WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Your logic does not hold. A secular government must take action against religion at times. In order to protect my right to not be Christian, the government can step in to stop Christians from trying to Christify things not theirs to Christify. You cannot allow absolute religious freedom for any one group without denying the same to another. That is what a secular government is about. Not not acknowledging religion but also preventing it from taking over.


That was my point. Government should not permit religion to dictate the actions of government. If the government states that religion shall not take hold, it is operating within its parameters "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." That is plain. Conversely, government, by the same token, should not step in and disparage religion for simply exisiting. It is just as wrong for government to endorse a religion as it is to condemn a religion. Neutrality and equality under the law.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
A jug of piss is art?

Meh.

No thanks, not in my house, I prefer my art free of bodily fluids and excrement.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I am really not sure if you are unable to understand my post or are unable to understand the concept as a whole. Obviously you are missing it. You have to go out of your way to avoid addressing what I actually said. So either you cannot understand it, or you know how full of crap you are and that is why you are dancing so far away from anything I actually wrote.


I've been adressing it directly. You have been trying to compare apples and kumquats. The concept is incredibly simple: in a free, secular society, government should neither support nor condemn nor get involved with religion in any way. It is not a hard concept.


What is not a hard concept is your apparent inability to break away from your interpretation of the subject matter. The government did not pay for a mass rally denouncing religion. They didn't order 10 thousand signs saying "every Christian is a moron". This just never happened. If an artist produces a painting depicting Prophet Mohammed having sex with his wife, you can't assume that his intention is to say that Islam needs to be banned. He may be exploring his understanding of Islam and apparently he's being overly secular. Of course the painting would be offensive to Muslims. Tough.

The issue is not clean cut, to be sure. Michelle Bachmann's clinic received government funds despite being squarely religious. I understand that you may feel that Piss Christ equals govt sponsoring anti-religion. I don't feel that way.


And this is where your bias shows. Government funded religious iconography is wrong. THe government should not fund a crucifix with public taxpayer funds. Likewise, government funded anti-religious iconography is also wrong. The government should not have funded Piss Christ. The government should not take a religious stance. This is teh concept of neutrality that really bothers you. I assume that you would rather see the government take an anti- religious stance. You did not answer my previous question on this regard, even though I answered yours.

Do you, or do you not, think that government should be neutral or against religion? It is a simple question, why did you avoid it?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please open the dictionary and learn what the word "secular" means.



I did, it proved you wrong, and you ignored it.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   


they're right. There is a serious double standard.


Yes, it's a serious double standard how christians and republicans lie about wanting liberty, the constitution and small government, and then demand for the government to take away other peoples' constitutional rights.

How about all you conservative christians stop lying and crying like babies all the time and grow the hell up?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



they're right. There is a serious double standard.


Yes, it's a serious double standard how christians and republicans lie about wanting liberty, the constitution and small government, and then demand for the government to take away other peoples' constitutional rights.

How about all you conservative christians stop lying and crying like babies all the time and grow the hell up?


How? The majority of restrictions of Constitutional rights, from gun control, to redistribution of wealth, to restrictions of use of private property come from the left.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by CB328



they're right. There is a serious double standard.


Yes, it's a serious double standard how christians and republicans lie about wanting liberty, the constitution and small government, and then demand for the government to take away other peoples' constitutional rights.

How about all you conservative christians stop lying and crying like babies all the time and grow the hell up?


How? The majority of restrictions of Constitutional rights, from gun control, to redistribution of wealth, to restrictions of use of private property come from the left.


Taxes come from the left?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Your logic does not hold. A secular government must take action against religion at times. In order to protect my right to not be Christian, the government can step in to stop Christians from trying to Christify things not theirs to Christify. You cannot allow absolute religious freedom for any one group without denying the same to another. That is what a secular government is about. Not not acknowledging religion but also preventing it from taking over.


That was my point. Government should not permit religion to dictate the actions of government. If the government states that religion shall not take hold, it is operating within its parameters "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." That is plain. Conversely, government, by the same token, should not step in and disparage religion for simply exisiting. It is just as wrong for government to endorse a religion as it is to condemn a religion. Neutrality and equality under the law.


So you just shifted the goal posts until you could pretend to agree with me? I guess if that is what makes you happy.
I would have loved to see your wonderful mind at work actually addressing any of the things I brought up but your opinion was about something else then.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
You want to outlaw art you don't like, outlaw gay people, outlaw gambling, take away voting rights- in one state you can't even live with someone you're not married to.

