Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious


Nice to know there is no reason to take you seriously ever again.
You say Obama is clamping down on free speech in a thread blasting Obama for NOT CONDEMNING FREE SPEECH.

Yeah, that was slick.


*applause* for taking something so out of context that your skills in interpretation are obviously apparent.

Brilliant!




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


so in order to get attention or be relevant in the art world they had to resort to controversy instead of their talent



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Swills
 


Is it the White house's place to comment on religion or art? What are people waiting for from Pres. Obama ? If he comments wouldnt that be out of place?


No, so why start with the Muslim video?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
So the real question is, if someone paints a picture of Mohammed in the next week, and dips it in piss, calls it "protest art" what would happen? I can guarantee you that NO famous gallery in New York or any other city famous for it's culture would accept it. Period. The politically correct police would start their sirens!

So my question is, why is "Piss Christ" okay, and display worthy? I find Piss Christ repugnant because someone dipped something in urine and is passing it off as art, not because of the premise.

It is truly the double standard that is pissing people off, which is exactly the point of the post. I don't really want Obama addressing this, but he had no business addressing the video either. It amazes me that the people who think Obama does no wrong won't see any hypocrisy in this, and there are plenty on this site that defend him to the bitter end (and no, I am not a Romney fan either, not even voting this year out of protest for a completely infiltrated and broken system).



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Has anyone noticed the constant, organized "agenda" in mainstream media/entertainment lately? Walking Dead, True Blood, Family Guy, on and on. They constantly ridicule, mock and villify the name of Jesus. It's an agenda, pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Maybe it would be less offensive if they used real rather than fictional people for their art. We should have a piss Hillary, piss Obama, piss Harper, piss Pelosi, etc. art contest at ATS!

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by seabag
 


Maybe it would be less offensive if they used real rather than fictional people for their art. We should have a piss Hillary, piss Obama, piss Harper, piss Pelosi, etc. art contest at ATS!

Cheers - Dave


So what you're saying is that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. If this were true, there wouldn't be any evidence that He actually walked on Earth. What you're saying is that the Holy Bible and Koran is wrong as well as other scripts that's been found to have His name written on them.

Do you deny the Holocaust ever happened?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by seabag
 


Maybe it would be less offensive if they used real rather than fictional people for their art. We should have a piss Hillary, piss Obama, piss Harper, piss Pelosi, etc. art contest at ATS!

Cheers - Dave


So what you're saying is that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. If this were true, there wouldn't be any evidence that He actually walked on Earth. What you're saying is that the Holy Bible and Koran is wrong as well as other scripts that's been found to have His name written on them.

Do you deny the Holocaust ever happened?


History is written by the victors. I neither confirm nor deny whether Christ walked on earth or the holocaust happened in the numbers reported, I wasn't there. Call me a cynic, but there really is too much BS in religion and politics to support any premise that everything pertaining to those two subjects is actually true. In the case of Christ, a rockstar of those proportions during that time would deserve I think more than a passing footnote, apart from the Bible of course. On the holocaust, where is the indignation for 20 million Russians being killed, or the Poles or the Armenian holocaust or the Boer war concentration camps run by the British? You know, one rule fits all, if you are going to be indignant, at least have some consistency.

Until I see some hard evidence of any of these things, they are all speculative, subject to relativistic perception, subject to the propaganda spin by the victors and therefore being unproven, are fictional. I am a glass half full kinda guy, I don't deny Christ existed or the holocaust possibly happened, I just ask for proof concerning the circumstances of the "party line" story and when I get it, I may believe, until then, the jury is out. Not believing or reserving belief based on evidence is not denial, especially when the two things you mention are subjects I rarely discuss. There is a non-zero probability that the story of Christ and the numbers pertaining to the holocaust are true, but then that's based on statistical interpretation.

I have to ask though, how did the holocaust get into this thread, seems kind of a stretch to me in trying to make a point.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/24.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
OMG, is Fox News really digging out Piss Christ?

I feel like I'm being time-warped back to ignorant Reagan/Bush/Quayle years...

upload.wikimedia.org...


Oh, how vulgar!
edit on 22-9-2012 by DaTroof because: (no reason given)


aye, it is vulgar, surrounded by his manky oul urine- I don't think you would like to be covered in it, unless you were some sort of fetishist/deviant

Where is Obama's posturing



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
1989. Yeah, I remember that. Oh, how the bible-thumpers howled. So the President declines to comment on a piece of art that was displayed 23 years ago. How odd. Well, then, as a card-carrying librul, may I offer a retort? (Full disclosure, the Librulz have never sent me a card. I'm still waiting.)

