A Lutheran pastor, a Roman Catholic priest and a Baptist preacher were having lunch one day talking about how they handled the church offerings. The pastor said, “I draw a big circle on the ground then throw the money in the air and whatever lands outside of the circle I keep.” The priest was shocked and said, “I do something similar but I keep whatever lands in the circle.” They asked the preacher if he did anything like that and he replied, “Well, yes. I throw the money in the air and whatever the Lord wants He grabs.”

a priest, a pastor, a vicar and a rabbi were golfing and play was very slow. one of them asked the marshal why the group ahead of them was playing so slow. when the marshal explained that it was a group of blind golfers, the priest said, "how insensitive of us to rush them", the pastor said "oh, they're an inspiration to us all", the minister said, "they're making the most of what god gave them", and the rabbi said, "couldn't they play at night?"

[...]
I'm not going to address your disputes with the "authoress." Rather, I will concern myself with what you, the authorite, have to say on point. No one forfeits any and all right to act surprised or incensed under any circumstances whatsoever.
[...]
Posted by FM2
______

Try it this way then. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

When you define the government as "anything goes" as long as the majority of members agree, then, indeed, to act surprised or concerned at people acting well within their rights, enumerated and otherwise, is merely theater.

Boehner and his sidekick are morons. If he thinks his majority is protected and chartered with some sacred duty to piddle around with a few thousand dollars, he is sadly mistaken... and come next election, he will see democracy in action.

Nobody and I mean nobody who voted the last tribe off the island will stand for this sort of mindless distraction when future of the country is at stake.

Obama is smart enough and will learn his lesson. Question is, will the Republicans?

The only good thing about a politician is... they lose.

Some fellows in Congress anxious and decising on what Americans see, read, hear is not good for them?

About time to join semi-authoritarian governments in the third world in having a Department of Culture. That way they can decide on what is "true" American culture, what is and is not acceptable arts, and to fund them accordingly. Lots of white faces with fear, blue faces with anger, red faces with embarassement if so.

Are there already not a lot of the arts privately supported and musuems privately funded? Picasso was not government supported. His clients were his friends and the rich. Bach and Mozart was dependant on royal and church patronage too in commissioning their works apart from the garden variety rich.

Then, there's the Australian, British, Canadian etc government models in supporting the arts, including through state radio and TV. Whatever happened to PBS? The US Library of Congress did consider the Who's "Tommy" and the Clash's "London Calling" as significant records, even if they are British bands.

PS. I wonder if Donahue could be exported to Denmark. I suspect it would be difficult for him to continue with his nonprofit league and vilify Jews at the same time. Yes, the Danish Christians are outspoken (and funny). They have always been so, about themselves and about minority groups, but they do have this thing about hate. You ought to pay Denmark a visit, Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

Sincerely,
Farnaz
Jewish Media Controlling S.L.U.T

Under Danish jurisprudence it is immaterial whether a statement is true or untrue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/guiltyislamorealism_as_hate_sp.htm
------------------------
That is the defendant's slant and the slant of the reporter. However, the issue was not false allegations or the like as the defendant showed HE KNEW. The issue was HATEFUL SPEECH. That is why he admitted he should not have stated the case as he did. Moreover, it is NOT the practice of all Muslim fathers and uncles to kill and rape their daughters, a fact he shows knowledge of in his testimony. Therefore, he could not have "proved his case" in court.

Of course, he could have fought the case, by arguing that his language did not constitute hate speech. He would probably have lost in his country.

He might want to emigrate. He would have gotten away with it here. He might even have been able to influence Congress to have an artwork to which he objected removed from a museum.

Btw. and FYI, Turkey is not the best example. Someone more knowledgeable would have chosen say Pakistan or Palestine. In the latter, one out of every three murders is an honor killing, usually, by a brother of a sister for the crime of being raped.

WW III almost broke out in Israel some years back, when a Kurdish Muslim (there are Kurdish Jews, of course) honor killed his sister who had been raped. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. The Kurdish community demonstrated for days afterward in protest.

I am sorry the defendant chose to make his point in this way. Honor killing is a horror.

A Jew has been trapped on an island for many years. Finally, rescuers arrive. They notice two buildings standing side by side. One asks, "What's that?

"That," the man said pointing proudly, "is the synagogue I go to."

"Then what's that other building?"

"Oh. That's the synagogue I don't go to."

PS. That Donahue has many admirers is a source of unending shame and embarrassment to millions of Catholics.

On Cantor: I can't for the life of me imagine why any Jew would admire him--we do far better than that every day of the week.

He has some support from Jews, yes. And the more antisemitic the left becomes, the more support he will get. Maybe. I dunno. Evidently this latest boner with Boehner did not go over well J-wise, since he's been inundated with "opinions," not positive.

[1] We should avoid these boring and unproductive disputes by limiting the allocation of confiscated taxpayer resources to the legitimate and essential purposes of government — BUT IF WE FAIL TO DO THAT, then anybody who takes the contrary position foreits any and all right to act surprised or incensed when fellow taxpayers object to particular appropriations, and exercise their First Amendment right to petition their elected representatives.
-------------------------
I'm not going to address your disputes with the "authoress." Rather, I will concern myself with what you, the authorite, have to say on point. No one forfeits any and all right to act surprised or incensed under any circumstances whatsoever.

What the Christians may want to consider is how little the rest of us care for their national holidays, paying for their Christmas lights, decorations, trees, etc.,
religious art, etc.

Jes' sayin'

So, you would support nonprofit status for the KKK, yes?

The ACLU has defended the KKK's right to peaceful, lawful dissent, and far be it from me to second-guess them.

Applying an ideological standard to eligibility for tax exemption, and thereby subsidizing certain ideas at the expense of others, clearly violates the principles and intent of the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the Bob Jones case, so for now it's moot.

Posted by: thebump
-----------------------------
You're mixing apples with oranges and peanut butter. The decision against JOnes rested on well-defined policy (capitalize "policy.")

Peaceful, lawful dissent is irrelevant to tax exempt status.

Simply put, if a racist bunch like the Catholic League, which performs no public service, should be tax exempt, then surely the KKK, the local anti-Christian Hindu and Muslim groups (they abound--the former on political grounds, the latter on political grounds), etc.

I shall attempt to assemble a Jewish League and recommend the installation of one hundred Jewish popes. (In the end, the number will be 102 or 97--a Jewish joke.)

Thebump

I think I made my point. I did not see a point in your snarky reply.

Oh well; just blame it all on Political Correctness; you're not allowed to say what you really think, because everyone in charge of everyting is against you.

Farnaz: But the Smithsonian should be threatened with loss of funding in deference to yours.

No, my position is:

[1] We should avoid these boring and unproductive disputes by limiting the allocation of confiscated taxpayer resources to the legitimate and essential purposes of government — BUT IF WE FAIL TO DO THAT, then anybody who takes the contrary position foreits any and all right to act surprised or incensed when fellow taxpayers object to particular appropriations, and exercise their First Amendment right to petition their elected representatives.

[2] It is the height of hypocrisy for the authoress to lambaste her fellow taxpayers who objected in this case, while at the same time claiming for herself the absolute right as a taxpayer to make a nasty stink about charter school curricula.

[3] It is likewise the height of hypocrisy for the authoress to demand that charter school curricula be restricted, while in the very next breath laughably claiming to "stand up for a climate of intellectual freedom."

P.S. Cantor's nobody's sidekick, and he has plenty of Jewish admirers and supporters.

Bump--Reply no. 2

Farnaz, I'm fine with lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions for ALL 501(c)(3)'s, or at least for those that do not provide direct assistance to the needy. However, I will not agree to doing it selectively in deference to your personal ticks and prejudices.
-----------------------
But the Smithsonian should be threatened with loss of funding in deference to yours.

So, you would support nonprofit status for the KKK, yes?

The ACLU has defended the KKK's right to peaceful, lawful dissent, and far be it from me to second-guess them.