But this topic is about conservatives trying to overthrow first amendment rights of free speech while crying that they're being persecuted because we don't let you rule the rest of us with an iron fist anymore.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Your logic does not hold. A secular government must take action against religion at times. In order to protect my right to not be Christian, the government can step in to stop Christians from trying to Christify things not theirs to Christify. You cannot allow absolute religious freedom for any one group without denying the same to another. That is what a secular government is about. Not not acknowledging religion but also preventing it from taking over.


That was my point. Government should not permit religion to dictate the actions of government. If the government states that religion shall not take hold, it is operating within its parameters "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." That is plain. Conversely, government, by the same token, should not step in and disparage religion for simply exisiting. It is just as wrong for government to endorse a religion as it is to condemn a religion. Neutrality and equality under the law.


So you just shifted the goal posts until you could pretend to agree with me? I guess if that is what makes you happy.
I would have loved to see your wonderful mind at work actually addressing any of the things I brought up but your opinion was about something else then.


I didn't shift any goal posts. I have been consistent with every post I made. You are the one who has been going to wild extremes. So far you have brought up the Nazis, the Amish, the Catholics, electrical wiring, astronomy, the dictionary, evolution, and numerous other out of left field points (baseball not a political anology with the left field thing). I think that, in an arguementative state, you have not been listening and that we really have been talking roughly the same thing. Let me try to clarify the position i have had all along.

Proper role of government: "We don't care if you think Jesus would not approve of alcohol sales on Sunday. This is not our role as a secular state and Sunday is just another day of the week to us. If a citizen decides he wants to have a drink on Sunday, that is his business. If you do not want to have a drink on Sunday, that is your business. Regardless, we are not going to make a law based on what Jesus may or may not approve of."

Improper role of government: "We think Islam is a negative force in society, so we will use public funds to make signs calling Mohammed a pedophile."


The first example is one of a neutral, secular society and the second is one of a non-neutral society.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Just because you say a crucifix is a religious symbol means nothing. I might think a circle is a religious symbol and imagine the government funded art I get to condemn. Do you consider the electric chair a religious icon?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
You want to outlaw art you don't like, outlaw gay people, outlaw gambling, take away voting rights- in one state you can't even live with someone you're not married to.

But this topic is about conservatives trying to overthrow first amendment rights of free speech while crying that they're being persecuted because we don't let you rule the rest of us with an iron fist anymore.


UH, no. This thread is about neutrality and consistency within government.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Just because you say a crucifix is a religious symbol means nothing. I might think a circle is a religious symbol and imagine the government funded art I get to condemn. Do you consider the electric chair a religious icon?


Perhaps that is an arguement against publicly funded art. If no one can agree what is art, then why should the public fund it?

My premise is, if the state should not fund pro-religious art, then it should not, by the same token, fund anti-religious art.
The state should be neutral when it comes to religion. I cannot understand why reasonable people would be against neutrality.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc


I didn't shift any goal posts. I have been consistent with every post I made. You are the one who has been going to wild extremes. So far you have brought up the Nazis, the Amish, the Catholics, electrical wiring, astronomy, the dictionary, evolution, and numerous other out of left field points (baseball not a political anology with the left field thing). I think that, in an arguementative state, you have not been listening and that we really have been talking roughly the same thing. Let me try to clarify the position i have had all along.


I know you have been confused by all this and that is why it took until now to address it. Calling it out of left field or whatever does not make you seem any brighter.

You seem to think there is only one religion that matters in this context. Can you share with me exactly which one it is?


Proper role of government: "We don't care if you think Jesus would not approve of alcohol sales on Sunday. This is not our role as a secular state and Sunday is just another day of the week to us. If a citizen decides he wants to have a drink on Sunday, that is his business. If you do not want to have a drink on Sunday, that is your business. Regardless, we are not going to make a law based on what Jesus may or may not approve of."

Improper role of government: "We think Islam is a negative force in society, so we will use public funds to make signs calling Mohammed a pedophile."


The first example is one of a neutral, secular society and the second is one of a non-neutral society.


Thank god everything is just those to black and white extremes. That way you do not have to think at all. Fine, you do not understand there are multiple religions and multiple ways to claim the government is stepping on one. You project and repeat a lot. I find it boring. Id give money for an actually well thought out original thought.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by CB328



they're right. There is a serious double standard.


Yes, it's a serious double standard how christians and republicans lie about wanting liberty, the constitution and small government, and then demand for the government to take away other peoples' constitutional rights.

How about all you conservative christians stop lying and crying like babies all the time and grow the hell up?


How? The majority of restrictions of Constitutional rights, from gun control, to redistribution of wealth, to restrictions of use of private property come from the left.


