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.

 

Immodest Jesus statue riles Christians

page: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TERENCE KOH
 


Publicity stunt? Thats too good man. I have staunchly supported your right to freedom of expression from day one of this fiasco. Keep it up and dont let anyone back you down.




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SoLaR513
 


It is no point with this guy. He doesn't seem to get it. He just likes to push buttons without being civil. No point in responding to his posts. Already booted out of thread once.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


IMO Ashley, that is not a very Jesus like response. Sounds to me like you are telling him to die sooner rather than when your God is ready for him. Somewhat hipocritical. It is fun being a snot sometimes isn't it?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


That's a pretty good analysis. Kinda Generalised, but not bad at all RAS.

When viewing what we all DEEM to be 'beautiful' or 'ugly', therein lays the subject for personal interpretation.

I love Shakespeare's line:

Take it in the sense...that thou whilst

~Ducky~



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


Being a snot makes the world go around!
But you will have to accept my apologies as my previous comment had insidious intentions. In other words, Christians who are offended by this artwork (I am not one of them) are being told it's just "art." But a Christian who says I said is called out for my "opinion." It was a bait comment. See? I am a snot!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Touche. It does bother when people call you out just for your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. Just as Mr. Koh is entitled to his art.
LOL



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


Im just glad we are still able to express our opinions and to create whatever art we want. I fear, however, that might change one day. Until then its good to have a place like ats to share those opinions with others even our friend Newworldorder is entitled to his opinion even though he likes to state said opinion over and over, in America we enjoy the right to flog dead horses. But hey, to each his own, right?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vivalarevolution
They've removed the 10 commandments from public places in the US because a couple of atheists complained that they were offended, what's the difference?..


On the one hand we have so-called "shock" artwork displayed at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, England:



WHAT IS BALTIC?

Housed in a landmark industrial building on the south bank of the River Tyne in Gateshead, BALTIC is the biggest gallery of its kind in the world – presenting a dynamic, diverse and international programme of contemporary visual art.

BALTIC has no permanent collection, providing instead an ever-changing calendar of exhibitions and activities that give a unique and compelling insight into contemporary artistic practice. The BALTIC programme ranges from blockbuster exhibitions to innovative new work and projects created by artists working within the local community.

BALTIC is a place where visitors can experience innovative and provocative new art, relax, have fun, learn and discover fresh ideas.

BALTIC receives funding from The National Lottery through Arts Council England, Gateshead Council, Northern Rock Foundation and is supported by the European Regional Development Fund and One NorthEast.
Source | balticmill.com | Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead | Introduction

And on the other hand, in America, we have artwork possibly promoting a religious viewpoint on public land, in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, as put forth in the first amendment to the US constitution.

And the rulings haven't always gone against displays of the Decalogue, it largely depends on the context in which they are presented:


Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays
Supreme Court: Courthouse exhibits crossed line, but outdoor tablet OK


updated 11:36 a.m. PT, Mon., June. 27, 2005

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays that promote religion, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The high court said displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
Source | msnbc | Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays

Here's the guidelines upon which the Supreme Court has attempted to base their rulings:


Justices have outlined several different tests in recent years to determine their constitutionality:

* Secular purpose; was there religious motive?
* Endorsement; do they show a government neutrality toward religion?
* Coercion; do they place impermissible pressure, such as school prayer?
* Historical practice; are they part of the “fabric of our society,” such as legislative prayer?

The Supreme Court frieze, for instance, depicts Moses and the tablets as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall. Because it includes secular figures in a way that doesn’t endorse religion, the display would be constitutional, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in a 1989 ruling.
Source | msnbc | Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays

So you see, there's actually quite a bit of difference between "shock" art displayed in a semi-private setting to people who are actually choosing to view this work, and displaying artwork espousing a religious viewpoint on public land to be viewed by people who have little choice.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Great point presented goos. thanks for the explanation!!Star given. We will see if the other side gets it.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoLaR513

Im just glad we are still able to express our opinions and to create whatever art we want.

You see...What we perceive TODAY, may/maynot be the next best flavor of the month/year/CENTURY.

A man/artist presented his 'view'....translated into a tangible/touchable item that is ART.

Though many may find this OBJECT - 'questionable', within the realms of what is 'acceptable' and perhaps mabey 'not tollerant' unto our ever-evolving/taste-concerning society, this piece of (present) history, will forever ensnare our imaginations, insinuations, deliberations, and perhaps... fornications.

I say these words wholeheartedly, and with proper intent, that those that come after our words; the next generation of Voyeurs, will contemplate our posts, and 'suppose' ideal/concise and perhaps moral integreties....

"THAT, which the whole of our society is sorrelly lacking in this day and age."
******

My favorite color is GREEN.

We ALL for the most part, know what the color 'Green' looks like.

Do YOU see the ACTUAL/SAME color GREEN that I see?

Mabey it's 'off a shade or two?'

ART....

~Ducky~



[edit on 25-1-2008 by TheDuckster]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


Good point! Perhaps what is shock art now will be the norm in the future. Look at Elvis Presely, there were alot of people pissed off that he sang "black" music in public and danced the way he did. We look at it now and dont bat a lash when you stand him up next to stuff like death metal bands. I would also like to say that there are alot of people who simply are not happy unless they have something to complain or argue about and will actively search for these things.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I think people need to review what the first amendment is actually about. It was to protect the freedom of expression and religion any place, any where. Including government and public property. Freedom of religion and not from religion as the old saying go. What the first amendment actually states is that the government cannot make laws to rule religion, sanction a government religion, or create a government-ruled church. The first amendment is only to keep government out of religion and not religion out of the government:


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Totally off topic but thought I'd throw that in. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ten commandments being displayed on federal property. It is, however, unconstitutional to have them removed.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


When it pertains to 'Art':

Does the 1st Ammendment apply?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In THIS case, what you just 'velcroed' (tried to stick something that doesn't belong) doesn't 'adhere'.

NOWHERE does it state that the artist was subjucating his wares under the juristiction of 'Religion'.

Technocalities.

~Ducky~



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


I wasn't talking about the sculpture of this thread and admitted the "first ammendment" comment was "totally off topic." No, it has nothing to do with this sculpture but more to do with the ten commandments comment. Hope that helps clarify. I mentioned it as being off topic for a reason.


Quote from my above comment:


Totally off topic...


[edit on 1/25/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


This is why we stick to the TOC'S

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

~Ducky~



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I'm afraid you need those circuits checked, Ashely. The 1st amendment goes both ways. GOvernment shall not infringe on religion, and religion shall not infringe on government.

The reason for this is pretty simple. Not everyone impacted by hte government is Christian. In fact there's a good 30% of us who definately are not Christian of any variety. I do not want my government being a branch of your crazy, genocidal, corpse-worshiping, pro-war, woman-beating, cannibal apocalyptic death cult religion. I'm sure YOU don't want your governemnt to become a part of my tree-worshipping, body-painting, drum-beating, trance-using, backwards neanderthal religion, either, am I right? I wager so.

Thus the need for the division, to keep the govenment being "for hte people" rather than "for some persons"



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Pertaining to the subject at hand, let's keep on track folks.

~Ducky~



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


Yes, Sir! Forum Nazi, Sir!
Can you cut me some slack, though? I was responding to a previous author who brought up the amendments and 10 commandments. It's not like I came out of nowhere saying, "Hey guys! I bought a pink pair of socks today!"

reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I would love to refute that (you know me!) but the Duckster might come after for me and put spaghetti in my new pair of pink socks!

[edit on 1/26/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I'm not a forum Nazi.

Ashley...YOU have a valid point...just like everyone else.

I asked that EVERYONE please remain on topic RE: Original Post and thereafter with supplementals that pertain to the topic.

~Ducky~



[edit on 26-1-2008 by TheDuckster]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Tell you folks what:

Lets leave the Moderating to the staff and continue on with this thread

Also, please do stay on topic


Cheers
FredT



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join