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

[sdmsanjose]

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.

A"merica is not a theocracy."

Who said anything about America being a theocracy? Is that your baseless argument in defending this art that degrades Jesus?

I have seen this very same accusation (theocracy) many times before. I say the freedom of art to degrade our God does not take priority over the Word of God and then here comes your accusation that my statement has made America into a theocracy. I will put God’s word above your opinion any day of the week.



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

Then why are you worried about the fact that I am saying
I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.?

 

[sdmsanjose]

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

No not all people in the U.S., only those that believe that the Bible is more important than a so called piece of art that degrades our God.

By the way, who said anything about ALL the people of the U.S. are supposed to follow the laws of the Bible?
Did you add that to make your statement look like it was addressing my post?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

A"merica is not a theocracy."

Who said anything about America being a theocracy? Is that your baseless argument in defending this art that degrades Jesus?

I have seen this very same accusation (theocracy) many times before. I say the freedom of art to degrade our God does not take priority over the Word of God and then here comes your accusation that my statement has made America into a theocracy. I will put God’s word above your opinion any day of the week.



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

Then why are you worried about the fact that I am saying
I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.?

This does not extend to illegal actions, and not only am I not worried about your statement. I said earlier people can take legal action. Pay attention.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

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.

You said you didn't know what the pic was,So I told you,I could care less,that she destoyed or not.I don't think it wont stop people, from drawing stuff,That make religious people upset,I just think they get joy out of it.Maybe someone should draw a pic of Mona Lisa having oral sex.

 

[LyraJean]

You said you didn't know what the pic was,So I told you,I could care less,that she destoyed or not.

okay

 

[LyraJean]

During the medieval/renaissance era artists had to get patrons or they wouldn't be able to create their art. It still works today. If you do not like someone's art do not buy it or visit their exhibits.

I say ignore it completely. After all if you hold a protest in front of the gallery or museum then people will just go in just to see what is so horrible about it. Destroying his art actually could only help him.

 

[mpok1519]

She destroyed someone else's property; it doesn't matter what she destroyed: it wasn't hers.

It's art ; if you find it offensive DONT LOOK! It's that simple!!!!!

 

[Skaloop]

You said you didn't know what the pic was,So I told you,I could care less,that she destoyed or not.I don't think it wont stop people, from drawing stuff,That make religious people upset,I just think they get joy out of it.Maybe someone should draw a pic of Mona Lisa having oral sex.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Tell you what. Let me know if you want an image of something dear to me; my wife, my brother, my pets, my friends, whatever. I'll send you an image. You can make any sort of artwork out of it you want. As offensive as you can think of. Send it back to me. I guarantee it will not upset me in the least. You know why? Because an image is not the thing it is an image of. Stabbing a feces-covered picture of my wife does nothing to my wife. Portraying Jesus in a inappropriate contentographic matter does nothing to Jesus.

And yeah, upsetting people is probably part of the intent of the work of art. Drawing emotions out of people is what art is for. It doesn't have to be good emotions. That doesn't make it bad art.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by SonoftheWest
America is not a theocracy."

Posted by sdmsanjose
Who said anything about America being a theocracy? Is that your baseless argument in defending this art that degrades Jesus?

I have seen this very same accusation (theocracy) many times before. I say the freedom of art to degrade our God does not take priority over the Word of God and then here comes your accusation that my statement has made America into a theocracy. I will put God’s word above your opinion any day of the week.


Reply by SonoftheWest
"Then I am not going to worry that the art of mortality has some sort of horrible effect on the most "

Then why are you worried about the fact that I am saying
I encourage every person that opposes this degrading to take any and all legal action to defeat this so called piece of art.?

reply by SonoftheWest
This does not extend to illegal actions, and not only am I not worried about your statement. I said earlier people can take legal action. Pay attention.

You may want to take your own advice of “Pay attention”
Where did I say Illegal actions?
Post my quote, you won’t because I did not say that.


If you take your own advice and read my post that I have posted several times you will see LEGAL ACTION is what I said. I will post it again below so that you can see it.

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

In answering my post you also said “America is not a Theocracy”
In response I asked you
“Who said anything about America being a theocracy”?

You did not answer; either you have no answer, you made an assumption that is wrong, or you did not take your own advice and “pay attention”

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm guessing people on here haven't seen the 'Jesus is a Jerk' meme then...

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If you take your own advice and read my post that I have posted several times you will see LEGAL ACTION is what I said. I will post it again below so that you can see it.

It was already mentioned. You're being redundant for the purpose of antagonism and I don't chat with people that don't take the time to read posts.

 

[USincognito]

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

This is the discription for the pic.

