Art Gallery faces court over "obscene" statue of Christ.

Dark Knight said:

Words can't describe the ignorance of that post. Your second sentence is nothing more than a typical athiest talking point, at best. Obviously I disagree with your last sentence.

Click to expand...

Oh My DarkNight. I was really stunned at your reply. Honestly I laughed. I guess that is a typical Athesist thing. Anyway, I appreciate your posts, I respect you and your religion and I refuse to argue over some dumb butt that made fun of Jesus. We both can at least agree about that. I hope.

Dark Knight said:

Words can't describe the ignorance of that post. Your second sentence is nothing more than a typical athiest talking point, at best. Obviously I disagree with your last sentence.

Click to expand...

As yours are typical Christian talking points...

I do think that this thread illustrates how pointless arguing is.
I do go out of my way to not get into a religious debate with people because I have no interest in what you believe in. My problem is that the religious do gooders feel that it is their obligation to try to convince anyone who doesn't agree, or to change anything that questions the religion.

The way I see it is there are plenty of people sitting on Death Row who are ready to accept God, and according to Christians, they are just as forgiven as anyone else.
I however, will burn in Hell because I believe that the Bible is a historical book with typical fact stretching and bending that happens any time a historical document is written by many people over hundreds of years, and absolutely was never meant to be taken literally.

dontpanic38 said:

You are talking about Art right?

None of those things apply to religion in my book. Helping the needy and ending suffering are not things that religion do. People do those things, and the people who have contributed through history to do good things for humankind typically have done those things through science and medicine.

My brother should have been a pro hockey player, but instead he came home from Iraq with one arm and only two working fingers. He would have died from the wounds had they happened in a past war, and he has been able to play hockey thanks to science.
His belief in God took him to war, and that after coming back he sees what a perversion Religion is. Not God, but the people who do things in God's name.

Personally I think that the only organized religion I have ever seen that is worth anything are the Amish. I think everyone could learn a thing or two from them.

Click to expand...

This post moved my heart like no other. Tell your brother I am against the war but I so respect him for going to Iraq. Your post has made me cry. He is a great man. I think God is only in our hearts, it is a conscience.

becklynn said:

This post moved my heart like no other. Tell your brother I am against the war but I so respect him for going to Iraq. Your post has made me cry. He is a great man. I think God is only in our hearts, it is a conscience.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I will pass this on to him. I forgot to add that his injuries were from an IED that hit his HumV and he was driving. He got the majority of the blast but their convoy was also attacked immediately after the blast and while he was being pulled out of the wreckage, a bullet apparently caught his helmet. Either the bullet was a riccochet and was slowed down or those helmets are damn strong because they found the bullet inside the helmet and he had bruises from where it bounced around before embedding inside the liner....

Again, I am agnostic, not athiest, so I do beleive that someone or something was looking out for him in a major way.
When he left for Iraq I was struck by the fact that he was standing in full dress, but he is a Kid! I am only 32, but those guys over there average around 20 and a lot are much younger.
He is a totally different person since coming home, and what is really funny is that I look up to him in a way that I never would have imagined.
I can not see the dumb little punk he was before becoming one of my heros...

becklynn said:

Oh My DarkNight. I was really stunned at your reply. Honestly I laughed. I guess that is a typical Athesist thing. Anyway, I appreciate your posts, I respect you and your religion and I refuse to argue over some dumb butt that made fun of Jesus. We both can at least agree about that. I hope.

Click to expand...

I also have a lot of respect for you and your posts, and I will agree with you that the artist is a dumb butt, LOL! :blowkiss:

Don't Panic, I will keep your brother in my thoughts.

I am really disturbed by some of these posts. I find this statue very offensive to my religion and I want it destroyed. Religion has not caused most of the suffering in this world. Racism, xenophobia, intolerance, fear, the need for scapegoats and ignorance justified by twisted religious beliefs are what has caused suffering and war throughout history. Just because many people believe in their faiths, including myself, doesn't mean they are trying to dictate to others how they should and shouldn't live. You will find extremists in any organisation or cause who will give it a bad name. Just because I and many other Christians want this statue gone not mean that I am gathering together a group of Christian extremists and trying to establish a religious based Orwellian censorship campaign. I don't see why anyone has the right to create or view something that deliberately spits at other people's beliefs just because they happen to be religious ones. Religion is very important to millions of people and has been a comfort during times of hardship. Many people consider their belief in God as an integral part of who they are so to sneer at religion as 'perverse' is extremely insulting.

