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.
Oh please! This was discussed in depth many pages back. I have yet to meet a single real live person who objects to Christmas anything being placed anywhere. I have met many people who say that if a Christmas tree be permitted, then so should representations of all religions.
Well believe it or don't, but it happens every year. Here's but one example:
Upon discussing the German Christmas Village in Philadelphia, city officials made the decision to have the word "Christmas" removed from the sign. Why, you ask?.....
Quote:
City spokesman Mark McDonald said Negrin asked for the change after the city received complaints from workers and residents.
Not sure if the Smithsonian needs to work with modern art. Never really thought of it as anything more than a repository for dusty old American things.
At any rate... I wonder if they had an exhibit of Mohammad with ants crawling all over it would they remove the instillation? They would remove it after there were bomb threats to the building no doubt.
I realize that Federal money funds the institution itself but a few on here seem to infer that not ONE dollar of federal money went towards to putting this display on. I find that very, very hard to believe.
That argument would seem to assume that without this exhibit the Smithsonian would cease to exist or require funding. The money goes to the Smithsonian for operational expenses regardless of what is or isn't displayed there.
So, whether or not this collection is displayed, the Smithsonian gets the same funding. Therefore, not one dollar of fed money DID go to putting this display on, specifically.
You can repeat "NO CENSORSHIP IS BEING PROMOTED" all you want.
However, it IS censorship. It's censorship based on not allowing certain images or art to be displayed for fear of offending certain Christians.
But, whatever helps you sleep at night. Bahviorial socialists have many mechanisms at their disposal to cure teh cognitive dissonance that troubles their "freedom loving" brains.
Perhaps YOU need to look in the mirror as well as the dictionary. Censorship refers to not allowing something to be shown. Now, forcing the people to pay for what is shown gets into the area of Tyranny. Once again, you are free to go and view this exhibit in a privately funded gallery on your own dime.
Are these the same "freedom loving" brains whose eyes burn at the sight of a Christmas tree and ears bleed at hearing the words "Merry Christmas"? Yep, they are freedom loving alright... as long as it supports their agenda, right?
What makes you think people who would support or visit the Smithsonian exhibit, and the people who are scared of christmas trees or "Merry Christmas" are "one in the same?"
You have no proof. Only assumption in an attempt to justify your censorship tendencies. There are plenty of atheist prudes, Jews and Muslims.
You and others on this board are creating a false controversy and dichotomy. Is the ACLU getting involved? What about the organizations that DO fight public displays of religion. Have THEY weighed in on the appropriateness of the Smithsonian exhibit? If not, then stop talking about them, because this is not about THEM.
(Also, again, the arguments presented by people who are against religious public displays are generally not grounded in "offense" at the imagery, but are a constitutional, establishment argument. Be it right or wrong, it's different, and the smarter among you will have to admit it).
Perhaps YOU need to look in the mirror as well as the dictionary. Censorship refers to not allowing something to be shown. Now, forcing the people to pay for what is shown gets into the area of Tyranny. Once again, you are free to go and view this exhibit in a privately funded gallery on your own dime.
Enough with the hyperventilating.
"Forcing people to pay for what is shown gets into the area of Tyranny?"
You're essentially bolstering the argument of anyone who HAS ever complained about the presence of the 10 commandments or nativity scene on public lands. Congratulations. I'm sure you'll be morally consistent next time the issue raises itself.
Only, again, those people have a constitutional ground for removal of the items, while y'all just have delicate sensibilities and need to be protected from things you just don't want to see.
Anybody who reads these forums regularly know that I am no Jesus fan...
However, it wasn't art. And it shouldn't have been passed off as art.
This is art.
20yrsinBranson
This is art. But it's not the only art.
Art has many forms, and many styles.
You may disagree with the artists' intent (many on here haven't even bothered to consider or critique the artist's INTENT, either because they don't know how, or prefer to latch onto anger and self righteousness), but to say it "isn't art" because you disagree with the medium, perhaps, is to ignore the intent and message.
Anybody who reads these forums regularly know that I am no Jesus fan...
However, it wasn't art. And it shouldn't have been passed off as art.
This is art.
20yrsinBranson
Your idea of art isn't everyone's.
Just about everyone has their own eye for art (and many people don't give a rip for it). "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is the only truth behind art.
There is no reason for someone to go around pronouncing "what IS or ISN'T art" because NOBODY is going to be right.
In my opinion: THIS is art:
But you'll need a sense of humor to actually "get" it.
It's called "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp.
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.