Mont. Woman Arrested for Damaging Jesus 'inappropriate content' Art in Colo.

LyraJean

Newbie
Mar 6, 2010
649
68
Florida
Visit site
✟8,900.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Fine - we are, amid ridicule, rebuke, and nasty retorts. Exactly what sort of "art" would counteract this inappropriate contentographer's "art?" What do ya do, create prurient Christian art??

Sure why not. Art is just the opinion of the artist. So just create some art that represents your opinion of Jesus. Nothing is stopping you.
 
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Mont. Woman Arrested for Damaging Jesus 'inappropriate content' Art in Colo. - FoxNews.com


Consequences for ones actions, or art. Had he dared to put another religious icon in there, he would have to worry about his life, not just his..."art".
Again, this is called sacrificing for ones art. Its not just going hungry and scraping by, but facing the response to ones "art".


I guess he didn't learn history very well. Many Christians caused injury and death to those that spoke or desecrated Christ. We are alot more peaceful now.

I do like that he includes Mohammed. If he included anything Muslim in this "art" he would have to have his mail screened, his car checked daily before he went anywhere, and would have to be alert every second to someone looking to end his life, because of his art work.

Like all other Anti-christian art, I think goverment should not fund anything that demeans a religion.(Any religion.) A cross in urine, Jesus linked to sexual perversion, Mohammmed, Budda, and any other religious image.
If goverment can not display religious art, symbols, scenes, in a positive way, then they should also be restricted from allowing/funding a display that portrays religion in a negitive way.(Other then true historical images.
ie: Crusades and all thier negitives, Salem witch trials, etc and the same for other religions.)
Restricting freedom of speech? No, you loose some freedom of speech when you have the goverment get involved. Money or gallery funded by goverment. Religious people can not display their works, so the anti-religious should not either.

This woman should have taken a photo of the artist,framed it, pushed some dog feces onto the photo and hung it in the gallery.

True art. And certainly true expression of free speech.
 
Upvote 0

Christos Anesti

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2009
3,487
333
Michigan
✟20,114.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
So again -- it's ok to destroy things you don't like, but "holy icons" are off limits?

There are a lot of things I don't like that it would be inappropriate to destroy. Had this "art" been displayed in someones private residence I would be opposed to a person going in to destroy it. If it is hung up in a place that is open to the public then go ahead and destroy it. I'm not saying it is legal I'm simply saying that it's the right thing to do.
 
Upvote 0

LyraJean

Newbie
Mar 6, 2010
649
68
Florida
Visit site
✟8,900.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are a lot of things I don't like that it would be inappropriate to destroy. Had this "art" been displayed in someones private residence I would be opposed to a person going in to destroy it. If it is hung up in a place that is open to the public then go ahead and destroy it. I'm not saying it is legal I'm simply saying that it's the right thing to do.

Just because it is a public forum doesn't mean a person has the right to destroy it. Christian Forums is a public forum but we still have to abide by the rules here or be penalized. It's not really any different at an art museum. She destroyed someone else's art therefore she should be penalized for destruction of someone else's property.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
There are a lot of things I don't like that it would be inappropriate to destroy. Had this "art" been displayed in someones private residence I would be opposed to a person going in to destroy it. If it is hung up in a place that is open to the public then go ahead and destroy it. I'm not saying it is legal I'm simply saying that it's the right thing to do.

Your house is in a public place, and I'm sure someone out there finds it offensive enough to get a can of gasoline and put your words into practice...
 
Upvote 0

Christos Anesti

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2009
3,487
333
Michigan
✟20,114.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Your house is in a public place, and I'm sure someone out there finds it offensive enough to get a can of gasoline and put your words into practice

Good point seeing as how I was just advocating that people going around burning down one another's houses. :doh:

People now a days have this idea that anything goes in public. It's been taken to such extremes that its almost like the world is becoming a bad South Park episode. If someone wants to go to a museum and defecate on the ground and call it a beautiful piece of art then heaven forbid that someone remove it because that is violating their "right to free expression". If someone wants to have a gallery of pictures in a public arena of Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad performing lewd sex acts then thats just something the community has to deal with because thats "free speech". People used to not put up with garbage like that. People are just so "enlightened" now a days I guess. Yay for American "culture".
 
