Rudy and Yo Mama's Last Supper
Dr. John
Brooklyn Museum of Art. In 1999 he has upset by the Sensation show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/arts/17MUSE.html
Cheers,
Dr. John
--
"A dangerous-looking redhead sat languidly at an Adam desk talking into a
pure-white telephone. I went over there and she put a couple of cold-blue
bullets into me with her eyes and then stared at the cornice that ran
around the room."
The Little Sister (1949)
--Raymond Chandler
Marc
are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
If any disrespect for Jesus is anti catholic, arent all non-Christians
anti-Catholic?
Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
real classical composition. The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so
she can sell some work.
I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the wrong
tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art" they
usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we spend
more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
support the arts.
If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive, that
means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend nobody.
That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
"Dr. John" <drj...@spam.spam.spam.concentric.net> wrote in message
news:drj2000-ya0230800...@news.concentric.net...
Bill Bonde
Marc wrote:
>
> I wish somebody would explain to me how the artwork is anti catholic -
> are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
>
Perhaps anti-christian.
> If any disrespect for Jesus is anti catholic, arent all non-Christians
> anti-Catholic?
>
Some people who are not Christians just leave those with faith alone.
> Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> real classical composition.
>
You mean Christian references.
> The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so
> she can sell some work.
>
> I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the wrong
> tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art" they
> usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we spend
> more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> support the arts.
> If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive, that
> means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend nobody.
> That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
>
Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
chas
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3A90AAB7...@mail.com...
>
>
> Marc wrote:
> >
> > I wish somebody would explain to me how the artwork is anti catholic -
> > are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
> >
> Perhaps anti-christian.
No one has accused artists of being anti-Christian. If they had, you might
have a point.
> > If any disrespect for Jesus is anti catholic, arent all non-Christians
> > anti-Catholic?
> >
> Some people who are not Christians just leave those with faith alone.
And some people were raised as Christians and have every right to comment on
it. And some people are raised in this country along with lots of
Christians pushing agendas every place they look and have every right to
comment on it. No one is asking some Christians to stop publishing lies
about homosexuals, are they?
> > Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> > real classical composition.
> >
> You mean Christian references.
Add "art" to the list of things you know nothing about.
> > The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> > might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough
so
> > she can sell some work.
> >
> > I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the
wrong
> > tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art"
they
> > usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we
spend
> > more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> > support the arts.
> > If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive,
that
> > means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend
nobody.
> > That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
> >
> Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow them
to have bands and orchestras?
chas
Bill Bonde
chas wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A90AAB7...@mail.com...
> >
> >
> > Marc wrote:
> > >
> > > I wish somebody would explain to me how the artwork is anti catholic -
> > > are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
> > >
> > Perhaps anti-christian.
>
> No one has accused artists of being anti-Christian. If they had, you might
> have a point.
>
Of course that is the point. Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
> > > If any disrespect for Jesus is anti catholic, arent all non-Christians
> > > anti-Catholic?
> > >
> > Some people who are not Christians just leave those with faith alone.
>
> And some people were raised as Christians and have every right to comment on
> it. And some people are raised in this country along with lots of
> Christians pushing agendas every place they look and have every right to
> comment on it. No one is asking some Christians to stop publishing lies
> about homosexuals, are they?
>
Lies? They are attacking people of faith like this is a war.
> > > Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> > > real classical composition.
> > >
> > You mean Christian references.
>
> Add "art" to the list of things you know nothing about.
>
Nothing about? I know about most everything.
> > > The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> > > might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough
> so
> > > she can sell some work.
> > >
> > > I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the
> wrong
> > > tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art"
> they
> > > usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we
> spend
> > > more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> > > support the arts.
> > > If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive,
> that
> > > means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend
> nobody.
> > > That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
> > >
> > Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> > think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
>
> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow them
> to have bands and orchestras?
>
No.
georgann
*snip*
> Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> real classical composition.
georgann:
Stylistic issues are not relevant to the subject matter. Nor does style
carry a piece.
> The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so
> she can sell some work.
georgann:
That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're suggesting?
> I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the wrong
> tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art" they
> usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we spend
> more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> support the arts.
georgann:
You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really anti-art.
Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians are
offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
> If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive, that
> means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend nobody.
> That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
georgann wrote:
If by nothing you mean nothing that is not essential services for the
greatest population I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on a
reasonable plan.
chas
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B6B6709D.FA3D%chen...@mindspring.com...
[snip]
> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really
anti-art.
> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians
are
> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of Christians say and believe,
and some Christians are offended by some art. Christian religions are
exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the public conveniences paid for
by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority of artists get a pittance from the
government to support their art.
It sounds fair to me.
Besides, some Christians don't just condemn public funded art - they condemn
television shows and movies they've never seen, as well as anybody who shows
compassion or empathy to gays.
chas
georgann
> news:B6B6709D.FA3D%chen...@mindspring.com...
> [snip]
>> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really anti-art.
>> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians are
>> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
chas:
> Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of Christians say and believe,
> and some Christians are offended by some art.
georgann:
You speak for all gays chas? And you now speak for some Christians? I don't
really think you're qualified to either.
> Christian religions are exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the public
> conveniences paid for by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority of artists get a
> pittance from the government to support their art.
georgann:
So now your beef is with tax exemption of churches? What the F does that
have to do with artists being subsidized by taxpayers anyway? Artists
throughout history have found means that didn't require subsidies by
partially unwilling participants. I personally think most of the publicly
funded art stinks on its OWN non-art credentials. What do we do about that?
> It sounds fair to me.
georgann:
Prolly cause it offends someone other than yourself. Someone you see as an
arch enemy.
> Besides, some Christians don't just condemn public funded art - they condemn
> television shows and movies they've never seen, as well as anybody who shows
> compassion or empathy to gays.
> chas
georgann wrote:
Chas, you often take the position that most things Christian are for one
reason or another "condemnable". That doesn't even begin to live up to the
level of triteness that is involved in condemning a bunch of silly ass TV
shows. You haven't a clue what Christianity is really all about other than
in relation to homosexuality and how you personally relate to that supposed
conflict. Your beef is with Christianity for personal reasons pure and
simple. Please don't try to elevate your bigotry to some form of "art" by
whining "they started it".
I could spend hours, days, weeks attempting to show you the simplistic
bigotry in your view of Christianity but I've come to see its hopeless when
your deep seated anger and personal resentment won't permit you to be
rational about it. Bright and articulate? Perhaps. Rational, no.
Jennifer Martin
"Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed how offended he is at the photography
exhibition of "Yo Mama's Last Supper". The Mayor was heard to say, "This
series of photographs is anti-Christian, and is immoral. This is not the type
of art that I like to go see with my mistress."
Jenn Martin
Jenn Martin
chas
> > "georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:B6B6709D.FA3D%chen...@mindspring.com...
> > [snip]
> >> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really
anti-art.
> >> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians
are
> >> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
>
> chas:
> > Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of Christians say and
believe,
> > and some Christians are offended by some art.
>
> georgann:
> You speak for all gays chas? And you now speak for some Christians? I
don't
> really think you're qualified to either.
I can certainly repeat things that have been said by some gays and some
Christians. I took pains to use the phrase "some Christians" throughout my
post - I even went back and edited it where I'd forgotten the word "some."
I forgot to put it in front of "gays" in that sentence. I apologize.
Do you disagree with my completely bland and generic statement, that [some]
gays are offended and some Christians are offended?
>
> > Christian religions are exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the
public
> > conveniences paid for by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority of artists
get a
> > pittance from the government to support their art.
>
> georgann:
> So now your beef is with tax exemption of churches? What the F does that
> have to do with artists being subsidized by taxpayers anyway?
Just demonstrates that religion is and has always been subsidized by
taxpayers in the form of public roads and other public services. Religion
is a sacred cow (so
to speak) and churches that don't pay taxes on land that otherwise would
generate income cause my tax bill to be higher than necessary. And it's a
lot more than the tiny pittance spent on art.
> Artists
> throughout history have found means that didn't require subsidies by
> partially unwilling participants. I personally think most of the publicly
> funded art stinks on its OWN non-art credentials. What do we do about
that?
The whole thing about the NEA started when Christians decided that
Mapplethorpe's Crucifix in Urine or something was horrible and terrible and
a reason not to fund any art. One person expressed an opinion about
Christianity that they didn't like, and that was reason enough to turn every
struggling artist who got money from the NEA out into the street (not to
mention the 5th grade marching bands). There are millions upon millions of
Christian voices - is one negative voice so frightening that the whole body
has to rise up against it? No, you say, it's the fact that our taxes paid
for it. Well you know what? Your taxes pay for a *lot* more stuff that you
may well find objectionable. Most of it goes directly into politicians'
pockets; of the rest, most is wasted. Some goes to bombing civilians, some
to chasing and killing and otherwise punishing people who grow certain
plants in their back yard or ingest same. You don't object to this stuff.
No, you only object to the 1 ten thousandth of a penny out of a dollar that
gets spent on art, and the 1 ten billionth of a penny that gets spent on
Piss Christ. You're very sensitive people, you Christians.
Christians are willing to defund the NEA because they know that *they* have
suffiicient funds to create their own art. Churches can evaluate potiential
artists and demand that any art produced with their funds follow their
rules, and they've got plenty of funds to do it. It's *independent* art
that finds it difficult to get produced. It's artists who say unpopular
things that struggle. What do you care if someone who dislikes Christianity
can't afford to create art - you probably like that (it's god's will,
right?). There's nothing wrong with a miniscule percentage of government
money going to individuals who are individually evaluated and found to have
some creative abilities by others in their fields. It's a microscopic price
to pay for potential. But no, I imagine you'd rather spend your ten
thousandth of a penny spreading poison on impoverished coca farmers' crops
in third world countries.
Oh, and about your view of publicly funded art: what are your credentials,
and which publicly funded art have you evaluated? Even if we assume you are
correct and most of it stinks, are you willing to throw out the stuff that
*doesn't* stink to avoid spending your ten thousandth of a penny per dollar
of taxes? I'm not. I think the potential for greatness is worth a small
investment, especially when you know the investment would likely go into
some politician's brother-in-law's pocket anyway.
>
> > It sounds fair to me.
>
> georgann:
> Prolly cause it offends someone other than yourself. Someone you see as an
> arch enemy.
I am pissed because Christian sensibilities run so much of my country.
Christians get annoyed so funding for valuable programs gets cut.
Christians are upset because movies depict them as they actually are rather
than as they prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down.
People in the public eye all must cowtow to Christianity (or the somewhat
acceptable substitute, Judiasm)
or be labelled and rejected. High and mighty, saved and on their way to
god's side they are, and yet they still have to throw their weight around
down here.
>
> > Besides, some Christians don't just condemn public funded art - they
condemn
> > television shows and movies they've never seen, as well as anybody who
shows
> > compassion or empathy to gays.
> > chas
>
> georgann wrote:
> Chas, you often take the position that most things Christian are for one
> reason or another "condemnable". That doesn't even begin to live up to the
> level of triteness that is involved in condemning a bunch of silly ass TV
> shows. You haven't a clue what Christianity is really all about other than
> in relation to homosexuality and how you personally relate to that
supposed
> conflict. Your beef is with Christianity for personal reasons pure and
> simple. Please don't try to elevate your bigotry to some form of "art" by
> whining "they started it".
How long have Christians been in charge? A long, long time. Someone
objects a little and you guys get all paranoid. Don't worry - it will be a
long, long time before an open gay atheist gets into power and starts
persecuting you guys.
I don't know what Christianity is about? Remember, it's designed for the
masses to be as simple as possible. How about I take a stab at it?
God is love. Christ died for our sins. All we have to do is let god (or
Christ - I get them confused) into our hearts and we will live forever in
the kingdom of heaven. Close? Wait,
let's not forget your measure for a true Christian: Christ is the one and
only savior. There, that oughta do it.
>
> I could spend hours, days, weeks attempting to show you the simplistic
> bigotry in your view of Christianity but I've come to see its hopeless
when
> your deep seated anger and personal resentment won't permit you to be
> rational about it. Bright and articulate? Perhaps. Rational, no.
I forget - did I write this about you or you about me?
chas
August XXi
Made me laugh!
August
I can't complain, but sometimes I still do. -- Joe Walsh
Tinas49ers
>You're very sensitive people, you Christians.
>
MUST I keep reprimending you on your use of "you". I got slapped for saying
"you gays" and if *I* can't sat that, *you* can't either. Thems are the rules,
garsh darnit!
>Christians are upset because movies depict them as they actually are rather
>than as they prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down.
How is that any different than what gays do? And thats YOUR version of "how
Christians" are. Do you even know any, firsthand? I ask cuz you seem to have
such hatred of "them".
Tina
Not a shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
Marc
> > are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
> >
> Perhaps anti-christian.
Having seen the work, I can say that it is not a great piece of art, but
there is no element in it that is anti-Christian.
> > If any disrespect for Jesus is anti catholic, arent all non-Christians
> > anti-Catholic?
> >
> Some people who are not Christians just leave those with faith alone.
But cannot an artist use Christian imagry without being accused of being
anti-Christian?
> > Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> > real classical composition.
> >
> You mean Christian references.
No - I mean a classical composition - it is based on DiVinci's "The Last
Supper". There are also "christian references" as you put it (although all
the characters pictured are Jews) but the reference is obviously to DiVincis
"The Last Supper", not just to the Last Supper in general.
> > The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> > might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough
so
> > she can sell some work.
> >
> > I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the
wrong
> > tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art"
they
> > usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we
spend
> > more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> > support the arts.
> > If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive,
that
> > means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend
nobody.
> > That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
> >
> Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
If the government can funf highways that I dont need, a military larger than
we will ever need, welfare-for-the-rich that I dont get, farm subsidies I
will never see, provide free grazing land for ranchers, free mineing land
for mining companies, than it can fund some artwork that all those folks
dont use.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>Marc:
> *snip*
>> Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of
>> photographs, using a real classical composition.
Wasn't it modeled on DaVinci's "The Last Supper"?
>georgann:
>That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're
>suggesting?
Is that someone who creates that art for the sake of selling it?
What do you do for a living, G?
>georgann:
>You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were
>really anti-art. Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by
>derogatory slang, Christians are offended by quasi-artistic
>slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
Why are you offended by this depiction of Christ? Is the
artist's interpretation invalid?
--
"Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus"
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>"News Report" -
>
>"Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed how offended he is
He does that a lot. He often ends up in court where he loses,
but it always seems to boost the campaign contributions.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>jcon...@aol.comnospam (Jennifer Martin) wrote:
>
>>"News Report" -
>>
>>"Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed how offended he is
>>at the photography
>>exhibition of "Yo Mama's Last Supper". The Mayor was heard
>>to say, "This series of photographs is anti-Christian, and
>>is immoral. This is not the type of art that I like to go
>>see with my mistress."
>>
>>Jenn Martin
>
>
>Made me laugh!
Now that was funny.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>Do you disagree with my completely bland and generic
>statement, that [some] gays are offended and some Christians
>are offended?
The problem with these kinds of comparisons is that they compare
two completely different things. Religion is a belief system.
Homosexuality is a biological state. One is concrete. The other
isn't.
Jim Gray
tim...@newsguy.com says...
> chen...@mindspring.com (georgann) posted:
> >That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're
> >suggesting?
>
> Is that someone who creates that art for the sake of selling it?
> What do you do for a living, G?
>
Jim (damn, yer good, Dr. Tim!) Gray
--
English is what the French look at to strengthen their enthusiasm for
the Academie Francaise.
Marc
> > Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
> > real classical composition.
>
> georgann:
> Stylistic issues are not relevant to the subject matter. Nor does style
> carry a piece.
