Welcome to PatsFans.com

Jesus Christ Ants

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Nov 30, 2010.

  1. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    They are cowards when they capitulate to pressure from would-be Muslim terrorists re. Mohammad. (Like Viacom did with South park)

    But I find it amusing when anybody -- Muslims, Christians, whatever -- gets upset over their "gods" being defiled in any imagery. Or, for that matter, about any of the non-religious imagery described here.

    (If people oppose any funding of the arts, that's a different matter, and could very well be a valid point of view, even in one disagrees with it.)
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,025
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    Sadly the knee jerk reaction of the right will be to stop funding the Smithsonian or will want to curb the first amendment... after all the Constitution is just a "Goddamned Piece of Paper" or at best a situational document.

    And every day the defense contractors are theiving and defrauding the American people, but that is ok... silence is deafening.
  4. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    253
    Ratings:
    +359 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    How an exhibit which opened October 30th and is closing on February 13th is a "Christmas Exhibit," when it is not billed as a "Christmas Exhibit" is beyond me.

    While the title of the article screams "Smithsonian Christmas Exhibit," the main story seems to be more truthful. The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13.

    It also runs through Hannukah Season, too, and Halloween and Thanksgiving, as well, but I don't see the headline screaming any of those things, do you?

    Any idea of how large the Smithsonian actually is - or how many museums it encompasses - or how many exhibits could be classified as "Christmas Exhibits," following this rather broad criteria of several months before and several months after December 125th?

    http://www.si.edu/visit/whatsnew/VIEWALL.ASP
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    It's a warm-up to the annual "war on Christmas" wailings of the religious right...
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    253
    Ratings:
    +359 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    It's bu!!sh!t is what it is. It's The Portrait Museum which is only one of the many museums connected with The Smithsonian - and it's a 3 1/2 month Portrait Exhibit (big surprise in a museum called "The Portrait Museum) in which December 25th happens to be one day out of 3 1/2 months full of days.

    That does not make it "A Christmas Exhibit."

    It was also pretty interesting that the article cited, which proclaimed itself horrified by the pictures shown there, included ful-color copies of all the portraits they found so disgusting that they could not understand how The Smithsonian could exhibit them.

    Apparently they didn't have any problems showing the portraits themselves.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,025
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    That vanguard of family values, Bill O'Reilly, is getting out his soap box..

    The other day got one of those emails about how In God We Trust is missing from the new presidential dollars.. could tear my hair out, it is on the edge stupid idiots.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    I find it quite sad when ignorant individuals can't see why people of a certain faith, would become upset when their god, or holy figure, is defiled by other ignoramouses, who disengenuously attempt to hide their bigotry, by attempting to call it "art".
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    Yeah, cuz that sure hasn't been the case the last 5-10 years.
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    You apparently are a more understanding person than I am. Or perhaps you're more religious. Maye both.

    But I've never understood why people get upset by anything like this, whether it's Jesus, Mohammad or any other religious figure. (Just to be clear, I'm referring to images -- not the destruction or defilement of mosques, churches, holy sites, etc. -- those are irreplaceable, and I find damage to them somewhat upsetting, even though I'm not of any of their faiths.)

    Maybe you can explain -- why get upset because somebody depicts Mohammad in a cartoon? It doesn't affect you, and it doesn't affect Mohammad. What's the point of getting upset over it?
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    What hasn't -- the wailing or the "war"?

    There certainly has been wailing. But there hasn't been any "war," just some mostly white Christians who are overly sensitive, and some media pundits who know their audiences.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    Because it's insulting, and disrespectful. Nothing more, nothing less. People have every right to be as ignorant as they please. You can burn a flag, or dip Jesus in piss anytime you want to. It doesn't mean people have to like it, and it doesn't mean doing so is right. I think acting violently over something like this is just as retahdid as the ignorant act itself, but being upset is totally understandable.

    Think of an American flag being burned. It pisses people off to no extent, but most everyone agrees that losers have the right to do it.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    I wouldn't expect you to think differently. Afterall, you cant understand why people of faith would be upset by acts that insult the very figures they pray to, so why would you understand the move to take Christ out of CHRISTmas. :confused2:
  14. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    253
    Ratings:
    +359 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    Bowing to pressure from top Republicans John Boehner and Eric Cantor, the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery has removed artwork containing a 4-minute video showing ants crawling on a crucifix, CNS News reports. Cantor had demanded the artwork be "pulled," calling it "an outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season."


    Boehner's spokesman added that the Smithsonian must either "correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January." The museum's director said the 1987 work is not sacrilegious and was meant to show the suffering of an AIDS victim. "It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.” Religious groups also complained about the video, one of 105 in an exhibit called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture."


    Gallery Pulls Jesus Video After Cantor, Boehner Object - Smithsonian-run museum pressured over 'sacrilegious' image | User Submitted
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The effort to take the Christ out of xmas has been underway for about three generations and is complete at this point, don't you think? Our culture has pretty much done away with any religious connotations about xmas, weddings, death and most other religious stuff. If a buck can be made, nothing is sacred. Not that I care, but that's the way it is. Athiests, Jews, and some perceived "anti-Christian" conspiracy have nothing to do with it. Madison Ave and Wall Street have co-opted pretty much everything.

    Maybe "people of faith" as you put it, should do their religious stuff in their homes and churches and stop flaunting their stories and superstitions as if they must be recognized by everyone else regardless of whether they share the same- or any- faith.

    There is no "Christ" in Xmas. It's a Christian interpretation of the much older and more universal celebration of the winter solstice. The birth of Christ was nowhere near December 25th by most scholarly accounts.
  16. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    I guess I don't understand getting upset because somebody else -- who doesn't believe in your god -- doesn't respect your god.

    I could see it if it were done outside a church, mosque, temple, etc., because that clearly would be antagonistic toward the worshippers.

    But making, say, a cartoon Jesus or Mohammad?
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    Whose "move" is that -- the tens of millions of "Christians" who celebrate the holiday without really giving thought to the religious aspects of the holiday?

    Your take on this apparently is even more all encompassing than the O'Reillys and Donohues of the world, it seems.

    Bottom line, though, is that nobody is orevented from celebrating Christmas as they choose. This is like people who pretend they're "defending marriage" (not surprisingly, there's probablyconsiderable overlap there)
  18. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Your last paragraph sums up my point of view. If someone with no talent whatsoever decides they need to make a name for themselves by deliberately insulting millions and millions of people by dropping a crucifix in a jar of urine, then that's their right. The price we pay for living in a free society is others have the right to be offensive. I generally don't let the bigotry, hatefullness and closed minded intolerance of others bother me.

    But when such an individual is the recipient of taxpayer funds, then I speak out on the matter.
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1


    But do you oppose all govt funding for the arts, or just certain art?

    (If the latter, you certainly have the right to voice your opinion on it)
  20. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,336
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +121 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    The reaction to the latter is usually much more, umm, ardent than to the latter. The funny thing is that because of either fear of retaliation or desire to be sensitive, many irreligious people now follow the rules prohibiting depicting Mohammed...Some have called it "creeping Sharia" (see: move for a global blasphemy law at the U.N.):

    No to an international blasphemy law | L Bennett Graham | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

    As a Christian I am sometimes offended by caricatures or depictions of Jesus, but my general attitude is that he doesn't need me to defend him. I certainly don't think that I have a right not to be offended. I usually think: "they must really be sure that he doesn't exist"!
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>