Upvote 0

Supreme

British
Jul 30, 2009
11,890
490
London
✟22,685.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
This woman should have taken a photo of the artist,framed it, pushed some dog feces onto the photo and hung it in the gallery.

True art. And certainly true expression of free speech.

Haha, reminds me of that line from Full Metal Jacket:

'You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!'

And certainly apt with regard to this sculpture of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Good point seeing as how I was just advocating that people going around burning down one another's houses. :doh:

You were advocating that people should destroy the things that offend them -- how is this different?

People now a days have this idea that anything goes in public.

Including destroying other people's work just because you don't like it? Should that go in public as well?

It's been taken to such extremes that its almost like the world is becoming a bad South Park episode. If someone wants to go to a museum and defecate on the ground and call it a beautiful piece of art then heaven forbid that someone remove it because that is violating their "right to free expression".

Isn't it up to the museum to remove it? Are you upset because the museum doesn't consult you before deciding what it considers "art"?

If someone wants to have a gallery of pictures in a public arena of Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad performing lewd sex acts then thats just something the community has to deal with because thats "free speech".

That it is -- what's your problem with free speech?

People used to not put up with garbage like that.

back in the good ol' days of the lynch mob...

People are just so "enlightened" now a days I guess. Yay for American "culture".

If you don't like American culture, you're free to move somewhere with a culture more to your liking. Yay for American freedom.
 
Upvote 0

LyraJean

Newbie
Mar 6, 2010
649
68
Florida
Visit site
✟8,900.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The art museum decides what art goes into their museum. If you don't like the art do not patronize their museum. If the museum doesn't generate money because of the type of art that they display then they will change what they display.

Here is an example I've seen in the Ft. Lauderdale art museum. It was a paper bag and right next to the paper bag was a photocopy of the other side of the paper bag. It was framed and titled something like "Miami #11". Along with other pieces just as what my husband and considered just as stupid we have not gone back to that art museum.

You should study da-daism.
 
Upvote 0

sdmsanjose

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,772
405
Arizona
✟23,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"The piece, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" appears beside Jesus’ head."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/montana-woman-arrested-damaging-jesus-inappropriate content-art-colorado/?test=latestnews



Quote of Exiledoomsayer
The artist had every right to draw jesus and muhammed in sodomy if he felt like it...

SDM reply
And we have the right to take any and all legal action to oppose this offensive presentation that some call art!


For those that feel that American tax-payer money should NOT be given to The Loveland Museum Gallery to present the degrading of Jesus as described above; listed below are the politicians that have some say in the American Tax-payer funds.




August William "Bill" Ritter, Governor
Sate Of Colorado
1111 W Colfax
Denver, CO 80204-2026
(303) 239-4425

NOTE for Colorado Residents:
Gov. Ritter is running for re-election in 2010


Colorado's U.S. Senators

Denver Metro Office 2300 15th St., Suite 450
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Toll Free: (866) 455-9866 Fax: (303) 455-8851
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fine - we are, amid ridicule, rebuke, and nasty retorts. Exactly what sort of "art" would counteract this inappropriate contentographer's "art?" What do ya do, create prurient Christian art??

Sure why not [create prurient Christian art]. Art is just the opinion of the artist. So just create some art that represents your opinion of Jesus. Nothing is stopping you.
I wasn't suggesting - I was asking - asking you 'what do ya do?' And you respond in support of creating prurient ["appealing to or arousing inappropriate sexual desire"] Christian art as a proper means of expressing one's counter opinion to blasphemy.

"Sure, why not?"

Two choices - decry an outrageously disgusting and blasphemous piece of garbage by some 'artist' whose mind is in the depths of the sewer from which his 'art' (opinion) originates; or decry some woman for wrongly defacing his blasphemous sewage. And how ironic that both are considered 'blasphemy' - only one however is tolerated while the other isn't.

Two people. Two opinions. One choice made.

Wesley and Whitefield must really be proud...
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Simple.
Firstly this woman should not have vandalised the art work.
Secondly this art work should be allowed if one wants freedom of speech.
Thirdly if you want freedom of speech then you cant arrest the man who burnt pages from the Quran.
Sadly at present the injustice remains.

Might like to consider whether art depicting Mohammed having oral sex would be allowed, if not then don’t allow this.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Might like to consider whether art depicting Mohammed having oral sex would be allowed, if not then don’t allow this.