So the image of Jesus Christ immersed in piss pisses you off? How exactly do you think he feels about "Christians" using him as a password? Don't pretend you don't know what I mean. "In Jesus' name we pray." What for? Because "I am the way". Because "no man shall enter the kingdom of heaven but through me". (Google Amen-Ra on your own if you care to know what "The End" means in Praytalk.)

What did Jesus teach? What was he all about? You Megachurch people don't know. Nor do you you care. His name is the Holy Password. You piss on him every time you denigrate the least of us. In Jesus' name, f#ck you.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by jimmiec
 


so in order to get attention or be relevant in the art world they had to resort to controversy instead of their talent




Controversy would just follow in this case.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by wascurious


Nice to know there is no reason to take you seriously ever again.
You say Obama is clamping down on free speech in a thread blasting Obama for NOT CONDEMNING FREE SPEECH.

Yeah, that was slick.


*applause* for taking something so out of context that your skills in interpretation are obviously apparent.

Brilliant!



Then by all means put it back in the proper context and show me what I did wrong.
I am pretty sure there is a reason that instead of doing that, you simply tried to distract from my point.
I guess we will see.

I would love to be wrong but I guess unlike you, I can read this thread.
I see a lot of you crying because Obama is not speaking out against free speech.
You know he cannot win with you and that is fine. What you cannot do is justify it or you would have by this point in the thread.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by poloblack
 
Separation of Church and State only works if you're equally separated from all of them. The problem is that people are complaining about a disparity in the separation.



True. In addition, I would like to add that I don't rally care about "art" like Piss CHrist at all...as long as it is not publicly funded. (Oh wait, it was.) Seperation of church and state would also include state seperation from anti-religion as well in order to maintain the principle of religious neutrality.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What makes this state sponsored religion?
I am curious if my Haloween decorations that have cross shaped tombstones are also religious?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
This entire thread is nothing but a pissing contest.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvius
 


Anger and hatred seem to just ooze out of you. If you are trying to convert people to your side, or even just trying to inform them, acting like a 'roid-raging tough guy is probably not the best way to go about it. Why would anyone take your thoughts and beliefs to heart when you end with "F you" ?
edit on 26-9-2012 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What makes this state sponsored religion?
I am curious if my Haloween decorations that have cross shaped tombstones are also religious?


According to the principle that anything deemed to be pro-religious (such as ten commandments in the courtroom) shall be removed from governmental bodies then, in order to be logically consistent, anything that is anti-religious should be removed as well. If the NEA gave a grant to a Christian artist who made art that promoted his religion, there would be objections. The inverse must also be true in order to maintain the idea of government neutrality towards religion.

I assume your Halloween decorations were purchased with your own money, not taxpayer money so who cares about the symbols contained thereon?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
According to the principle that anything deemed to be pro-religious (such as ten commandments in the courtroom) shall be removed from governmental bodies then, in order to be logically consistent, anything that is anti-religious should be removed as well. If the NEA gave a grant to a Christian artist who made art that promoted his religion, there would be objections. The inverse must also be true in order to maintain the idea of government neutrality towards religion.


You are not very good at logic. Separation of church and state does not entail separation of state and purely secular line of thought and action. You see, one can say that protected s3x is manifestly anti-catholic. Should the government prohibit protected s3x?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I hate to say this.....but trying to get some hype out of this piss christ deal, to make Obama look bad is one of the most politicaly ameturish things I have seen yet. It weak, looks like flailing, desperate. It was dreamed up by republicans that still live in the late 70s early 80s.....because it worked back then.

Talk about being out of touch and in la la land.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
According to the principle that anything deemed to be pro-religious (such as ten commandments in the courtroom) shall be removed from governmental bodies then, in order to be logically consistent, anything that is anti-religious should be removed as well. If the NEA gave a grant to a Christian artist who made art that promoted his religion, there would be objections. The inverse must also be true in order to maintain the idea of government neutrality towards religion.


You are not very good at logic. Separation of church and state does not entail separation of state and purely secular line of thought and action. You see, one can say that protected s3x is manifestly anti-catholic. Should the government prohibit protected s3x?



No, the government should be neutral and not make any laws endorsing or supporting or banning sex of any sort. It is not the job of government and that is what neutral means.

I would say that you are not very good at logic at all. Not financially supporting something is not the same as banning it. If the state should not fund a pro-religious group or material, then they should not fund an anti-religious group or material to be consistent.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution