WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Christ didn't apologize for other people. He did ask God to forgive them, mind you, but never apologized for other people's behavior.

This president has.

When he should have been balancing the budget.

See, my disgust isn't over the pissed on cross. Iconography isn't really all that important, to me. It has everything to do with pandering to a riot in another country, that another country ought to quell without us. That simple.

reply to post by buster2010


Oh, the West does and doesn't value life at the same time. Huge schism in reasoning, on all extremes.

Think: all fetus means, by definition, is "little one". Literally. We changed the definition of a word that literally meant the same as baby or toddler, to mean meaningless lump of flesh, so we could be comfortable with a woman's choice to flush the flesh out.

Most every single woman I've ever talked to, that was/is pro-choice, has a conniption if anyone runs over an animal on the road.

A lot of those who willingly run over animals are marginally pro-life, that I've met. Even more of those who are willing to go to war are pro-life.

And I honestly can't say I handle it much better.

That was around back in the 80's!!!!

Reagan didn't denounce it, Bush Sr didn't denounce it, dubya didn't denounce it..... now you want Obama to denounce a 30+ year old piece of (disgusting) artwork that your "heroes" did nothing about????

Why don't you have him denounce the Holocaust while he's at it, then denounce that the government gave disease laden blankets to the Native Americans, then have him denounce things that happened back in the middle ages, denounce the Jews for crucifying Christ, then denounce the first guy that ran over somebody with a wheel back when the wheel was discovered. I'm sure we could come up with tons and tons of things for him to denounce to keep him so busy that the GOP wouldn't have to work so hard to try to prevent any progress at all and they could have a little break or something.

reply to post by jimmiec


I remember the protests and bans and outcry over the piss Jesus. There was no violence because who are you going to get violent on? It was one artist and the museum that showed it. That was an internal discussion American to American, the question was Is this really art or an insult to a religion?

Not sure people realize it but the culture in the Mideast is not as progressive as ours.
Women still wear burkas - I would not expect them to honor "free speech."

Another thing that is very different about PISSCHRIST - It was not intended as fuel to start a war.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


But the problem is that they DID offer belated apologies to many of these things, and denounced the behavior.
Official apology to Native Americans
Apologies for Slavery.
Wanting to Apologise over Hiroshima.
The internment of Japanses during WWII.


The thing is that pretty much everything is up for apology in our country, and has been for a long time. And NONE of it does anything useful.

This thread is joke and FOX news has failed due to

CHAOS

ON

BULLSH!T

MOUNTAIN!

reply to post by jimmiec


Personally couldn't care one way or the other; but it is worth noting that some art critics have observed that Piss Crist is an appropriate representation of the pain, suffering, and humiliations that Christ was subjected to on his way to the crucifiction. It has been at least 15 years since I've had an art history class, but I do remember the instructor discussing the fact that crowds often threw things such as excrement at the prisoners as they were being marched to their crucifiction site. Can't help but wonder is the outrage because the work reminds us that it was mortal men who killed christ......

reply to post by buster2010


Same way thomas kinkade sells art done by professional highlighters.

reply to post by Grimpachi


To the best of my knowledge no one has killed anyone over Piss Christ yet; though death threats have been made. However, christians did stage a protest in France and shortly after the exhibit was opened for display a guard was threatened with a hammer and the photo was slashed:

www.guardian.co.uk...

theurbanlandfill.wordpress.com...

I find it ironic that the more that this work is brought up, and the copies damaged, the more the value of the remaining prints and negative increases. Just read an article that estimates the value of a single print at $277,000. This work should be allowed to fade into obscurity and the artist forgotten.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, when the Anti-Muslim movie came out, you wanted Obama to stand up for Free Speech.

And now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want him to condemn it?

Not at all surprising! :shk:

No, we want consistency. Why does he condemn offenses against one religion and then say nothing about another?

It would be like me seeing a White man treated unfairly and coming to their rescue, and then seeing a black man in the same situation and refusing to help. You don't see a problem there?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

But the problem is that they DID offer belated apologies to many of these things, and denounced the behavior.
Official apology to Native Americans
Apologies for Slavery.
Wanting to Apologise over Hiroshima.
The internment of Japanses during WWII.


The thing is that pretty much everything is up for apology in our country, and has been for a long time. And NONE of it does anything useful.

edit on 23-9-2012 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)

but that's just it... why are they demanding, insisting even, that the present administration does it like it would be the end of the world if he didn't yet they asked nothing of the sort from the previous administration? There is nothing useful about it, they only want to grasp at straws and try to find ways to "incriminate", distract and destroy whatever they possibly can whether it's pertinent or not.

It clearly nothing but an attempt at causing turmoil that won't result in anything.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, when the Anti-Muslim movie came out, you wanted Obama to stand up for Free Speech.

And now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want him to condemn it?

Not at all surprising! :shk:

No, we want consistency. Why does he condemn offenses against one religion and then say nothing about another?

Because he was not president in the 1980's. This hasn't caused global violence and a threat to US assets and interests around the world. This is an art work, created a long time ago, and there is no Christian dogma stating "thou must not place a symbol of Christ in a jar of urine and photograph it".

