Catholic Religion Insulted by "Artist"
Brain
label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. The
Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
similiar degenerate nonsense.
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has decided in the name of common decency
to try to put a stop to this outrage. Appeals to reason fell on deaf ears. He
is attempting to use the only leverage he has -- cutting off public funds for
the museum. Now in come the First Amendment folks with their "anything goes"
attitude -- they are the analog of the Second Amendment folks -- "guns and ammo
all around." Striking a patriotic posture they defend public exhibition of the
dung-covered Virgin Mary in a tax-supported institution as a constitutionally
protected expression of free speech.
It might be instructive to review the cast of characters who failed to support
Mayor Giuliani on this issue:
Arnold Lehman, Director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art (vigorously defends
"art")
Robert S. Rubin, Museum Board Chairman (To date has not condemned exhibit).
Norman Siegel, ACLU (need I tell you his position?)
Howard Golden, Brooklyn Borough President ("outrageous" but do not cut funds,
in other words -- go right ahead).
I wonder how many of the mayor's opponents attend Mass on any kind of regular
basis? I wonder how they would feel if some equivalent anti-Semitic "work of
art" were displayed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art? To ask the question is to
answer it.
Bill
NYC
Henry
>
> Surely there must be some limit. A British person acting under cover of the
> label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. The
> Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
> similiar degenerate nonsense.
The word "degenerate" is and was always used a term to censor art by
dictators. The Soviets imprisoned and sometimes even killed artists who
didn't agree to what they saw. The Nazis too sent artists to
concentration camps and sometimes execution because it was "degenerate".
Obviously as repugnant as that particular work of art to you it is only
your particular view of that piece and not the entire "Catholic
Religion". You and any other person in a democracy who do not choose to
view that particular piece of art you have the option of not vititing
the exhibit. What you cannot do is a democracy is to prohibit other
mature adults from seeing the work just because it does not meet your
particular standards.
Further- your clear innuendoes that Jews are somehow the supporters of
what you consider offensive art by using Jewish sounding names to
bolster your anti-1st ammendment agenda is more offensive than any
alleged offensive work of art. If those people like Lehman,Rubin,Siegel
and Golden are staunch supporters of the 1st Ammendment of the
Constitution of the United States, God bless them and God bless America.
Brain
>Further- your clear innuendoes that Jews are somehow the supporters of
>what you consider offensive art by using Jewish sounding names to
>bolster your anti-1st ammendment agenda is more offensive than any
>alleged offensive work of art. If those people like Lehman,Rubin,Siegel
>and Golden are staunch supporters of the 1st Ammendment of the
>Constitution of the United States, God bless them and God bless America.
When they are as indulgent with anti-Semitic "art" as they are with
anti-Catholic "art" your point will have been made. A good way to test this is
to produce such art and try to get it into the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Lots of
luck!!
>The word "degenerate" is and was always used a term to censor art by
>dictators. [snip]
You have now placed yourself in the position where slinging shit around
produces "art" you want to defend. Sad.
Bill
USA
I use 100 billion carbon-based neurons for thinking. My capacity is 20 million
billion calculations per second. Do not argue with me!
Henry
>
> <her...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Further- your clear innuendoes that Jews are somehow the supporters of
> >what you consider offensive art by using Jewish sounding names to
> >bolster your anti-1st ammendment agenda is more offensive than any
> >alleged offensive work of art. If those people like Lehman,Rubin,Siegel
> >and Golden are staunch supporters of the 1st Ammendment of the
> >Constitution of the United States, God bless them and God bless America.
>
> When they are as indulgent with anti-Semitic "art" as they are with
> anti-Catholic "art"
There was no anti-Catholic art. It is only in the mind of a Jew hater
like yourself who would like to have Soviet style censorship in the
United States of America.
I notice that the art that you find offensive was from some British
artist. You don't criticize the British. Instead you continue your Jew
bashing.
Are you trying to say that only Jews in America are patriotic and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the rest of us are in favor of
censorship?
>your point will have been made. A good way to test this is
> to produce such art and try to get it into the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Lots of
> luck!!
>
> >The word "degenerate" is and was always used a term to censor art by
> >dictators. [snip]
> You have now placed yourself in the position where slinging shit around
> produces "art" you want to defend.
I never said that I admire that particular art work. What I said is that
Americans have the right and obligation to defend and protect artists.
The way any Americans who do not their personal selection of art work is
not to go to see it. You do not have the right to keep other free
Americans from seeing it just because you do not like it.
Is it so hard for you to understand democracy and the American
Constitution?
Brain
>The way any Americans who do not their personal selection of art work is
>not to go to see it. You do not have the right to keep other free
>Americans from seeing it just because you do not like it.
Really!! Now suppose I were to desecrate a temple. Would it be a remedy if we
just warned people to be sure not to go and see it unless they really wanted
to? Of course not. What you are doing is turning art museums into areas to
freely desecrate Christian objects in the name of "art." Attempting to make
some great moral crusade of defending shit slinging as "art" is really about as
sick as you can get.
Bill
Henry
>
> Mindspring says:
>
> >The way any Americans who do not their personal selection of art work is
> >not to go to see it. You do not have the right to keep other free
> >Americans from seeing it just because you do not like it.
>
> Really!! Now suppose I were to desecrate a temple.
If a person entered a Temple,Church or Mosque,Public or Private house or
apartment and desecrated it they would be arrested.
You don't not to seem to know the difference between the rights of
citizens protected under the first Ammendment of the Constitution of the
United States and your personal opinion of what "desecration" is.
If you are willing to give up your freedom under the Constitution that
is your business. There are tens of thousands of American servicemen who
gave up their lives in wartime to defend the Constitution of the United
States.
You may want to have a Commisar in Charge of Censorship as in the former
Soviet Union or have roving bands of Religious brigades like the Taliban
or have your hands chopped off if you defame Allah under Saddam's
regime. But you cannot do that in the USA.
What Constitutional rights are you willing to give up?