Applying an ideological standard to eligibility for tax exemption, and thereby subsidizing certain ideas at the expense of others, clearly violates the principles and intent of the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the Bob Jones case, so for now it's moot.

WMARKW adds: The culture of "hate facts"-- truth is immaterial to whether you've deprecated a cultural practice.

Positively Jeffersonian. Having skimmed through your earlier missives, might I ask if you meant to write: "The culture of 'hate'--truth is immaterial when you've defecated on facts."

Sincerely,
Thieving, Deceiving, Nationalist Jewish S.l.u.t

OFF TOPIC: MORE JOYS OF MULTICULTURALISM

HEADLINE: Domestic violence laws compound immigrants' culture shock;
Common social practices are crimes in [the USA]

A Yemeni husband beat his wife and threw her down the stairs for talking back to him in front of the family.

"How else can I teach her how to behave?" the bewildered man asked in court.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article281747.ece
---------------------------------------
HEADLINE: Guilty:Islamo-Realism as Hate Speech in Denmark

"Of course Lars Hedegaard should not have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth appears to be that they make due with killing their daughters (the so-called honour killings) and leave it to their uncles to rape them."

§ 266b of the Danish penal code states:
"Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years." ... In accordance with Danish legal precedent he was denied the opportunity to prove his allegation that honour killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families. Under Danish jurisprudence it is immaterial whether a statement is true or untrue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/guiltyislamorealism_as_hate_sp.html
-----------------------------------
WMARKW adds: The culture of "hate facts"-- truth is immaterial to whether you've deprecated a cultural practice.

Bump, Cantor's primary constituency is not Jewish, I would think. However, he may find himself in the run for his life next time around J-wise if he continues on as Beaner Beohnhed's sidekick.

As for nonprofit status, I think it should be withdrawn all religious and religion-oriented institutions.

However, I am in sympathy with your "universalist" leanings. Antisemitic organizations should be tax exempt, you say. To say otherwise amounts to "personal prejudice."

Then, you would, of course have no objection to nonprofit status for the KKK, which has done and continues to do spectacular word with waste removal in Texas. The white sheets and burning crosses, the hate speech should not get in our way any more than does Donahue's bigoted psychobabble, and the KKK actually performs a much needed public service.

So, you would support nonprofit status for the KKK, yes?

I meant: the seventh century.

We have to stick together, specially now that we are at war.
Yes, we are at war since the 17th century, because the Quran sounds very much as a declaration of war against us nonbelievers.
The problem is not Judaism or Christianity. Let us fight together so our greatgrandchildren in USA will live free and able to change their religion as they please without being told that they will be punished in the after life.

Farnaz, I'm fine with lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions for ALL 501(c)(3)'s, or at least for those that do not provide direct assistance to the needy. However, I will not agree to doing it selectively in deference to your personal ticks and prejudices.

As for Donohue and Cantor, thank God for both.

Please try to pay attention. The issue here is accountability for taxpayer funds. If you want to use your own resources to play with ants and engage in hate speech, be our guest.

Posted by: thebump
----------------------------
Fine by me, but right now the hate-spewing Catholic League is on the nonprofit dole. Make that the antisemitic, gay-hating, hate-spewing Catholic League.

Now, Catholics among others of good conscience who do not hate JEWS and do not hate gays should not be funding the demagogue Donohue, should they?

Should Jews and gays be funding an antisemitic homophobe? And just how is it that this taxpayer funded demagogue Donahue continues to influence Congress? On top of robbing the American people?

Rep. Cantor, NB.

One reads you've been inundated with J mail. Gonna get worse.

My own Jewish missive is clearly marked J mail to remind you of whence you came. But fear not: key points are bulleted for easy readability, while instructive passages are highlighted, eg., "Do no 'sit down with hypocrites.'"

@daniel: Oh, sure. Right. That's it. You totally busted me with your superhuman clairvoyant powers.

thebump

You complaint is not about the art; your complaint is about gay people coming out of the closet and being recognized as human beings as good as you.

If you think gay people are not as good as you, then say so in plain English, so we will all then know what you are.

If you are too ashamed to reveal what you are, then think about why that is.

Wmarkw

Your reply to me was irrelevant. No one who saw the "art" complained; the complaints came from people who hate gays, not from people who were offended by the "art."

Gay people are human beings, American citizens, and tax payers TOO!

If the gay haters don't like it, they can lump it.

Rubbish comment: "They want to tell you how to live your life."

Please try to pay attention. The issue here is accountability for taxpayer funds. If you want to use your own resources to play with ants and engage in hate speech, be our guest.

And the GOP says there's too much government intrusion. The Conservatives are the Daddy State. They want to tell you how to live your life. Get out of my life, my home, my bedroom, my body, and my museums.

Close the 495 ring -- let no one in or out-- and let them all eat themselves.

No one who saw the "art" complained of being offended. It was removed for purely political reasons. So Wmarkw's argument are all specious and moot.
------------------------------------

Yes. However, it begs the question of what is "purely political." If we mean that Mark's "positions," grow out of an unacceptable discourse, which is without principle, as many understand it, that would seem to be the case. If we are saying that Mark's "perspective" aligns him with powerful sponsors of that discourse, that would seem to be the case.

If we are saying that the battle replayed here is ultimately an ancient one, that it reprises the inaugural intolerance of the west--that from which all other forms of oppression grew, that would seem to be the case.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200702100005

It's that their justification is consistent with other applications of offensiveness guidelines favored by liberals when one of their voting blocs is the subject. And that those need a stricter definition than being offensive to a hearer.

While I agree with the second sentence, I see no point in shoehorning the issue into liberalism versus conservatism, or making it about treatment of Christians versus treatment of other groups. That plays right into the demagoguery that Boehner and Donahue are practicing. What is truly offensive is that those men are exploiting the fears of a minority of Christians. Donahue in particular insists that any criticism of Catholic doctrine or Church hierarchy amounts to persecution of Catholics.

In the broad sense, the group being targeted by the demagogues perceives that America is becoming more diverse in religious terms, and this group seems threatened by the possibility that the nation's culture may no longer treat Christianity as normative. The letter below embodies the mentality that Boehner and Donahue are exploiting. Throwing Santa Claus into the argument shows that the complaint isn't about religion at all.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20101209/OPINION10/101208061

No one who saw the "art" complained of being offended. It was removed for purely political reasons. So Wmarkw's argument are all specious and moot.
------------------------------------
Seeing as the exhibit was about homoeroticism, it's likely that most people who would have been offended self-selected not to attend the show.

But it's NOT my position that Boehner and William Donahoe are right about this case. It's that their justification is consistent with other applications of offensiveness guidelines favored by liberals when one of their voting blocs is the subject. And that those need a stricter definition than being offensive to a hearer.

No one who saw the "art" complained of being offended. It was removed for purely political reasons. So Wmarkw's argument are all specious and moot.

