Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado

Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado

www.foxnews.com

The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus’ head.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So we have a supposedly educated man, he's a professor at Stanford, not only creating art like this, but promoting it an art show funded by the tax payers............hmmmmm, double standard here anyone. I hope those on here whining about draw muhammed day, can be equally upset about this.....
Why are we funding things ike this still...............I think I know, but, eh, doesn't matter what I think, only what I see.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why shouldn't we be funding things like this? What is so offensive about a man who's been dead for nearly 2000 years being depicted engaged in a sexual act? If you don't think, as I think you don't from the content of your post though I could be wrong, that it's wrong to draw Muhammed, why should Jesus be any different? This painting is thoroughly protected by the first amendment. Besides, what do you mean "Why are we funding this still"? What has changed so much that this is worse than it used to be?

Moreover, it's not as if the government used tax money to commission this peace. The MUSEUM at which it is being displayed is tax-funded; the artist wasn't even payed this tax money while he was painting it. There is seriously no sense in which this painting was funded by "us" unless you or I gave money to the artist while he was working on it. I know I didn't, and I'm pretty sure you didn't! But I would've, had I known about him and had the money at the time. (of course, I was in a public tax-funded (though barely that) high school in 2003 when it was painted. I guess you should question why people like me are still being funded by your tax dollars!)

Also, calling him "supposedly" educated. Even if this is offensive -- which I suppose it is, if you're offended by it -- what in the world is uneducated about it?

reply to post by Solasis


If it's wrong to portray mohammed in any light, where is the equality? As I expected, defend the perverse without equality.........I can't say it was unexpected. As far as uneducated................book learning does not necessarily a smart person make.......go figure, he's from yet another liberal indoctrination center.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


please tell me where in christian scripture / theology / doctrine it states that it is prohibitted to depict jesus christ

moslems can give you the cite that forbids pictures of mohammed

so your point is invalid

IMHO this quote from the article is of more concern than the alleged " blashepmy " :

Protesters secured a permit to demonstrate through Friday.

you need a permit ????????????

such farce would make a great monty python skit

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Not really, if you want to have a draw muhammed day, you end up in hiding, yet you can publish things like this with no problems. Equality is equality............both would be offensive yet only the muzzies have a big outcry or a reason to be upset......As far as a permit for demonstrations.......been that way for awhile, just one of those little things that slipped in when we weren't looking.

This is so insane. All these people are so upset because someone depicted something they don't like and of course that is what is being covered by the media.

Why would you ever care about something like this? How can this actually upset anyone?

Even if you worship Jesus with everything you have how does this affect you at all?

Until we learn to put up with each other the world will never change. People have different views, embrace it.

I don't see how anyone could in any good taste defend this exhibit.

First of all, this is a PUBLIC museum. Not some back corner gallery. To have a 'display' that is pornographic in nature is not ok, regardless of who is depicted in it.

Now add to that the horribly anti-christ and anti-christian message given in such horrible bad taste and I find it extremely offensive on a personal level.

The fact that a public museum would presume it to be okay to show such a thing is, I think, a true sign of the times. The general lack of moral aptitude this displays is sickening. Those of you who support it need to really ask yourself why. Would you think it okay for your child (or any child) to go see this? What is the message? God help us. Really.

Lmfao... Think its hilarious... And to think the same people upset by this simply cant grasp why muslims are upset over negative depictions of the prophet mohommad (pbuh) .. Truly amazing...

And here's me thinking "Turn the other cheek" actually originated from Christianity...

Originally posted by westcoast
I don't see how anyone could in any good taste defend this exhibit.

First of all, this is a PUBLIC museum.

Which is exactly why it must be defended. Since the museum is taxpayer funded, censoring this exhibit would be a violation of the first amendment.
The constitution does not only apply to things you feel are in good taste.

reply to post by westcoast


I honestly don't think it's immoral at all to depict a sexual act.

Also there are MANY art exhibits that have a sexual nature in public places, this is far from the only one. Your only so upset because you have been told to be upset about seeing things like this. I was born and raised in the Catholic school system, this doesn't bother me (I also do not support organized religion) and I don't see why this makes me such an "immoral" person.

Your using the term immoral where you mean offensive and the only reason this seems so offensive is because you are holding "Jesus" and these Catholic teachings above other things.

I think maybe if we forgot about worshiping people that walked the earth thousands of years ago and focused on our future you wouldn't have to put up with people "disgracing" your beloved idols.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Ah , let me guess ......... The Artists are Liberals ? ...Figures.......

Click here for more information.

reply to post by NoArmsJames


As would denying funding to depict muhammed getting blown by one of his dancing boys.....................
Bet we don't see funding for that......in the name of diversty and political correctness............
Not to mention it wouldn't further our current administrations agenda.
Something I wonder though..............people get fired all of the time for percieved offenses, have to apologize, donate money etc......and yet this moron still has a job? I wonder why?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


If you don't know why thats Offensive to People of Faith , then you are an ..........I .......t .......





You lag...so, the same people of faith who replicate, or at least try, the sexual act 'on occasion' can find time to be offended that da' man was potrayed in the same very way..?


You don't see the double standard, do you..? Your blinders come with instructions on how to disassemble them - get to it...

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Solasis

 

If it's wrong to portray mohammed in any light, where is the equality?

As pointed out, the Christians do not have a scripture forbidding depiction of Christ. Unless you go back to the ten commandments. you know, graven images and all that. But then you'd have to throw out nearly all of rennaisance art as well as paretty much all church decoration. Islam, on the other hand, as pointed out, does expressly forbid depiction of Mohammed.

As I expected, defend the perverse without equality.

Actually, I would defend the depiction of Mohammed, too. Dogma ticks me off. But that's really entirely beside the point.

........I can't say it was unexpected.

lol redundancy

As far as uneducated.........

you know, that many ellipses really don't add anything to your post. I feel like you're leaving out entire novels between thoughts...

.......book learning does not necessarily a smart person make

It certainly does not, you're right there. However, "educated" and "smart" are nowhere near being synonyms. Book learning = educated. If you want to call this idiotic, go right ahead. I'll disagree still, but at least it won't be a blatant disagreement between your own assertions.

.......go figure, he's from yet another liberal indoctrination center.

Hm, from my point of view, most schools are centers to indoctrinate people into the dominant view of society -- which is, institutionally, right of center. The capitalist system is a distinctly right one in most ways, as evinced by cries of "SOCIALISM" by right wingers (though ideally the capitalist system is actually extremely socially liberated, which is an area of the left, but I digress), and the university system is primarily geared towards money making; those parts of it which aren't are kind of laughed at by the rest of the world. Being a recently graduated Literature and Philosophy student, this is a primarily anecdotal statement

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by NoArmsJames

 

As would denying funding to depict muhammed getting blown by one of his dancing boys.....................
Bet we don't see funding for that......in the name of diversty and political correctness............

Show me where the government funded this artist directly for this piece and you'll have a point. Show me an artist who depicted mohammed in a sexual act that was turned down for the same exhibit.

What's funny is if we exchanged Jesus's name for muhammed........this thread would be 30 pages long with all of the usual suspects on here decrying the poor muzzies...................if nothing else it re enforces the blatant bias on here.