Ciara said:

We dont have the same laws regarding free speech here as you do there. The country was almost split in half over the muslim cartoons.
That statue would not have been allowed here if it was any other religion but it seems Christianity is fair game.

No offence but I have no idea why anyone would WANT to see that statue.

Its not art in my eyes and when someone makes it, they just know its going to cause offence. I think its distasteful, ignorant and unnecessary and to me its also blasphemous.

I respect your points though

Click to expand...

I understand your opinion Ciara, and I wouldnt want to go see something like that either, but as an artist I do have to say that art is an epression of the artists feelings or imagination. no one makes a big deal about these rap songs that are offensive to women, and yet when religion is involved there is a big deal? dont get me wrong I am a follower fo Christ, but I feel that as offensive as something can be through your eyes, we dont know what the artist was feeling or thinking when creating this and no matter what it is still art, and he has right to let his art work be exhibited.

I was gazing upon the statue and trying to figure out where his hips would be, etc. Anotomically, he'd have to be hung like a horse to cause the tent to appear where it does. Certainly isn't the "man's own image and likeness" going on there. (Unless it was modeled after John Holmes.)

I wouldn't appreciate it as an artful display I'd want in my home (Mona Lisa, either), but neither am I offended by it. I don't offend easily. The crucifixes that doubled as bobs I saw online several years ago... I was offended by. (BOBS = Battery operated Boyfriends)

Let's set aside the question of what is art, the right to free speech/expression, etc. for a moment...

I doubt if those upset by this will take this as a serious question, but it is. Really.

Why are you upset by this? Mary, his mother had a vagina. Jesus was the son of God created to look like God's human creation. Are you somehow assuming he did not have a penis? Why? And why does the idea of Jesus having one so upsetting?

Would you be equally upset if it was a depiction of Jess going to the bathroom? Are you somehow also assuming he didn't have any bodily functions?

anneinchicago said:

Let's set aside the question of what is art, the right to free speech/expression, etc. for a moment...

I doubt if those upset by this will take this as a serious question, but it is. Really.

Why are you upset by this? Mary, his mother had a vagina. Jesus was the son of God created to look like God's human creation. Are you somehow assuming he did not have a penis? Why? And why does the idea of Jesus having one so upsetting?

Would you be equally upset if it was a depiction of Jess going to the bathroom? Are you somehow also assuming he didn't have any bodily functions?

Click to expand...

Jesus preached against the sin of lust. Since Jesus' was sinless, he wouldn't have an erection. (I can't believe I just typed that.) :doh:

anneinchicago said:

Let's set aside the question of what is art, the right to free speech/expression, etc. for a moment...

I doubt if those upset by this will take this as a serious question, but it is. Really.

Click to expand...

I am upset by this statue but I don't object to serious questions. Questioning religious matters is a good thing. It helps us work out who we are and what we believe in.

anneinchicago said:

Why are you upset by this?

Click to expand...

I am upset because this statue was designed with the specific intention of generating attention for the artist by mocking Jesus and Christianity. This person (I do not call him an artist) has spat on the faith of millions by creating an image of Jesus and turning him into an obscene *advertiser censored* star.

anneinchicago said:

Mary, his mother had a vagina. Jesus was the son of God created to look like God's human creation. Are you somehow assuming he did not have a penis? Why? And why does the idea of Jesus having one so upsetting?

Click to expand...

I have never believed Mary and Jesus were not anatomically correct. Otherwise the nativity story would mention the arrival of a stork or Mary finding Jesus under a cabbage leaf. Jesus having a penis does not upset me. Unless they meet with a serious accident most men do. If this was a statue of a naked Jesus, in the style of Leonardo's David or a naked infant Jesus I would have no problem. Some of the most beautiful artworks of history feature nudity. My problem is that this 'art' is deliberately looking to offend by making Jesus look like either a flasher or a *advertiser censored* star. Aside from the fact that it is Jesus I believe deliberately trying to hurt people by degrading their faith is just evil. Like I said earlier questioning and thinking critically about religion is great but deliberately offending people of a certain faith just for some attention and publicity is inexcusable. As to the question of him having bodily functions I truly don't know because I have heard excellent debate for both sides. I would not like to see an image of Jesus going to the bathroom because the only intention of an artwork like that could be to humiliate Jesus and those of us who believe him to be holy. I hope this explains my viewpoint and answers your questions.

