PJSN's Control Brooklyn Museum of Art
ANO38
the Brooklyn Museum of Art. They are now in the process of demonstrating that
they can insult the Christian religion (and Catholics in particular) by
labeling a bit of scatological nonsense titled "The Blessed Virgin Mary" as
"art." Then using a museum largely supported by tax monies which include funds
collected from Christians they can then promote then its public display. The
only right the protesting Christians are granted by their worships is to not
come to the museum.
The New York Times, the semi-official organ of their worships, has generated
the predictable editorial supporting them. Anything goes if you are careful to
label it "art." Tax monies can apparently be used for any form of expression by
any group who gains control of a public institution. Any attempt to defund them
is called an assalt on the First Amendment. Christians in New York City have
little chance of winning this battle. But the situation nation-wide may be
different. People in other locatities should note this misuse of First Amendemt
rights and think twice before they fund the arts.
Disgusted
Cfortunato
>the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
>
>PJSN's (People with Jewish-Sounding Names) are clearly are in firm control of
>the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
Excuse me, anti-Semitic jackass, but try to refrain from using a real issue as
one more opportunity to bash Jews.
I'm a Christian, and I am very offended my the art exhibit, but I find YOU far
more offensive than any art exhibit.
ANOther
>as
>one more opportunity to bash Jews.
>
>I'm a Christian, and I am very offended my the art exhibit, but I find YOU
>far
>more offensive than any art exhibit.
If you are not willing to face facts thrown up right in your face I am sorry
for you. Keep looking the other way and pretending nothing is happening and
perhaps you may find things get out of your control, if they are not already.
Disgusted
Disgusted
Jack Lindahl
> they can insult the Christian religion (and Catholics in particular) by
> labeling a bit of scatological nonsense titled "The Blessed Virgin Mary" as
> "art."
Responding to a posting as full of misapprehensions as this one is always risky,
but I want to point out some errors in at least the sentence above.
I don't know who's in control of the Brooklyn Museum, but they didn't paint the
painting in question, nor did they deem it to be "art", nor did they curate it into
the show in question, nor is the painting the show's focus. The painting is, in
fact, by a CATHOLIC of Nigerian descent who has publically stated that his
intention was not to defame or insult any religion, much less his own.
Giuliani's insult to the people of New York is that he should decide what we may
and may not see based on his own taste and sensibilities. Jewish or not, if you're
a New Yorker you shouldn't stand for this shameful (and shameless) display of ego.
If you don't want to see the show, don't go. If you don't want public dollars to go
to the arts in New York, run for office. Oh -- and make sure the Cardinal gives you
his blessing.
Cfortunato
>I don't know who's in control of the Brooklyn Museum, but they didn't paint
>the
>painting in question, nor did they deem it to be "art", nor did they curate
>it into
>the show in question, nor is the painting the show's focus. The painting is,
>in
>fact, by a CATHOLIC of Nigerian descent who has publically stated that his
>intention was not to defame or insult any religion, much less his own.
>
The painter (Chris Ofill)is from England, and is quoted in today's Daily News
as follows:
"I was going to the National Gallery Sainsbury Wing and looking at van Eyck's
painting of a mother and child," he has been quoted as saying. "I just wanted
the image of the breast, really. The exposed breast is hinting at motherhood,
but those images are very sexually charged. She's painted as this beautiful,
passive, angelic woman, and very attractive-looking. I think the Virgin Mary
was an excuse for pornography in the homes of these holy priests and
godfearers."
Where did you get the idea that he was Catholic?
The whole show is intentionally ugly, as the curator of the museum has said.
Why would you think this one piece in the show was intended as veneration?
From the News:
"The opening room offers these works: a sculpture of a man's head, cast in his
frozen blood; an oversize painting of a murderess, done in a child's
handprints; the menacing, suspended shark.
A few steps away, a dissected pig encased in formaldehyde reveals its curling
intestines. Melons, oranges and a cucumber propped up on a mattress suggest
sexual organs. A riot of color combines in an abstract painting.
"The definition of art has changed profoundly in this century," said the
exhibit's curator, Charlotta Kotic. "We can no longer pretend that the world is
peaceful and beautiful."