Stylistic issues are relevant, they are a basis for discussing work. Content
is secondary to composition, style, and execution in creating artwork (got
my Masters in this subject, so I can talk you to death on the subject if you
let me :-)
> > The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
> > might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough
so
> > she can sell some work.
>
> georgann:
> That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're suggesting?
I think that this artist, while good with her craft, kinda knew what she was
doing when she made a piece of artwork that she intended to be a critisism
of the Catholic orthadoxy and exhibited it in NYC.
> > I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the
wrong
> > tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art"
they
> > usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we
spend
> > more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
> > support the arts.
>
> georgann:
> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really
anti-art.
> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians
are
> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
Im a-talkin about the recent (since say, 1988) concentration of some on the
Religious Right (Jesse Helms comes to mind, and all of the right wing radio
folks) who spend a lot of time talking about "government support of the
arts". I say "a lot of time" as less than .1% of the federal budget goes in
support of the arts, and most of that money goes to institutions, not
artists, and almost none of it buys any artwork at all. I do not think that
a lot of these "anti-art" folks are sincere - I think they know a good
political football when they see it and they use it.
> > If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive,
that
> > means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend
nobody.
> > That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
>
> georgann wrote:
> If by nothing you mean nothing that is not essential services for the
> greatest population I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on a
> reasonable plan.
Here's the rub - we all have our own interpretation of what's essential. I
really believe that having cultural assets (public museaums, local
symphonies, art spaces, dance companies) are worth government support. More
so than 2.5% of the money they are planning to waste on the new Star Wars
project.
Bill Bonde
August XXi wrote:
>
> jcon...@aol.comnospam (Jennifer Martin) wrote:
>
> >"News Report" -
> >
> >"Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed how offended he is at the
> >photography
> >exhibition of "Yo Mama's Last Supper". The Mayor was heard to say, "This
> >series of photographs is anti-Christian, and is immoral. This is not the type
> >of art that I like to go see with my mistress."
> >
> >Jenn Martin
>
> Made me laugh!
>
Yes, it was LOL funny.
chas
"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:904DD66F1timh...@209.155.56.90...
> jcon...@aol.comnospam (Jennifer Martin) posted:
>
> >"News Report" -
> >
> >"Today, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed how offended he is
>
> He does that a lot. He often ends up in court where he loses,
> but it always seems to boost the campaign contributions.
I believe he has by far the highest rate of unsuccessul lawsuits filed in
NYC history. The fact of the lawsuit is always big news. It's failure
seldom is. Not a bad publicity stunt if you don't mind wasting lots and
lots of taxpayer money.
chas
who no longer lives in Sodom or Gomorrah
chas
"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010219230008...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> Chas wrote:
> >You're very sensitive people, you Christians.
> >
>
> MUST I keep reprimending you on your use of "you". I got slapped for
saying
> "you gays" and if *I* can't sat that, *you* can't either. Thems are the
rules,
> garsh darnit!
If you keep teaching me eventually I will learn. In my defense, I was
speaking directly to someone who happens to be Christian about a statement
they made concerning Christianity. Which you snipped.
>
> >Christians are upset because movies depict them as they actually are
rather
> >than as they prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down.
>
> How is that any different than what gays do?
Until very recently, if gays tried to shut down every movie, tv show or book
that treated homosexuals unfairly there would be 24 hour picket lines across
the USA. Things have changed, but it used to be homosexuals were most often
portrayed as disgusting villains or effeminate caricatures or sad, pathetic
losers, etc.. One of my favorite science fiction books (written in the last
10 years) has a villain so horrible that he almost succeeds in destroying
the entire universe, and he likes to use and discard young boys (of course,
the hero likes to use and discard young girls, but his relationships are all
sweet and light and flowery and he changes by the end of the book, while the
villain's are all torturous and cruel and sick - and of course there are no
other homosexual characters in the entire book (unless you count his first
pathetic loser victim)). You don't see me or anyone else up in arms.
Things changed for many different reasons, but none of them were boycotts.
Except for Colorado (failure) and DL (wild success).
> And thats YOUR version of "how
> Christians" are. Do you even know any, firsthand? I ask cuz you seem to
have
> such hatred of "them".
Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and Carlo is Catholic. Do they
count as Christians (I'm not up on the latest Georgann analysis)? I don't
hate Christians, I just hate what some of them do (love the sinner you
know).
What do you think about someone who calls up a radio show and starts out
with, "Well, I'm a Christian and..."? I automatically think they're just
indicating their own moral excellence - tooting their own horn. They might
as well be saying "I have good morals and I follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ and my question is...". What would I say: "I'm not a follower of
Jesus - in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals and my question
is...". Sounds pretty silly, huh? Some Christians think that their
Christianity is proof of something and entitles them to something, and
that's part of what makes me dislike some Christians so much.
chas
georgann
...]
>> Marc:
>> *snip*
>>> Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of
>>> photographs, using a real classical composition.
> georgann:
> Stylistic issues are not relevant to the subject matter. Nor does style
> carry a piece.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD:
> Wasn't it modeled on DaVinci's "The Last Supper"?
georgann:
Derivative subjects that intend to cliché are rarely assumed to be fine art,
Tim. Cliché is the SUPREME domain of the graphic artist or artist for hire.
Warhol of course being the inventor of the genre in our century and,
depending on whether or not you consider Warhol's work fine art or a
fantastic exploitation of the public with of his graphic arts acumen and
over the top personality, he remains the sole master of the form.
Those who attempt similar hybridizations are generally regarded as hacks by
anyone that knows a little about art. HINT: it lies in the difference
between composition and collectability.
[reinserted Marc:
>> The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
>> might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so
>> she can sell some work.]
>> georgann:
>> That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're
>> suggesting?
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD:
> Is that someone who creates that art for the sake of selling it?
> What do you do for a living, G?
georgann:
I do graphic arts. I make no pretense that my work is strictly COMMISSIONED.
Not the same as SUPPOSED fine arts. And by no stretch anything like art that
panders to the press.
You might research the very great differences both legally and ethically
between work for hire or "commissions" and personal work or "fine art" Tim.
Too, I don't deliberately offend people in order to get attention for my
work. As you should NOW be able to see in my reconstructed reply to Marc I
was referring to the seeking of press for "personal work" when I was
referred to whoring of ones supposed fine art. Did you mistakenly assume the
artist in question was working on commission?
>> georgann:
>> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were
>> really anti-art. Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by
>> derogatory slang, Christians are offended by quasi-artistic
>> slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
Marc:
>> I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the wrong
>> tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art" they
>> usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we spend
>> more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
>> support the arts.
> Why are you offended by this depiction of Christ? Is the
> artist's interpretation invalid?
georgann:
Its not an "interpretation". And that's not a relevant question Tim.
georgann
>>> That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're
>>> suggesting?
Dr. Tim,
>> Is that someone who creates that art for the sake of selling it?
>> What do you do for a living, G?
Jim Gray:
> A hit, a very palpable hit!
> Jim (damn, yer good, Dr. Tim!) Gray
georgann wrote:
Wrong Jim. Tim snipped Marc's post I was referring to. He consciously (?)
omitted the following from Marc prior to that sentence:
""The Artist might have gone into this knowing she might get a lot of free
press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so she can sell some
work."" That "intent" was why I referenced whoring Jim.
And neither one of you have a clue about the genuine difference between
personal work (aka fine art) and work for hire do you?
georgann
> What do you think about someone who calls up a radio show and starts out
> with, "Well, I'm a Christian and..."? I automatically think they're just
> indicating their own moral excellence - tooting their own horn. They might
> as well be saying "I have good morals and I follow the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and my question is...". What would I say: "I'm not a follower of
> Jesus - in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals and my question
> is...". Sounds pretty silly, huh? Some Christians think that their
> Christianity is proof of something and entitles them to something, and
> that's part of what makes me dislike some Christians so much.
> chas
georgann wrote:
Chas, I bet after this post you still won't see why this perfectly
illustrates how you don't know ANYTHING about Christianity. Except the
superficial.
Christianity is not about being moral.
Its about being graced with perfect forgiveness despite ones immorality.
Abject immorality compared to the one that offers that perfect grace. And
its about being humble enough to accept it.
Rob
I guess the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn't "fine art" then. Or any other
commissioned works. Really?
Rob
georgann
>>> A hit, a very palpable hit!
>>> Jim (damn, yer good, Dr. Tim!) Gray
>> georgann wrote:
>> Wrong Jim. Tim snipped Marc's post I was referring to. He consciously (?)
>> omitted the following from Marc prior to that sentence:
>> ""The Artist might have gone into this knowing she might get a lot of free
>> press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so she can sell some
>> work."" That "intent" was why I referenced whoring Jim.
>> And neither one of you have a clue about the genuine difference between
>> personal work (aka fine art) and work for hire do you?
Rob:
> I guess the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn't "fine art" then. Or any other
> commissioned works. Really?
> Rob
georgann wrote:
We were discussing a supposed "art" work in the 21st century Rob. Not in an
age that had no mass media and a dupable public upon which to prey. Work
that was commissioned before mass markets or the mass media even existed
does not come under the same criteria in this discussion.
Nice try though.
georgann
>>> "georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:B6B6709D.FA3D%chen...@mindspring.com...
>>> [snip]
>>>> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really anti-art.
>>>> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians are
>>>> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
>> chas:
>>> Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of Christians say and believe,
>>> and some Christians are offended by some art.
>> georgann:
>> You speak for all gays chas? And you now speak for some Christians? I don't
>> really think you're qualified to either.
chas:
> I can certainly repeat things that have been said by some gays and some
> Christians. I took pains to use the phrase "some Christians" throughout my
> post - I even went back and edited it where I'd forgotten the word "some." I
> forgot to put it in front of "gays" in that sentence. I apologize.
georgann:
That's odd. I see the words a "lot of Christians" in that sentence too.
> Do you disagree with my completely bland and generic statement, that [some]
> gays are offended and some Christians are offended?
georgann:
To be exact you said ""Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of
Christians say and believe"". This suggests to me that all gays are offended
and that many Christians are responsible for their offense. If I said all
Christians were offended by most gays that wouldn't even be true. But you
don't seem to care about the distinction here cause it doesn't suit your
purposes. Its OK to make these generalizations about Christians but not
gays. Now who's intellectually dishonest?
>>> Christian religions are exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the
>>> public conveniences paid for by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority of
>>> artists get a pittance from the government to support their art.
>> georgann:
>> So now your beef is with tax exemption of churches? What the F does that
>> have to do with artists being subsidized by taxpayers anyway?
chas:
> Just demonstrates that religion is and has always been subsidized by taxpayers
> in the form of public roads and other public services. Religion is a sacred
> cow (so to speak) and churches that don't pay taxes on land that otherwise
> would generate income cause my tax bill to be higher than necessary. And it's
> a lot more than the tiny pittance spent on art.
georgann:
What sheer and utter crap.
>> Artists throughout history have found means that didn't require subsidies by
>> partially unwilling participants. I personally think most of the publicly
>> funded art stinks on its OWN non-art credentials. What do we do about that?
chas:
> The whole thing about the NEA started when Christians decided that
> Mapplethorpe's Crucifix in Urine or something was horrible and terrible and a
> reason not to fund any art. One person expressed an opinion about
> Christianity that they didn't like, and that was reason enough to turn every
> struggling artist who got money from the NEA out into the street (not to
> mention the 5th grade marching bands). There are millions upon millions of
> Christian voices - is one negative voice so frightening that the whole body
> has to rise up against it? No, you say, it's the fact that our taxes paid for
> it. Well you know what? Your taxes pay for a *lot* more stuff that you may
> well find objectionable. Most of it goes directly into politicians' pockets;
> of the rest, most is wasted. Some goes to bombing civilians, some to chasing
> and killing and otherwise punishing people who grow certain plants in their
> back yard or ingest same. You don't object to this stuff. No, you only object
> to the 1 ten thousandth of a penny out of a dollar that gets spent on art, and
> the 1 ten billionth of a penny that gets spent on Piss Christ. You're very
> sensitive people, you Christians.
georgann:
Mapplethorpe didn't do Piss Christ. He did homoerotic photos. While both of
those artists were over the top in many people's opinions, you seem to
believe its because of Christian sensibilities and some supposed Christian
domination of the entire culture that someone's potential need for such
tripe might be squelched. Why?
If a video of 18 wheeler semi trailer full of food staples, driving over
crying babies was entitled "Africa's Neglect" and being touted as
performance art symbolizing famine, all in the name of today's godlike
artistic freedoms and the eager participation of an NEA shock-jock, would
you defend it too? Or are some things better left off? For an open and free
market to decide? Is there any question just how long these examples of
offensive would exist if it weren't for the relatively new approach to art
subsidies that verges on socialism here?
> Christians are willing to defund the NEA because they know that *they* have
> suffiicient funds to create their own art. Churches can evaluate potiential
> artists and demand that any art produced with their funds follow their rules,
> and they've got plenty of funds to do it. It's *independent* art that finds
> it difficult to get produced. It's artists who say unpopular things that
> struggle. What do you care if someone who dislikes Christianity can't afford
> to create art - you probably like that (it's god's will, right?). There's
> nothing wrong with a miniscule percentage of government money going to
> individuals who are individually evaluated and found to have some creative
> abilities by others in their fields. It's a microscopic price to pay for
> potential. But no, I imagine you'd rather spend your ten thousandth of a
> penny spreading poison on impoverished coca farmers' crops in third world
> countries.
georgann:
You can't validate that first sentence any more than you can the last. I
donšt know why but I've come to expect better of you.
> Oh, and about your view of publicly funded art: what are your credentials, and
> which publicly funded art have you evaluated? Even if we assume you are
> correct and most of it stinks, are you willing to throw out the stuff that
> *doesn't* stink to avoid spending your ten thousandth of a penny per dollar of
> taxes? I'm not. I think the potential for greatness is worth a small
> investment, especially when you know the investment would likely go into some
> politician's brother-in-law's pocket anyway.
georgann:
Irrelevant.
>>> It sounds fair to me.
>> georgann:
>> Prolly cause it offends someone other than yourself. Someone you see as an
>> arch enemy.
chas:
> I am pissed because Christian sensibilities run so much of my country.
> Christians get annoyed so funding for valuable programs gets cut. Christians
> are upset because movies depict them as they actually are rather than as they
> prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down. People in the
> public eye all must cowtow to Christianity (or the somewhat acceptable
> substitute, Judiasm) or be labelled and rejected. High and mighty, saved and
> on their way to god's side they are, and yet they still have to throw their
> weight around down here.
georgann:
You're not just pissed because "Christian sensibilities run so much of my
country", um... how do I put this delicately ... truth is chas, you're an
anti-Christian bigot. Your tirades about Christianity and how Christianity
alone has somehow devalued the quality of life for you in America is
laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
If I were to suggest to you as I have to in another post to Marc, that there
are a number of very high profile blacks, like say Mike Tyson, Puff Daddy, O
J Simpson that are proven to be very violent black individuals, that there
are more blacks in prison for violent crimes then other races, then
extrapolate from that that all blacks are more violent and more prone to be
criminals, you'd condemn me for being a major bigot in a heartbeat.
But you do that all the time. When the subject is Christianity to you that's
fair game for a form of freely sanctioned bigotry among the intellectual
elite. You extrapolate a similarly irrational distain for a whole group from
the examples you have seen from a few. I reject the notion that you have any
consistent contact with great numbers of Christians yet you persist in this
self-fulfilling despise of a whole segment of our society based on the
appearance of several high profile individuals or the lunacy of some people
who do heinous things to some gays in our distinctly heterogeneous American
culture. How do you justify that?
