there was
> a possibility of getting killed. That's not planned publicity, that's
> simply religious fanaticism(rather than the authour) generating
I don't know exactly when the satanic blablah was published
(sometime in 1988 I assume), but by that time muslim response to
a novel like that was well known. There were riots in bangalore
(in 87 or 88) when an english translation of a malayalam short story was
published by deccan herald. IMO, he planned this from
the very beginning. The art in question also looks like something
done deliberately to take advantage of people's anger.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>I don't know exactly when the satanic blablah was published
>(sometime in 1988 I assume), but by that time muslim response to
>a novel like that was well known. There were riots in bangalore
>(in 87 or 88) when an english translation of a malayalam short story was
>published by deccan herald. IMO, he planned this from
>the very beginning. The art in question also looks like something
>done deliberately to take advantage of people's anger.
And it *could* be, however, there's no real evidence that it *is* the
case, or at least you've not presented any.
How aware was Rushdie of fanatical muslims at that time? Have you read
the book?I haven't, but perhaps he was commenting on another subject
using Islam as an example or metaphor, and at the time of writing,
wasn't aware of how it may be percieved.
Or perhaps he planned for a controversy, in which case, it worked, and
that makes him an effective artist.
As far as the Sensation exhibit goes, I see nothing there (from what
I've read of it, and seen of it in pictures) that seems *that*
shocking. And even if it were designed to shock, or anger, if it does
it's job, it's effective art. Art is SUPPOSED to cause a reaction in
the person who looks/listens/reads/smells/feels it....art that doesn't
cause some sort of reaction, whether positive or negative, is a
failure.