Artist Marc Quinn's "No Visible Means of Escape" has a human form suspended
upside down, bound in cord, with pieces of the body falling away like banana
peels.
Another work has live flies swirling around a model of a severed cow's head in
a pool of blood.
A mosaiclike arrangement of pastel-colored paintings, on closer inspection,
evokes scenes of child abuse. A pair of dark leather boots has razor blades
jutting from the tips of the soles.
The show also features a work loosely derived from Leonardo da Vinci's "The
Last Supper" — but in the photograph, Jesus is replaced by a topless woman.
There are mutated, manequinlike children posed provocatively in a garden, with
sex organs protruding from the wrong places, on the wrong genders.
"They do take that risk of people turning away," Kotic said. "No longer is art
seeking to always create the beauty."
JOHN C CROSS
john
http://pages.prodigy.net/johncross/campaign.htm
JOHN C CROSS
Cfortunato wrote in message >
>Where did you get the idea that he was Catholic?
>
from reading the papers.
>The whole show is intentionally ugly, as the curator of the museum has
said.
>Why would you think this one piece in the show was intended as veneration?
Why must Ugliness be the opposite of veneration? Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, and ugliness may hide a true beauty. Do we always have to hide
this fact by making our objects of veneraton "beautiful"? Does God need you
or any other human to make Him beautiful? It seems sacriligeous to claim
so, doesn't it? Why can't we recognize the humanity of the Virgin Mary, and
the whole issue of the contrast of sexuallity and spirituality? Besides,
the painting is beautiful, not ugly.
jackl...@yahoo.com
> >>Where did you get the idea that he was Catholic?
> >>
> >from reading the papers.
> >
>
> Yes, he was raised a Catholic along with about 800 million other people. That
> is beside the point. The piece of sh*t he foisted on the world was eagerly
> snapped up by the PJSNs running the Brooklyn Museum of Art. It is objectively
> an insult to Christianity and Catholicism in particular.
>
I never fail to be amazed at the fragility of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine!
A minor painter in an obscure show makes the smallest gesture of impropriety and
the Church is threatened!
Or else ... is there something else going on here?
ANOther
>fact, by a CATHOLIC of Nigerian descent who has publically stated that his
>intention was not to defame or insult any religion, much less his own.
>
>
Yes, this is well-known. There are a lot of Catholics in the world. The fact is
the piece of SH*T is objectively an insult to the Catholic religion. It is the
latest in a long line of Catholic bashing. The Church's stands on abortion and
homosexuality are probably at the root of the campaign. See John Leo's column
"Art Show is Latest Case of Catholic Bashing" I believe it is in the group now.
My post may seem strong but there is just so much SH*tting you can do on
someone before they finally react.
ANOther
ANOther
>>Where did you get the idea that he was Catholic?
>>
>
>from reading the papers.
>
>
Yes, he was raised a Catholic along with about 800 million other people. That
is beside the point. The piece of sh*t he foisted on the world was eagerly
snapped up by the PJSNs running the Brooklyn Museum of Art. It is objectively
an insult to Christianity and Catholicism in particular.
ANO
Cfortunato
>Or else ... is there something else going on here?
>
>
Yes, there IS something else going on here. You are taking my money and using
it to desecrate my religion.
As an example, what would be your reaction if I took your money and used it to
write insults about your mother? And themm called it "censorship" when you
complained?
Bill
>Imagine!
>A minor painter in an obscure show makes the smallest gesture of impropriety
>and
>the Church is threatened!
>
Yes, there is "something else going on". As John Leo's recent column details
there is a pattern of Catholic bashing well established and we are getting sick
and tired of it. The Church has taken positions on abortion and homosexuality
that do not sit well with some people and this is their way of striking back.
The Church has taken too much of this nonsense in the name of so-called "art"
and is beginning to fight back.
Bill
"Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of
natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble
and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base
nature." By ??
Jack Lindahl
Bill wrote:
> >I never fail to be amazed at the fragility of the Roman Catholic Church.
> >Imagine!
> >A minor painter in an obscure show makes the smallest gesture of impropriety
> >and
> >the Church is threatened!
> >
> >Or else ... is there something else going on here?
>
> The Church has taken too much of this nonsense in the name of so-called "art"
> and is beginning to fight back.