911 THE ISLAMIC SHARIA OUTLAWS FREEMASONRY WITH DEATH PENALTY SEE RESEARCHED NOTE BELOW, SO DON'T EVER ALLOW IT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THE US CONSTITUTION IS LAW, ANY NE NOT ISLAMIC "INFIDELS" AND "FATWAS" HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY ON THEIR HEADS, KEEP ALL RELIGIOUS DEATH LAWS/ CUSTOMS OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR US WILL BECOME LIKE OTHERS

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

RELIGIOUS LAWS ARE NOT HUMANE EQUALITY LAWS (SHARIA/ LEVITICAL etc), THERE JIM CROW LIKE
RELIGIOUS INHUMAN DEATH LAWS ARE VERY MUCH OUT DATED AND SHOULD FADE AWAY ASAP, DUE TO SCIENTIFIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, MEDICAL Rx ARTS DISCOVERY'S. ( JOHN GALT )

"COLOR OF LAW" THE MERE SEMBLANCE OF A LEGAL RIGHT/DUTY 202NW144,148, AN ACTION DONE UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW IS ONE DONE WITH THE APPARENT AUTHORITY OF LAW BUT ACTUALLY IN CONTRAVENTION PF LAW, A FEDERAL "CAUSE OF ACTION" MAY BE MAINTAINED AGAINST A STATE OFFICER WHO UNDER "COLOR LAW" DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS "CIVIL RIGHTS 42USCss1983

AS SOME MUSLIMS I'VE SPOKE WITH IN THE PAST ARE GLAD TO BE HERE WHERE THE DEATH LAWS OF SHARIA CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON THEM NOR FAMILY, OR FRIENDS AS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, BY WHERE MORE ARE BLOOD LUSTING CLERICS, AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS HOLIER THEN THOU LIVES

IF PASSED, THERE WILL BE MANY VIOLATIONS OF BOTH US CITIZEN AND NON-CITIZENS EQUAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE LAW, BILL OF RIGHT, AND CIVIL RIGHTS,IT'S-CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

THE US CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT FOREIGN/RELIGIOUS LAWS
ART.6 CL.2, AND IN CL.3, (RES IPSA LOQUITUR, RES JUDICATA )(NOR CAN A RELIGIOUS TEST/DEMAND/ QUESTIONING/NATURE, CAN BE GIVEN TO A US CITIZEN THEY ARE A PARTY TO THE PUBLIC TRUST (EXECUTIVE ORDER 13037) CITIZENS ARE HUMAN CAPITAL, CAPITUS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA, C.U.S.I.P. BONDS

NON-US CITIZENS AND US CITIZENS ARE LIABLE (CRIMINALLY/CIVIL) FOR PUSHING FOREIGN LAWS
AND CUSTOMS ON ANY US CITIZEN AND NON-US CITIZEN ON US SOIL, THAT'S A TREASONOUS ACT PERIOD

THIS RELIGIOUS FANATICAL EXTREMISM'S ( RFE ) MANIFESTO IS ABOUT HUMANE CIVILITY AGAINST INHUMANE EXTREMIST MIS-USE TO DO HARM/ INJURY/ AND MURDER AGAINST OTHERS "INFIDELS"
COERCION INTO A RELIGION OF A US CITIZEN IS A TERRORISTIC ACT ( US PATRIOT/NAT.SECURITY ACT)

FILL FREE TO USE THIS MANIFESTO IN PART/WHOLE IN THE MEDIA, PROTEST SIGNS AND DEBATES
ALTHOUGH SHARIA/LEVITICUS IS USED MOSTLY, THIS APPLIES TO ALL NON-HUMANE CIVILITY BELIEFS

DEAR SIR/MADAM,

I hope this helps Former US SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Newt Gingrich , and others to keep the Separation of State and The Inhumane Religious Laws trying to creep into the US Constitution, which involve a Religious Test, I hope this Research can by Forward to him and others to assist their efforts, as I don't know their E-mail Addresses, so I hope you can assist me in getting this to them, for time is of the essence.

ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS LAWS AND CUSTOMS, WOMEN CAN'T SIT AS JUDGES,ie SCOTUS 3 OF 9 ARE
I DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE THE BENEFITS TO ALL IMF IRS 501 (c)(3) LLC- RELIGIOUS CORP. LAWS.

FOREIGN RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES AND THEIR INHUMANE LAWS/CUSTOMS, REJECTS THE US CONSTITUTION, SO WHY SHOULD WE BEND TO THEIR ARCHAIC INHUMANE DEATH CUSTOMS AND LAWS, SUCH A SHARIA LAW WOULD PRESENT A " CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER " TO US CITIZEN AND ALLOW WARS IN THE STREETS AS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, IT'S NOT ABOUT PEACE, IT'S ABOUT PIECES

"COLOR OF LAW" THE MERE SEMBLANCE OF A LEGAL RIGHT/DUTY 202NW144,148, AN ACTION DONE UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW IS ONE DONE WITH THE APPARENT AUTHORITY OF LAW BUT ACTUALLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW, A FEDERAL "CAUSE OF ACTION" MAY BE MAINTAINED AGAINST A STATE OFFICER WHO UNDER "COLOR LAW" DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS "CIVIL RIGHTS 42USCss1983

Thank You

Phiarrapi

Backspace1,

Are you the blind man, or one of those parsimonious wine-hoarders?

As for me, I'm a convinced spitbibber, for which devotio there is no Bacchus, rather a troupe of furies.

Expectorate and...trompe le monde.

i'm betting that preacher new the value of spilled blood

For those who feel it's not economically viable to use red wine when rubbing mud into the eyes of a blind man(myself)

please use spit

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a specific person or group of people is forgiving or greedy or whatever, and they use these or those passages to support that. That's not generalizing about a large swath of people based on a large social identity, but citing a specific instance that can be supported by observed actions.

Posted by: Sara121
____________________________________
Interesting. However, the examples you choose belie the problems in your type of analysis viz that it is ahistorical.

You: As to the latter, what if the statement goes the other way? Let's say "Christianity teaches forgiveness and acceptance."

Me: That is, in fact, what is said. And it is said because the Christians have, until recently, controlled the discourse on religion.

Similarly, Mark's "hypotheticals" are not hypothetical. They are said. And that is because Christians control that much of the discourse; moreover, they exported it to the Middle East.

"'Jews are a bunch of money-grubbing thieves" is racist speech, but 'Judaism is a nationalist, self-centered religion that teaches it's OK to cheat gentiles' is on its face a statement about a belief system."

If you will scroll down, you will find that Mark ultimately let slip what I'd suggested to him earlier, that he had gotten his information on web sites. These particular antisemitic Christian canards have their origins in the Middle Ages, as I note, and have persisted through the present day, etc. Moreover, Mark, as I note, has in previous posts asserted them as fact.

Antisemitic examples, anti-Black examples, anti-Hispanic examples are not examples. In fact, there is no such thing as an example, but that is for another discussion.

Your post rests on a level playing field. Earth does not.

Backspace1,

"I remember a very long time ago someone preaching the need for civility...that was art."

Even civil, we will have wars, especially when there is preaching.

-ity in all its guises tends to end civil.

(That was not art.)

Backspace1,

"the degradation of the overall quality in art as a hole, should be a subject for "reflection"."

If art is a hole,
then what is the mole?

Ants are nature's cleaners.

I remember a very long time ago someone preaching the need for civility...that was art.

the degradation of the overall quality in art as a hole, should be a subject for "reflection".

The irony here is that relatively few would have heard of the video if it weren't for the Cyber News Service's demagoguery. That's the pattern I've noticed repeatedly with censorship - it ends up giving more exposure to the material that the censors wish to suppress.

So, for example, it would be wrong to say that Christians are bloodthirsty greedy murderers, but honestly debatable to say "Christianity teaches greed and murder."
_______________________________________

More or less, yes. To say the former implies that all Christians are like that. It's generalizing based on social identity, and I tend to think that is wrong whether the social identity in question is religious or otherwise.

As to the latter, what if the statement goes the other way? Let's say "Christianity teaches forgiveness and acceptance." It implies that anyone who proclaims himself to be Christian is both forgiving and accepting. But there are some who proclaim themselves to be Christian who are somewhat less than forgiving or accepting of, say, gays or atheists or whatever. You could debate whether or not Christianity "actually" teaches your statement or mine, but I don't think it would be much of a debate, as you could cherry pick passages to support either one. I tend to think that if a person is forgiving and accepting anyway, that person will latch on to those religious passages, whereas the person who is greedy and murderous anyway will latch on to the passages that give those actions sanction.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a specific person or group of people is forgiving or greedy or whatever, and they use these or those passages to support that. That's not generalizing about a large swath of people based on a large social identity, but citing a specific instance that can be supported by observed actions.

I would think the persons would be best equipped to answer.

is there independent council that can moderate the varying personable, religions?

I would imagine that is up to their fellow protestants.

Do the presbyterians have a vote?

discipline noted.

if the jew can't comment on catholic teachings how can "she" comment on christian teachings?

Posted by: backspace1
---------------------------
The Jew has done both. The Jew agrees with Catholics who claim they should be included among Christians, btw. However, the Protestants feel differently.