>>> Besides, some Christians don't just condemn public funded art - they condemn
>>> television shows and movies they've never seen, as well as anybody who shows
>>> compassion or empathy to gays.
>>> chas
>> georgann wrote:
>> Chas, you often take the position that most things Christian are for one
>> reason or another "condemnable". That doesn't even begin to live up to the
>> level of triteness that is involved in condemning a bunch of silly ass TV
>> shows. You haven't a clue what Christianity is really all about other than in
>> relation to homosexuality and how you personally relate to that supposed
>> conflict. Your beef is with Christianity for personal reasons pure and
>> simple. Please don't try to elevate your bigotry to some form of "art" by
>> whining "they started it".
> How long have Christians been in charge? A long, long time. Someone objects
> a little and you guys get all paranoid. Don't worry - it will be a long, long
> time before an open gay atheist gets into power and starts persecuting you
> guys.
georgann:
Christians have not "been in charge". The people chosen by the populous have
been in charge in the US as long as you've lived here. Were you perhaps
attempting to enlist the bad old days of the Crusades as so many
anti-Christian bigots do?
> I don't know what Christianity is about? Remember, it's designed for the
> masses to be as simple as possible. How about I take a stab at it? God is
> love. Christ died for our sins. All we have to do is let god (or Christ - I
> get them confused) into our hearts and we will live forever in the kingdom of
> heaven. Close? Wait, let's not forget your measure for a true Christian:
> Christ is the one and only savior. There, that oughta do it.
georgann:
Only vaguely close. He died so we could have life here more abundantly. Not
just a pleasurable "afterlife". Barely a C+.
georgann
>> *snip*
>>> Having seen the piece, I think its a nice series of photographs, using a
>>> real classical composition.
>> georgann:
>> Stylistic issues are not relevant to the subject matter. Nor does style
>> carry a piece.
Marc:
> Stylistic issues are relevant, they are a basis for discussing work. Content
> is secondary to composition, style, and execution in creating artwork (got
> my Masters in this subject, so I can talk you to death on the subject if you
> let me :-)
georgann:
Great. Let's take that Masters for a spin shall we? My only question to you
on this particular matter is: Does style carry this piece?
>>> The Artist might have gone into this knowing she might get a lot of free
>>> press from the idiot Mayor of NYC - maybe enough so she can sell some work.
>> georgann:
>> That would make the artist an art whore. Is that what you're suggesting?
Marc:
> I think that this artist, while good with her craft, kinda knew what she was
> doing when she made a piece of artwork that she intended to be a critisism of
> the Catholic orthadoxy and exhibited it in NYC.
georgann:
So her craft couldn't carry her alone? Is that what you're saying?
>>> I think the conservative "anti-arts" crowd are really barking up the wrong
>>> tree. Every time I hear them rant and rave about "publicly finded art" they
>>> usually get every example wrong, and in the end always neglect that we spend
>>> more fixing potholes around the Beltway around DC than we, as a nation,
>>> support the arts.
>> georgann:
>> You might have a point if the supposed anti-art crowd were really anti-art.
>> Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang, Christians are
>> offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to figure out.
Marc:
> Im a-talkin about the recent (since say, 1988) concentration of some on the
> Religious Right (Jesse Helms comes to mind, and all of the right wing radio
> folks) who spend a lot of time talking about "government support of the arts".
> I say "a lot of time" as less than .1% of the federal budget goes in support
> of the arts, and most of that money goes to institutions, not artists, and
> almost none of it buys any artwork at all. I do not think that a lot of these
> "anti-art" folks are sincere - I think they know a good political football
> when they see it and they use it.
georgann:
You know, that post smacks of the same brand of liberal sanctioned bigotry
against Christians the I hear in here pretty regularly. You're not talking
about art and its financing you're now trying to critique the people with
whom you disagree on the matter of financing art of somewhat dubious
quality.
If I were to suggest to you as I have to chas, that there are a number of
very high profile blacks, like say Mike Tyson, Puff Daddy, O J Simpson that
are proven to be very violent individuals, then extrapolate from that that
all blacks are violent, you'd condemn me for being a bigot in a heartbeat.
How is your tirade against Helms and supposed RR any different?
>>> If the government cannot fund things that some people find offensive, that
>>> means that their guiding principle for doing anything is to offend nobody.
>>> That would leave the governmenmt doing nothing.
>> georgann wrote:
>> If by nothing you mean nothing that is not essential services for the
>> greatest population I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on a
>> reasonable plan.
Marc:
> Here's the rub - we all have our own interpretation of what's essential. I
> really believe that having cultural assets (public museaums, local symphonies,
> art spaces, dance companies) are worth government support. More so than 2.5%
> of the money they are planning to waste on the new Star Wars project.
georgann wrote:
So why is it that the more liberal view of what is "essential" any more
valid than a conservative's? You'll have trouble proving it is more valid.
Eric da Red
Marc <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > I wish somebody would explain to me how the artwork is anti catholic -
>> > are the Catholics the only ones that worship Jesus?
>> >
>> Perhaps anti-christian.
>
>Having seen the work, I can say that it is not a great piece of art, but
>there is no element in it that is anti-Christian.
Not as "anti-Christian" as this:
http://www.abcgallery.com/G/gauguin/gauguin22.html
--
Quote Of The Week: "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers
for myself, but for predecessors as well." -- President Shrub
Jennifer Martin
>Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
>think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit. I
conducted a performance of "La Traviata" Sunday afternoon. A small government
grant provided seed money that allowed us to make the performance free for poor
kids and seniors (others paid up to $50 for a ticket). The vast majority of
grants are of this nature. It was good for the kids, and ergo (!) good for
society.
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
Actually, no it's not.
And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were funded by
the NEA. The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
government money.
chas:
>> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow them
>> to have bands and orchestras?
Bill:
>No.
Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only teach
half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
Jenn Martin
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>chas:
>> What do you think about someone who calls up a radio show and starts out
>> with, "Well, I'm a Christian and..."? I automatically think they're just
>> indicating their own moral excellence - tooting their own horn. They might
>> as well be saying "I have good morals and I follow the teachings of Jesus
>> Christ and my question is...". What would I say: "I'm not a follower of
>> Jesus - in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals and my question
>> is...". Sounds pretty silly, huh? Some Christians think that their
>> Christianity is proof of something and entitles them to something, and
>> that's part of what makes me dislike some Christians so much.
>> chas
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Chas, I bet after this post you still won't see why this perfectly
>illustrates how you don't know ANYTHING about Christianity. Except the
>superficial.
He was describing the behavior of some Christians (including, as it
turns out, you), not offering a critique of Christianity.
Context matters.
>Christianity is not about being moral.
It's turned out that way, although Jesus' message was overwhelmingly
loaded with exhortations to moral improvement.
Of course, he's hardly the only prophet whose message is distorted,
diluted, and demeaned.
>Its about being graced with perfect forgiveness despite ones immorality.
>Abject immorality compared to the one that offers that perfect grace. And
>its about being humble enough to accept it.
As I said about distortion ...
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
Mozart wrote "The Magic Flute" for the mass market, not for the
monied and religious elite. It's also one of the greatest operas
ever written.
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Eric,
also thinking about that Shakespeare fella.
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> Bill:
> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
>
> Actually, no it's not.
>
Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
mix them.
> And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were funded by
> the NEA.
>
I didn't say they were. The person who created Piss Christ has gotten
money from the NEA, I believe.
> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
> government money.
>
The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
this country.
> chas:
> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow them
> >> to have bands and orchestras?
>
> Bill:
> >No.
>
> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only teach
> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
>
Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
stuff.
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> BillBonde:
> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
>
> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit.
>
We disagree from whom the funding should come.
Elisabeth Riba
> Jennifer Martin wrote:
>> Bill:
>> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
>> Actually, no it's not.
> Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
> values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
> mix them.
Did you ever read the artists' statements about what message they were
TRYING to convey, both for Piss Christ and for Last Supper?
Here's a picture of Piss Christ:
www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502tn.jpg
If you didn't have the title, or know what was causing the yellow
lighting, it's a rather pretty piece...
And some comments by the artist:
http://www.kcvac.com/reviews/serrano.htm
http://www.shsl.com/84.htm
As to the offensive symbolism of urine, he said it was not his
intention to offend.
"It dawned on me that piss would give a nice yellow," he said bringing
forth laughter. Urine symbolizes waste, but also a necessary bodily
function, he said. Perhaps the urine humanized Christ, he explained,
rather than turn him into an unobtainable deity.
And Renee Cox describes "Yo Mama's Last Supper" by saying:
Cox, raised and educated a Catholic, commented on Thursday night's
news, "There's nothing sexual about it."
Furthermore, the artist said, if "we are all made in God's image," why
shouldn't Jesus look like her? "Why can't a woman be Christ? We are the
givers of life!"
http://salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/16/cox/index.html
Do you think the book/movie "Last Temptation of Christ" was also
"another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian values"?
And what do you think of what happened to Salman Rushdie after writing the
Satanic Verses?
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Eve DuJardin
>From: berg...@cascadia.drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>Date: 2/20/01 9:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <96u985$446$1...@cascadia.drizzle.com>
Eve wrote:
Perhaps this is the age old difference of opinion regarding"faith" and "works".
Protestants hold that faith in and of itself is sufficient to be a Christian.
Catholics hold that without "works" (living the life Jesus described, including
loving thy neighbor) "faith" is dead. It appears to me that most religions
other than Christianity are exclusive; i.e., unless you are a member of a
specific faith, you are a pagan, are to be shunned, can be taken advantage of,
etc. Unfortunately, even tho Jesus was quite adamant about including
"everybody" in His call, human nature still tends to want to accept some and
exclude most others. I agree Eric with your rationale that Christianity's
tenets have been diluted and too often distorted.
Eve
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 2/20/01 4:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8ip49tsd84g8dl144...@4ax.com>
Eve wrote:
Add the "Mona Lisa", Rembrandts works, etc.
Eve
georgann
>> Christianity is not about being moral.
Eric da Red:
> It's turned out that way, although Jesus' message was overwhelmingly
> loaded with exhortations to moral improvement.
> Of course, he's hardly the only prophet whose message is distorted,
> diluted, and demeaned.
>> Its about being graced with perfect forgiveness despite ones immorality.
>> Abject immorality compared to the one that offers that perfect grace. And
>> its about being humble enough to accept it.
Eric da Red:
> As I said about distortion ...
georgann wrote:
Yes you were. And it is the essence of distortion to think of humility as
having anything to do with saving oneself due to ones own "morality".
Charles Basner
Come on Georgeann. I'm not trying to be dishonest or make claims across the
board for all gays or all Christians. I apologize if I've said anything
inartfully and given the wrong impression. Let me try again:
There are some gay people who are offended by some of the things said and
believed by some Christian people. There are some Christian people who are
offended by some artwork, some of which may have been produced by gays.
>
> >>> Christian religions are exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the
> >>> public conveniences paid for by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority
of
> >>> artists get a pittance from the government to support their art.
>
> >> georgann:
> >> So now your beef is with tax exemption of churches? What the F does
that
> >> have to do with artists being subsidized by taxpayers anyway?
>
> chas:
> > Just demonstrates that religion is and has always been subsidized by
taxpayers
> > in the form of public roads and other public services. Religion is a
sacred
> > cow (so to speak) and churches that don't pay taxes on land that
otherwise
> > would generate income cause my tax bill to be higher than necessary.
And it's
> > a lot more than the tiny pittance spent on art.
>
> georgann:
> What sheer and utter crap.
Which part? I thought they were all naked facts.
Good question. Because without that sensibility such works would likely get
little or no popular recognition. That is, though they may become popular
in some rarified academic settings, the average man on the street would
never see them, and thus would never become offended by them. But since
they have overtones that are offensive to Christians, they become causes
celebe and then everyone wants to dismantle the NEA.
For example, Piss Banjo might well have gotten the same recognition in the
art world as Piss Christ, but though Christians may not have approved of it
they would have had no reason to rally against it. The lack of such a rally
would leave the NEA intact to do the mostly "good" things (as defined by
popular American culture) that it does.
>
> If a video of 18 wheeler semi trailer full of food staples, driving over
> crying babies was entitled "Africa's Neglect" and being touted as
> performance art symbolizing famine, all in the name of today's godlike
> artistic freedoms and the eager participation of an NEA shock-jock, would
> you defend it too? Or are some things better left off? For an open and
free
> market to decide? Is there any question just how long these examples of
> offensive would exist if it weren't for the relatively new approach to art
> subsidies that verges on socialism here?
Several questions here. No, I don't think killing babies is a viable form
of art. But if an NEA-subsidized artist wanted to depict the scene you
described (btw, a bit gory, don't you think?), I wouldn't decide that all
other artists must now either become waiters or find a patron in order to
survive. Since we're not talking about millions of dollars and we're not
talking about carving "Africa's Neglect - the Sculpture" into Mount
Rushmore, it's nothing more than one artist's view of the world. It costs
virtually nothing and if the presence of horrible art just confirms that art
is free, then it has a purpose.
It sounds to me like you want to either be able to judge art in order to be
able to disqualify it, or end all publicly funded art. I am saying, whoa,
take a step back. If you get one great work out of a thousand bad ones, you
will have spent your NEA money on something worthwhile. That doesn't mean I
want to spend 500 million dollars a year on the NEA, but for the
demonstrable good it does do it is a crime to destroy it for the few things
it does that offend your sensibilities.
How long would offensive art survive without government? I don't know. I
do know that in order to allow new ideas to flourish we must sometimes put
up with offensive or distasteful ideas. That is part of the game - we have
to fall down to learn how to walk.
The paragraph stands on its own. You can't refute a word of it because you
know it's true.
>
> > Oh, and about your view of publicly funded art: what are your
credentials, and
> > which publicly funded art have you evaluated? Even if we assume you are
> > correct and most of it stinks, are you willing to throw out the stuff
that
> > *doesn't* stink to avoid spending your ten thousandth of a penny per
dollar of
> > taxes? I'm not. I think the potential for greatness is worth a small
> > investment, especially when you know the investment would likely go into
some
> > politician's brother-in-law's pocket anyway.
>
> georgann:
> Irrelevant.
Irrelevant?! We're talking about wasting tax monies. We're talking about
your right not to pay for art that offends you. How in hell is what I said
irrelevant?
>
> >>> It sounds fair to me.
>
> >> georgann:
> >> Prolly cause it offends someone other than yourself. Someone you see as
an
> >> arch enemy.
>
> chas:
> > I am pissed because Christian sensibilities run so much of my country.
> > Christians get annoyed so funding for valuable programs gets cut.
Christians
> > are upset because movies depict them as they actually are rather than as
they
> > prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down. People in the
> > public eye all must cowtow to Christianity (or the somewhat acceptable
> > substitute, Judiasm) or be labelled and rejected. High and mighty,
saved and
> > on their way to god's side they are, and yet they still have to throw
their
> > weight around down here.
>
> georgann:
> You're not just pissed because "Christian sensibilities run so much of my
> country", um... how do I put this delicately ... truth is chas, you're an
> anti-Christian bigot. Your tirades about Christianity and how Christianity
> alone has somehow devalued the quality of life for you in America is
> laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
I don't know where you got the devaluation stuff from. Not me. Which of
the facts I've explained above strike you as being bigoted?
>
> If I were to suggest to you as I have to in another post to Marc, that
there
> are a number of very high profile blacks, like say Mike Tyson, Puff Daddy,
O
> J Simpson that are proven to be very violent black individuals, that there
> are more blacks in prison for violent crimes then other races, then
> extrapolate from that that all blacks are more violent and more prone to
be
> criminals, you'd condemn me for being a major bigot in a heartbeat.
