It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians In Tasmania Take To Streets In Rage And Riot Over Depiction Of Gay Jesus

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
huh? the muslims burned EMBASIES not their homes.....the point is Christians didnt go ape trying to pillage and burn....


I was aware of that I was pointing out that if there was a riot people could lose there homes and have no where else to go.



diluted christianity? there are many forms under the baner of protestant alone methodist,presbyterian,lutheran, nazarene, pentecost, etc..... and then you have Catholicism, Orthodox....


Whats your point ?
Perhaps you misunderstood me I was saying that christian beliefs dont have the same grip on society it has nothing to do with the number of christian reglions.



[edit on 11-2-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 11-2-2006 by xpert11]




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think I'm saying it's bluish-green and you're saying it's greenish-blue!



I like my color better...



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's interesting that I had a very similar debate with Mr. Heretic last week about this subject.

I agree with you that society would function better if we all use both restraint and tolerance. I agree with that. But, I see that as an ideal. And, since we are human beings, we don't all operate the same way. There are gazillions of factors that make us into the characters we are as adults. Some people NEVER use tolerance. Some NEVER use restraint. It's not balanced, it's all over the place.


I agree...but your position is no less an ideal than mine.


You expect tolerance...I expect both tolerance and restraint. We BOTH, in our expectations, violate the notion that humans should do whatever the hell they feel like... Our positions attempt to restrain, via social expectation, liberty. (I think we both fully agree this is not a discussion about government.)


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And when lack of restraint butts up against lack of tolerance (as in the Muslim cartoon case), one must be set to prevail.


I don't disagree...but let's talk about this pragmatically.

Human social interactions become workable only because of our ability to communicate. Since we can't read minds, we only have expressions of "intent" to work with. If I say, "I love you," a reasonable inference for you to make would be that I generally have your best interests in mind. If I were to say the opposite, "I HATE you," then I think it would be foolish for you to assume I have your best interest in mind.

Earlier, you said:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, since we are human beings, we don't all operate the same way. There are gazillions of factors that make us into the characters we are as adults. Some people NEVER use tolerance. Some NEVER use restraint. It's not balanced, it's all over the place.


How, then, does expecting EVERYONE to develop a "thick" skin become workable? It also occurs to me that you are expecting people to give up their RIGHT to be offended. After all, when I express being offended, aren't you asking me to limit my free speech?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I believe that in those cases, tolerance must bow to Free Speech. Why? Several reasons:

- Because we have a Constitutional right to Free Speech, that must not be abridged.


I thought we both agreed this wasn't about governmental interference. Moreover, do you have a free speech right in my home? or place of employment? No.

Do you think you should?




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- Expressing myself has no bearing on anyone else. If they take my expression to bear on them, it is their choice and their problem/issue, not mine.


I agree...it sounds reasonable, but only to the extent that such expressions are not intended to offend. However, if your purpose is to offend me, why should I subordinate my expression of opposition?

I think it is a strange paradigm to grant free speech rights to only those who exercise them first.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- We are all responsible for our feelings, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not. I am NOT responsible for my brother's feelings.


That is unless you intended to provoke those feelings in others... Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is none, is a provocation for others to fear imminent danger. Is that ok?

Moreover, if you truly expect people to be responsible for their own feelings, then why doesn't that require one to be responsible for the feelings they use to intentionally provoke the offense in the first place?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think we're going to have to disagree on this one. I totally see what you're saying and I am really stubborn about this FS thing. If I were religious, The Constitution would be my Bible.




I could have written those words myself.
I think we are in complete agreement concerning government's role in free speech.

Where, I think, we are splitting hairs is on the social side of things.
I think we both share the same commitment to protecting diversity as a paramount goal, but believe differently on what gets us there. Am I right about this?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In fact, we could probably have some good debates about the 2nd Amemdment, too, if I'm not mistaken.





I can state my position on this very simply. I believe the "right to bear arms" is as important as any of the other protections provided in the Constitution that serve as a restraint on government power. However, I do not currently own a gun. Nor will I likely obtain one. That is my choice.

I also expect that those who do, use them responsibly. If you fail to do that, you should be nailed to the wall.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, I'd like to propose that we feel very similarly about this subject, although not exactly the same and let it go at that. Neither has to swing the other into total agreement, especially since I don't think that's going to happen in a million years. I love ya, though.