When the Jew subsumes them under the category Christian confusion and objections arise.

That is one of the many dilemmas the Jew finds herself/himself in when dealing with the Christians and/or Catholics. Said dilemma, however, pales before staying alive for the Jew.

Other things for you (rhyme noticed)

if the jew can't comment on catholic teachings how can "she" comment on christian teachings?

I do understand the earlier comment about the difference between attacking people versus attacking beliefs, and generally I agree, though I think the problem with the way it was stated is that it encourages generalizing about the people who follow a particular belief. You may say religion A teaches x, y, and z and those are all bad, but without further clarification, you have more or less implied that those who follow religion A do x, y, and z, which is then an attack on people, not the belief.

Posted by: Sara121
_______________________________
So, for example, it would be wrong to say that Christians are bloodthirsty greedy murderers, but honestly debatable to say "Christianity teaches greed and murder."

I am sure someone will disagree, but I tend to think there is a difference between a book (or a scroll) and other symbols. I was against the Quran book burning not because it would hurt anyone's religious feelings but because it is a book. I wouldn't want to burn any book. Books are carriers of ideas in a much different way than other symbols. Destroying a book is a positive act of preventing access to ideas, however good or vile those ideas may be. (Does no one read Fahrenheit 451 anymore?) It can also be a protest of ideas, or a statement of different ideas. Destroying, or defacing, another type of symbol is also both of the latter, but that kind of action does not prevent access to an idea the way burning a book does.

I posted earlier in this thread that I see no point in being offensive purely for the sake of being offensive. Graffitiing a cross for no other purpose than to deface it is pointless and in bad taste, but it does not prevent access to the ideas of Christianity the way burning a bible would.

But what is the real difference between graffiti and art? It is largely viewer subjectivity and artist intent. If the artist has something meaningful to say beyond, I hate you, you suck, or whatever, then one can perfectly reasonably disagree with what is being said, but that doesn't automatically make it graffiti.

I do understand the earlier comment about the difference between attacking people versus attacking beliefs, and generally I agree, though I think the problem with the way it was stated is that it encourages generalizing about the people who follow a particular belief. You may say religion A teaches x, y, and z and those are all bad, but without further clarification, you have more or less implied that those who follow religion A do x, y, and z, which is then an attack on people, not the belief.

I see burning a book or ripping out its pages as equating to suppression of knowledge or information. As much as I disagree with the advocacy of violence in the Quran and the Old Testament, I see suppressing their contents as doing more harm than good. It wrongly gives the impression that the books are forbidden fruit.

Posted by: Carstonio
--------------------------------------
Agreed on book-burning. That is why, much as I detest, the passages from the Greek Testament (nt), used by the nazis during the Holocaust, much as I detest the words of St. John of the Cross used as nazi propaganda, much as I detest the writings of Martin LUTHER, which figured immensely in nazi propaganda during the Holocaust, I do not support burning those texts.

Can the Jew speak? Hath not the Jew eyes?
Doth the Jew exist? I am invisible. I am an invisible woman.

"And we should in principle stay away from absolutist positions such as you describe, because we don't live in a world of absolutes."

typical Christian teachings? it's not a myth, it's a lie?

Running through the back woods bare...

The ability or difference in controlling a basic primitive response , is called fight or flight. Though not having any interest in the art in question, the responses do intrigue me.

The basic difference between evolved consciousnous and primitive consciousnous.
Anger? fear?etc. Reactions...

Perosnally i think it's a precedent they wish to set. If my opinion matters. I'll try to keep you guys in the loop.

I do not see the distinction.

You would have a point if she was advocating treating Islamic items a certain way simply because they're Islamic, and treating Christian items another way simply because they're Christian. Without putting words in Jacoby's mouth, I see a distinction between a symbol and a book in terms of the effect of the treatment, and I interpreted her point about ripping out pages as being religion-neutral. My own arguments about about symbols are religion-neutral.

I see burning a book or ripping out its pages as equating to suppression of knowledge or information. As much as I disagree with the advocacy of violence in the Quran and the Old Testament, I see suppressing their contents as doing more harm than good. It wrongly gives the impression that the books are forbidden fruit.

So, she disapproves of using Quran defacement as form of protest against acts done in the name of Islam, but approves the use of crucifix defacement to express displeasure of the Catholic Church's disconnect between preaching and practice.

I do not see the distinction.

Posted by: WmarkW
__________________________
I have no doubt that you "do not see the distinction."

Let me try to help. What you proposed to do is mindless mob style drek activity along the lines of the deranged Florida preacher, similar to the would-be Torah copy arsonist.

There are distinctions to be made between art and mob style propagandistic violence of the sort your homie Goebbels enjoyed.

That does not mean that you may not continue burning copies of the Torah (scrolls are expensive), Quran, etc.

In fact, once we cave, we cave in, as Boehner teaches. (Unless Jews are involved, I suspect)

May I quote you once again:

In the case of religious groups, the line gets particularly blurred between statements about a belief system and the people who practice it, considered as a demographic group. "Jews are a bunch of money-grubbing thieves" is racist speech, but "Judaism is a nationalist, self-centered religion that teaches it's OK to cheat gentiles" is on its face a statement about a belief system.
--------------------------------------
See, Mark? The First Amendment protects your err...speech.

"But as long as any disrespectful image of a Torah scroll or Quran would be classified as offensive speech, it's difficult to justify drawing a line between them and a crucifix."

"I don't see how that's relevant since no one here is proposing drawing that line."
-------------------------------------------
I believe the authoress of our forum is.

While discussing the Terry Jones controversy, I proposed tearing out pages of the Quran advocating violence against infidels as a legitimate protest against Fort Hood or Times Square.

Susan actually cited me by screen name in her subsequent column "For me, one of the worst aspects of America's week of rage over the ashes of 9/11 was the commentary of a number of atheists on various Web sites, including this thread, who seem to have been as infected by the virus of unreason as their religious compatriots...Burning books--and yes, ripping out offensive pages--is designed to express contempt, whether the contempt emanates from an individual or a government. It is also an expression of the intellectual bankruptcy of the practicioner. Islam is not a special case. The Quran is not a special case. "

So, she disapproves of using Quran defacement as form of protest against acts done in the name of Islam, but approves the use of crucifix defacement to express displeasure of the Catholic Church's disconnect between preaching and practice.

I do not see the distinction.

Carstonio, I understand your point about symbols. Emerson wrote a beautiful essay on that point, and he was not the first to do so. It's an excellent point, but one that presupposes a degree of openness and good will that is not readily apparent in the present national discussion.

Regardless of how you read Huckleberry Finn, the N word is the N word, and that is how Huck uses it. Jim is a stereotype. And, in my view, the book is anti-racist That does not mean that Twain was capable of rising above racist stereotypes.

And then there is The Merchant of Venice. I wonder if Cantor will rise up the next time it is performed. Why do I think not?

Some of us exist to make the majority feel good.

It is difficult to draw analogies among Torah burning as was threatened in the months preceding the Quran burning business, Mark Twain, and the current work.

Jews did not riot at the prospect of Torah burning--for one thing the dweeb involved would not have burned scrolls---but anyway.
And then Christians have a long history of burning Jewish texts and Jews, for that matter. I would imagine Mark does what he can with copies and dolls.

AT all events, I post relevant questions below. I would have liked to address the controversy over the Jewish Museum's exhibit, as mentioned below, but I'm guessing I would not be able to make myself understood. (The subaltern cannot speak--Spivak.)

Question: Should the works of Richard Rolle (homoeroticism) and Marjerie Kempe (heteroeroticism) be removed from all publicly funded institutions, removed along with the "Cloud of Unknowing" (heteroeroticism) and a number of Donne's Holy Sonnets (homoeroticsism)?

Not rhetorical questions. Surely, it will not be necessary for me to say that the age of these texts, the value scholars have historically attached to them, do NOT give them "sacrality," do NOT make them immune to the Boehners of this world. The newness of the work to which Boehner objected was not at issue for him, nor has it been at issue for those who support him.