>
So, by "fight back" are you suggesting that "The Church" ought to start encouraging
its "flock" to demand government censorship in any area that "The Church" may be
offended or somehow threatened?
Cfortunato
>encouraging
>its "flock" to demand government censorship in any area that "The Church" may
>be
>offended or somehow threatened?
No, they should start demanding that the government stop using public funds to
pay for it.
Are you trying to censor their right to do so?
Jack Lindahl
Cfortunato wrote:
And are you suggestiong, then, that the CatholicChurch is guaranteed protection by
the government from what the flock perceives as "anti-Catholic" speech? How else
would it (the government) know what to fund or not to fund without a "does it
offend the Church" test?
Cfortunato
>
>
>Cfortunato wrote:
>
>> >So, by "fight back" are you suggesting that "The Church" ought to start
>> >encouraging
>> >its "flock" to demand government censorship in any area that "The Church"
>may
>> >be
>> >offended or somehow threatened?
>>
>> No, they should start demanding that the government stop using public funds
>to
>> pay for it.
>>
>> Are you trying to censor their right to do so?
>And are you suggestiong, then, that the CatholicChurch is guaranteed
>protection by
>the government from what the flock perceives as "anti-Catholic" speech?
No, I am saying that ALL religions have the right to no that tax money will not
be used to demean their religion, as it is a violation of the first amendment.
>How
>else
>would it (the government) know what to fund or not to fund without a "does it
>offend the Church" test?
The same way know what not to fund if it PROMOTES religion.
The government makes judgments about if something is religious ALL THE TIME -
it's called separation of church and state.
Bill
>
> Yes, there is "something else going on". As John Leo's recent column details
> there is a pattern of Catholic bashing well established and we are getting sick
> and tired of it. The Church has taken positions on abortion and homosexuality
> that do not sit well with some people and this is their way of striking back.
> and is beginning to fight back.
Not with the bomb threats again, I hope?
(Remembering the "Corpus Christi" nonsense)
Joseph Hertzlinger
>The Church has taken positions on abortion and homosexuality
>that do not sit well with some people and this is their way of striking back.
The Church's positions on abortion and homosexuality were mostly unoriginal.
The most subtle way of bashing the Church is to start by bashing the people
they plagiarized.
>"Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of
>natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble
>and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base
>nature." By ??
The hero of some nutters who have been posting on alt.fan.unabomber lately.
Your move.
jackl...@yahoo.com
> >And are you suggestiong, then, that the CatholicChurch is guaranteed
> >protection by
> >the government from what the flock perceives as "anti-Catholic" speech?
>
> No, I am saying that ALL religions have the right to no that tax money will not
> be used to demean their religion, as it is a violation of the first amendment.
>
Who decides? And are you saying that every government activity must be vetted by
the Church before it is made public? Or before it is funded? How is it decided what
will be demeaning, and who decides it?
> >How
> >else
> >would it (the government) know what to fund or not to fund without a "does it
> >offend the Church" test?
>
> The same way know what not to fund if it PROMOTES religion.
>
> The government makes judgments about if something is religious ALL THE TIME -
> it's called separation of church and state.
Deciding if something IS religious or P{ROMOTES religion is not the same as trying
to figure out if something will offend someone. Or is it?
jackl...@yahoo.com
> 1) Giuliani cannot win this case because of the First Amendment. Once a
> funding process is in motion a government cannot defund because of a particular
> piece. This is a form of censorship. The public will inevitably agree with this
> since the First Amendment has a special place in our system.
>
> 2) It is wrong to use public funds to desecrate and villify a religion. The
> public will also inevitably agree with this. It is patently unfair to collect
> tax to smear a person's religion.
>
There is a basic flaw in this analysis, which is this: there is no evidence (1)
that the artist intended to denigrate any religion with this work; (2) that the
Museum considered the work derogatory and intended to denigrate a religion by
showing it; or (3) that the work is, in fact or deed, derogatory in any sense.
Giuliani will indeed lose this one, as he has lost 18 previous 1st amendment
lawsuits and is about to lose #19. The question is why do some people think it is
derogatory, since they haven't (probably 100% of them) even seen it yet? Answer:
cynical political demogogery coupled with a Giuliani-sympathetic media willing to
disseminate his deliberate misinformation.
