WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

Well at least we agree on that.

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.

Anti-religious group is obviously a secular affair. There is nothing anywhere, not in Constitution, not anywhere, that would prohibit the government participation in secular affairs. From a certain point of view, research into evolution of species is anti-religious, since it shows that the Bible is bunk. By your (erroneous) logic, the government should stop funding all natural sciences.

By definition being anti-religious means not associating with any religion. Once again, I call your attention to that fat that no laws are broken if a government supports an activity that explicitly does not associate with any religion. As to your definition of "consistency", that's your problem. I'm sure people have varying opinions regarding the consistency of yogurt.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

Well at least we agree on that.

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.

Anti-religious group is obviously a secular affair. There is nothing anywhere, not in Constitution, not anywhere, that would prohibit the government participation in secular affairs. From a certain point of view, research into evolution of species is anti-religious, since it shows that the Bible is bunk. By your (erroneous) logic, the government should stop funding all natural sciences.

By definition being anti-religious means not associating with any religion. Once again, I call your attention to that fat that no laws are broken if a government supports an activity that explicitly does not associate with any religion. As to your definition of "consistency", that's your problem. I'm sure people have varying opinions regarding the consistency of yogurt.

Secular does not mean anti-religion. No laws are broken when government supports and activity that does not associate with any religion--that is quite true, but not what I am talking about. I'm not talking about a secular program or event, I'm talking about supporting things that are directly anti and against religion. The government is the government of all the people, secular and religious. It is not supposed to take a pro or anti view on religion, but be neutral. If they cannot support an event that endorses a religion, then it is, by the same logic, not able to support an event that is against religion.

You make an incredibly illogical leap. Funding sciences has nothing to do with religion. If you fund science that proves evolution, then you have not said anything that is against a religion. If you fund a group that specifically states that they hate religion, then you have supported a biased standpoint.

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.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

Well at least we agree on that.

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.

Anti-religious group is obviously a secular affair. There is nothing anywhere, not in Constitution, not anywhere, that would prohibit the government participation in secular affairs. From a certain point of view, research into evolution of species is anti-religious, since it shows that the Bible is bunk. By your (erroneous) logic, the government should stop funding all natural sciences.

By definition being anti-religious means not associating with any religion. Once again, I call your attention to that fat that no laws are broken if a government supports an activity that explicitly does not associate with any religion. As to your definition of "consistency", that's your problem. I'm sure people have varying opinions regarding the consistency of yogurt.

Secular does not mean anti-religion.

Please open the dictionary and learn what the word "secular" means.

You make an incredibly illogical leap. Funding sciences has nothing to do with religion. If you fund science that proves evolution, then you have not said anything that is against a religion.

Wait wait, proving evolution is proving not one, but a few religions wrong. It's a statement against these religions.

If you fund a group that specifically states that they hate religion, then you have supported a biased standpoint.

Well tough. Things is, most of "standpoints" are biased. Look up AIPAC and its influence over our Govt. Compared to "piss Jesus" it just seems to be a lot more important.

I do have an issue with the WH not denouncing AIPAC.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Do not forget Astronomy. I guess the Navy Doc believes all our telescopes are wrong and should be dismantled as telescopes played one of the biggest roles in debunking the Bible in history.

The White House as the executive branch of Government should remain silent on the issue. It is really none of their business.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well tough. Things is, most of "standpoints" are biased. Look up AIPAC and its influence over our Govt. Compared to "piss Jesus" it just seems to be a lot more important.

I do have an issue with the WH not denouncing AIPAC.

OH, for crying out loud.

sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/Adjective: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".

Secular= NO RELIGIOUS BASIS. SECULAR =/= ANTI RELIGION. How hard is that?

There is a radical difference between doing research that religious people think affects their belief system and openly taking sides on belief systems. We can all agree that using public funds to set up a crucifix is a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. By the same reasoning, it is also against the Constitution to use public funds to put the same Crucifix in a cup of urine. They are two sides of the same coin. The Government is not supposed to take a stance on religion, pro or anti.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well tough. Things is, most of "standpoints" are biased. Look up AIPAC and its influence over our Govt. Compared to "piss Jesus" it just seems to be a lot more important.

I do have an issue with the WH not denouncing AIPAC.

OH, for crying out loud.

sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/Adjective: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".

Secular= NO RELIGIOUS BASIS. SECULAR =/= ANTI RELIGION. How hard is that?

Not hard at all. Being anti-religion does not mean having a basis in religion. Get it? I'm anti-Nazi, it doesn't mean that I base my thought process on Nazi doctrine. How hard is that?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well tough. Things is, most of "standpoints" are biased. Look up AIPAC and its influence over our Govt. Compared to "piss Jesus" it just seems to be a lot more important.

I do have an issue with the WH not denouncing AIPAC.

OH, for crying out loud.

sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/Adjective: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".

Secular= NO RELIGIOUS BASIS. SECULAR =/= ANTI RELIGION. How hard is that?

Not hard at all. Being anti-religion does not mean having a basis in religion. Get it? I'm anti-Nazi, it doesn't mean that I base my thought process on Nazi doctrine. How hard is that?