When I was watching Fox stir people up about this display the other day I noticed that one of the panels had something that few if anyone else seems to have noticed - Mohammed in a bedroom with two prostitute pigs. A search of the comments section for a posting of this story on The Blaze, gets 4 hits for Mohammed (though I noticed a few others mentioning it with different spellings).

 

[Supreme]

You see people, this is what happens when people exercise their right of free speech. We may not always like the results, but then, free speech was never going to be perfect. It's benefits outweigh its shortcomings, and for Christians, this is a shortcoming.

That said, I have a low opinion on 'artists' whose standards are set so low that they have to resort to insulting another's religion. Art isn't about insulting others, and it never has been, so the person responsible for this artwork may like to think about choosing another career. Art is about beauty, not offense.

Reminds me of an incident here in the UK when a museum put a Bible on display and let visitors scribble their own comments in the Bible.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece

 

[EdwinWillers]

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

I purposely made no mention of defacing others property.

There are basically two choices regarding what to discuss in this thread - and ergo what we value more:

--- the piece of blasphemous, inappropriate contentographic crap put on public display or,
--- the woman who defaced it.

Why are people here more interested in discussing (and therefore more concerned with) what the woman did than what the so-called "artist" did (and those people who are permitting its public display)?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I purposely made no mention of defacing others property.

There are basically two choices regarding what to discuss in this thread - and ergo what we value more:

--- the piece of blasphemous, inappropriate contentographic crap put on public display or,
--- the woman who defaced it.

Why are people here more interested in discussing (and therefore more concerned with) what the woman did than what the so-called "artist" did (and those people who are permitting its public display)?

Thats simple, because what the woman did was wrong. There are no two ways about it she had no right in the slightest to react violently. We just had half the middle east get upset over some drawings of muhammed and I believe I recall most of us where on the artists side and where not pleased with the muslims and tell them "You do not have the right to not be offended"

But NOW its a christian idol and NOW all of a sudden its disgracefull, disrespectull and we have the right to retaliate in order to remove the cause of the offense? Heck no.

If it offends you do not go in there. Its not rocket science. Its like those christians that go on youtube type in "lol god" and then complain about whatever disrespectfull vid they come across. No duh your going to find something offense if you go looking for it.

The artist had every right to draw jesus and muhammed in sodomy if he felt like it...Actually by internet rule 34 im pretty sure that picture already exists somewhere on the web.

Was he a jerk for doing it? Perhaps, but that doesnt mean he did not have the right.

Also let me rephrase your two choices
what do we value more

1. The freedom of speech and expression even if we do not agree.
2. The ability censor anything if somebody else is offended about it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Thats simple, because what the woman did was wrong. There are no two ways about it she had no right in the slightest to react violently. We just had half the middle east get upset over some drawings of muhammed and I believe I recall most of us where on the artists side and where not pleased with the muslims and tell them "You do not have the right to not be offended"

But NOW its a christian idol and NOW all of a sudden its disgracefull, disrespectull and we have the right to retaliate in order to remove the cause of the offense? Heck no.

If it offends you do not go in there. Its not rocket science. Its like those christians that go on youtube type in "lol god" and then complain about whatever disrespectfull vid they come across. No duh your going to find something offense if you go looking for it.

The artist had every right to draw jesus and muhammed in sodomy if he felt like it...Actually by internet rule 34 im pretty sure that picture already exists somewhere on the web.

Was he a jerk for doing it? Perhaps, but that doesnt mean he did not have the right.

Also let me rephrase your two choices
what do we value more

1. The freedom of speech and expression even if we do not agree.
2. The ability censor anything if somebody else is offended about it.

You didn't even read what I wrote. Rather than skimming for something to criticize maybe go back and try to find in what I wrote anything - anything I said either for or against freedom of speech - let alone about censorship.

However, you post only serves to emphasize my point - a point which, if you go back and actually read what I wrote, might become clear.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You didn't even read what I wrote. Rather than skimming for something to criticize maybe go back and try to find in what I wrote anything - anything I said either for or against freedom of speech - let alone about censorship.

However, you post only serves to emphasize my point - a point which, if you go back and actually read what I wrote, might become clear.

Pardon? I wasnt attempting to criticize you I was just giving a reason why people seem to be more focused on the two things you brough up.

Granted I will admit I missunderstood your choice comment my bad.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I say ignore it completely. After all if you hold a protest in front of the gallery or museum then people will just go in just to see what is so horrible about it. Destroying his art actually could only help him.

Yes totally agree with this.

 

[pgp_protector]

Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwinWillers]

Pardon? I wasnt attempting to criticize you I was just giving a reason why people seem to be more focused on the two things you brough up.

Granted I will admit I missunderstood your choice comment my bad.

Fair enough.

If that was your point then I missed what you were saying as well, which is my bad.