Bear in mind, too, please, that the older works I listed are merely examples, drawn from far-ranging and ancient traditions.

But as long as any disrespectful image of a Torah scroll or Quran would be classified as offensive speech, it's difficult to justify drawing a line between them and a crucifix.

I don't see how that's relevant since no one here is proposing drawing that line.

A more relevant comparison would be the use of the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Obviously that word has a powerful negative meaning for a minority that has endured oppression and suffering for centuries. Still, throwing out the entire novel because of that word ignores the fact that the story is a powerful statement against racism. (Jim shows much more humanity and decency than any of Huck's white friends and acquaintances.) I'm not suggesting that the 30-minute video being discussed here is the artistic equal of Twain's masterpiece, but instead criticizing the standard involved. Treating the 11-second segment with the crucifix as though it equals oppression of Christianity and Christians shows an appalling lack of perspective.

Yes, the "uncleaness" business from Lev, I noticed. The artist, like many Christians, has not escaped Christian distortion of Levticus, which I've recently been through ad nauseum and will not go through again here. Tanakh was not intended to be mauled either in an "nt" or by word of mouths that followed it.

The allusions to Lev are what inspired me to post the associations the video has with Catholic priest slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust--see below.

On Mark's affiliations with Goebbels, scroll down for chat.
===========================================
ON THE ART IN QUESTION

I agree it is museum-worthy. I've seen better dealing with the same themes, and I have emailed the Smithsonian.

The desecration of the body of Christ, which is among motifs of the piece, through
the treatment of AIDs victims was done in another piece that includes women.

Just in case the Smithsonian rethinks its current position, I wanted it to know about that work and its artist.

Have any Congressmen or Senators objected to Boehner's blackmail?

Well, I'd like to get some of that good wine! I guess I am only projecting my own homoerotic desire at around 2:12 or there about.

The film, (and who knows if it is the "real" unedited film on youtube, the Smithsonian doesn't have a link to it, and archive.org is impossible to search with any specificity), is chocked full of "statement"-oriented visual messages, none of which appear to support the filmmaker's stated theme nor fit the idea of portraiture, which, ostensibly, is what the exhibition was about.

Now, the ant-crawling portions may indeed only be 11 seconds of the 4 minute film, but they are pervasive throughout the duration. The nauseating music enumerating Leviticus-like standards of uncleanliness can hardly support the notion that the film is like a portrait of the author -- unless he's got serious self-esteem issues.

It may be a portrait of the church's attitude toward homosexuals in the face of aids, or it may be a commentary on the hypocrisy of church doctrine vs church actions. The sewing back together of the bread (the taking back the flesh of communion? the loaves and fishes retracted, the nourishment of the god withdrawn?) in contrast of the sewing together of the lips, the stifling of most basic freedoms, speech and breath -- is a powerful statement: about oppression, the church, individuality, the spiraling gears of the machine of society, grinding up its outcasts, and spitting out the dead and violently mutilated meat of modern life.

It is anything but a portrait of a specific man dying of AIDS.

But it is museum-worthy.

And no doubt the controversy has inspired more viewings of it than would otherwise be imagined by the Smithsonian curators.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's impossible to describe the public desecration of a crucifix as anything other than a willful, hateful attack on adherents of a particular faith.
---------------------------------------
I disagree.

But as long as any disrespectful image of a Torah scroll or Quran would be classified as offensive speech, it's difficult to justify drawing a line between them and a crucifix.

But it's impossible to describe the public desecration of a crucifix as anything other than a willful, hateful attack on adherents of a particular faith.

"Desecration" wrongly implies that symbols have inherent meaning, as opposed to meanings assigned to them by people. It's purely a subjective concept. We shouldn't assume motives such as you describe without the artist speaking for himself or herself, particularly since the footage is wrongly being analyzed out of context. And we should in principle stay away from absolutist positions such as you describe, because we don't live in a world of absolutes.

Carstonio: "They frame everything as attacks on their religion"

Maybe, maybe not. But it's impossible to describe the public desecration of a crucifix as anything other than a willful, hateful attack on adherents of a particular faith.

non violent, expressive,revealing,

it doesn't fit the Daniel Pearl profile, i'm guessing.

The real problem is that a small but vocal minority of Christians seem convinced that America is one step away from having all Christians sent to gulags.They frame everything as attacks on their religion, and refuse to see a distinction between neutrality among religions (secularism) and opposition to all religon
------------------
Well put and accurate. On gulags, it took quite awhile for Beck to step away from his "report" on the Obama administration's building concentration camps on American soil, as I recall.

Visited site, btw. Something has to change here. That we should have this Majority Leader in Waiting blackmailing the Smithsonian is unacceptable in a democracy. And yet he will assume his post, will he not.

When Giuliani became incensed at the Brooklyn Museum, he was challenged left, right, and center by the STate Assembly, no less, and by other prominent Catholics.

Do you know if any Congressman or Senators have spoken out against Boehner?

The real problem is that a small but vocal minority of Christians seem convinced that America is one step away from having all Christians sent to gulags. They frame everything as attacks on their religion, and refuse to see a distinction between neutrality among religions (secularism) and opposition to all religon. Boehner and the Cyber News service are engaging in irresponsible demagoguery. Here's another example:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/latest_christian_persecution_m.php

I watched the video a couple of times and did not see anyone wanking off. I did find it moving.

It reminded me of a couple of photographs I have seen. The blood in the dish recalls Catholic clergy (utashe priests) slitting the throats of Serbian Orthodox, Jews, and Roma while standing and holding dishes under their throats to collect the blood. We have photographs.

The meat dangling from meathooks reminds me of the pogroms excited by Valerian Trifa, head of the Rumanian Orthodox church, one of whose pogroms ended with the bodies of Jews strung up on meathooks in Rumania, of course. We have photographs.

The silver reminds me of the theft from Serbian Orthodox, Jews, and Roma of everything they had by Catholic priests who murdered these people and then deposited the loot in Vatican Bank, under the watchful eye of Saint Pius. The loot remains there to this very day. We have documents.

The Vatican refuses to settle with the surviving victims or their heirs who continue to struggle. I have posted Times and WaPo articles, plaintiff's attorneys' letters, etc.

The Vatican has never apologized for its failure to intervene in the Priestly slaughter of Jews, Serbian Orthodox, and Roma.

Question: Would it not be more salutary for Boehner to address the foregoing rather than threaten the Smithsonian?

Well, I can't unsee or unhear that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC3sUDtR7U

Apparently homoeroticism means having a wank on camera.

Funny how an exhibition on portraiture a faceless work. I think the intent of the work is shock, not existential angst and self-loathing. And even if it had no shock value, the dude needed some serious counseling.

The Talmud is very long little studied by non-Jews. Your webpage cites good examples of how it does not condone fraud against Gentiles. Other web pages cite examples of how it does. I'm not here to debate that.this.
-------------------------------------
"My web page" is definitive. It is also accessible to those unversed in Talmud. It provides all relevant sources in the original and in translation.

Gentile scholars who have studied Talmud are VERY few and far between HISTORICALLY. It takes knowledge of Aramaic, minimally, to do this. However, we do find a few Muslims and Christians who have done.

NONE of these bona fide scholars has made the accusation you at first gave as a "hypothetical," but now reveal as something you read on web sites.

I said as much, but it's always good for folks to get it from the horse's mouth.

I'd suggest you reveal the name of the sites. I will also paste your earlier claims that the "Jewish faith" supports fraud, etc.

It is interesting that you mention Goebbels, since, almost word for word, he made the same claims about the "Jewish faith."

Who are you, Mark?

That's supposed to be...

The Talmud is very long AND little studied by non-Jews.

Neither will I permit your denial to go unaddressed. There is nothing "on the face" of this statement that opens itself to debate.
----------------------------------------
I'm not interested in debating Judaism (under this thread) either, but Susan's column is substantively about the free debate environment, or lack thereof, involving religious issues, and the lines that are or not crossed over offensiveness principles.