But it's so much fun...

[edit on 11-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Whoo! This is a long one!



Originally posted by loam
But it's so much fun...


All righty, then!




How, then, does expecting EVERYONE to develop a "thick" skin become workable? It also occurs to me that you are expecting people to give up their RIGHT to be offended. After all, when I express being offended, aren't you asking me to limit my free speech?


I'm not asking anyone to develop a thick skin or to NOT be offended. "Go ahead! Be offended", I say. Just don't attack someone because of it. Get your own sign, make a t-shirt, write an article or just stay in bed and be pissed off. I don't care. I'm not saying people shouldn't be offended at all.

There is an alternative, though. And that is either to develop a thick skin or choose not to buy into being offended.



I thought we both agreed this wasn't about governmental interference.


We did. I was just explaining my adamancy.



Moreover, do you have a free speech right in my home? or place of employment? No.

Do you think you should?



No.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- Expressing myself has no bearing on anyone else. If they take my expression to bear on them, it is their choice and their problem/issue, not mine.


I agree...it sounds reasonable, but only to the extent that such expressions are not intended to offend. However, if your purpose is to offend me, why should I subordinate my expression of opposition?


You shouldn't! If I intend to offend you (or even if I don't intend to but you're offended anyway), then go ahead and get offended and try to offend me back, if you want. I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm not saying that if your're offended, you have to shut up about it. I don't know where you're getting this...


Here's the thing. If I say, "You are a stupid jerk"! I have clearly meant to offend. Are you offended? It depends. Let's investigate, shall we?

If you care what I think, if YOU think you're stupid, if your mom called you a stupid jerk as a child and it is a very personal, hurtful thing to you, you just might get highly hurt and offended.

However, if you have a doctorate or two and you KNOW you're highly intelligent and all your friends tell you how kind and generous you are and you don't care about my opinion because I'm obviously stuck in a corner and striking out to hurt you because I have no more ammunition, then you might very well feel sorry for me and not be offended at all.

If you are very secure in yourself, your intelligence and your personality is fine with you, what I say could just roll right off your back.

The offensability is yours to choose or not.



I think it is a strange paradigm to grant free speech rights to only those who exercise them first.



I hope I've made it clear that I'm not doing that at all.




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- We are all responsible for our feelings, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not. I am NOT responsible for my brother's feelings.


That is unless you intended to provoke those feelings in others...


No. It's ALL THE TIME. See explanation above.




Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is none, is a provocation for others to fear imminent danger. Is that ok?


Of course not. Causing panic or inciting is not protected by Free Speech (and that's a bit of a grey area). But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?



Moreover, if you truly expect people to be responsible for their own feelings, then why doesn't that require one to be responsible for the feelings they use to intentionally provoke the offense in the first place?


It does. All people are responsible for their own feelings. I understand that not everyone lives this way or believes this, but I do. My husband and I do. We NEVER say. "you make me feel... " anything. "You make me angry, You make me happy, You make me feel stupid" - None of that. Imagine it for a minute... Never blaming someone else for how you feel. Imagine fully owning every feeling you have, negative and positive. Better yet, try it for a week. You'll never give that power away again!



Where, I think, we are splitting hairs is on the social side of things.
I think we both share the same commitment to protecting diversity as a paramount goal, but believe differently on what gets us there. Am I right about this?


I think so.



I also expect that those who do, use them responsibly. If you fail to do that, you should be nailed to the wall.



I don't have any expectations that anyone should own firearms and I agree with your above sentiment.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   


I think we now agree on everything except the following:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is an alternative, though. And that is either to develop a thick skin or choose not to buy into being offended.


Aren't those one in the same?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Causing panic or inciting is not protected by Free Speech (and that's a bit of a grey area). But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?


I thought in part it was.

Do these t-shirts "incite"? We know Muslims find it offensive... What other purpose do these t-shirts serve?

This wasn't Bin Laden's image associated with a bomb...

Our free speech, or anything else for that matter, has not been infringed upon...

Why attack a symbol of ALL Muslims for the opposition we have against a few?