Taxes come from the left?


THe left loves taxes and control. Ever see anyone on the left who wants people who earn money keep the money they earn?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Perhaps that is an arguement against publicly funded art. If no one can agree what is art, then why should the public fund it?


Unfortunately the answer to that only comes in lengthy essays.


My premise is, if the state should not fund pro-religious art, then it should not, by the same token, fund anti-religious art.
The state should be neutral when it comes to religion. I cannot understand why reasonable people would be against neutrality.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Maybe you need to say that another 5 times and see if it starts to become a response to anything I am saying since the first time you said it.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc


I didn't shift any goal posts. I have been consistent with every post I made. You are the one who has been going to wild extremes. So far you have brought up the Nazis, the Amish, the Catholics, electrical wiring, astronomy, the dictionary, evolution, and numerous other out of left field points (baseball not a political anology with the left field thing). I think that, in an arguementative state, you have not been listening and that we really have been talking roughly the same thing. Let me try to clarify the position i have had all along.


I know you have been confused by all this and that is why it took until now to address it. Calling it out of left field or whatever does not make you seem any brighter.

You seem to think there is only one religion that matters in this context. Can you share with me exactly which one it is?


Proper role of government: "We don't care if you think Jesus would not approve of alcohol sales on Sunday. This is not our role as a secular state and Sunday is just another day of the week to us. If a citizen decides he wants to have a drink on Sunday, that is his business. If you do not want to have a drink on Sunday, that is your business. Regardless, we are not going to make a law based on what Jesus may or may not approve of."

Improper role of government: "We think Islam is a negative force in society, so we will use public funds to make signs calling Mohammed a pedophile."


The first example is one of a neutral, secular society and the second is one of a non-neutral society.


Thank god everything is just those to black and white extremes. That way you do not have to think at all. Fine, you do not understand there are multiple religions and multiple ways to claim the government is stepping on one. You project and repeat a lot. I find it boring. Id give money for an actually well thought out original thought.


Actually everything I have posted has been consistent, thought out, and logical. YOu are the one who took things out to reducto ad absurdum. My point has been the same throughout: the state should take no stance on religion. It should make no religious judgements. It is a very thoughtful and reasonable position that is in keeping with a free society. I understand that there are multiple ways religions could complain, but that a consistent, secular society can rise above those complaints through a policy of neutrality and not taking sides. You are the one with a preconcieved bias.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Perhaps that is an arguement against publicly funded art. If no one can agree what is art, then why should the public fund it?


Unfortunately the answer to that only comes in lengthy essays.


My premise is, if the state should not fund pro-religious art, then it should not, by the same token, fund anti-religious art.
The state should be neutral when it comes to religion. I cannot understand why reasonable people would be against neutrality.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Maybe you need to say that another 5 times and see if it starts to become a response to anything I am saying since the first time you said it.


It is a consitent thought and quite reasonable. It is not my fault that you cannot concentrate on the point at hand.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Perhaps that is an arguement against publicly funded art. If no one can agree what is art, then why should the public fund it?


Unfortunately the answer to that only comes in lengthy essays.


My premise is, if the state should not fund pro-religious art, then it should not, by the same token, fund anti-religious art.
The state should be neutral when it comes to religion. I cannot understand why reasonable people would be against neutrality.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Maybe you need to say that another 5 times and see if it starts to become a response to anything I am saying since the first time you said it.


As for responding to you. I responded quite clearly with your "yes or no" question. But you have not responded to a single question I posited. What insecurities are you hiding?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And we have gone over this, even including the dictionary definition of "secular" which you obviously did not understand. Secular does not mean "anti-religion."


No it does not. At the same time, if one does not like religion, and they are secular, there is no contradiction in terms of any sort.


Secular means not having anything to do with religion.


I'll stick with Merriam-Webster.



a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2
: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation


If you invent your own definitions for everything, that's your problem, really. The official definition of "secular" has little to do with what you are trying to ascribe to same. Epic fail.


People can bitch about evolution research, but that, in and of itself, is a secular, not a religious activity. When government supports anti-religious messages, such as Piss Christ, it goes from the proper role of secular, non-religious neutrality, to taking a religious stance.


You seem to contradict yourself. Piss Christ is open to a wide range is interpretations, including those from bona fide Christians who find it representative of what mankind did to Christ. So they say it's OK to display it.

On the other hand, the evolution research seems to indicate that anyone who takes Genesis seriously is a mental case. How's that "neutral"? You just stick to unimportant issues and miss out on the real stuff. Weak. Like, really weak.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join