The Talmud is very long little studied by non-Jews. Your webpage cites good examples of how it does not condone fraud against Gentiles. Other web pages cite examples of how it does. I'm not here to debate that.

But I do advocate the position that there does not exist today an open, mutually-respective environment in which to discuss the issue. And that's too bad, because it shouldn't be shut up into the dark recesses of potential hate speech in which the only two possible positions are philosemitism and Joseph Goebbels.

Mark "used it as an example of a statement one could make."

Pray, how could one?

Let it go. Think about what it says about yourself and not merely with respect to Judaism. You do not have to share your insights, should they occur.

By the posts you write, we will know you. Cf. Mat 1:16.

MARK:

Again,

In the case of religious groups, the line gets particularly blurred between statements about a belief system and the people who practice it, considered as a demographic group. "Jews are a bunch of money-grubbing thieves" is racist speech, but "Judaism is a nationalist, self-centered religion that teaches it's OK to cheat gentiles" is on its face a statement about a belief system.
--------------------------
As I stated before, I will not contribute to your hijacking this thread with Markian Judaism.

Neither will I permit your denial to go unaddressed. There is nothing "on the face" of this statement that opens itself to debate. Further, you have made it yourself more than once as a claim in the past.

Please, I don't want to paste it that claim. Let it go, Mark. I'm suggesting this for your sake. Let it go. Think about justice and chesid and let it go.

I could have written, "widens the opening for such racist remarks as those Mark MAKES about the 'tenets of the Jewish faith.'"
----------------------------------------
Again, I didn't MAKE any statement about the Jewish faith, I clearly put it in quotes and used it as an example of a statement one could make. If someone else disagrees, the right thing to do is rebut it, like in the webpage you linked.

But what you call the slippery slope is exactly the issue I was discussing earlier. Generally the same people who staunchly stand for the "right of art to offend" are just as staunchly in favor of codes against offensive speech. What are the principles involved in the distinction? To many conservatives, they seem to boil down to whether the subject belongs to a Democratic party leaning constituency: blacks, Hispanics, women, Jews or gays.

"There is a slippery slope from here to exhibits of blacks in whiteface, to the sort of comments on Jews that Mark finds acceptable, etc.

That's not what I wrote.

I made the distinction that making remarks about Jews as an ethnic group is not acceptable, but the tenets of the Jewish faith are as fair game as any other philosophical belief."

Posted by: WmarkW
-----------------------------------
Suggest you reread the post with with which you take issue.
----------------------

ME: Here is what I wrote: On the matter of Ofili and the Madonna covered with elephant dung, I found that eleven years ago, I began as I now would have predicted. "It is highly offensive to Catholics. That is enough. Remove it." There is a slippery slope from here to exhibits of blacks in whiteface, to the sort of comments on Jews that Mark finds acceptable, etc.

WHAT I MEANT: When eleven years ago, the young Farnaz wrote in her journal her initial response to the Ofili Madonna controversy, she scribbled that the work should be removed because it (1) offended many Catholics and (2) it widened the opening for racist "works," and comments such as those MARK finds acceptable.

YOU: "I made the distinction that making remarks about Jews as an ethnic group is not acceptable, but the tenets of the Jewish faith are as fair game as any other philosophical belief."

ME: This is what Mark wrote: "In the case of religious groups, the line gets particularly blurred between statements about a belief system and the people who practice it, considered as a demographic group. "Jews are a bunch of money-grubbing thieves" is racist speech, but "Judaism is a nationalist, self-centered religion that teaches it's OK to cheat gentiles" is on its face a statement about a belief system."
------------------
Well? I don't see what you object to. I said that I feared eleven years ago that permitting artwork that may offend some groups widens the door to racist comments such as those which Mark finds acceptable.

I stand by that. Perhaps, in retrospect, I might have been less delicate. I could have written, "widens the opening for such racist remarks as those Mark MAKES about the 'tenets of the Jewish faith.'"
---------------
To spare myself having to read medieval materialist rantings that have persisted through StormFront, Islamic antisemtic websites, Christian/Catholic websites,
I refer Mark to this site:

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/cheat.html

(Further, I don't wish for this discussion to be hijacked by Mark on Judaism. I've been there before with him. What he writes though does go to my point on intelligence, suggestibility, bigotry, etc. "Intelligence," whatever that may be, is no protection against racism or almost anything else. Maybe, the heart is a stronger shield, that, and a commitment to Justice, chesid. NB, Mark.)

There is a slippery slope from here to exhibits of blacks in whiteface, to the sort of comments on Jews that Mark finds acceptable, etc.
--------------------------------------
That's not what I wrote.

I made the distinction that making remarks about Jews as an ethnic group is not acceptable, but the tenets of the Jewish faith are as fair game as any other philosophical belief.

ADDENDUM to previous post:

Question: Should the works of Richard Rolle (homoeroticism) and Marjerie Kempe (heteroeroticism) be removed from all publicly funded institutions, removed along with the "Cloud of Unknowing" (heteroeroticism) and a number of Donne's Holy Sonnets (homoeroticsism)?

Not rhetorical questions. Surely, it will not be necessary for me to say that the age of these texts, the value scholars have historically attached to them, do NOT give them "sacrality," do NOT make them immune to the Boehners of this world. The newness of the work to which Boehner objected was not at issue for him, nor has it been at issue for those who support him.

Bear in mind, too, please, that the older works I listed are merely examples, drawn from far-ranging and ancient traditions.

It is interesting, if somewhat disappointing, for me to read some of the comments here.

I am not a fan of this sort of art, first, because it is often above the heads of people, who are not necessarily unintelligent or uninformed--not necessarily.

However, given the importance of the issues this raises, I actually went back through my old journal notes to see what I could find of my thinking on Ofili's work at the Brooklyn Museum and the Jewish Museum's controversial Mirroring Evil exhibit. From their I searched for entries on the Danish cartoons and on South Park.

On the matter of Ofili and the Madonna covered with elephant dung, I found that eleven years ago, I began as I now would have predicted. "It is highly offensive to Catholics. That is enough. Remove it." There is a slippery slope from here to exhibits of blacks in whiteface, to the sort of comments on Jews that Mark finds acceptable, etc.

Given that I am no Christian and that my knowledge of Mariology was even scanter then than it is now, I was unsurprised to find that the rest of what I wrote on the Ofili struggles. Essentially, it focuses on the efforts since the Middle Ages through the Renaissance of some Christians to trouble the Madonna IMAGE, raising questions about myth, idolatry, etc. I found in one entry a reference to a controversial work by Carravaggio (!), who was taken to task on much the same grounds as Ofili.

I began to get a sense of what Ofili MAY have been up to. That opened up more questions and still does.

Ofili, if he was raising substantive, complex theological points, if these had been explained, could a discussion have opened? Would some of those who had been so offended been willing to listen?

More to follow on Jewish Museum exhibit, Danish Cartoons, South Park, slippery slopes, etc.

Farnaz writes: "I should not drink wine."

Indeed. I presume this explains some of your more abstruse posts.

But acknowledging your problem is the first step. Best of luck.

If you pay for it, you control it. Boehner and the his clan have ownership through this political cycle, as Pelosi and Reid had had it through the last.

So what exactly is the Smithsonian Charter anyway?

The idea of a government museum sort of bothers me anyway. Governments really cannot be allowed to write their own story and decide what should be the national zeitgeist. Can you say Ministry of Culture and freedom of expression in the same breath?

How homo-eroticism in art is relevant to the history of the world, this country, or art in general is not what I'd consider the great questions before the country, but, hey, I watch Dexter and Battlestar Galactica, so what do I know about art, literature, religion, or culture?

How ants crawling on a crucifix is symbolic of anything other than the natural cycle of life and death, even for kings, is beyond me.

Perhaps the ants represent the church minions? Still thriving on the cross of sacrifice? Hmm, that's a downright holy and religious symbol then.