Bill
Subject: NYC Mayor Giuliani Let Us Down
When the objectively anti-Christian Brooklyn Museum of Art displayed an
outrageous portrayal of the Virgin Mary (plus an equally outrageous Last
Supper, little talked about) mayor Giuliani moved in his characteristic way and
decided to withdraw funds from the Museum. There are two interlocking issues
which have become confounded in this controversy:
1) Giuliani cannot win this case because of the First Amendment. Once a
funding process is in motion a government cannot defund because of a particular
piece. This is a form of censorship. The public will inevitably agree with this
since the First Amendment has a special place in our system.
2) It is wrong to use public funds to desecrate and villify a religion. The
public will also inevitably agree with this. It is patently unfair to collect
tax to smear a person's religion.
Now because of Giuliani's high-handed tactics the ground is set for clever
pollsters to confound the issues and make it appear as if the Brooklyn Museum
of Art has won. They have won only #1 -- this was an issue they could not lose.
Conclusions:
a) We in New York City where liberal media can manipulate the issue have little
chance to prevail. Those elsewhere in the country should think long and hard
before they fund the arts. There is no way of knowing what agenda the arty set
has and once funds start flowing the First Amendment makes it difficult to turn
them off.
b) Rudolf Giuliani does not possess the judgment or temperament to be a US
Senator. He has been a "necessary evil" for the city and has accomplished a
great deal. Now it is time for him to disappear.
[Anyone wanting a really good analysis of the issues should read the piece by
former mayor Ed Koch entitled "King Rudy Doesn't Know the Limits of Office" (NY
Daily News Oct. 1 p. 55)].
Bill
Joseph Hertzlinger
>"Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of
>natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble
>and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base
>nature." By ??
Amazing. Incredible. All the cliched leftists are willing to accuse anybody
they disagree with of being a Nazi and they can't recognize a quote from
Mein Kampf?
Hel-lo! Knock knock, is anybody there? We have a real Nazi here. I realize
that, after the "Giuliani gasses Jews" headline, you probably aren't used to
dealing with reality but this time you'll have to.
The good news is that he's probably too stupid to figure out the real Jewish
connection with the exhibit.
Jack Lindahl
post...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A retard from Africa takes a picture of Virgin Mary, smears it with
> elephant dung, surrounds it with cutouts of rectums and vaginas from
> porn magazines, and Hillary defends it and calls it art. I'm a Jew and
> as such, I wander if the Star of David covered in pig dung is next to
> be depicted in such artistic way...
Why is it I don't believe you are a Jew?
>
>
> God sees but waits.
> Jacob
>
Indeed.
Jack Lindahl
user...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <37F9FF28...@yahoo.com>,
> Jack Lindahl <jackl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > A retard from Africa takes a picture of Virgin Mary, smears it with
> > > elephant dung, surrounds it with cutouts of rectums and vaginas from
> > > porn magazines, and Hillary defends it and calls it art. I'm a Jew
> and
> > > as such, I wander if the Star of David covered in pig dung is next
> to
> > > be depicted in such artistic way...
> >
> > Why is it I don't believe you are a Jew?
> >
> >
> >
> Why? Because I don't say what you would like to hear. That's why. A
> typical atheist liberal approach.
>
> Jacob
>
No, I don't think that's it. I think it's because the words and sentiments
you write sound more like a barely educated blue-collar Catholic pretending
to be a Jew, for whatever reason.
Randy
> A retard from Africa takes a picture of Virgin Mary, smears it with
> elephant dung, surrounds it with cutouts of rectums and vaginas from
> porn magazines, and Hillary defends it and calls it art. I'm a Jew and
> as such, I wander if the Star of David covered in pig dung is next to
> be depicted in such artistic way. I have many Christian friends and I
> can't even begin to tell you what an insult to Christianity this piece
> of s*it is. What kind of society do we live in where people smear
> religious symbols with animal cr%p and are praised and defended for
> doing so. America's taste and decency are down the toilet. There is a
> significant difference between what is freedom of expression and what
> is a crussaid against a religion. Years ago Judaism was under fire.
> Now it's open season on Christianity.
>
> God sees but waits.
> Jacob
Your god or that of your christian friends?
Obwon
leave this stuff to your betters! Hahaha...
Obwon