All I have been arguing is.... Do you have that right to sell or wear the t-shirt? Yes. Should you exercise that right under these circumstances? No.

Slice it any way you like... Tolerance and restraint are inseparable requirements for a diverse society to work. They are the cornerstone of all civility.


Those values must be the common ground between us. If not, we are all on this planet truly hosed...


[edit on 11-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Do these t-shirts "incite"? We know Muslims find it offensive... What other purpose do these t-shirts serve?


Oh, no you don't! I am NOT starting all over with you!


It was really, really good though!



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I have to agree with Benevolent Heratic just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so too is offensiveness. Because I find "art" like that offensive it is but since Benevolent Heratic doesn't it isn't to her/him and guess what we are both right. Tolerance, education and keeping an open mind are the keys to people getting along as well as accepting that we won't always agree but acknowledging that it's ok.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner. Stop the gay Jesus stuff, stop the Mohammad with a bomb stuff, stop smearing elephant crap on the virgin Mary (anyone remember that one?).


It doesn't surprise me that a moderator is suggesting self-censorship by artists. This is just a small example of the censorship supported by ATS. It is sad that members are trying to have a discussion about an image that can't be posted here because of ATS censorship.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
While maybe in areas free of tensions it's easy to say 'well we wouldn't react and take offense in such a destructive way',just imagine a protestant newspaper in Ulster had published a picture of the Pope buggering the Virgin Mary (both iconic figures to catholics) at the height of the troubles in that province. I could well imagine similar protests, riots and acts of violence from members of the catholic community taking place. Replace the sectarian tensions of Ulster with the ethnic/religious divisions in the former Yugoslavia and orthodox Serbs publishing the same cartoon and the reaction from the Catholic Croatians. Although there are obvious differences the common factor of religious, political and historical tensions and the volatile mix they can cause are a key to helping understand (if not condone) the mindset of some muslims and some Islamic countries.

I think it would be unwise to fall into the false comfort zone of thinking that western/christian/secular society is and always will be immune to this kind of hysteria.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

It doesn't surprise me that a moderator is suggesting self-censorship by artists. This is just a small example of the censorship supported by ATS. It is sad that members are trying to have a discussion about an image that can't be posted here because of ATS censorship.


While I disagree with DJarums' point, I really have to question you on this. ATS is a family-fairly-safe website. You're upset that gay porn can't, or rather won't, be posted on this website because it's censorship? If you're looking for gay porn, go to BigMenDoingNastyThingsToEachother.com or something. We know, from the article, generally what the image is. We also know that a different gallery in 2003 had to board up their windows while displaying this guy's art due to decency laws.

So, Craig, what is the point of Above Top Secret? Are we here to freely exchange ideas and our takes on events, or are we here to cram sex down as many throats as we can until google gets the idea and censors ATS from its search lists? Why is it an atrocity if you're not allowed to post porn on a privately run website? Seriously, get over it. I guess if you live in the cradle of freedom, you really have to stretch to find things to be offended and repressed about.

You can't post porn on ATS. If it's porn you're looking for, you have the other 99.99% of the web. If you can't discuss something without seeing it because you're lacking the imagination to visualize it, then do a google image search for gay porn. That should give you a pretty good idea of what gay porn looks like.

Sorry; the whole moderators are Nazis because I can't post "x" thing is a bit of a pet peeve of mine



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
[Sorry; the whole moderators are Nazis because I can't post "x" thing is a bit of a pet peeve of mine


I agree.

craig732:

Your "freedom" of speech right is for the most part a freedom from government intrusion of that right. Censorship is not something you can be expected to be protected from in a private setting. That's how it works....that's how it SHOULD work....



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner.


Several people have brought this point up and I've never gotten an answer to this, but I'll try again. Why is religion special?

People hold different things close to their hearts. Some are offended by sacrilege, others are offended by nakedness, others offended by violence, others homosexuality, etc. So why pick out religion as somehow off limits? Why is it special?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Free speech as a sacrocanct right is a myth. We place conditions and restrictions on this freedom based on our own subjective predjudices, fears and bias everyday which in turn leads to censorship. Even if we invoke this right regardless there are subtle and not so subtle penalties and consequences that can arise if it goes against the norm. For the most part I believe we strike the correct balance between free speech and the appropriate response to it. There are times though when both seem to be open to abuse from those with an axe to grind.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Hmmm, I don't recall saying anything about posting gay port here. However, I get your point.