This is some real deep hypocrisy you Americans have. It's freedom of speech when it's attacking Islam, but it's offensive when it's attacking Christianity.

It's a method of attacking Obama for something he is not responsible for. If you have no idea of what international diplomacy means then I think most of the posters in this thread should probably stay out of all discussions relating to politics.

If you cannot understand why the WH needed to comment on this current situation (and why it doesn't need to comment on a piece of art created in the 1980's), then you really have no place discussing politics at all.

America and freedom dont quite go hand in hand these days IMHO. As to Obama's comment(If he ment it, dont think so) seems to be in line with there constitution. Freedom of speech and expression dont bother mainline christianity these days, atleast not in the same way it seems to rile the Muslim brotherhood. The fact that Christianity has not responded with violence and intolerance simply proves our superiority. If us christians monkeys can learn to turn the other cheek, why cant they?

The White House should be defending ALL free speech for Americans ... both the anti-islam film makers rights and the rights of the idiot who put Jesus in the jar and piss'd on him. Those who have noted the inconsistency of Obama on this are correct. I agree with Beezzers earlier post ... someone should stick a Muhammed doll in a jar full of pee and place it next to the 'Piss Christ artwork'. Let's see how that goes over ....

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I you respect the office of the POTUS so much, you sure must appreciate the concept of diplomacy. You may call it "stooping" if it's too complicated for you, but most still call it diplomacy.

He’s not conducting diplomacy; it’s called deception and pandering.

So you are not aware of the fact that a large part of diplomacy is well, "deception and pandering"? And I thought most people knew that.

He was trying to blame a movie for these actions rather than facing the failure of his policies…..and he was doing it at our expense.

How is he supposed to "face the failure"? Just read what you wrote. Sorry I can't take this seriously. And what exactly failed? He didn't kill enough jihadists with his ever-growing drone killings program? He didn't plug enough bullets into Osama bin Laden? You have no interests in facts, Sir. Anything that's done you'll call "failure". As to the expense, check out the cost of warfare. And I'm not asking you what's your concept of how to handle the Middle East, because I don't think you'll offer anything of value.

There is just nothing in the world Obama can do, including making you a cup of cappuccino, that can make you happy. Try to face that.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The White House should be defending ALL free speech for Americans ... both the anti-islam film makers rights and the rights of the idiot who put Jesus in the jar and piss'd on him.

First Amendment works inside the jurisdiction of the United States. And it actually does. Just thought I'd point this out. You can't go to Islamabad and enforce it there. Well, go ahead and try.

reply to post by newcovenant

Another thing that is very different about PISSCHRIST - It was not intended as fuel to start a war.

Exactly - it wasn't

Intention is something people seem to want to pass by and not examine in this argument - they want to be able to say whatever they want to say without repercussions

Being free to say what they want to say isn't good enough - I guess they don't really understand what Free Speech means. They think it's like having a hall pass in the third grade

At this point, many will argue that Nakoula’s perverse film is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the abridgment of speech and press. But this may not be entirely true. Free speech does not excuse purposeful efforts to incite a riot. An enterprising prosecutor might be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire enterprise that created “Innocence of Muslims” was a premeditated effort to produce exactly the type of violence that we have seen. If that’s the case, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, Steve Klein and Morris Sadek could be potential targets of a criminal investigation into the promotion of hate speech that contributed to murder.

consortiumnews.com...

good article - non partisan

reply to post by DaTroof


Haha for real. It's honestly a great photo, if the artist had not named it "piss christ" an revealed it's secret and instead called it "dawn on the christ" it would be hanging in the vatican. Why should the white house respond to a 23 year old print that has traveled (and been attacked) around the world?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

But the problem is that they DID offer belated apologies to many of these things, and denounced the behavior.
Official apology to Native Americans
Apologies for Slavery.
Wanting to Apologise over Hiroshima.
The internment of Japanses during WWII.


The thing is that pretty much everything is up for apology in our country, and has been for a long time. And NONE of it does anything useful.

I'm a little scared by that last bit on your post. You are saying that trying to be true to the spirit and law of the United States of America "does nothing useful"? Like, seriously? You are saying that a simple, civilized apology for deviating from that spirit is useless. Hmm. If sticking to your principles isn't important (while acknowledging mistakes), I don't know what is.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

No, we want consistency. Why does he condemn offenses against one religion and then say nothing about another?

Children want and need consistency

Grownups realize that every situation is unique - and needs to be handled in a manner that takes into account the facts and circumstances of that particular situation

I'm starting to see a theme here :-)

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

But the problem is that they DID offer belated apologies to many of these things, and denounced the behavior.
Official apology to Native Americans
Apologies for Slavery.
Wanting to Apologise over Hiroshima.
The internment of Japanses during WWII.


The thing is that pretty much everything is up for apology in our country, and has been for a long time. And NONE of it does anything useful.

edit on 23-9-2012 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)

Yes they did and if Obama didn't make a habit of Apologizing we would not be talking about this,

We have been conditioned, once again years of anti christian propaganda have been realized,

There will come a time,and soon, when we will not even be allowed a "depiction" of "Christ" in a tank of artist piss.

Not to suppress the artist, I hesitate to call him that, but because anything even seemingly to do with Christ will be anathema.