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

[Billnew]

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

Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns?

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".

"Violence is the opposite of what Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha taught. I am amazed that some of the followers don't adhere to the teachings. Agree to disagree and love thy neighbor," he said.

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.

 

[Skaloop]

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.

That just brings up the question of what qualifies as demeaning. A cross in urine, perhaps for some. Jesus inappropriate content, probably moreso. What about, say, a depiction of a non-traditional Jesus? Suppose a Jesus portrait was drawn showing him not as the tall, fair-skinned, light-haired guy that seems to be the standard these days, but rather as a short, dark-skinned Jew. Surely some people would find this depiction of Jesus demeaning.

If goverment can not display religious art, symbols, scenes, in a positive way,

They can't? So no government-funded museum or art gallery has a single piece of art showing Christian symbols or events or images?

Restricting freedom of speech? No, you loose some freedom of speech when you have the goverment get involved.

I am not familiar with that exception to the First Amendment.

Money or gallery funded by goverment. Religious people can not display their works, so the anti-religious should not either.

And as I mentioned above, religious people can and do display their works in government funded galleries. And no anti-religious folks have been charged with damaging them for being as such, as far as I know.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It seems disrespectful to me,Since I never read anywhere,That Jesus said it was okay,To do such a drawing.It just seems like a person,That likes to cause trouble,some people fall for it.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

When a person purposely goes out of their way to insult another's religion, people shouldn't be suprised when those that get offended make threats, vandalize or actually kill the individual. Should it occur? No, we should be more civil than that but then of course humans are animals at our primal core. Some just can't control their emotions like others, and things like this will happen.

Am I supporting her in insulting Christianity? I'm supporting her right to, but I find people who insult religions and call it art rather disturbed.

 

[sdmsanjose]

This artist, Enrique Chagoya, tries to hide his degrading of our spiritual deity by presenting those in opposition of his art as people connected to Hitler and Stalin and are extremist with hate. What an ignorant attempt at manipulation!

This man, Mr. Chagoya, thinks that his art is more important than other people’s sacred God. If an artist wants to make a political statement with his art he can do it without degrading someone’s God.

I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.

No, I wouldn't support that at all. Free speech is free speech, and I fully support that. Even if they drew a picture of the Prophet SAW, no matter how it was presented, I would support their right to draw it. I'd feel no sympathy for them because of threats they may receive, but I still stand up for their right to draw as such. Restricting speech based on it insulting your religion is not the American way; to do so, would lead to a police state.

 

[Skaloop]

It seems disrespectful to me,Since I never read anywhere,That Jesus said it was okay,To do such a drawing.It just seems like a person,That likes to cause trouble,some people fall for it.

Did Jesus,ever,Say that,it wasn't,Okay,?,

(Because to me, it seems disrespectful when people neglect to use commas, capitalization, and post-punctuation spacing correctly since I never read anywhere that Jesus said it was okay. To do such a post just seems like a person that likes to cause trouble; some people fall for it.

Please tell me I just fell for it and that you write that way on purpose to cause trouble.)

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The woman needs to learn that the right to swing her fist ends where someone elses nose AND art begins.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by sdmsanjose
I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.

Easy E
No, I wouldn't support that at all. Free speech is free speech, and I fully support that. Even if they drew a picture of the Prophet SAW, no matter how it was presented, I would support their right to draw it. I'd feel no sympathy for them because of threats they may receive, but I still stand up for their right to draw as such. Restricting speech based on it insulting your religion is not the American way; to do so, would lead to a police state.

Eazy E
Freedom of Speech is an important freedom we have in America, However, to me the freedom of art to degrade our God does not take priority over the Word of God. I love our freedoms but that does not mean freedom is without limits.

I do not base my position and statements on just my own thoughts. I reference the Holy Bible.
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

God is clear:
“Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain” Exodus 20:7
Shav (Hebrew) meaning “….Using the Lord’s name (reputation) lightly”

Depicting Christ the way that that art piece did is degrading the reputation of our God.

I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

America is not a theocracy. A person can attempt legal ends or in this womans case apparently illegal ends to what I see as taking either legal or stupid actions because they are oversensitive. But I wouldn't recommend it. If I believe in Jesus and God and I do. Then I am not going to worry that the art of mortality has some sort of horrible effect on the most high.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The "art" is disgusting and blasphemous. If the tolerant "refined elite" among us want to view these pseudo-artistic bowel movements of a totally depraved mind, let them do so in the confines of the sewers where such crap belongs.

 

[pgp_protector]

Eazy E
Freedom of Speech is an important freedom we have in America, However, to me the freedom of art to degrade our God does not take priority over the Word of God. I love our freedoms but that does not mean freedom is without limits.

I do not base my position and statements on just my own thoughts. I reference the Holy Bible.
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

God is clear:
“Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain” Exodus 20:7
Shav (Hebrew) meaning “….Using the Lord’s name (reputation) lightly”

Depicting Christ the way that that art piece did is degrading the reputation of our God.

I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.

So All people of the US are supposed to follow all the laws of the Bible?

 

[Christos Anesti]

stupid actions because they are oversensitive.

Oversensitive, Your joking right? Some things are rightfully considered insulting and crude. If an African American was provoked by a burning cross would you call them oversensitive too?

Then I am not going to worry that the art of mortality has some sort of horrible effect on the most high.

I doubt that her concern was that it might have a horrible effect on the most high.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The "art" is disgusting and blasphemous. If the tolerant "refined elite" among us want to view these pseudo-artistic bowel movements of a totally depraved mind, let them do so in the confines of the sewers where such crap belongs.

I don't find it art either. But my thinking so is not motivation or legal grounds to deface or destroy others property.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Oversensitive, Your joking right? Some things are rightfully considered insulting and crude.

If I thought so about a certain piece, item,etc this still doesn't change the fact it's still illegal for me to deface/destroy it.

If an African American was provoked by a burning cross would you call them oversensitive too?

If we're talking some wacko doing so on her lawn then it's a criminal act and I feel sorry for her and feel for her anger. If someone had a legal piece of art that involved a burning cross it still doesn't change her legal grounds on the matter and where she can cross that line.

I doubt that her concern was that it might have a horrible effect on the most high.

And she STILL should have been arrested.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If I thought so about a certain piece, item,etc this still doesn't change the fact it's still illegal for me to deface/destroy it.

True. I'm sure it was also illegal for Jesus to overturn the tables of the money changers at the temple too. To me the question isn't so much if it's legal as it is if it is justified.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

True. I'm sure it was also illegal for Jesus to overturn the tables of the money changers at the temple too. To me the question isn't so much if it's legal as it is if it is justified.

*Shrugs* Maybe, maybe not. I in general view people throwing out the word justified with a great deal of caution.

 

[LyraJean]

I couldn't see a picture of the piece of art in question. So I cannot have an opinion on the particular piece.

The woman in question is not God or Jesus. She had no right to go in and destroy someone else's property. We as Christians are told to obey the laws of the countries we live in unless it goes against the laws of God. I don't see her doing that here.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I couldn't see a picture of the piece of art in question. So I cannot have an opinion on the particular piece.

The woman in question is not God or Jesus. She had no right to go in and destroy someone else's property. We as Christians are told to obey the laws of the countries we live in unless it goes against the laws of God. I don't see her doing that here.

This is the discription for the pic.

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.

 

[LyraJean]

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.