I think that if a logical, comprehensive discussion about a certain topic is going on, then the object of that topic, or evidence supporting or detracting from the discussion should be allowed.

So if the discussion, for example, was: "Prez. Bush is secretely putting subliminal messages in gay porn, and I have the proof: here is a picture of him on the set of a gay porn movie directing it" then by all means the picture of him on the set of the gay porn movie should be posted.

Why shouldn't the pictures that are being discussed be posted here? Because someone might be offended? Well a lot of people saw the images and weren't offeneded. Why censor based on what some people's reactions to something might be.


Originally posted by junglejakeATS is a family-fairly-safe website.


I personally don't want ATS, or anyone else, deciding what is appropriate or safe for my children. I will review what my children want to view on the internet and make that decision myself.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
I personally don't want ATS, or anyone else, deciding what is appropriate or safe for my children. I will review what my children want to view on the internet and make that decision myself.


ATS is a privately owned site. The administration and staff deem what is allowed on this fine website. If you have a problem with the way we are running things, perhaps you could find a better site. Honestly though, I doubt you'll find a conspiracy related site that has such a positive attitude as ATS.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
If you have a problem with the way we are running things, perhaps you could find a better site.


Thank you for making me feel welcome here!

I do not have a problem with the way you are running things here; I have a problem with the whole idea of censorship.

If ATS says I am not allowed to start a thread about whether disk brakes or drum brakes are better, I can understand that this is not a car-talk website and understand why that thread is not allowed here. I cannot understand why a word or an image is not allowed because someone might be offended.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Well, for starters:


1a) Offensive Content: You will not post links to images or use avatars and signatures that are offensive, abusive, distruptive and/or hateful. You will not use images, avatars or link to domains that contain gore, mutilation,pornography or illegal content.


Then, there's also this:


1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post in a message any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website.


How dare they? Well, there's this little tidbit, too:


8) Right of Community Management This is a privately owned discussion board community. The Owners and senior moderator staff reserve the right to take action against any member who is deemed to be devoted purely to disruption, whose actions represent behavior contrary to community building, or whose content is contrary to the core ideals of AboveTopSecret.com. This action may include complete banning of your username and IP address.


ATS Terms & Conditions

You did read those before signing up, right?

Why should the owners of ATS be forced to abandon the focus they want in building a community because you want an image to be posted that would be found offensive by many, and possibly cause ATS to show up on those Internet blocker programs? We have young members here, and ATS hits are tops on Google these days. Would you really want to jeopardize this community so you can see an image to help you decide if a bunch of men having sex around Jesus could be seen as offensive by Christians?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
quote: 1a) Offensive Content: You will not post links to images or use avatars and signatures that are offensive, abusive, distruptive and/or hateful. You will not use images, avatars or link to domains that contain gore, mutilation,pornography or illegal content.

Yet the cartoons that offended all those muslims have been posted quite liberally on this site, often accompanied by some rather gleefull, provocative comments. So offensive, disruptive and abusive have all been covered. Double standards, equivocation anyone.

The 'god' of free speech seems as flawed and clay footed as the muslim god, and his followers just as hypocritical. As I said earlier free speech=no such thing.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
That's an interesting point, ubermunche. Looking at the T&C, a person could, going directly off of that point, silence all who oppose them. After all, if I were to say I was offended by liberalism, who would you be to tell me I'm not? I think that section of the T&C should be clarified, for members' sake if nothing else.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


being an art student and being that i have studied al sorts of art from religous paintings of the last supper by Van Gogh to the sexual explicet works of Tracey Emid i have seen alot of different pieces.
i am a working Catholic Girl in england and i do not see the offence that poeple have taken to about this art. if you dont like it, dont look at it, no one can prove that Jesus was not gay for heavens sake theirs not anything saying he ever slept with a girl either.
i dont believe that jesus was gay or had an gay intentions, i soully beleive this but art is a way of expressing yourself and believes so i think its wrong to remove the peice from the gallery because it is an eye opener like another painting i saw of the twin towers when they were hit.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join