- Apr 23, 2004
- 21,246
- 1,234
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Mont. Woman Arrested for Damaging Jesus 'inappropriate content' Art in Colo. - FoxNews.com
Again, this is called sacrificing for ones art. Its not just going hungry and scraping by, but facing the response to ones "art".
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.
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".Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns?
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."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 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.