Dark Knight said:

Jesus preached against the sin of lust. Since Jesus' was sinless, he wouldn't have an erection. (I can't believe I just typed that.) :doh:

Click to expand...

It is not a sin to have an erection. Think of the millions of men each day that wake up with a "pee" erection. Jesus peed. I'm sure of it. Jesus might have been a great man, but he was... a man.


And I have a serious question to those who feel Jesus would feel humiliated by the statue. Do you really think he is that petty to worry about his body image on a statue? I think he has bigger things to worry about. He'd rather someone think of him as a dude with a big erection than someone who never existed or didn't matter. I'm pretty sure, anyway.

Kiki and others that feel upset by the statue.... I am sorry that it's upsetting to you. Just because it doesn't bother me is not an indication that I feel it should not upset you. I just want you to know that. That was a triple negative sentence! My old English teacher would slap me silly!

I think the statue is stupid and provocative, but banning it to me is silly, why not test the new decency law over something that IMO is REALLY offensive and destructive to society like torture *advertiser censored* web sites that can't legitimately claim this is in any way political speech or commentary?

The "artist" got exactly what he wanted out of his "art"...and the real offensive stuff, nobody pays attention to

Medea said:

I think the statue is stupid and provocative, but banning it to me is silly, why not test the new decency law over something that IMO is REALLY offensive and destructive to society like torture *advertiser censored* web sites that can't legitimately claim this is in any way political speech or commentary?

The "artist" got exactly what he wanted out of his "art"...and the real offensive stuff, nobody pays attention to

Click to expand...

Just like Music has it's categories (Hard Rock, Classic Rock, Country, Rap) Maybe we can do Art, Creative Offensive Shock Art, Lousy Art, Classic Art... and then Dr. Seuss Art - my favorite!

GlitchWizard said:

Just like Music has it's categories (Hard Rock, Classic Rock, Country, Rap) Maybe we can do Art, Creative Offensive Shock Art, Lousy Art, Classic Art... and then Dr. Seuss Art - my favorite!

Click to expand...

It just seems to me it would be more effective to try and organizes a boycott instead of getting it legally banned.

A boycott would hit the gallery in their pocket book and, if effective, could reduce the value and prevalence of "shock art"..at least this strategy has a chance of being effective.

I still think this is a very benign thing to be all worked up about when there are many, many more obscene images out there much more worthy of being banned.

Art is intended to make people think, to evoke an emotion, to make you question your beliefs. The fact that this art piece has generated so much discussion, means the artist has achieved his goal.

Regards,

Montana

I agree with all kiki's posts on this so called "art".

It hasnt made me question my beliefs or anything else. It has just offended me and I dont see anything artistic about sticking a ***** on a Holy Statue. I think it was intended to offend and I think it was wrong and that it is obscene so I hope the law succeeds. I dont think it takes too many artistic brain cells to sit there and think "I know something that will be very artistic, I'll just go stick a weenie on Jesus".

Personally I think its a disgusting thing to do and that there was little artistic endeavour involved.

As far as I'm concerned, if Jesus didn't spit, puke, defecate, sweat, bleed and, yes, have erections and nocturnal emissions (at the least, assuming He chose to be celibate, which is certainly His right), then He was neither God-in-Man nor God-made-flesh.

Insisting that Jesus was human except for the parts we're squeamish about ought to offend everyone's intelligence.

But I understand it doesn't and I see no reason why secular laws need be enacted to protect my view of Christ. So naturally I see no reason why secular laws need be enacted to protect anyone else's.

Montana said:

Art is intended to make people think, to evoke an emotion, to make you question your beliefs. The fact that this art piece has generated so much discussion, means the artist has achieved his goal.

Regards,

Montana

Click to expand...

Too true. In today's world, it seems it takes much more to shock us than it did years ago. I recall in my great grandmother's diary, how she got a spanking for sticking a stick near a little girl's skirt and lifting it up a little bit. Now a days, you see little girls wearing bikinis on the beach.

You can no longer shock the world with sexual exploits (doesn't everyone recall CSI with the fuzzy costumes sex party?) and you can no longer shock them with violence (think: SAW movie series) so this man had to go one further - shock the one thing people still hold sacred. Jesus.