Still can't find the homoerotic part of it... perhaps we need to see the film in its full context, as the film-maker intended. Wouldn't it be sweet to have Tipper and Boehner on one side and Zappa and Rand on the other debating the nature of free expression? I'd pay to see that!

Too bad Rand and Zappa are now dead, and Zappa in particular was a rational force for free expression, and his conclusion was to do everything himself, without sponsorship, i.e. interference from outside interests.

We are slowly degenerating into a nation of word parsers, posers, and posturers. No wonder Al Qaeda finds it so easy to bleed us dry...

http://www.archive.org/stream/INSPIRE_ISSUE_3/special#page/n1/mode/2up

A piece of work depicting ants crawling on a decaying cross may sybolize, for the observer, many things - none of which may be deemed "offensive" unless the viewer wishes to make it so. In this case, the artist wanted to depict, we are told, the failure of Christians to respond to the AIDS epidemic. It may also symbolize the demise of Christianity, or the reception of its message, or be making a theological statement about death and resurrection, along with other possible messages, depending on what the viewer gets out of it - and this is key to any piece of art, it's ability to "symbolize," an action that takes place in the viewer, and which is not inherent in the piece itself. The only "Christians" who would object are those for whom the "Cross of Glory" is all-in-all - who hold to such a superficial Christianity that they have no understanding whatsoever of the actual meaning of the cross for Christians.

The only others who would object are those who have other agendas, and who wish to use this as a way of pressing concerns that have nothing to do with this piece of work. Both this conservative Catholic group and the Republicans subscribe to this - theirs is a general attack on art - we might include any portion of culture - that is not to their taste and agreeable to their ideology. Theirs are narrow and bigoted understandings of Christianity which they wish to "mainline." They have consistently shown themselves to be enemies of art, of open public discourse such as that found on NPR and public television, and of cultural institutions that do not support their narrow ideology. They represent a triumphalism that is in no way either Christian or democratic. They are more like the church of the Inquisition, always seeking out heretics to burn at the stake. They represent the interests of the rich and powerful, whose desire is to hold others in economic, political, cultural and intellectual subjugation; who see themselves as our rightful rulers, the "exceptional" people who have the divinely given right to determine what we should hear, see, understand and do. Pursuing that "divine right" is their agenda.

It is a shame that the Smithsonian feels the need to cowtow to these hypocrites and idealogues. But, in the present climate, where even our President apparently has no backbone, I suppose it is to be expected. I hope that those who run the Smithsonian are not hoping to actually gain anything from this - they should read about what has happened in the President's show of lack of nerve - these people only believe in total victory. In giving in, they only encourage them to take no prisoners.

Susan and some commenters have presented this as an absolutist issue of the principle of free artistic expression, but I don't think it can be. There has to be some point at which art shouldn't be displayed at The People's Gallery for being offensive, and since that's inherently a judgement call, some difference of opinion between Congress and the gallery's directors is inevitable. The latter can't have free license while the former's role is limited to keeping the checks from taxpayers flowing.

The issue here comes down to the application of the rules of offensiveness in this particular case. And, tying into recent discussions, it's where Political Correctness is being turned on its practitioners.

Codes about offensive speech were written as if intended to non-protect things like calling a black person the N-word or telling a woman how good her dress made her boobs look. However, they were also deliberately vague and expansive, so people can claim statements like "Black people's problem isn't racism, it's fatherlessness, crime, and dropouts" are offensive to their self-image.

In the case of religious groups, the line gets particularly blurred between statements about a belief system and the people who practice it, considered as a demographic group. "Jews are a bunch of money-grubbing thieves" is racist speech, but "Judaism is a nationalist, self-centered religion that teaches it's OK to cheat gentiles" is on its face a statement about a belief system.

The Catholic League particular muddles these distinctions, obscuring the difference between criticism of doctrinal beliefs or the actions of their organization, with debasement of their billion individual adherents.

There've been several references herein to "the right to offend." Absolutely. But that right can't be conditional on the whom.

God, I should not drink wine. At any rate, I read an interesting open letter to Sen. Boehner tying together the threads of unemployment, his promises to bring back jobs by reducing government size, and his threats to the Smithsonian.

I think the government needs to fund the arts. I'm also not in favor of "offensive" religious works. However, the one in question is controversial. There appear to be many who think it is quite moving.

Caving, as we have done, to certain extremist Muslims has opened the door for us to cave to extremists of all religions.
Indeed, we appear hypocritical and cowardly if we do not. Freedom of speech does not specify that a certain group or groups may not be offended.

It may be argued that we must face reality.
Granted.

THEBUMP wrote: "...if you do pick the taxpayers' pockets, you forfeit any right to cry censorship."

=====================

We all agreed a long time ago that it is in the interest of society to advance the arts, using monies obtained from the society to disseminate it. Your argument makes the case that only SOME art is permissible, and determines there is a censoring body that will determine what is permitted. Under that scenario, Art can only be what those in power deem it can be.

Many times in history, this has turned into pushing a political agenda, and/or a propaganda machine. Think about the great european leader in Germany during the late 1930's and the early 1940's. Art was determined valid only if it furthered the greatness of Germany, as in grand landscapes, and imagery and statuary representing great and powerful military machinery. Think about the last great US conservative moves, cloaking paintings and statues that dared to bare any nudity....etc.

So as you say, we should not cry censorship if Art is paid for with tax money, then nothing should happen with tax revenues. No monies collected to better the social environment should be raised. Everything should be privatized, and no matter how offensive it is, no one has the right to censor it.

Meant to write:

Resign from the CONGRESS.

Was thinking of Ben Nelson as I wrote. It's odd reading all the REpublican jubilation over Nancy Pelosi's replacement in connection with this.

Americans, including those who besieged the idiotic would-be Quran burning preacher, have no idea whither they may be heading.

Those who support Beaner ought to spend a few years living in Iran.

The Boehners of this world belong neither in Congress nor in most other places. I find it odd that there appears to be no pressure to force him to step down from his post and resign from the Senate.

Either you stand up for a climate of intellectual freedom in science, education and the arts or you don't.

A pretty categorical statement. Either/or.

And so we'll have to mark the authoress down in the latter category, since she demands zero intellectual freedom when it comes to charter school pupils studying their faith, or any faith (or foreign languages, for that matter).

There is a case to be made (an idiotic one, in my view, in modern society) that there should be no government support of any kind for the arts, for education, for scientific research. Indeed, the political right has frequently made that case for everything except scientific research. There is no case to be made, however, that individual political representatives should have veto power over every program supported, usually partially supported (like the Smithsonian exhibit) with public funds. That absolutely is censorship, because no large museum or scientific research institute can operate without government funds, even thought the United States also has a uniquely high proportion of private philanthropic funds involved in these programs.

If I were a Senator, should I threaten the head of the Smithsonian with cutting appropriations if he didn't remove some gory crucifixion images that I don't particularly like? It is simply absurd--a true expression of the far-right "party line"--to pretend that it isn't censorship when ignorant legislators in charge of appropriations try to micromanage major museums. Either you stand up for a climate of intellectual freedom in science, education and the arts or you don't.

And if we find ourselves in a situation in which every institution that receives any sort of public funds must please John Boehner, we're in real trouble.

Think about the terrible absurdity of the above statement by the authoress (no slacker when it comes to absurd statements).

Those who take taxpayer dollars are accountable to taxpayers? The horror!

Funnily enough, just the other day the authoress was arguing quite the opposite, whining that our elected representatives take insufficient account of her personal views as a taxpayer when it comes to charter schools.

So which is it? Should taxpayers have a say in where their confiscated resources go, or not?

Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If you do not want to be bothered by taxpayers' views and preferences, then do not take funds from taxpayers.

And if you do pick the taxpayers' pockets, you forfeit any right to cry censorship.

The distinction is that the only thing being prevented is the showing of the video _using_public_funds_. No one's preventing the creator from showing the video in any privately-controlled venue.