How about Mohammed in a motel room with some pigs dressed as prostitutes?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
610
Iraq
✟13,433.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
How about Mohammed in a motel room with some pigs dressed as prostitutes?
Why not? Or how about the Pope surrounded by 10 little boys, all dressed in bikini underwear, all carrying the blood of Christ wine bottle? Or we could have a picture of Lord Ganesh feasting on cow brains
 
Upvote 0

LyraJean

Newbie
Mar 6, 2010
649
68
Florida
Visit site
✟8,900.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I wasn't suggesting - I was asking - asking you 'what do ya do?' And you respond in support of creating prurient ["appealing to or arousing inappropriate sexual desire"] Christian art as a proper means of expressing one's counter opinion to blasphemy.

"Sure, why not?"

Two choices - decry an outrageously disgusting and blasphemous piece of garbage by some 'artist' whose mind is in the depths of the sewer from which his 'art' (opinion) originates; or decry some woman for wrongly defacing his blasphemous sewage. And how ironic that both are considered 'blasphemy' - only one however is tolerated while the other isn't.

Two people. Two opinions. One choice made.

Wesley and Whitefield must really be proud...

I apologize for my ignorance. I did thought I knew what prurient meant and did not.

What I thought was obvious since the art on display is prurient you could in protest make art that is not prurient. How do you protest if you just make the same type of art?
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I don't find it art either. But my thinking so is not motivation or legal grounds to deface or destroy others property.
She took a stand, and sacrificed herself for her beliefs. I do support her action, but I am not saying she should get away without punishment.

Well the woman still destroyed private property. And we as Christians are called to follow secular laws unless they go against the Word of God. I still don't see her doing that. She could have joined the protesters.
If she broke God's law is up to her and God. I do not see God finding fault with her for this action. Because it was done in love of God.
See above for sacrifice.

Freedom of speech is not without limits. I do think this goes to far, and I believe it is obscene. I have not seen it, but the description sounds pretty obscene. Jesus has a man looking as if he is comitting sodomy on him? I believe the person or people that evaluated this peice for being obscene were not were probably bias.
My decision on obscenity is would you feel comfortable for a child to see it?(If not limited to an adult veiwer.) Or would you want your mother to see it.
1. indecent: offensive to conventional standards of decency, especially by being sexually explicit

2. disgusting: disgusting and morally offensive, especially through an apparent total disregard for others' rights or natural justice
IMo this is obscene for definately the first, and probably the second(depending on seeing the actual piece of "art".)

Someone questioned if Jesus is just drawn non-tradtional, would this be offensive. IMO no. Drawing a god is what the person sees, or believes god to look like(note when speaking of a general god, I do not capitalize)
Until a god is depicted doing something against their religious doctrine, it is not offensive. There is a difference between non-flattering and obscene.

So again,
I support her in atttempting to destroy this work, but also I support her being prosecuted, I support the "artist" for his right to do this "art", but I also support his being
scorned, ridiculed, and ostrasized for this work, and facing potential removal from the gallery.
Both sides must sacrifice for their art, and their savior.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Simple.
Firstly this woman should not have vandalised the art work.
Secondly this art work should be allowed if one wants freedom of speech.
Thirdly if you want freedom of speech then you cant arrest the man who burnt pages from the Quran.
Sadly at present the injustice remains.

Might like to consider whether art depicting Mohammed having oral sex would be allowed, if not then don’t allow this.

I wasn't aware the man who burned the Quran was arrested -- I thought he was just denounced as an idiot.

Source?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
She took a stand, and sacrificed herself for her beliefs. I do support her action, but I am not saying she should get away without punishment.


If she broke God's law is up to her and God. I do not see God finding fault with her for this action. Because it was done in love of God.
See above for sacrifice.

I can think of 19 men who once did the exact same thing -- I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon.

Freedom of speech is not without limits.

But it is that speech which pushes the limits which is exactly what needs freedom of speech the most.

If nobody offended anyone, we wouldn't need a First Amendment.

I do think this goes to far, and I believe it is obscene. I have not seen it, but the description sounds pretty obscene. Jesus has a man looking as if he is comitting sodomy on him? I believe the person or people that evaluated this peice for being obscene were not were probably bias.

Would it have been less "obscene" had the man not been Jesus?
 
Upvote 0