I don't understand why this concept escapes you peopl^h^h^h^h^h (thanks
Tina): black, gay, disabled, etc. are characteristics of people. Christian,
Republican, Conservative, etc. are voluntary groupings of people who share a
common set of idea or ideals. It okay to be "bigoted" against a group of
people who share an idea, but not against a group of people who share a
trait. If you were to substitute in your example above "member of the KKK"
for "black", it will be clear that "bigotry" (if you must call it that) is
perfectly acceptable when applied to people who label themselves as sharing
a common idea (as long as you are criticizing that idea and not the people
themselves).
>
> But you do that all the time. When the subject is Christianity to you
that's
> fair game for a form of freely sanctioned bigotry among the intellectual
> elite. You extrapolate a similarly irrational distain for a whole group
from
> the examples you have seen from a few. I reject the notion that you have
any
> consistent contact with great numbers of Christians yet you persist in
this
> self-fulfilling despise of a whole segment of our society based on the
> appearance of several high profile individuals or the lunacy of some
people
> who do heinous things to some gays in our distinctly heterogeneous
American
> culture. How do you justify that?
Short answer: see above. Long answer: Christians are a group of people with
a common set of ideas. Therefore, their leaders speak for them. Now of
course this is not absolute (except perhaps in the case of the Catholics),
but what is an atheist to do? You, G, personally claim knowledge about god.
You claim you belong to a group of people who believe as you do, and I take
you at your word. I believe you are representative of your group. I also
believe that Christian leaders rise to prominence because they represent the
views of many other Christians. This enables me to comment on "Christians"
based on their representatives: you and Christian leaders.
Before you respond with the inevitable "What about gays?" question, I've got
one for you. Please name a gay leader who has risen to prominence because
he or she represents a large number of gay people's views. You can't.
Hell, I can't. That's because there are none. Gays are united by their
orientation and nothing else.
Nah. I'm just referring to the secular holiday known as "Christmas" and the
constant references in our governmental bodies to Christ and the lip service
that everyone has to pay to religion in general and Christ in specific to
get ahead in the public eye. I know Christians don't have the power they'd
like, but you have to admit they have a lot.
>
> > I don't know what Christianity is about? Remember, it's designed for
the
> > masses to be as simple as possible. How about I take a stab at it? God
is
> > love. Christ died for our sins. All we have to do is let god (or
Christ - I
> > get them confused) into our hearts and we will live forever in the
kingdom of
> > heaven. Close? Wait, let's not forget your measure for a true
Christian:
> > Christ is the one and only savior. There, that oughta do it.
>
> georgann:
> Only vaguely close. He died so we could have life here more abundantly.
Not
> just a pleasurable "afterlife". Barely a C+.
Oh come on G. C+? Because I characterized the afterlife as pleasurable -
wait a second - where did I do that? Are you denying that Christ died for
our sins? Are you denying that if we let Christ into our hearts god will
forgive us and we will dwell for eternity by his side? I'm confused. And
I'm challenging that grade - I think the teacher has it in for me.
>
> >> I could spend hours, days, weeks attempting to show you the simplistic
> >> bigotry in your view of Christianity but I've come to see its hopeless
when
> >> your deep seated anger and personal resentment won't permit you to be
> >> rational about it. Bright and articulate? Perhaps. Rational, no.
>
> > I forget - did I write this about you or you about me?
> > chas
What - not even an "lol" for this? I implied you were bright and
articulate... wheedle wheedle wheedle.
chas
Jim Gray
chen...@mindspring.com says...
>
> Yes you were. And it is the essence of distortion to think of
> humility as having anything to do with saving oneself due to
> ones own "morality".
>
fundamentalists always so up in arms about the immorality of modern
society and those dirty homosexuals and the uppity women and the
failure of modesty and chastity?
Or is it just that Christianity isn't about Christians being moral,
just non-Christians, 'cause Jesus knows they can't control themselves
like good Christians (see _Swaggart_, _Bakker_, and _Hyde_ for
details) can?
Or is it that Christianity has an inconsistent worldview that, on the
one hand, demands that Christians be persecuted because Christ said it
would be so, but on the other, cries foul and screams bloody murder
when non-Christian individuals so much as criticize a fellow
Christian?
Jim (just wonderin') Gray
georgann
>> Yes you were. And it is the essence of distortion to think of
>> humility as having anything to do with saving oneself due to
>> ones own "morality".
Jim Gray:
> If Christianity isn't about being moral, then why are the
> fundamentalists always so up in arms about the immorality of modern
> society and those dirty homosexuals and the uppity women and the
> failure of modesty and chastity?
georgann wrote:
When have fundamentalists of any stripe NOT been up in arms about something?
I could ask precisely the same question about fundamentalist gays - Act Up -
Queer Nation - in your face gays. Their view of how things should be is just
as uppity as a fundamentalist Christian's. Don't you yet know that the enemy
is not in our differences but in our choice to be combative? Looks like you
need a refresher in Mass Mind (the Epic Societal Poem) re:
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/glob/2969/1.html
Jim Gray:
> Or is it just that Christianity isn't about Christians being moral,
> just non-Christians, 'cause Jesus knows they can't control themselves
> like good Christians (see _Swaggart_, _Bakker_, and _Hyde_ for
> details) can?
georgann:
You think Christianity holds all the keys to failure? Wouldn't it be more
fair to suggest, imply , claim that territory comes with being human?
Jim Gray:
> Or is it that Christianity has an inconsistent worldview that, on the
> one hand, demands that Christians be persecuted because Christ said it
> would be so, but on the other, cries foul and screams bloody murder
> when non-Christian individuals so much as criticize a fellow
> Christian?
> Jim (just wonderin') Gray
georgann wrote:
There are an awful lot of non-Christians that claim persecution. Should we
just forget them for the sake of this argument??
Jim Gray
chen...@mindspring.com says...
> > chen...@mindspring.com says...
> >> Yes you were. And it is the essence of distortion to think of
> >> humility as having anything to do with saving oneself due to
> >> ones own "morality".
>
>
> Jim Gray:
> > If Christianity isn't about being moral, then why are the
> > fundamentalists always so up in arms about the immorality of
> > modern society and those dirty homosexuals and the uppity women
> > and the failure of modesty and chastity?
>
> georgann wrote:
> When have fundamentalists of any stripe NOT been up in arms about
> something? I could ask precisely the same question about fundamentalist
> gays - Act Up - Queer Nation - in your face gays. Their view of how
> things should be is just as uppity as a fundamentalist Christian's.
> Don't you yet know that the enemy is not in our differences but in
> our choice to be combative? Looks like you need a refresher in Mass
> Mind (the Epic Societal Poem) re:
> http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/glob/2969/1.html
>
necessarily universally lauded even by the gay community) demand that
all heterosexuals either change to gay or just shut up about their
sexuality (or claim that all heterosexuals were going to hell)
was...hmmm...that's strange. I don't remember the last time I heard
that happen. Funny thing, that.
> Jim Gray:
> > Or is it just that Christianity isn't about Christians being moral,
> > just non-Christians, 'cause Jesus knows they can't control themselves
> > like good Christians (see _Swaggart_, _Bakker_, and _Hyde_ for
> > details) can?
>
> georgann:
> You think Christianity holds all the keys to failure? Wouldn't it be more
> fair to suggest, imply , claim that territory comes with being human?
>
Reading comprehension time...I never stated that Christians hold all
the keys to failure. I only stated that they seem to be of the
opinion that they aren't capable of failure, despite evidence to the
contrary.
> Jim Gray:
> > Or is it that Christianity has an inconsistent worldview that, on the
> > one hand, demands that Christians be persecuted because Christ said it
> > would be so, but on the other, cries foul and screams bloody murder
> > when non-Christian individuals so much as criticize a fellow
> > Christian?
> > Jim (just wonderin') Gray
>
> georgann wrote:
> There are an awful lot of non-Christians that claim persecution. Should we
> just forget them for the sake of this argument??
>
>
That's strange...were you reading the paragraph I wrote? I said
nothing about non-Christians vis a vis their own persecution. That
said, most non-Christians don't have the deeply held belief that their
god/goddess/higher power/inner voice/subconscious loves them so much
that he/she/it will personally see to it that they suffer horribly in
life just like their Savior.
Jim (masochism, anyone?) Gray
Jennifer Martin
>> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
>> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
Jenn:
>> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit.
Bill:
>We disagree from whom the funding should come.
Only to a degree. Most people believe that most art should be privately
funded, and I agree. Most people also agree that art often benefits the public
as a whole, so a very tiny percentage of all art receives a bit of support from
all of us.
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
Jenn:
>> Actually, no it's not.
Bill:
>Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
>values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
>mix them.
Liberals attack Christian values, blah, blah. More posting without any
knowledge. Among the things that the artist has said about this is that it is
a statement about the way society has trampled on the message of Christ, i.e.
that we are "pissing" on Him as a society. Not an anti-Christian statement at
all.
Jenn:
>> And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were funded
>by
>> the NEA.
Bill:
>I didn't say they were.
So the discussion of Piss Christ and Last Supper have nothing to do with
government funding.
>> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
>> government money.
>>
>The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
>ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
>this country.
It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
involved in art funding.>>
chas:
>> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
>them
>> >> to have bands and orchestras?
>>
>> Bill:
>> >No.
Jenn:
>> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only teach
>> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
Bill:
>Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
>money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
>and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
>stuff.
So can anything, including all school per se. The point is, art education
benefits all of society, and as a society, we have decided that it is
worthwhile for all students to learn it.
Jenn Martin
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> >> Bill:
> >> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
>
> Jenn:
> >> Actually, no it's not.
>
> Bill:
> >Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
> >values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
> >mix them.
>
> Liberals attack Christian values, blah, blah. More posting without any
> knowledge. Among the things that the artist has said about this is that it is
> a statement about the way society has trampled on the message of Christ, i.e.
> that we are "pissing" on Him as a society. Not an anti-Christian statement at
> all.
>
You can't be serious. This 'artist' attacks the Catholic church, gets
called on it, and then makes up some wonderful real meaning for dunking
Christ in piss or putting shit on the Virgin Mary.
> Jenn:
> >> And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were funded
> >by
> >> the NEA.
>
> Bill:
> >I didn't say they were.
>
> So the discussion of Piss Christ and Last Supper have nothing to do with
> government funding.
>
The Last Supper was being shown in a publicly funded museum. That is
what the problem was about. It wasn't funded by the NEA, that I know of.
> >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
> >> government money.
> >>
> >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
> >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
> >this country.
>
> It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
> involved in art funding.>>
>
How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
to have their tax money go to this garbage?
> chas:
> >> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
> >them
> >> >> to have bands and orchestras?
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >No.
>
> Jenn:
> >> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only teach
> >> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
>
> Bill:
> >Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
> >money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
> >and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
> >stuff.
>
> So can anything, including all school per se.
>
Of course, except that as a society we choose to support all children in
a basic education. If their parents want them to view or create Piss
Christ, they can do it on their own. I won't complain.
> The point is, art education
> benefits all of society,
> and as a society, we have decided that it is
> worthwhile for all students to learn it.
>
Where did you get that idea?
Eric da Red
Jesus made many statements that clearly point in that direction.
You, of course, are free to ignore them.
Ignoring dissonant facts is one of your specialties.
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> >> BillBonde:
> >> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> >> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
>
> Jenn:
> >> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit.
>
> Bill:
> >We disagree from whom the funding should come.
>
> Only to a degree. Most people believe that most art should be privately
> funded, and I agree.
>
So what's with making laws that 2% (or whatever it is) of all funds
going to public buildings must be spent on 'art'?
> Most people also agree that art often benefits the public
> as a whole, so a very tiny percentage of all art receives a bit of support from
> all of us.
>
Since this very tiny percentage is obviously creating huge problems due
to the fact that people shouldn't be forced to pay tax money for art
they find offensive, how about letting these artists find someone with
cash who will support their endeavours?
georgann
>>>> Christianity is not about being moral.
>> Eric da Red:
>>> It's turned out that way, although Jesus' message was overwhelmingly
>>> loaded with exhortations to moral improvement.
>>> Of course, he's hardly the only prophet whose message is distorted,
>>> diluted, and demeaned.
>>>> Its about being graced with perfect forgiveness despite ones immorality.
>>>> Abject immorality compared to the one that offers that perfect grace. And
>>>> its about being humble enough to accept it.
>> Eric da Red:
>>> As I said about distortion ...
>> georgann wrote:
>> Yes you were. And it is the essence of distortion to think of humility as
>> having anything to do with saving oneself due to ones own "morality".
Eric da Red:
> Jesus made many statements that clearly point in that direction.
> You, of course, are free to ignore them.
> Ignoring dissonant facts is one of your specialties.
georgann wrote:
As delicately as possible I must point out to you that you are patently
incorrect. Jesus made NO statements that point to salvation via morality.
On the contrary Jesus specifically said (John 3:3) "Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." And He said
(John 3:16) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." and
(John 14:6) "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father but through Me."
Nothing in any of those most key passages suggests that salvation is by
anything OTHER than the grace of God and the belief in Christ.
Tinas49ers
>If you keep teaching me eventually I will learn. In my defense, I was
>speaking directly to someone who happens to be Christian about a statement
>they made concerning Christianity. Which you snipped.
I snipped it as I didn't see the relevence. HOWEVER, dk smacked me when I said
to him, a gay man, you gays, so I can smack you for saying to a Christian, you
Christians....if all things are equal.
>Until very recently, if gays tried to shut down every movie, tv show or book
>that treated homosexuals unfairly there would be 24 hour picket lines across
>the USA.
We aren't talking about the waay things used to be because thats not how things
are now. Christians are regularly portrayed as nutcases--sure I know there's
Georgann--but not all of us are. Catholic priests, more often than not are
portrayed as child molesters. If you counted up how many times they are
portrayed that waay, verses what is reality, in reality 75% of priest would
actually be child molesters.
>Things have changed, but it used to be homosexuals were most often
>portrayed as disgusting villains or effeminate caricatures or sad, pathetic
>losers, etc..
Since I dont read sci-fi, can you give an example of such in movie or TV?
>
>Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and Carlo is Catholic. Do they
>count as Christians (I'm not up on the latest Georgann analysis)?
I dont pay too much attention to what Georgann says as to who is a Christian
and who isn't. My version is anyone who has accepted Christ as their personal
Savior, believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and has asked
forgiveness of those sins, so I will let YOU decide if you ex and Carlo are
Christians, since you know them and I do not.
>I don't
>hate Christians, I just hate what some of them do (love the sinner you
>know).
Would you prefer that we hate both the sin and the sinner? My religion teaches
that we don't accept sin, that we don't sin and dont tolerate it in others.
That doesn't mean we dont love the person. You think I can't hate Curtis' sin
but love him?
>
>What do you think about someone who calls up a radio show and starts out
>with, "Well, I'm a Christian and..."?
The same thing I think when someone tells a story and makes a remark like "This
black guy came in the store and bought apples". If there is no point in
pointing out that he is black, its dumb, if there is a reason for the
reference, that could be different. Being a Christian is a point of reference,
that could be pertinent to the conversation. I might say that before I respond
to someone. Do you think that makes me have more moral excellence, as you
stated here:
>I automatically think they're just
>indicating their own moral excellence - tooting their own horn.
OR do you think I am using as a point of reference so you know where I am
coming from? I liken it to you saying, "As a gay man I can say....." because
that is a point of reference from where you can speak. Does any of that make
sense?
>They might
>as well be saying "I have good morals and I follow the teachings of Jesus
>Christ and my question is...". What would I say: "I'm not a follower of
>Jesus - in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals and my question
>is...". Sounds pretty silly, huh?
You'd have to be a bit more specific for me to honestly answer that question.
