Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the intolerance of one group is used to justify the violent behavior of another? Is this the best argument you can put forth to justify this woman's actions? How Christian of you!
1 person is a group?
She shouldn't resort to violence and the artist is an attention seeking a-hole at best and quite likely a bigot.
Is the message here that picking on religious or racial groups that we don't like makes it ok?
Maybe he can make a painting of Oprah Winfrey dressed up like Mamie with exaggerated lips next? <sigh>
Awww...poor Christians being oppressed in America! Waaaaaah.
To an extent, you're right. Christians don't really face persecution here. But I think the issue is that if that had been muhammed it never would have gotten past the political correctness police--or if it had, the "artist" may have been killed by now.
That's really not the point. This is about freedom of expression. It doesn't matter what art contains. It's legal to draw whatever you want to draw. It's illegal for someone else to destroy another person's property.
Try to respond without bringing up Islam or Muslims.
They dont have anything else to bring to the debate.-shrugs-
If the artist is allowed to draw a picture of Christ in an indecent act, saying it's his First Amendment right to draw the picture, then why do we have hate crime laws in the first place? Isn't hate crimes, in effect then, violating someone's First Amendment right to express their opinions then? Since hate crimes were made in response to stop hateful acts and speech, then wouldn't drawing this should be considered a hate crime then, since it offends other people's sensibilities?
Because that's not the definition of a hate crime. For a hate crime to exist, a crime has to exist in the first place.
Beating up a person is assault; beating up gay people specifically because they are gay may be a hate crime. But it's a crime regardless.
Spray-painting a unicorn on your school is defacing property; spray-painting swastikas on your town's synagogue may be a hate crime. It's a crime regardless.
"Hate crimes" are not merely acts that may offend some people. They also have to have a element of fear or terror to them to make the targeted group be afraid. Go around to gay bars beating up people leaving at night, and you're terrorizing the town's gay community. Burn a cross on a black person's yard when they move into a white-majority community, and you're making other blacks afraid to move in.
A piece of art in a small gallery was not a crime in the first place. It was not nailed to the doors of a church, and if it offended the Christians of Loveland, it did not make them fear they'd be beaten up or worse if they went to church next Sunday.
If the artist is allowed to draw a picture of Christ in an indecent act, saying it's his First Amendment right to draw the picture, then why do we have hate crime laws in the first place? Isn't hate crimes, in effect then, violating someone's First Amendment right to express their opinions then? Since hate crimes were made in response to stop hateful acts and speech, then wouldn't drawing this should be considered a hate crime then, since it offends other people's sensibilities?
Simply no. The hate crime comes in controlling others thought and expresion. People were allowed to chose to view the image. The woman took the rights of others upon herself to decide. If the image had said hate Christians then it would have been a hate crime but it did not.
Under your logic a specific religion can deny the rights of another. Again read your bible specifically Luke. Jesus was condemned for having a different view of the governing body. As a result he was killed.
Its not a religious argument it is a constitutional one. This is why the framers of the constitution separated religion from Government. They knew that when religion governs people they decide for the people. That's not what the framers wanted America to be and they were right.
It's so funny because the christen right and liberal left want the same thing. They want to control the people. One through the control of finances the other through the control of ideology. Neither is acceptable.
Intresting point I was just given.
If one woman has the right to control what people will see the other side of that coin is that crosses on roads where people have died should also be eliminated.
If the artist (said loosely) is not allowed to show his perception of a deity then no one should.
The moral of the story. Be careful what you wish for you might get it.
Her destroying the Jesus porn "art" is no better than a Muslim getting their panties in a bunch over pictures of Mohammad. It puts her on the same level as the Taliban destroying the Bhuddist relics carved in the mountainside.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. There is no RIGHT answer where art is concerned.
Smashing something because you think it's vulgar is stupid, and it puts you in a position to make a decision for everyone involved, and nobody should have that power over art because it's an expression.
It's ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
