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

[Supreme]

LyraJean,
Just pointing out the double standards of the liberal position.

Actually, I think you'll find liberals think that creating an image of Jesus performing a sex act is just as stupid and disrespectful as burning the Quran- but both are lawful.

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,

I do believe you have made that point quite weill.

Well it wasnt my point if you look back, I just made the assumption based on it, my point was both were with unwise motives.

 

[Phinehas2]

Supreme,

Actually, I think you'll find liberals think that creating an image of Jesus performing a sex act is just as stupid and disrespectful as burning the Quran- but both are lawful.

I also think you will find that if something is lawful, one should not be sacked for it.

 

[Supreme]

Supreme,
I also think you will find that if something is lawful, one should not be sacked for it.

That's ridiculous. If I was a policeman, and repeatedly ignored the orders of my inspector, would it not be right that I should be sacked? Or, if I were a teacher, and viewed inappropriate contentography in front of my class, should I not be sacked? Laws don't dictate who should be sacked. Do you honestly think that no one who has ever been sacked has been a law abiding citizen?

 

[Phinehas2]

I mean if burning the pages from the Koran is religious intolerance then so is art depicting Jesus having oral 'sex'
Sure one can say yes it is or no it isnt, but I think as both offend obvioulsy one must allow offense or not allow it to be fair to all.

 

[Phinehas2]

Supreme,

That's ridiculous. If I was a policeman, and repeatedly ignored the orders of my inspector, would it not be right that I should be sacked?

That’s ridiculous, the man wasn’t at work nor I am assuming in any capacity of his company’s employment, are you seriously suggesting employers monitor peoples private lives?

 

[Supreme]

Supreme,
That’s ridiculous, the man wasn’t at work nor I am assuming in any capacity of his company’s employment, are you seriously suggesting employers monitor peoples private lives?

It was hardly a 'private' affair, was it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I mean if burning the pages from the Koran is religious intolerance then so is art depicting Jesus having oral 'sex'

In your opinion -- which carries no weight.

Sure one can say yes it is or no it isnt, but I think as both offend obvioulsy one must allow offense or not allow it to be fair to all.

Again -- your opinon, nothing more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Supreme,
That’s ridiculous, the man wasn’t at work nor I am assuming in any capacity of his company’s employment, are you seriously suggesting employers monitor peoples private lives?

They do it all the time.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I did not blaspheme God. Do not put words in my mouth. I might not agree with his art but he has a right to express himself without someone coming and destroying it. She should have joined the protest, wrote to the city how it was a misuse of public funds, started a boycott. But destroying someone's property is against the law. Creating art that offends someone is not.

I did not say you blasphemed God. Don't put words into my mouth either.

What I said was, and this is in line with your stance on this issue, as if to say "Blaspheme God all you want; it's your right and I [LyraJean] support it." That is your stance and that's what I oppose and find disgusting in this petty play of 'right and wrong.'

There are two actors in this play - the 'artist' who uses his supposed freedom of expression to blaspheme God, and the the woman who wrongfully damaged his blasphemous work.

It is your stance, and the stance of others here to condemn the woman, while defending the 'artist''s freedom of expression.

Hence,

"Blaspheme God all you want, it's your right and I [LyraJean] support it."

See, the point of this isn't whether the 'artist' has the freedom to express himself however he pleases (which frankly I haven't a clue where such a law is written); neither is the point that what this woman did was against the law.

The point is who gets our greater condemnation, and why.

 

[EdwinWillers]

If God thinks I'm blasphemeing Him, then He can do something about it -- not His more misguided followers.

"In your opinion -- which carries no weight." - Nathan Poe

Nobody asked you to play -- the whole point is that it's better if you don't.

"Again -- your opinion, nothing more." - Nathan Poe

I agree with the respondant.. but that's just my opinion.

 

[LyraJean]

Edwin,

Offending someone's sensibilities is not breaking the law.

Destroying someone else's property is breaking the law.

What I support is the right for people to express themselves whether or not it offends someone's sensibilities. From the description of the art I wouldn't like the painting either. But that does not give me the right to destroy it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Edwin,

Offending someone's sensibilities is not breaking the law.

Destroying someone else's property is breaking the law.

What I support is the right for people to express themselves whether or not it offends someone's sensibilities. From the description of the art I wouldn't like the painting either. But that does not give me the right to destroy it.

You're repeating everything I've already acknowledged. Did this 'artist' break the law? No. Did the woman break the law? Yes.

Not the point.

The point is who gets our greater condemnation and why.

In defense of the law (and oh, the utter heinousness of this particular crime btw), and in support of 'rights' (the right to display the most egregious blasphemous filth at the public's expense), the woman here is portrayed and condemned as some sort of felonious witch, while the 'artist' is purely a victim.

Time was when it was chivalrous for a man to punch another man for insulting a woman. Now the man would be arrested, charged, and jailed for felony assault and battery.

Time was too when blasphemy was a capital crime, when even taking the Lord's name in vain was worthy of being stoned (Lev 24:11ff), when merely claiming to be God's Son was considered blasphemy.