But yes it would be silly of you to put that much reference...for you to say,"
I'm an atheist and my question is..." Since, going off your example all the
other caller said was "I am a Christian..."
>Some Christians think that their
>Christianity is proof of something and entitles them to something, and
>that's part of what makes me dislike some Christians so much.
Please detail that statement further. I'd like to know what you mean.
Tina
sheesh, drive-by posting is so much easier!
chas
You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
heart and you will live by god's side for eternity? Cool - does this raise
my gpa?
chas
chas
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3A9305CD...@mail.com...
> Jennifer Martin wrote:
[snip]
> > >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
> > >> government money.
> > >>
> > >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
> > >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
> > >this country.
> >
> > It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
> > involved in art funding.>>
> >
> How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
> forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
> to have their tax money go to this garbage?
Poor deluded Bill. Worried sick about whether the ten thousandth of a penny
of every dollar he pays to the government is going to go to some
anti-Christian artist. Don't worry about the theft or the waste or war or
the monuments or the field trips or the pork barrels or the screw-ups or the
assassinations or anything Bill, the only thing you need to worry about is
if a billionth of a penny of your tax dollar supported someone who has a
different view than you do of the world, because by god you won't allow
that!
And about the marriage penalty - a whole lot of good wholesome American
couples would get married and have babies if only we would promise them an
extra $650 dollars a year, so let's get to it!
[snip]
chas
georgann
>> As delicately as possible I must point out to you that you are patently
>> incorrect. Jesus made NO statements that point to salvation via morality.
>> On the contrary Jesus specifically said (John 3:3) "Truly, truly, I say to
>> you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." And He said
>> (John 3:16) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,
>> that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." and
>> (John 14:6) "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
>> Father but through Me."
>> Nothing in any of those most key passages suggests that salvation is by
>> anything OTHER than the grace of God and the belief in Christ.
chas:
> You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
> heart and you will live by god's side for eternity? Cool - does this raise
> my gpa?
> chas
georgann wrote:
I don't think your gpa (golf?) is gonna show improvement. But IFF you turn
your heart over to Christ you will have an amazingly improved life. The
trick is actually doing it. See He's really good at ignoring frauds. And the
big surprise is your heart changes.
Jennifer Martin
>> >> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
>>
>> Jenn:
>> >> Actually, no it's not.
>>
>> Bill:
>> >Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
>> >values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
>> >mix them.
Jenn:
>> Liberals attack Christian values, blah, blah. More posting without any
>> knowledge. Among the things that the artist has said about this is that it
>is
>> a statement about the way society has trampled on the message of Christ,
>i.e.
>> that we are "pissing" on Him as a society. Not an anti-Christian statement
>at
>> all.
Bill:
>You can't be serious. This 'artist' attacks the Catholic church, gets
>called on it, and then makes up some wonderful real meaning for dunking
>Christ in piss or putting shit on the Virgin Mary.
Nope, in both cases, the explanation came before the controversy.
>> Jenn:
>> >> And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were
>funded
>> >by
>> >> the NEA.
>>
>> Bill:
>> >I didn't say they were.
Jenn:
>> So the discussion of Piss Christ and Last Supper have nothing to do with
>> government funding.
Bill:
>The Last Supper was being shown in a publicly funded museum. That is
>what the problem was about. It wasn't funded by the NEA, that I know of.
So the publicly funded museum should show nothing that is controversial?
Jenn:
>> >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
>> >> government money.
Bill:
>> >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
>> >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
>> >this country.
Jenn:
>> It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
>> involved in art funding.>>
Bill:
>How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
>forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
>to have their tax money go to this garbage?
You don't understand how things are funded. The artist is funded BEFORE work
is produced. Sometimes you get Beethoven, sometimes (much less often) you get
something that offends people. It's not "here's some money, now go draw us
some pretty pictures." BTW, Beethoven offended many people during his day with
his art too. Today, we know that they are masterpieces.
>> chas:
>> >> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
>> >them
>> >> >> to have bands and orchestras?
>> >>
>> >> Bill:
>> >> >No.
>>
>> Jenn:
>> >> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only
>teach
>> >> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
>>
>> Bill:
>> >Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
>> >money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
>> >and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
>> >stuff.
Jenn:
>> So can anything, including all school per se.
Bill:
>Of course, except that as a society we choose to support all children in
>a basic education. If their parents want them to view or create Piss
>Christ, they can do it on their own. I won't complain.
And as a society, we have determined that art education is worthy to be in the
curriculum.
Jenn:
>> The point is, art education
>> benefits all of society,
>> and as a society, we have decided that it is
>> worthwhile for all students to learn it.
Bill:
>Where did you get that idea?
Who elects school boards?
We also have determined that it is worth to have P.E. and sports. While I may
disagree with some of that, the people have decided it.
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>> >> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
>> >> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
>>
>> Jenn:
>> >> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit.
>>
>> Bill:
>> >We disagree from whom the funding should come.
Jenn:
>> Only to a degree. Most people believe that most art should be privately
>> funded, and I agree.
Bill:
>So what's with making laws that 2% (or whatever it is) of all funds
>going to public buildings must be spent on 'art'?
As I said, MOST. We have determined, through our elected officials, that the
2% (in some places) benefits all of us; that it raises our quality of life for
buildings that the public uses to have a statue or painting, and to not
resemble strip malls.
Jenn:
>> Most people also agree that art often benefits the public
>> as a whole, so a very tiny percentage of all art receives a bit of support
>from
>> all of us.
Bill:
>Since this very tiny percentage is obviously creating huge problems due
>to the fact that people shouldn't be forced to pay tax money for art
>they find offensive, how about letting these artists find someone with
>cash who will support their endeavours?
See previous post about the nature of art. Mostly artists DO use private
support, probably far over 99%. Pols, especially conservative ones, like to
use this issue as a wedge. There is no "huge problem".
Jenn Martin
Bill Bonde
chas wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9305CD...@mail.com...
> > Jennifer Martin wrote:
> [snip]
> > > >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
> > > >> government money.
> > > >>
> > > >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
> > > >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
> > > >this country.
> > >
> > > It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
> > > involved in art funding.>>
> > >
> > How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
> > forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
> > to have their tax money go to this garbage?
>
> Poor deluded Bill. Worried sick about whether the ten thousandth of a penny
> of every dollar he pays to the government is going to go to some
> anti-Christian artist. Don't worry about the theft or the waste or war or
> the monuments or the field trips or the pork barrels or the screw-ups or the
> assassinations or anything Bill, the only thing you need to worry about is
> if a billionth of a penny of your tax dollar supported someone who has a
> different view than you do of the world, because by god you won't allow
> that!
>
When did I say I didn't care about other government waste?
> And about the marriage penalty - a whole lot of good wholesome American
> couples would get married and have babies if only we would promise them an
> extra $650 dollars a year, so let's get to it!
>
That's what the Germans are doing.
WizardryOf
Re: Rudy and Yo Mama's Last Supper
>>And thats YOUR version of "how
>>Christians" are. Do you even know any,
>>firsthand? I ask cuz you seem to have such
>>hatred of "them".
Chas:----
>Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and
>Carlo is Catholic.
Oz:----
Now we know why you hate Christians so much. The Catholic you dated for
13 years shot you down----devestated you so badly in fact----that you
started to hate Christians (Catholics in particular) as a result and
turned to liking homosexuals as a reaction. I was wondering why you
held such a hatred (goes way beyond ordinary bigotry) towards
Christians. You need help.
Chas:----
>What would I say: "I'm not a follower of Jesus -
>in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals...
Oz:----
Naw, come on now. That's a contradiction in terms. Atheists have no
moral foundation, no rules to follow, except what might have rubbed off
from associating with some religious types. You're your own moral
authority; you make up your own rules as you go along, and change them
to suit yourself and to satisfy your immediate gains. You have no fixed
guidelines, no "Ten Commandments," no nuttin' in your life you can truly
call "moral" to follow, except that which you yourself have decreed to
be moral, and that is only something which would be to satisfy your
immediate goals, pleasures and desires. How convenient it must be to be
an atheist, a life without constraints.
> and my question is...". Sounds pretty silly,
>huh? Some Christians think that their
>Christianity is proof of something and entitles
>them to something, and that's part of what
>makes me dislike some Christians so much.
>chas
Oz:----
And the other part is that you are extremely bigotted to most
Christians, and passionately hate the rest of them.
Oz
That 13 year romance with that Catholic that shot him down must have
started it all. Must have been one heck of a Dear John letter he got.
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> >> >> BillBonde:
> >> >> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
> >> >> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
> >>
> >> Jenn:
> >> >> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its benefit.
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >We disagree from whom the funding should come.
>
> Jenn:
> >> Only to a degree. Most people believe that most art should be privately
> >> funded, and I agree.
>
> Bill:
> >So what's with making laws that 2% (or whatever it is) of all funds
> >going to public buildings must be spent on 'art'?
>
> As I said, MOST. We have determined, through our elected officials, that the
> 2% (in some places) benefits all of us; that it raises our quality of life for
> buildings that the public uses to have a statue or painting, and to not
> resemble strip malls.
>
But whose 'art' gets shown? You wouldn't allow something that was
religious and didn't attack christians to be shown due to worries about
church and state.
Bill Bonde
Jennifer Martin wrote:
>
> >> >> Bill:
> >> >> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
> >>
> >> Jenn:
> >> >> Actually, no it's not.
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
> >> >values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
> >> >mix them.
>
> Jenn:
> >> Liberals attack Christian values, blah, blah. More posting without any
> >> knowledge. Among the things that the artist has said about this is that it
> >is
> >> a statement about the way society has trampled on the message of Christ,
> >i.e.
> >> that we are "pissing" on Him as a society. Not an anti-Christian statement
> >at
> >> all.
>
> Bill:
> >You can't be serious. This 'artist' attacks the Catholic church, gets
> >called on it, and then makes up some wonderful real meaning for dunking
> >Christ in piss or putting shit on the Virgin Mary.
>
> Nope, in both cases, the explanation came before the controversy.
>
A pre-emptive attack.
> >> Jenn:
> >> >> And by the way, neither Piss Christ, nor the Last Supper piece were
> >funded
> >> >by
> >> >> the NEA.
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >I didn't say they were.
>
> Jenn:
> >> So the discussion of Piss Christ and Last Supper have nothing to do with
> >> government funding.
>
> Bill:
> >The Last Supper was being shown in a publicly funded museum. That is
> >what the problem was about. It wasn't funded by the NEA, that I know of.
>
> So the publicly funded museum should show nothing that is controversial?
>
What do you think of art that makes fun of homosexuals?
> Jenn:
> >> >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded by
> >> >> government money.
>
> Bill:
> >> >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
> >> >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
> >> >this country.
>
> Jenn:
> >> It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
> >> involved in art funding.>>
>
> Bill:
> >How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
> >forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
> >to have their tax money go to this garbage?
>
> You don't understand how things are funded. The artist is funded BEFORE work
> is produced. Sometimes you get Beethoven, sometimes (much less often) you get
> something that offends people. It's not "here's some money, now go draw us
> some pretty pictures." BTW, Beethoven offended many people during his day with
> his art too. Today, we know that they are masterpieces.
>
Offended by attacking their beliefs? It was music. Usually no words.
Compare that to Aus Rotten which is available on Napster and is neither.
> >> chas:
> >> >> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
> >> >them
> >> >> >> to have bands and orchestras?
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill:
> >> >> >No.
> >>
> >> Jenn:
> >> >> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only
> >teach
> >> >> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
> >> >money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
> >> >and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
> >> >stuff.
>
> Jenn:
> >> So can anything, including all school per se.
>
> Bill:
> >Of course, except that as a society we choose to support all children in
> >a basic education. If their parents want them to view or create Piss
> >Christ, they can do it on their own. I won't complain.
>
> And as a society, we have determined that art education is worthy to be in the
> curriculum.
>
We should have determined that basics come first and drawing pictures
and playing with clay aren't part of that.
> Jenn:
> >> The point is, art education
> >> benefits all of society,
> >> and as a society, we have decided that it is
> >> worthwhile for all students to learn it.
>
> Bill:
> >Where did you get that idea?
>
> Who elects school boards?
>
> We also have determined that it is worth to have P.E. and sports. While I may
> disagree with some of that, the people have decided it.
>
This has changed on again off again in many places. Sometimes this isn't
any art or isn't any PE. Other times the parents have to pay for that or
for the sports. I agree with the idea behind the latter.
Jim Gray
Wizard...@webtv.net says...
>
> Chas:----
> >Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and
> >Carlo is Catholic.
>
>
> Oz:----
> Now we know why you hate Christians so much. The Catholic you dated for
> 13 years shot you down----devestated you so badly in fact----that you
> started to hate Christians (Catholics in particular) as a result and
> turned to liking homosexuals as a reaction. I was wondering why you
> held such a hatred (goes way beyond ordinary bigotry) towards
> Christians. You need help.
>
comprehension is your friend, oh lizard of ooze.
>
> Chas:----
> >What would I say: "I'm not a follower of Jesus -
> >in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals...
>
>
> Oz:----
> Naw, come on now. That's a contradiction in terms. Atheists have
> no moral foundation, no rules to follow, except what might have
> rubbed off from associating with some religious types. You're your
> own moral authority; you make up your own rules as you go along, and
> change them to suit yourself and to satisfy your immediate gains.
> You have no fixed guidelines, no "Ten Commandments," no nuttin' in
> your life you can truly call "moral" to follow, except that which
> you yourself have decreed to be moral, and that is only something
> which would be to satisfy your immediate goals, pleasures and
> desires. How convenient it must be to be an atheist, a life without
> constraints.
>
Yeah! How dare anyone pretend they can respect another human being
without being commanded to by some skydaddy who'll hold their hand
against the iron for eternity if they disobey! The arrogance!
> Oz
> That 13 year romance with that Catholic that shot him down must have
> started it all. Must have been one heck of a Dear John letter he got.
>
Dear Ooze,
I'm sorry to have to break this to you in a letter, baaaah-ut I feel
the need to return to my own kind, the baaaaah sheep in the field.
I'll always cherish our taaaaahme together, and I'll always remember
you when I see our 2 sheep-boys frolicing in the field. Baaaah.
Your ex-lover,
LambChop
Jim (did ya hear the one about the farmer who got a John Deere
letter?) Gray
Tinas49ers
>
>> chas:
>> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
>them
>> >> to have bands and orchestras?
>>
>> Bill:
>> >No.
>>
>> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
>>
>money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
>and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
>stuff.
>
>
How very small minded of you, Bill.
Tina
Not a shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
Eve DuJardin
>From: tinas...@aol.com (Tinas49ers)
>Date: 2/20/01 6:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010220213419...@ng-cn1.aol.com>
Eve wrote:
Of course, just another vote for voucher schools, eh Bill. Perhaps the
dropping of classes like music apreciation, art, band/orchestra is one of the
reasons public school education has gone down hill. On the other hand, let's
spend our tax money taking civilians out for a boat ride on a submarine, and
sending them home with weaponry as parting gifts.
Eve
Bill Bonde
Tinas49ers wrote:
>
> Bill wrote:
> >
> >> chas:
> >> >> So should the government provide money to elementary schools to allow
> >them
> >> >> to have bands and orchestras?
> >>
> >> Bill:
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> Nor art classes? Nor music appreciation? Very short sighted to only teach
> >> half the brain, Bill. Read Howard Gardner: "Frames of Mind".
> >>
> >Actually, I don't think that government schools should be spending tax
> >money on any of those things. They can be funded by private donations
> >and fees paid for by the parents of the children interested in this
> >stuff.
> >
> >
>
> How very small minded of you, Bill.