Would we permit the Smithsonian to display art advocating holocaust denial or female genital mutilation?

Posted by: WmarkW | December 10, 2010 3:11 PM
---------------------------------------
"We" did permit a museum that does receive some private funds to show work that was highly offensive to Holocaust victims only a few years ago.

Similarly, "we" did permit the Brooklyn Museum and the Cooper Union to display works highly offensive to Catholics only a few years ago.

The issue is whether the catholic league now has significantly more leverage due to this nation's caving to pressure over the wouild-be Quoran burning preacher.

Some of us care about the First Amendment and some of us don't.

Some of us have courage and some of us don't.

Some of us are unfazed that a group of backwards Catholic antisemitic morons led by a backwoods Catholic moron antisemite now have greater influence over our government and out lives and some of us aren't.

In principle, no symbol or category of symbol deserves special protection from "defacement." That's a concept that really depends on context, motivation, and perspective, none of which are endemic. Different symbols mean different things to different people. No one gets to control or decide what a symbol should mean for others.

Take burning of a book of scripture. That demagogic preacher in Florida wanted to burn the Koran as a publicity stunt to stir up hatred. But it's possible that a Sufi Muslim who opposes violence could have been so saddened by 9/11 that he could have burned a Koran to express his feelings about terrorists murdering in the name of his religion. Similarly, one person could burn a flag to declare hatred of America and another person could burn a flag to protest what has happened to the country he loves.

I think we've clarified the issue correctly now:

The issue is not censorship because the video is not being censored.

The issue is not whether offensiveness is a reason the Smithsonian CAN refuse to display something. Of course it CAN. I suspect their warehouses contain paintings of savage Indians, thieving Jews, happy slaves, and "disciplined" women, that they wouldn't display today.

The issue then is whether this particular application is a legitimate implementation of public pressure to remove a piece for offensiveness. That's a good topic. As an earlier poster implied, we probably wouldn't tolerate a depiction of defacement of a Muslim symbol to protest its treatment of women, for example.

This is ridiculous. 11 seconds from a half-hour video? Of course it looks like an attack on Christianity when viewed out of context, just as the Shirley Sherrod statement sounded anti-white out of context. Cyber News Service created a phony controversy to engage in demagoguery. Like the authors of the Left Behind series, they're playing to the minority of Christians who see enemies of their faith under every rock.

This is the same nonsense that plagued "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Life of Brian" and "Satanic Verses." In all three cases, demagogues either quoted scenes out of context or told outright lies about the context, often without even seeing the works in question. If one quotes Johnny Cash out of context, one might really believe he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

The distinction is that the only thing being prevented is the showing of the video _using_public_funds_. No one's preventing the creator from showing the video in any privately-controlled venue.

Would we permit the Smithsonian to display art advocating holocaust denial or female genital mutilation?
----------------------------------------

Are there not religious works in public museums that are favorable and neutral to religions? We should get rid of those then too, yes?

In as much as much as those 11 seconds were advocating anything, it was compassion for AIDS patients, if I understand correctly. But then advocacy goes to my question about distinguishing art from propaganda. If a particular work of art appears favorable to Christianity, is it then advocating Christianity? Or, insert religion of choice. Do we then have First Amendment issues other than free speech?

I don't think so. The clip wasn't advocating for or against Christianity, but using Christian symbology as a metaphor, something Christians do all the time in various ways, some of which end up, I am sure, in public museums. An artwork might be distasteful, but that does not equate to advocacy of something like Holocaust denial or female genital mutilation. In the instance of this video, I see no issue with the use of public funds.

Government censorship is far worse than any other kind of censorship, because of the implicit and explicit penalties that government is always capable of imposing.
----------------------------------------
"Censorship" means the government prohibiting distribution or display ANYWHERE. Not refusing to provide the forum for it.

This is a crucial distinction, whether I agree with the decision or not.

Since I was completely disgusted by the craven response of many American publications and educational institutions to the threats of violence by radical Islamists against those who published the Danish cartoons, and said so at the time, I have no use for the argument that, "Well, yes, censorship and a successful attempt at political intimidation is going on in regard to the Smithsonian, but after all, others have done the same or worse, so it's just another example of liberal bias to call attention to this."

No religion has a right to censor speech by others that it finds offensive. End of story. And if we find ourselves in a situation in which every institution that receives any sort of public funds must please John Boehner, we're in real trouble. Government censorship is far worse than any other kind of censorship, because of the implicit and explicit penalties that government is always capable of imposing. The problem is not the Catholic League, but the capacity of this group to enlist high government officials in its causes, as it did in this instance.

Granted, no one issued death threats over the video (as far as I know), but the two reactions are somewhat comparable, though certainly differ in degree. Many in the Western world viewed the cartoons as the exercise of free speech. One could make the same argument for the video. Why would one be the exercise of free speech and the other not?
-------------------------------------------
The distinction is that the only thing being prevented is the showing of the video _using_public_funds_. No one's preventing the creator from showing the video in any privately-controlled venue.

Would we permit the Smithsonian to display art advocating holocaust denial or female genital mutilation?

The censorship of art for political or religious purposes raises some interesting questions. What is definable as art? Is religious or political art distinguishable from what might be called propaganda? What of political cartoons then? Many parts of the Muslim world blew up over the Danish cartoons. Granted, no one issued death threats over the video (as far as I know), but the two reactions are somewhat comparable, though certainly differ in degree. Many in the Western world viewed the cartoons as the exercise of free speech. One could make the same argument for the video. Why would one be the exercise of free speech and the other not?

There's no point in being offensive purely for the sake of being offensive, but to declare Christianity off limits for controversial art, one would also have to declare ALL religious beliefs off limits. Otherwise you get censorship based on the religious sensitivities of whoever happens to be in charge.

I'm sure you liberals would have nooooooo problem with any kind of "art" that maligned the Religion of Peace, would you, you liberals? Noooooo problem whatsoever with government-funded blasphemy directed at the Religion of Peace, your precious Religion of Peace, the libs' fave religion, would you, you liberals? Go ahead, libs, tell me you wouldn't.

OK, this is all true, but political pressure to bias exhibits is hardly a one-way street. (I wish Heather MacDonald's essay: Revisionist Lust at the Smithsonian was linked online for free.)

Instead, I'll just cite the following equally aggregious example:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619256/posts

In July, the (NEH) sponsored a workshop on “History and Commemoration: The Legacies of the Pacific War in WWII” for college professors in Hawaii. Professor Penelope Blake, a veteran professor of Humanities at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., was one of 25 American scholars chosen to attend the workshop, but was reportedly disheartened to find the conference “driven by an overt political bias and a blatant anti-American agenda.”

In both the required preparatory readings for the conference, as well as the scholarly presentations, I found the overriding messages to include the following:

1. The U.S. military and its veterans constitute an imperialistic, oppressive force which has created and perpetuated its own mythology of liberation and heroism, insisting on a “pristine collective memory” of the war.

2. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor should be seen from the perspective of Japan being a victim of western oppression

5. Those misguided members of the WWII generation on islands like Guam and Saipan who feel gratitude to the Americans for saving them from the Japanese are blinded by propaganda supporting “the image of a compassionate America” or by their own advanced age.

6. It was “the practice” of the U.S. military in WWII to desecrate and disrespect the bodies of dead Japanese. (Knowing this to be absolutely false, I challenged the speaker/author, who then admitted that this was not the “practice” of our military. Still, the word remains in his publication. As he obviously knew this to be false, I can only assume that his objective was not scholarship but anti-military propaganda.)

11. War memorials like the Arizona Memorial should be recast as “peace memorials,” sensitive to all viewers from all countries, especially the many visitors from Japan.

The perverted letists really do hate Christianity. They use every opportunity to attack and demean the Christian faith and since they tend to gravitate to the, so-called, arts, the "artists" create the worst offenders.

I'm sure they would pick on the Muslim faith, too, except the above named leftists are to cowardly to try.

The perverted letists must be the most dispicable people on Earth. No wonder most American despise them.