As an anti-Nazi, I am, in opposition to Nazism and it is based on a philosophical and moral standpoint that is anti-Nazi. What that has to do with the concept of religious neutrality, I haven't the foggiest. I think you Goodwined yourself there. I said that secular did not mean anti-religion, you said "look it up" and I posted the definition which showed you didn't know what you are talking about.

However, that is not what secular means, The government is not supposed to take sides in the religious spectum. The military, for example, is as an institution, supposed to be apolitical. It is not supposed to support either party. The government is not supposed to support or condemn religion. That is neither its job nor is it in its job description.

Originally posted by Vitruvius
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.

what a lot of prejudiced NONSENSE- how could you possibly know the thoughts of hundreds of thousands/millions of people and whether they know what Jesus taught

What arrogance, in blueorder's name, # YOU

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Secular= NO RELIGIOUS BASIS. SECULAR =/= ANTI RELIGION. How hard is that?

You are the one not understanding a very simple concept.
Science is secular.
Astronomy is secular.
Neither is anti-Religion.
Yet an astronomer was imprisoned for his secular scientific discovery because some religion felt it was anti-religion to them.
Evolution is science, secular, non NON-Religious in nature.
There is no shortage of Christians crying that teaching evolution is ANTI religion.

How hard is that?

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Secular= NO RELIGIOUS BASIS. SECULAR =/= ANTI RELIGION. How hard is that?

You are the one not understanding a very simple concept.
Science is secular.
Astronomy is secular.
Neither is anti-Religion.
Yet an astronomer was imprisoned for his secular scientific discovery because some religion felt it was anti-religion to them.
Evolution is science, secular, non NON-Religious in nature.
There is no shortage of Christians crying that teaching evolution is ANTI religion.

How hard is that?

ANd you are the one not understanding a single simple concept: that government should be neutral when it comes to religion, and neither promote or discourage, neither support for nor support against. This is why we have a secular state. What problem do you have with governmental neutrality when it comes to religious issues?

How hard is that to understand?

reply to post by NavyDoc


You have said the exact same thing several times now. Repeating yourself does not make you right. Apparently the only one here having trouble understanding is you. Your points have all been refuted and each time you just repeat the same thing.

Can you even begin to understand the concept of my last post?

Amish people can cry all day long that what I see as secular, they see as government invasion of their religion. Why should I afford their view of their imaginary friend any more than say the actual need for powerlines? You know, godless, demonic, satanic, evil, abomination, secular power lines.

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You have said the exact same thing several times now. Repeating yourself does not make you right. Apparently the only one here having trouble understanding is you. Your points have all been refuted and each time you just repeat the same thing.

Can you even begin to understand the concept of my last post?

Amish people can cry all day long that what I see as secular, they see as government invasion of their religion. Why should I afford their view of their imaginary friend any more than say the actual need for powerlines? You know, godless, demonic, satanic, evil, abomination, secular power lines.

edit on 27-9-2012 by wascurious because: (no reason given)

However, you have not refuted anything and pull silly examples from the ether and say that you have "made a point."Of course, I'm right, you just extrapolate the position to rediculous extremes. We're not talking about reducto ad absurdum, you are going reducto ad way out in left field. A power line is secular--in use and intent--and does not establish a religion nor have anything to do with religion. Does not matter if the AMish don't like them (although I've never heard of hte AMish objecting to them just that they choose not to use them.) A state sponsored sign that says "Amish Suck" is in violation of the first amendment, just as would be a sign that says "Go Amish." "The Congress shall not support the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof."

If the government puts a painting of the Constitution in a Courthouse, that is a secular decision and a secular subject. No one can bitch on religious grounds. If they put up a painting of Moses getting the Ten COmmandments, that is a religious symbol and can be seen as a violation of the establishment clause. That is not permitted. Likewise, if they put up a painting that says "Christians suck" that would also be a violation of the establishment clause.

Know the difference between a secular act and an act that takes a position on religion.

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.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by wascurious
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Yes.

Now answer a very simple question back. Should the government be neutral or antagonistic towards religion?


(Also, WTF does the Church's theocratic control have anything to do with freedom of religion in the US?)

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.

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.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

Well at least we agree on that.

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.

Anti-religious group is obviously a secular affair. There is nothing anywhere, not in Constitution, not anywhere, that would prohibit the government participation in secular affairs. From a certain point of view, research into evolution of species is anti-religious, since it shows that the Bible is bunk. By your (erroneous) logic, the government should stop funding all natural sciences.

By definition being anti-religious means not associating with any religion. Once again, I call your attention to that fat that no laws are broken if a government supports an activity that explicitly does not associate with any religion. As to your definition of "consistency", that's your problem. I'm sure people have varying opinions regarding the consistency of yogurt.

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." Secular means not having anything to do with religion. That is the whole point.

Your erroneous logic is the premise that secular must be anti-religion. THe government can and should fund secular activities, the government just should not take a stance on religion as this is not its perview. Government, as I have been saying over and over again, should not support an activity that explicitly associates with any religion, by the same token, logically, they should not support an activity that explicitly condemns any religion. They are two sides of the same coin. Neutrality is the proper role of government where religion is concerned.

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.

It is not a difficult concept.