>
As opposed to your big huge behind^H^H^H^H^H^Hmind?
Tinas49ers
>You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
>heart and you will live by god's side for eternity?
You have to actually believe it too, its not enough to just say it. Believe in
your HEART, not just in your mind.
Tinas49ers
>Of course, just another vote for voucher schools, eh Bill. Perhaps the
>dropping of classes like music apreciation, art, band/orchestra is one of the
>reasons public school education has gone down hill. On the other hand, let's
>spend our tax money taking civilians out for a boat ride on a submarine, and
>sending them home with weaponry as parting gifts.
>
Very well written, Eve!!
Tinas49ers
And this is what you call debating skills?
Thank you Mr Pogo!
mr_potter
>Must have been one heck of a Dear John
>letter he got.
And I've got a "Dear OOze" letter I'm sending you, El Creepo...it's got
a big fat BOMB in it....
Best
Greg has stock in Acme Industries
Bill Bonde
LOL. You are too funny.
Bill Bonde
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Jennifer Martin wrote:
> >> Bill:
> >> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
> >> Actually, no it's not.
> > Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
> > values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
> > mix them.
>
> Did you ever read the artists' statements about what message they were
> TRYING to convey, both for Piss Christ and for Last Supper?
>
Please. Is there a separate place to put the intention of a usenet post?
> Here's a picture of Piss Christ:
> www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502tn.jpg
> If you didn't have the title, or know what was causing the yellow
> lighting, it's a rather pretty piece...
>
Yea, I'm sure that he wanted to do a piece using a crucifix and knew
that he'd never get funding unless he denigrated it. Take it out of the
jar of urine and the Liberals scream: "Separation of church and state!"
> And some comments by the artist:
> http://www.kcvac.com/reviews/serrano.htm
> http://www.shsl.com/84.htm
> As to the offensive symbolism of urine, he said it was not his
> intention to offend.
>
And I'm sure it wasn't the intention of the commander of that sub to
kill nine Japanese.
> "It dawned on me that piss would give a nice yellow," he said bringing
> forth laughter. Urine symbolizes waste, but also a necessary bodily
> function, he said. Perhaps the urine humanized Christ, he explained,
> rather than turn him into an unobtainable deity.
>
Perhaps. Geez. Wasn't Jesus supposed to be God's way of getting close to
the people?
> And Renee Cox describes "Yo Mama's Last Supper" by saying:
> Cox, raised and educated a Catholic, commented on Thursday night's
> news, "There's nothing sexual about it."
>
Isn't it a picture of a naked black woman as Jesus and all the apostles
as black men except for Judas who is white? Got a URL for it?
> Furthermore, the artist said, if "we are all made in God's image," why
> shouldn't Jesus look like her? "Why can't a woman be Christ? We are the
> givers of life!"
> http://salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/16/cox/index.html
>
> Do you think the book/movie "Last Temptation of Christ" was also
> "another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian values"?
>
Of course it was.
> And what do you think of what happened to Salman Rushdie after writing the
> Satanic Verses?
>
Where did I support doing what Iran did to Mr. Rushdie to anyone? Iran
had every right to complain if they felt slighted. They didn't have a
right to put a bounty on his head.
Tinas49ers
Bill Bonde
Sure, but it's because you are a stupid fucking moron.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>georgann wrote:
>Wrong Jim. Tim snipped Marc's post I was referring to. He
>consciously (?) omitted the following from Marc prior to that
>sentence: ""The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
>might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC -
>maybe enough so she can sell some work."" That "intent" was
>why I referenced whoring Jim.
Was Manet a whore when he painted a whore in "Olympia"? The
Parisian art community thought so. How about Piccasso, did he
capitalize on the fear of facism by painting "Guernica"? Was
Billy Holiday's recording of "Strange Fruit" designed to evoke a
reaction? Did all these works eventually transcend such narrow
minded thinking?
--
"Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus"
Eve DuJardin
>Message-id: <20010220233826...@ng-fv1.aol.com>
Thanks, Tina.
Eve
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 2/20/01 10:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A93611D...@mail.com>
Eve wrote:
Tina, make another space in the barn. You just got Bills other goat!!
Eve
Jim Gray
toowilli...@aol.com says...
> Subject: Re: Rudy and Yo Mama's Last Supper
> From: Bill Bonde std...@mail.com
> >Sure, but it's because you are a stupid fucking moron.
> Tina, make another space in the barn. You just got Bills other goat!!
He's gonna be awful lonely tonight...
Jim (oh, wait...that's ooze (baaaah)) Gray
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>One of my favorite science fiction books (written in the last
>10 years) has a villain so horrible that he almost succeeds
>in destroying the entire universe, and he likes to use and
>discard young boys (of course, the hero likes to use and
>discard young girls, but his relationships are all sweet and
>light and flowery and he changes by the end of the book,
>while the villain's are all torturous and cruel and sick -
>and of course there are no other homosexual characters in the
>entire book (unless you count his first pathetic loser
>victim)).
Dune is older than that (or my guess is wrong).
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD
>Christianity is not about being moral.
As it's leaders demonstrate time and again.
Bill Bonde
So you can use profanity against me but if I just use a little bit,
you've got my 'goat'? You are both stupid fucking idiot pukes.
chas
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B6B88805.1004D%chen...@mindspring.com...
> >> georgann wrote:
[snip]
> chas:
> > You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
raise
> > my gpa?
> > chas
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> I don't think your gpa (golf?) is gonna show improvement. But IFF you turn
> your heart over to Christ you will have an amazingly improved life. The
> trick is actually doing it. See He's really good at ignoring frauds. And
the
> big surprise is your heart changes.
Did you purposely write "IFF"? Do you know that means "if and only if" in
math/logic? Are you claiming that one can not have an "amazingly improved
life" without turning their heart over to Christ?
chas
likes his heart just the way it is
chas
"Tinas49ers" <tinas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010220232920...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> Chas wrote:
> >You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
> >heart and you will live by god's side for eternity?
>
> You have to actually believe it too, its not enough to just say it.
Believe in
> your HEART, not just in your mind.
Oh well. Maybe in my next life.
chas
chas
day.
"WizardryOf" <Wizard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7274-3A9...@storefull-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Re: Rudy and Yo Mama's Last Supper
>>And thats YOUR version of "how
>>Christians" are. Do you even know any,
>>firsthand? I ask cuz you seem to have such
>>hatred of "them".
Chas:----
>Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and
>Carlo is Catholic.
Oz:----
Now we know why you hate Christians so much. The Catholic you dated for
13 years shot you down----devestated you so badly in fact----that you
started to hate Christians (Catholics in particular) as a result and
turned to liking homosexuals as a reaction. I was wondering why you
held such a hatred (goes way beyond ordinary bigotry) towards
Christians. You need help.
chas:
Uhm, the Catholic I dated for 13 years was a man. And now I'm married to a
Catholic man. What would happen if you used your brain to think with
instead of your mouth?
Chas:----
>What would I say: "I'm not a follower of Jesus -
>in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals...
Oz:----
Naw, come on now. That's a contradiction in terms. Atheists have no
moral foundation, no rules to follow, except what might have rubbed off
from associating with some religious types. You're your own moral
authority; you make up your own rules as you go along, and change them
to suit yourself and to satisfy your immediate gains. You have no fixed
guidelines, no "Ten Commandments," no nuttin' in your life you can truly
call "moral" to follow, except that which you yourself have decreed to
be moral, and that is only something which would be to satisfy your
immediate goals, pleasures and desires. How convenient it must be to be
an atheist, a life without constraints.
chas:
Thanks, it is! I make good money, have a beautiful home in the country,
work for myself, and best of all I have a wonderful family! I see my girls
every morning for 3 hours and then again at night for 2 more, and then on
the weekends I spend every waking moment with them. My relatives, in-laws
and friends visit, I'm rated 2300 at Boggle on games.com, and for even more
fun I participate in an online community where most people are clever and
witty and interesting. Now, what exactly is the problem here?
> and my question is...". Sounds pretty silly,
>huh? Some Christians think that their
>Christianity is proof of something and entitles
>them to something, and that's part of what
>makes me dislike some Christians so much.
>chas
Oz:----
And the other part is that you are extremely bigotted to most
Christians, and passionately hate the rest of them.
chas:
Oh yeah, that's the problem. I should apologize to the people who want me
to live a lonely celibate existence without children, denying my feelings
and condemning my friends and lovers. After all, Christians only have my
best interests at heart.
Oz
That 13 year romance with that Catholic that shot him down must have
started it all. Must have been one heck of a Dear John letter he got.
chas:
Mmm. Started me on this painful path of self-destruction. I just hope this
self-inflicted punishment lasts a good long time, to teach me the error of
my ways.
chas
chas
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3A93217B...@mail.com...
>
>
> chas wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A9305CD...@mail.com...
> > > Jennifer Martin wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > >> The original Last Supper, on the other hand, WAS partially funded
by
> > > > >> government money.
> > > > >>
time
> > > > >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is
relevant to
> > > > >this country.
> > > >
be
> > > > involved in art funding.>>
> > > >
in
> > > forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be
forced
> > > to have their tax money go to this garbage?
> >
penny
> > of every dollar he pays to the government is going to go to some
> > anti-Christian artist. Don't worry about the theft or the waste or war
or
> > the monuments or the field trips or the pork barrels or the screw-ups or
the
> > assassinations or anything Bill, the only thing you need to worry about
is
> > if a billionth of a penny of your tax dollar supported someone who has a
> > different view than you do of the world, because by god you won't allow
> > that!
> >
> When did I say I didn't care about other government waste?
It's the same problem as the drug war. You want to abort the NEA (saving a
couple of million a year) but I haven't heard a word about the trillions of
wasted dollars spent on everything else the government does. You want to
stop a few thousand heroin addicts from shooting up (for their own health,
of course!), but the hundreds of thousands of smokers and drinkers that end
up killing themselves somehow don't make it onto your radar screen. It's
called an "agenda" Bill. You complain about some things because you don't
like them and then make up excuses to justify your complaints. Then you
claim you're only doing for principal or the good of others. It's called
"lying."
> > And about the marriage penalty - a whole lot of good wholesome American
> > couples would get married and have babies if only we would promise them
an
> > extra $650 dollars a year, so let's get to it!
> >
> That's what the Germans are doing.
Whoosh.
chas
chas
"Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD" <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:904EE28C8timh...@209.155.56.94...
> cha...@rcnspam.com (chas) posted:
>
> >One of my favorite science fiction books (written in the last
> >10 years) has a villain so horrible that he almost succeeds
> >in destroying the entire universe, and he likes to use and
> >discard young boys (of course, the hero likes to use and
> >discard young girls, but his relationships are all sweet and
> >light and flowery and he changes by the end of the book,
> >while the villain's are all torturous and cruel and sick -
> >and of course there are no other homosexual characters in the
> >entire book (unless you count his first pathetic loser
> >victim)).
>
> Dune is older than that (or my guess is wrong).
Nope, not Dune. Peter F. Hamilton's multi-part series The Reality
Dysfunction.
chas
georgann
>> Wrong Jim. Tim snipped Marc's post I was referring to. He
>> consciously (?) omitted the following from Marc prior to that
>> sentence: ""The Artist might have gone into this knowing she
>> might get a lot of free press from the idiot Mayor of NYC -
>> maybe enough so she can sell some work."" That "intent" was
>> why I referenced whoring Jim.
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD:
> Was Manet a whore when he painted a whore in "Olympia"? The
> Parisian art community thought so. How about Piccasso, did he
> capitalize on the fear of facism by painting "Guernica"? Was
> Billy Holiday's recording of "Strange Fruit" designed to evoke a
> reaction? Did all these works eventually transcend such narrow
> minded thinking?
georgann wrote:
Tim, none of your artist examples were underwritten by taxpayers at the time
of those works. But more interesting than your breach of topic here is the
fact that in all my studies and years of interest in the subject of art, as
well as some amount of practical experience with courting the muse, I've
never encountered a text OR an individual who suggested a comparison could
be attempted between artists subsidized by taxpayers, including even
"narrow-minded" taxpayers, and those artists like Manet, Picasso, Holiday
who were NOT so subsidized.
Would you care to establish such a comparison on any other basis then some
wafting references to the artiness or social symbolism of their chosen
subjects? I'd love to see it attempted. Spin it well enough and you might
get .. um .. published!
georgann
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD:
> As it's leaders demonstrate time and again.
georgann wrote:
God vindicates His good name. One way or another, Tim.
Tinas49ers
I'm amazed at how many, MANY more times that is said about you.
Tinas49ers
Ahhh...we see he learns well from his friend Jak.
georgann
>>> You mean I was right? All you have to do is accept god/Christ into your
>>> heart and you will live by god's side for eternity? Cool - does this raise
>>> my gpa?
>>> chas
>> georgann wrote:
>> I don't think your gpa (golf?) is gonna show improvement. But IFF you turn
>> your heart over to Christ you will have an amazingly improved life. The trick
>> is actually doing it. See He's really good at ignoring frauds. And the big
>> surprise is your heart changes.
chas:
> Did you purposely write "IFF"? Do you know that means "if and only if" in
> math/logic? Are you claiming that one can not have an "amazingly improved
> life" without turning their heart over to Christ?
> chas
> likes his heart just the way it is
georgann wrote:
Yes. Yes. And yes.
WizardryOf
Re: Rudy and Yo Mama's Last Supper
Chas:----
>>>Well, I dated one Catholic for 13 years, and
>>>Carlo is Catholic.
Oz:----
>>Now we know why you hate Christians so
>>much. The Catholic you dated for 13 years shot
>>you down----devestated you so badly in
>>fact----that you started to hate Christians
>>(Catholics in particular) as a result and turned
>>to liking homosexuals as a reaction. I was
>>wondering why you held such a hatred (goes
>>way beyond ordinary bigotry) towards
>>Christians. You need help.
Gay:----
>Yeah, that must be why he's dating a Catholic
>at the present. Reading comprehension is your
>friend, oh lizard of ooze.
Oz;-----
What kind of a Catholic could he be dating
when he has such opinions of
Catholics/Christians? I suspect Carlo is
Catholic by name only. Is he in good standing
with the Church, that is -can he receive the
sacraments? No self-respecting person who follows and takes pride in
his religion would ordinarily have close relationships with an
individual who holds such irrational hostilities towards that religion.
Chas:----
>>>What would I say: "I'm not a follower of Jesus -
>>>in fact I'm an atheist - but I have good morals...
Oz:----
>>Naw, come on now. That's a contradiction in
>>terms. Atheists have no moral foundation, no
>>rules to follow, except what might have rubbed
>>off from associating with some religious types.
>>You're your own moral authority; you make up
>>your own rules as you go along, and change
>>them to suit yourself and to satisfy your
>>immediate gains. You have no fixed guidelines,
>>no "Ten Commandments," no nuttin' in your life
>>you can truly call "moral" to follow, except that
>>which you yourself have decreed to be moral,
>>and that is only something which would be to
>>satisfy your immediate goals, pleasures and
>>desires. How convenient it must be to be an
>>atheist, a life without constraints.
Gray:----
>Yeah! How dare anyone pretend they can
>respect another human being without being
>commanded to by some skydaddy who'll hold
>their hand against the iron for eternity if they
>disobey! The arrogance!
Oz:----
Oh my, I must've touched on a nerve. The shoe pinched a little, did it?
You're must be another idjut who wants no rules of morality in his life
apparently and wants to call his own shots. The heck on anbody telling
you what to do. You're your own man, going by his own conveniently
contrived rules, and undoubtedly quite willing to change them at the
slighest whim.
Oz
>>That 13 year romance with that Catholic that
>>shot him down must have started it all. Must
>>have been one heck of a Dear John letter he
>>got.
Gray agin:----
>Dear Ooze,
>I'm sorry to have to break this to you in a letter,
>baaaah-ut I feel the need to return to my own
>kind, the baaaaah sheep in the field. I'll always
>cherish our taaaaahme together, and I'll always
>remember you when I see our 2 sheep-boys
>frolicing in the field. Baaaah.
>Your ex-lover,
>LambChop
>Jim (did ya hear the one about the farmer who
>got a John Deere letter?) Gray
Oz:----
Hey, that was pretty good. My heart is broken, but I'll try real hard
to get over you.
Oz
Who regularly gets letters from John Deere since he bought one and got
on their mailing list.
georgann
>>>>>> anti-art. Just as blacks, Jews, gays are offended by derogatory slang,
>>>>>> Christians are offended by quasi-artistic slang. Its not that hard to
>>>>>> figure out.
>>>> chas:
>>>>> Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of Christians say and
>>>>> believe, and some Christians are offended by some art.
>>>> georgann:
>>>> You speak for all gays chas? And you now speak for some Christians? I don't
>>>> really think you're qualified to either.
>> chas:
>>> I can certainly repeat things that have been said by some gays and some
>>> Christians. I took pains to use the phrase "some Christians" throughout my
>>> post - I even went back and edited it where I'd forgotten the word "some." I
>>> forgot to put it in front of "gays" in that sentence. I apologize.
>> georgann:
>> That's odd. I see the words a "lot of Christians" in that sentence too.
>>> Do you disagree with my completely bland and generic statement, that [some]
>>> gays are offended and some Christians are offended?
>> georgann:
>> To be exact you said ""Gays are offended by a lot of the crap a lot of
>> Christians say and believe"". This suggests to me that all gays are offended
>> and that many Christians are responsible for their offense. If I said all
>> Christians were offended by most gays that wouldn't even be true. But you
>> don't seem to care about the distinction here cause it doesn't suit your
>> purposes. Its OK to make these generalizations about Christians but not gays.
>> Now who's intellectually dishonest?
Charles Basner:
> Come on Georgeann. I'm not trying to be dishonest or make claims across the
> board for all gays or all Christians. I apologize if I've said anything
> inartfully and given the wrong impression. Let me try again:
> There are some gay people who are offended by some of the things said and
> believed by some Christian people. There are some Christian people who are
> offended by some artwork, some of which may have been produced by gays.
georgann:
I appreciate your attempt to qualify WHO we're talking about. Its not ALL
Christians just as its not ALL gays. Let's mush on.
>>>>> Christian religions are exempted from taxes but get the benefit of the
>>>>> public conveniences paid for by taxpayers, and a tiny, tiny minority of
>>>>> artists get a pittance from the government to support their art.
>>>> georgann:
>>>> So now your beef is with tax exemption of churches? What the F does that
>>>> have to do with artists being subsidized by taxpayers anyway?
>> chas:
>>> Just demonstrates that religion is and has always been subsidized by
>>> taxpayers in the form of public roads and other public services. Religion
>>> is a sacred cow (so to speak) and churches that don't pay taxes on land that
>>> otherwise would generate income cause my tax bill to be higher than
>>> necessary. And it's a lot more than the tiny pittance spent on art.
>> georgann:
>> What sheer and utter crap.
Charles Basner:
> Which part? I thought they were all naked facts.
georgann:
Its not a "naked fact" to claim that religion has in any way been subsidized
by taxpayers. Religious people also pay taxes for their public services like
roads and they pay double for education if they choose to place their
children in a religious school.
And in case you haven't noticed recent news or it happened to slip your mind
ministers and all employees of churches and other religious institutions
have their paychecks taxed just like everyone else. If they don't the IRS
shuts them down and sells off their property for the payroll taxes.
Churches pay taxes too. Just not on property. And generally individual
property taxes are earmarked for public education so that's completely fair.
>>>> Artists throughout history have found means that didn't require subsidies
>>>> by partially unwilling participants. I personally think most of the
>>>> publicly funded art stinks on its OWN non-art credentials. What do we do
>>>> about that?
>> chas:
>>> The whole thing about the NEA started when Christians decided that
>>> Mapplethorpe's Crucifix in Urine or something was horrible and terrible and
>>> a reason not to fund any art. One person expressed an opinion about
>>> Christianity that they didn't like, and that was reason enough to turn every
>>> struggling artist who got money from the NEA out into the street (not to
>>> mention the 5th grade marching bands). There are millions upon millions of
>>> Christian voices - is one negative voice so frightening that the whole body
>>> has to rise up against it? No, you say, it's the fact that our taxes paid
>>> for it. Well you know what? Your taxes pay for a *lot* more stuff that you
>>> may well find objectionable. Most of it goes directly into politicians'
>>> pockets; of the rest, most is wasted. Some goes to bombing civilians, some
>>> to chasing and killing and otherwise punishing people who grow certain
>>> plants in their back yard or ingest same. You don't object to this stuff.
>>> No, you only object to the 1 ten thousandth of a penny out of a dollar that
>>> gets spent on art, and the 1 ten billionth of a penny that gets spent on
>>> Piss Christ. You're very sensitive people, you Christians.
>> georgann:
>> Mapplethorpe didn't do Piss Christ. He did homoerotic photos. While both of
>> those artists were over the top in many people's opinions, you seem to
>> believe its because of Christian sensibilities and some supposed Christian
>> domination of the entire culture that someone's potential need for such tripe
>> might be squelched. Why?
Charles Basner:
> Good question. Because without that sensibility such works would likely get
> little or no popular recognition.
georgann:
Did it ever occur to you that art through the ages until this century has
gone without "public recognition" until it is EARNED?? Why should we
subsidize wanna-bee dilettantes just because some politicians and the NEA
crowd think its cool and, as some have adroitly pointed out [see below]
enjoy offering some "art" as an extension of their politics.
A highly regarded (though not universally so) notion exists that the
"shoving of liberal political view down our throats" in a most disingenuous
way has persisted and thoroughly infiltrated our cultural hierarchies. For
example I would recommend the book mentioned below. It concerns itself with
the teaching of the humanities in higher education the points are just as
valid about influences on contemporary art. See: "Tenured Radicals: How
Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education", by Roger Kimball, 1990,
described as a minor classic. "All persons serious about education should
see it."--Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind (Bloom is
the same Bloom as in-
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/glob/2969/1.html) OTHER REVIEWERS
notes: ""The adolescent postures of these scholars that are lauded as
arguments by the so-called 'cultural Left' make amusing, if at times
frustrating reading for those accustomed to the naive belief that the
universities existed for higher learning in pursuit of such feeble
contemporary notions such as truth. Mr. Kimball lances the proponents with
their own words and ideas, not their backgrounds or politics, something his
opponents should take note of."" ""how the study of humanities has ceased to
be an academic discipline, and more of an exercise in political posturing in
Lit. and humanities departments across the nation.""
The visual arts have suffered substantively at the hands of "radicalism".
Charles Basner:
> That is, though they may become popular in some rarified academic settings,
> the average man on the street would never see them, and thus would never
> become offended by them. But since they have overtones that are offensive to
> Christians, they become causes celebe and then everyone wants to dismantle the
> NEA.
georgann:
The average man on the street isn't dying to see them. And offensive is
offensive. Whether it is offensive to YOU for your reasons or to ME for my
reasons. Neither offense is LESS valid.
Isn't it the gay community that initiated Stop Dr. Laura? Don't you
regularly ballyhoo at its apparent success? Why is it OK for gays to
exercise their muscle to stop being offended but not Christians?
Nothing but duplicitous rationalizations.
Charles Basner:
> For example, Piss Banjo might well have gotten the same recognition in the art
> world as Piss Christ, but though Christians may not have approved of it they
> would have had no reason to rally against it. The lack of such a rally would
> leave the NEA intact to do the mostly "good" things (as defined by popular
> American culture) that it does.
georgann:
Never would Piss Banjo have gotten the same recognition and you know it. And
there is an obvious failure on the part of the NEA to firmly establish that
it does "mostly good things". Most supposed art and the artists fueled by
the NEA are disposable trash with no life beyond or outside of the NEA. And
no great loss compared to the artists that have made it on their own.
>> If a video of 18 wheeler semi trailer full of food staples, driving over
>> crying babies was entitled "Africa's Neglect" and being touted as performance
>> art symbolizing famine, all in the name of today's godlike artistic freedoms
>> and the eager participation of an NEA shock-jock, would you defend it too? Or
>> are some things better left off? For an open and free market to decide? Is
>> there any question just how long these examples of offensive would exist if
>> it weren't for the relatively new approach to art subsidies that verges on
>> socialism here?
Charles Basner:
> Several questions here. No, I don't think killing babies is a viable form of
> art. But if an NEA-subsidized artist wanted to depict the scene you described
> (btw, a bit gory, don't you think?), I wouldn't decide that all other artists
> must now either become waiters or find a patron in order to survive.
georgann:
They _should_ be waiters. They may excel at it.
And rolling over babies in the name of famine consciousness is every BIT as
"viable" as the art of placing Jesus in a jar of urine. I would go so far as
to say it is easily more valid as a subject. Where one causes an outcry from
some, the other would cause a louder outcry from many more. Only the smaller
outcry is from the offended enemy - the Christian - so they don't count.
Just makes for good and cheap press. To legitimate artists that represents
the worst kind of whoring.
> Since we're not talking about millions of dollars and we're not talking about
> carving "Africa's Neglect - the Sculpture" into Mount Rushmore, it's nothing
> more than one artist's view of the world. It costs virtually nothing and if
> the presence of horrible art just confirms that art is free, then it has a
> purpose.
georgann:
How much or how little money is not at issue. And there's no God given nor
societal right for art to be "free" -- because you can't even define freedom
in this context. Just as has been successfully argued that one man's right
ends where another's begins, the same should apply to public art.
Charles Basner:
> It sounds to me like you want to either be able to judge art in order to be
> able to disqualify it, or end all publicly funded art. I am saying, whoa,
> take a step back. If you get one great work out of a thousand bad ones, you
> will have spent your NEA money on something worthwhile. That doesn't mean I
> want to spend 500 million dollars a year on the NEA, but for the demonstrable
> good it does do it is a crime to destroy it for the few things it does that
> offend your sensibilities.
georgann:
While ending publicly funded art would not be my first choice its certainly
preferable to having offensive art "shoved down the public's throat".
Charles Basner:
> How long would offensive art survive without government? I don't know. I do
> know that in order to allow new ideas to flourish we must sometimes put up
> with offensive or distasteful ideas. That is part of the game - we have to
> fall down to learn how to walk.
georgann:
Not long. There's no dearth of ideas in the world. Are you concerned that
people are out of material? And new ideas are born everyday without the help
of the government. Ideas don't belong to anyone.
>>> Christians are willing to defund the NEA because they know that *they* have
>>> suffiicient funds to create their own art. Churches can evaluate potiential
>>> artists and demand that any art produced with their funds follow their
>>> rules, and they've got plenty of funds to do it. It's *independent* art
>>> that finds it difficult to get produced. It's artists who say unpopular
>>> things that struggle. What do you care if someone who dislikes Christianity
>>> can't afford to create art - you probably like that (it's god's will,
>>> right?). There's nothing wrong with a miniscule percentage of government
>>> money going to individuals who are individually evaluated and found to have
>>> some creative abilities by others in their fields. It's a microscopic price
>>> to pay for potential. But no, I imagine you'd rather spend your ten
>>> thousandth of a penny spreading poison on impoverished coca farmers' crops
>>> in third world countries.
>> georgann:
>> You can't validate that first sentence any more than you can the last. I
>> don1t know why but I've come to expect better of you.
Charles Basner:
> The paragraph stands on its own. You can't refute a word of it because you
> know it's true.
georgann:
No it doesn't. And I don't know that its true. Churches haven't supported
artists for centuries.
>>> Oh, and about your view of publicly funded art: what are your credentials,
>>> and which publicly funded art have you evaluated? Even if we assume you are
>>> correct and most of it stinks, are you willing to throw out the stuff that
>>> *doesn't* stink to avoid spending your ten thousandth of a penny per dollar
>>> of taxes? I'm not. I think the potential for greatness is worth a small
>>> investment, especially when you know the investment would likely go into
>>> some politician's brother-in-law's pocket anyway.
>> georgann:
>> Irrelevant.
Charles Basner:
> Irrelevant?! We're talking about wasting tax monies. We're talking about
> your right not to pay for art that offends you. How in hell is what I said
> irrelevant?
georgann:
Its irrelevant for you to ask what my credentials are. On the matter of
publicly funded art, my credentials are equal to anyone - including Jane
Alexander. We're all taxpayers remember?
>>>>> It sounds fair to me.
>>>> georgann:
>>>> Prolly cause it offends someone other than yourself. Someone you see as an
>>>> arch enemy.
>> chas:
>>> I am pissed because Christian sensibilities run so much of my country.
>>> Christians get annoyed so funding for valuable programs gets cut. Christians
>>> are upset because movies depict them as they actually are rather than as
>>> they prefer to think of themselves so they try to shut it down. People in
>>> the public eye all must cowtow to Christianity (or the somewhat acceptable
>>> substitute, Judiasm) or be labelled and rejected. High and mighty, saved
>>> and on their way to god's side they are, and yet they still have to throw
>>> their weight around down here.
>> georgann:
>> You're not just pissed because "Christian sensibilities run so much of my
>> country", um... how do I put this delicately ... truth is chas, you're an
>> anti-Christian bigot. Your tirades about Christianity and how Christianity
>> alone has somehow devalued the quality of life for you in America is
>> laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
Charles Basner:
> I don't know where you got the devaluation stuff from. Not me. Which of the
> facts I've explained above strike you as being bigoted?
georgann:
Facts? Several things strike me as being bigoted? How about baseless,
ignorant, slanderous comments like:
"the secular holiday known as Christmas"
"lip service that everyone has to pay to religion in general and Christ in
specific to get ahead in the public eye"
"religion is and has always been subsidized by taxpayers"
"Religion is a sacred cow ... cause my tax bill to be higher"
You're a veritable wellspring of anti-Christian rhetoric, chas. And to most
people, its just everyday language. Bigoted, hurtful and ignorant but very
prevalent conversation today.
>> If I were to suggest to you as I have to in another post to Marc, that there
>> are a number of very high profile blacks, like say Mike Tyson, Puff Daddy, O
>> J Simpson that are proven to be very violent black individuals, that there
>> are more blacks in prison for violent crimes then other races, then
>> extrapolate from that that all blacks are more violent and more prone to be
>> criminals, you'd condemn me for being a major bigot in a heartbeat.
Charles Basner:
> I don't understand why this concept escapes you peopl^h^h^h^h^h (thanks Tina):
> black, gay, disabled, etc. are characteristics of people. Christian,
> Republican, Conservative, etc. are voluntary groupings of people who share a
> common set of idea or ideals. It okay to be "bigoted" against a group of
> people who share an idea, but not against a group of people who share a trait.
> If you were to substitute in your example above "member of the KKK" for
> "black", it will be clear that "bigotry" (if you must call it that) is
> perfectly acceptable when applied to people who label themselves as sharing a
> common idea (as long as you are criticizing that idea and not the people
> themselves).
georgann:
The concept doesn't escape me chas. Its a bogus argument. If Bosnians are
hacking up Croatians or Africans are hacking up Africans, the evil is still
prejudice, pure and simple. You can't give gays, Jews, blacks a pass at the
same time you denigrate Christians.
A set (when we're talking about people) is defined by ANY group of defining
properties, not just SOME properties.
>> But you do that all the time. When the subject is Christianity to you that's
>> fair game for a form of freely sanctioned bigotry among the intellectual
>> elite. You extrapolate a similarly irrational distain for a whole group from
>> the examples you have seen from a few. I reject the notion that you have any
>> consistent contact with great numbers of Christians yet you persist in this
>> self-fulfilling despise of a whole segment of our society based on the
>> appearance of several high profile individuals or the lunacy of some people
>> who do heinous things to some gays in our distinctly heterogeneous American
>> culture. How do you justify that?
Charles Basner:
> Short answer: see above. Long answer: Christians are a group of people with a
> common set of ideas. Therefore, their leaders speak for them. Now of course
> this is not absolute (except perhaps in the case of the Catholics), but what
> is an atheist to do? You, G, personally claim knowledge about god. You claim
> you belong to a group of people who believe as you do, and I take you at your
> word. I believe you are representative of your group. I also believe that
> Christian leaders rise to prominence because they represent the views of many
> other Christians. This enables me to comment on "Christians" based on their
> representatives: you and Christian leaders.
georgann:
Short answer: bogus argument. Long answer - see above.
Charles Basner:
> Before you respond with the inevitable "What about gays?" question, I've got
> one for you. Please name a gay leader who has risen to prominence because he
> or she represents a large number of gay people's views. You can't. Hell, I
> can't. That's because there are none. Gays are united by their orientation
> and nothing else.
georgann:
Christians are united by their orientation and nothing else. The whole
black, white, Asian, ex-Jew, ex-Moslem, male, female, gay, straight, young,
old, able and handicapped lot of us.
You just blew your argument all to hell, chas.
>>>>> Besides, some Christians don't just condemn public funded art - they
>>>>> condemn television shows and movies they've never seen, as well as anybody
>>>>> who shows compassion or empathy to gays.
>>>>> chas
>>>> georgann wrote:
>>>> Chas, you often take the position that most things Christian are for one
>>>> reason or another "condemnable". That doesn't even begin to live up to the
>>>> level of triteness that is involved in condemning a bunch of silly ass TV
>>>> shows. You haven't a clue what Christianity is really all about other than
>>>> in relation to homosexuality and how you personally relate to that supposed
>>>> conflict. Your beef is with Christianity for personal reasons pure and
>>>> simple. Please don't try to elevate your bigotry to some form of "art" by
>>>> whining "they started it".
>>
>>> How long have Christians been in charge? A long, long time. Someone
>>> objects a little and you guys get all paranoid. Don't worry - it will be a
>>> long, long time before an open gay atheist gets into power and starts
>>> persecuting you guys.
>>
>> georgann:
>> Christians have not "been in charge". The people chosen by the populous have
>> been in charge in the US as long as you've lived here. Were you perhaps
>> attempting to enlist the bad old days of the Crusades as so many
>> anti-Christian bigots do?
Charles Basner:
> Nah. I'm just referring to the secular holiday known as "Christmas" and the
> constant references in our governmental bodies to Christ and the lip service
> that everyone has to pay to religion in general and Christ in specific to get
> ahead in the public eye. I know Christians don't have the power they'd like,
> but you have to admit they have a lot.
georgann:
Christmas is not a secular holiday. And in case you haven't noticed we also
have holidays for Martin Luther King, Jr., veterans, the first day of the
new calendar and on and on. I bet you don't get pissed about getting the day
off to contemplate the New Year and watch football do you?
>>> I don't know what Christianity is about? Remember, it's designed for the
>>> masses to be as simple as possible. How about I take a stab at it? God is
>>> love. Christ died for our sins. All we have to do is let god (or Christ -
>>> I get them confused) into our hearts and we will live forever in the kingdom
>>> of heaven. Close? Wait, let's not forget your measure for a true
>>> Christian: Christ is the one and only savior. There, that oughta do it.
>> georgann:
>> Only vaguely close. He died so we could have life here more abundantly. Not
>> just a pleasurable "afterlife". Barely a C+.
Charles Basner:
> Oh come on G. C+? Because I characterized the afterlife as pleasurable -
> wait a second - where did I do that? Are you denying that Christ died for our
> sins? Are you denying that if we let Christ into our hearts god will forgive
> us and we will dwell for eternity by his side? I'm confused. And I'm
> challenging that grade - I think the teacher has it in for me.
georgann:
I'm not denying Christ died for our sins. And I think its fair to say living
forever in the kingdom of heaven (literally heaven) is more pleasurable than
the alternative. And you may not challenge the grade cause I'm the pro in
this thingie. Not you.
>>>> I could spend hours, days, weeks attempting to show you the simplistic
>>>> bigotry in your view of Christianity but I've come to see its hopeless when
>>>> your deep seated anger and personal resentment won't permit you to be
>>>> rational about it. Bright and articulate? Perhaps. Rational, no.
>>> I forget - did I write this about you or you about me?
> What - not even an "lol" for this? I implied you were bright and
> articulate... wheedle wheedle wheedle.
> chas
georgann wrote:
Sure, lol.
Gary DeWaay
> Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD:
> > Was Manet a whore when he painted a whore in "Olympia"? The
> > Parisian art community thought so. How about Piccasso, did he
> > capitalize on the fear of facism by painting "Guernica"? Was
> > Billy Holiday's recording of "Strange Fruit" designed to evoke a
> > reaction? Did all these works eventually transcend such narrow
> > minded thinking?
>
> georgann wrote:
> Tim, none of your artist examples were underwritten by taxpayers at the time
> of those works. But more interesting than your breach of topic here is the
> fact that in all my studies and years of interest in the subject of art, as
> well as some amount of practical experience with courting the muse, I've
> never encountered a text OR an individual who suggested a comparison could
> be attempted between artists subsidized by taxpayers, including even
> "narrow-minded" taxpayers, and those artists like Manet, Picasso, Holiday
> who were NOT so subsidized.
What a wonderful thing that is.
IIRC, Picasso lived in abject poverty and croaked penniless.
You've persuaded me G.
There can't be enough starving artists in this world.
Gary
Jennifer Martin
>>So you can use profanity against me but if I just use a little bit,
>>you've got my 'goat'? You are both stupid fucking idiot pukes.
>>
>Ahhh...we see he learns well from his friend Jak.
"Are certain words sneaking into his vocabulary?
Words like... PUKES? (TROUBLE! TROUBLE!)
Ah ha! And, LEFTIST TURDS?
Well if so my friends,
Ya got trouble!
Right here in DL city
With a capital T and that rhymes with B
and that stands for Boob!"
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>Yea, I'm sure that he wanted to do a piece using a crucifix and knew
>that he'd never get funding unless he denigrated it.
What a strange statement.
Bill:
Take it out of the
>jar of urine and the Liberals scream: "Separation of church and state!"
Again, your ignorance on the topic is showing. The NEA has funded many
mainstream religious pieces, studies on church music history, gospel music
festivals, etc.
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>> >> >> >Piss-Christ is anti-christian.
>> >>
>> >> Jenn:
>> >> >> Actually, no it's not.
>> >>
>> >> >Of course it is. It is another attempt by Liberals to attack Christian
>> >> >values. They know that urine and reverence for God don't mix, so they
>> >> >mix them.
>>
>> >> Liberals attack Christian values, blah, blah. More posting without any
>> >> knowledge. Among the things that the artist has said about this is that
>it
>> >is
>> >> a statement about the way society has trampled on the message of Christ,
>> >i.e.
>> >> that we are "pissing" on Him as a society. Not an anti-Christian
>statement
>> >at
>> >> all.
>>
>> Bill:
>> >You can't be serious. This 'artist' attacks the Catholic church, gets
>> >called on it, and then makes up some wonderful real meaning for dunking
>> >Christ in piss or putting shit on the Virgin Mary.
Jenn:
>> Nope, in both cases, the explanation came before the controversy.
Bill:
>A pre-emptive attack.
Of couse. The old "double-bind" argument.
>> Bill:
>> >The Last Supper was being shown in a publicly funded museum. That is
>> >what the problem was about. It wasn't funded by the NEA, that I know of.
Jenn:
>> So the publicly funded museum should show nothing that is controversial?
Bill:
>What do you think of art that makes fun of homosexuals?
1. You didn't answer the question.
2. re: your non-answer, we've been down this road before. Again, give me an
example of such art (make up a senario if you wish), and I'll give an opinion.
And again, the question doesn't make sense, given who you are asking. I'm a
very serious Christian, and I happen to be gay.
>> Bill:
>> >> >The original Last Supper was a great work of art produced a long time
>> >> >ago. I don't see how government money spent at that time is relevant to
>> >> >this country.
>>
>> Jenn:
>> >> It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not government should be
>> >> involved in art funding.>>
>>
>> Bill:
>> >How? Today we have a government that is supposed to be disinterested in
>> >forcing this sort of stuff down our throats. Why should people be forced
>> >to have their tax money go to this garbage?
Jenn:
>> You don't understand how things are funded. The artist is funded BEFORE
>work
>> is produced. Sometimes you get Beethoven, sometimes (much less often) you
>get
>> something that offends people. It's not "here's some money, now go draw us
>> some pretty pictures." BTW, Beethoven offended many people during his day
>with
>> his art too. Today, we know that they are masterpieces.
Bill:
>Offended by attacking their beliefs? It was music. Usually no words.
This is not the forum for me to teach you about the scandelous use of the
augmented 4th ('Diabalo in musica') or the altering of the words in the "Missa
Solemis" from the text of the Mass of the Proper. But yes, offended.
>Compare that to Aus Rotten which is available on Napster and is neither.
I have no interest in them, or him, or whatever.
Jenn Martin
Jennifer Martin
>> >> >> >Government shouldn't fund the arts. That should come from people who
>> >> >> >think that whatever is in question is worth giving THEIR money to.
>> >>
>> >> Jenn:
>> >> >> Art benefits everyone, and we, as a society has determined its
>benefit.
>> >>
>> >> Bill:
>> >> >We disagree from whom the funding should come.
>>
>> Jenn:
>> >> Only to a degree. Most people believe that most art should be privately
>> >> funded, and I agree.
>>
>> Bill:
>> >So what's with making laws that 2% (or whatever it is) of all funds
>> >going to public buildings must be spent on 'art'?
Jenn:
>> As I said, MOST. We have determined, through our elected officials, that
>the
>> 2% (in some places) benefits all of us; that it raises our quality of life
>for
>> buildings that the public uses to have a statue or painting, and to not
>> resemble strip malls.
Bill:
>But whose 'art' gets shown? You wouldn't allow something that was
>religious and didn't attack christians to be shown due to worries about
>church and state.
Another strange statement. In our federal courthouse here in town (one of the
"sin cities" of Nevada), we have stained glass pieces replicating those of St.
Mark's in Venice, paid for by one of those "2%" kind of laws. Why do you make
stuff up?
Jenn Martin
Elisabeth Riba
> Facts? Several things strike me as being bigoted? How about baseless,
> ignorant, slanderous comments like:
> "the secular holiday known as Christmas"
> Christmas is not a secular holiday.
Go to groups.google.com and start reading threads titled "The Santa
Secret" and others from the late December timeframe.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=5298489bfebc441c
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=cae31dec68b7e42
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=e6a525643b7375ca
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=910ce5b0e37b7525
There are a LOT of people out there who argue that while Christmas may
have started as a religious holiday, it is now a secular celebration.
[FWIW, I was arguing that Xmas cannot be divorced from Christianity, but
there are many, Many, MANY people who disagreed with me, saying that
general Christmas gift-giving and Santa Claus are 100% secular!]
While *you* may celebrate Xmas as a non-secular holiday, and *I* believe
that Xmas is a non-secular holiday, a lot of people who are celebrating
Xmas disagree with you.
So, either you're claiming they're ALL bigoted (which I *will* use the
next time the inevitable debate about Xmas in the public schools rolls
around) or you should apologize to Chas for saying that statement is a
bigoted one.
Which is it?
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
georgann
>>> Was Manet a whore when he painted a whore in "Olympia"? The
>>> Parisian art community thought so. How about Piccasso, did he
>>> capitalize on the fear of facism by painting "Guernica"? Was
>>> Billy Holiday's recording of "Strange Fruit" designed to evoke a
>>> reaction? Did all these works eventually transcend such narrow
>>> minded thinking?
>> georgann wrote:
>> Tim, none of your artist examples were underwritten by taxpayers at the time
>> of those works. But more interesting than your breach of topic here is the
>> fact that in all my studies and years of interest in the subject of art, as
>> well as some amount of practical experience with courting the muse, I've
>> never encountered a text OR an individual who suggested a comparison could
>> be attempted between artists subsidized by taxpayers, including even
>> "narrow-minded" taxpayers, and those artists like Manet, Picasso, Holiday
>> who were NOT so subsidized.
Gary DeWaay:
> What a wonderful thing that is.
> IIRC, Picasso lived in abject poverty and croaked penniless.
> You've persuaded me G.
> There can't be enough starving artists in this world.
> Gary
georgann wrote:
Actually Picasso rode into the era of relatively famous and wealthy artists.
But with your mention of Picasso you've persuaded me too, Gary.
They were ALL far better when uncorrupted by the media, undiscovered by
insipid "collectors" and untainted by popular culture.
georgann
>> Facts? Several things strike me as being bigoted? How about baseless,
>> ignorant, slanderous comments like:
>> "the secular holiday known as Christmas"
> ...
>> Christmas is not a secular holiday.
Elisabeth Riba:
> Go to groups.google.com and start reading threads titled "The Santa
> Secret" and others from the late December timeframe.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=5298489bfebc441c
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=cae31dec68b7e42
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=e6a525643b7375ca
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=910ce5b0e37b7525
> There are a LOT of people out there who argue that while Christmas may
> have started as a religious holiday, it is now a secular celebration.
georgann wrote:
I frankly don't care what others say about it. Its a religious holiday to
Christians. The non-Christian's opinion doesn't matter a whit.
> [FWIW, I was arguing that Xmas cannot be divorced from Christianity, but
> there are many, Many, MANY people who disagreed with me, saying that
> general Christmas gift-giving and Santa Claus are 100% secular!]
A farcical debate.
> While *you* may celebrate Xmas as a non-secular holiday, and *I* believe
> that Xmas is a non-secular holiday, a lot of people who are celebrating
> Xmas disagree with you.
You ride in my wagon, you listen to my music.
> So, either you're claiming they're ALL bigoted (which I *will* use the
> next time the inevitable debate about Xmas in the public schools rolls
> around) or you should apologize to Chas for saying that statement is a
> bigoted one.
> Which is it?
georgann wrote:
Its a bigoted statement. Just as sure as if I started again up the pike I
took with chas about blacks and a culture of violence.
Elisabeth Riba
>>> georgann:
>>> Facts? Several things strike me as being bigoted? How about baseless,
>>> ignorant, slanderous comments like:
>>> "the secular holiday known as Christmas"
>> ...
>>> Christmas is not a secular holiday.
> Elisabeth Riba:
>> Go to groups.google.com and start reading threads titled "The Santa
>> Secret" and others from the late December timeframe.
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=5298489bfebc441c
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=cae31dec68b7e42
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=e6a525643b7375ca
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=910ce5b0e37b7525
>> There are a LOT of people out there who argue that while Christmas may
>> have started as a religious holiday, it is now a secular celebration.
> georgann wrote:
> I frankly don't care what others say about it. Its a religious holiday to
> Christians. The non-Christian's opinion doesn't matter a whit.
So, you're now saying that none of the dozens of people who posted in that
thread claiming Christmas was secular are Christians. Did you even read
the links I provided? Wow.
Since you are insisting that Christmas is a religious holiday, you
therefore must agree with me that Santa Claus, decorated trees, Rudolph
and the rest of it are all religious and have no place in the public
schools.
So, why does the federal government treat it as a holiday, then?
--