Now? Now we have people (even people claiming the name of the Lord) defending someone's right to depict the Lord in abominably lewd and perverse sexual acts. Now the greater crime, the more heinous crime is defacing such depictions.

How times have changed, neh? But yeah, shame, SHAME on the woman...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Supreme,
I also think you will find that if something is lawful, one should not be sacked for it.

So, the woman who teaches Sunday School but moonlights as a stripper down at Carmine's House of Cleavage -- her employers have no choice but to grin and bear it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You're repeating everything I've already acknowledged. Did this 'artist' break the law? No. Did the woman break the law? Yes.

Not the point.

The point is who gets our greater condemnation and why.

The one who broke the law -- duh.

In defense of the law (and oh, the utter heinousness of this particular crime btw), and in support of 'rights' (the right to display the most egregious blasphemous filth at the public's expense), the woman here is portrayed and condemned as some sort of felonious witch, while the 'artist' is purely a victim.

Well, she is a felon -- or at least she will be when this whole thing is over.

And I don't see what the artist has done to deny him equal protection under the law -- have you?

Time was when it was chivalrous for a man to punch another man for insulting a woman. Now the man would be arrested, charged, and jailed for felony assault and battery.

Time was it was "chivalrous" for men to shoot each other for the same reasons -- now we have laws about murder.

Time was too when blasphemy was a capital crime, when even taking the Lord's name in vain was worthy of being stoned (Lev 24:11ff), when merely claiming to be God's Son was considered blasphemy.

So do you want the artist stoned to death?

Now? Now we have people (even people claiming the name of the Lord) defending someone's right to depict the Lord in abominably lewd and perverse sexual acts. Now the greater crime, the more heinous crime is defacing such depictions.

Well, that's your opinion... too bad it doesn't change history, facts, or the law.

How times have changed, neh? But yeah, shame, SHAME on the woman...

Feel free to sing her praises -- while you pray she or her ilk never find anything offensive about anything you do.

Doesn't seem to make sense to assume that the fanatics will always be on your side... but hey, that's just an opinion.

 

[Douger]

The artist claims his work didn't show Jesus engaged in a sex act, and I can't find any clear enough picture to see for myself.
So unless I can see otherwise for myself it makes sense to me to take the artist at his word.

 

[LyraJean]

You're repeating everything I've already acknowledged. Did this 'artist' break the law? No. Did the woman break the law? Yes.

Not the point.

The point is who gets our greater condemnation and why.

In defense of the law (and oh, the utter heinousness of this particular crime btw), and in support of 'rights' (the right to display the most egregious blasphemous filth at the public's expense), the woman here is portrayed and condemned as some sort of felonious witch, while the 'artist' is purely a victim.

Time was when it was chivalrous for a man to punch another man for insulting a woman. Now the man would be arrested, charged, and jailed for felony assault and battery.

Time was too when blasphemy was a capital crime, when even taking the Lord's name in vain was worthy of being stoned (Lev 24:11ff), when merely claiming to be God's Son was considered blasphemy.

Now? Now we have people (even people claiming the name of the Lord) defending someone's right to depict the Lord in abominably lewd and perverse sexual acts. Now the greater crime, the more heinous crime is defacing such depictions.

How times have changed, neh? But yeah, shame, SHAME on the woman...

The woman does because she broke the law. The artist did not break the law. He wasn't even rubbing it in people's faces he was displaying his art where art is traditionally displayed. It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[Phinehas2]

Its quite simple, the woman should not have broken the law, the man had as much right to burn pages of his copy of the koran in his own time, which to some is offensive, as the man who exhibited the art with public funds, which to some is offensive.

One might argue if the art is offensive it shouldn't be on a publically funded display, and one might argue the company might not be very happy with their employee, but the results are as they currently stand and example of bigotry and double standards in society.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Its quite simple, the woman should not have broken the law,

Agreed.

the man had as much right to burn pages of his copy of the koran in his own time, which to some is offensive, as the man who exhibited the art with public funds, which to some is offensive.

You're conflating two separate sets of standards here -- one involves what private citizens can or cannot do with people in their employ, the other involved government involvement in first amendment matters.

Look back at my Sunday School teacher example -- if she, "on her own time," chooses to shake her goodies down at Carmine's House of Cleavage, her employers can't do a thing about it?

One might argue if the art is offensive it shouldn't be on a publically funded display,

One might also argue that everything is offensive to somebody, and public displays shouldn't be shrines to political correctness.

and one might argue the company might not be very happy with their employee, but the results are as they currently stand and example of bigotry and double standards in society.

As I said, it's not so much a double standard as it is two separate standards -- you'd like for private companies to be bound by the same laws as the government -- but of course, only when those laws break in your favor.

So you tell me where the double standard is?

 

[Phinehas2]

Nathan Poe,
Naah. your opinion is biased an bigoted.

One might also argue that everything is offensive to somebody, and public displays shouldn't be shrines to political correctness.

One might argue that the employers were too bigoted.

As I said, it's not so much a double standard as it is two separate standards

As I Said its not two standards but a double standard.

you'd like for private companies to be bound by the same laws as the government -- but of course, only when those laws break in your favor.

No I like equality and balance, what I don’t like is bias.