• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Boehner and Cantor call for closing of Smithsonian exhibit

I sure hope they are not forced on fiscal conservatism. That's a real disaster. Unfunding Jesus exhibit seems good for separation of church and state though.
 
Zebo said:
I sure hope they are not forced on fiscal conservatism. That's a real disaster. Unfunding Jesus exhibit seems good for separation of church and state though.
Click to expand...

From the article:

In response, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian noted that federal funding is not used to pay for exhibits, only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff. The exhibit itself was funded by a group of donors and foundations.
Click to expand...
 
The comments in the article are both hilarious and appalling, btw. I particularly like those from people who think that because they're offended by the exhibit they have any more rights than those who aren't offended by it. If you're offended, don't look.
 
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
 
Thump553 said:
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
Click to expand...

And the modern "left" doesn't do the same?
 
Thump553 said:
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
Click to expand...

And the leftists don't try to legislate morality?

Anyway... the Federal government should not fund any art or art venues period. If it is art and it is worthy to look at... people will pay to see it.
 
Mursilis said:
And the modern "left" doesn't do the same?
Click to expand...

rudder said:
And the leftists don't try to legislate morality?
Click to expand...

🙄

Perhaps you should criticize both instead of only pointing a finger at one.

The broader issue here is that the GOP's leaders still think they can legislate morality and, contrary to their claims in the run-up to the 2010 election, still think they should.

Anyway... the Federal government should not fund any art or art venues period. If it is art and it is worthy to look at... people will pay to see it.
Click to expand...

Fine, then they should've called for that instead of singling out one exhibit or focusing on the ones they deem "offensive".
 
Thump553 said:
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
Click to expand...

What group doesn't want to impose their view? Most liberals I know will certainly tell me their view if I say anything right leaning. When they try and "correct" me, how is that not in some degree imposing their morality on me? You can't say the left, or any other group doesn't do the same as what you mentioned about the right.
 
TechBoyJK said:
What group doesn't want to impose their view? Most liberals I know will certainly tell me their view if I say anything right leaning. When they try and "correct" me, how is that not in some degree imposing their morality on me? You can't say the left, or any other group doesn't do the same as what you mentioned about the right.
Click to expand...

Deflectors on full, I see.
 
Thump553 said:
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
Click to expand...


<Shrug> Both parties want to (and do) legislate their versions of morality.



..and for the record: For this (not particularly religious) individual I have invariably found images of the Christ presented in this manner (or covered in blood... or molded in feces... or made of dead animals.. or whatever else artists decide to 'shock' us with today...) to be rather Puerile. So while I disagree with the reasons our Congressmen have presented as their argument, I do opine this is the sort of "art" you might find in a Jr High School locker room, and therefore it is a poor fit for places like The Smithsonian or The Guggenheim. I would offer MOMA as well, but they already dabble in this stuff with some regularity. So meh...

And also for the record: I have no intention of going to the Smithsonian to view the exhibit.


Oh: On a more serious note, I find it laughable we're not allowed to portray Christmas related exhibits in public buildings as part of the Holidays, but images of Christ covered in Flies are somehow perfectly appropriate.
 
Last edited:
You defenders of the GOP fail to distinguish the difference between arguing over contrasting viewpoints with acting on a predisposition to eliminate all other viewpoints. I don't claim that their aren't so-called leftists that seek to impose their moral views on others (Tipper Gore's group to censor music albums in the 80s comes to mind) but that is hardly a dominant-or even significant-position on the left.

The simple fact is when some blockhead from Washington calls for censorship/regulating marriage/etc., 99&#37; of the time it is a so-called right.
 
Thump553 said:
The simple fact is when some blockhead from Washington calls for censorship/regulating marriage/etc., 99&#37; of the time it is a so-called right.
Click to expand...



..another 'Meh' - They're not censoring it. They're just saying it doesn't belong in a Publicly funded facility.
 
Last edited:
There's no censorship involved. Boehner and Cantor are not calling for something to be banned, they are just saying a place funded with the public dime should adhere to public standards of what is appropriate. I for one want my representatives in congress to make sure my money goes to appropriate things. I applaud Boehner and Cantor.
 
Thump553 said:
Some things never change. One thing you can count on the modern "right" for is legislating morality and seeking to impose their viewpoint upon us all. That is the main reason these clowns never appeal to me even though they talk a good line fiscally.
Click to expand...

You mean like how the "left" wants to legislate morality and tell us we have to accept things we don't fundamentally find correct?
And when measures are brought up by the left, like gay marraige, and it gets overwhelmingly shot down by the voters, they bitch and complain and say it's not fair.

So by your and the OP's stance, it should be OK for a Christian group to sponsor a statue of Jesus or a copy of the 10 Commandments in a Court House and the government can't remove it?

I like how the leftist of this board think it's ok to crap all over religion and somehow think it's ok for the government to allow the showing of religious icons in a matter that would offend believers of that religion, but if they show religious icons as thye should be they scream about seperation of Church and State, which by the way is not in the Constitution.
 
PokerGuy said:
There's no censorship involved. Boehner and Cantor are not calling for something to be banned, they are just saying a place funded with the public dime should adhere to public standards of what is appropriate. I for one want my representatives in congress to make sure my money goes to appropriate things. I applaud Boehner and Cantor.
Click to expand...

The exhibit is not funded with public money.
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
You mean like how the "left" wants to legislate morality and tell us we have to accept things we don't fundamentally find correct?
And when measures are brought up by the left, like gay marraige, and it gets overwhelmingly shot down by the voters, they bitch and complain and say it's not fair.
Click to expand...

You mean like how the "right" wants to legislate the elimination of all abortions.. even in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.. even though abortion as a general procedure is supported by the vast majority of the American public?

So by your and the OP's stance, it should be OK for a Christian group to sponsor a statue of Jesus or a copy of the 10 Commandments in a Court House and the government can't remove it?
Click to expand...

I'm not religious and I wouldn't have a problem with that, provided that the opportunity to sponsor items for display is available to everyone.

I like how the leftist of this board think it's ok to crap all over religion and somehow think it's ok for the government to allow the showing of religious icons in a matter that would offend believers of that religion, but if they show religious icons as thye should be they scream about seperation of Church and State, which by the way is not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I think religious symbols/icons should be shown, anywhere, in whatever manner that is desired, so long as all religions are allowed.
 
zsdersw said:
The exhibit is not funded with public money.
Click to expand...


But the Facility *is* publicly funded.

Therefore I will say it again: It is laughable and patently ridiculous that we are not allowed to portray Christmas related exhibits in public buildings as part of the Holidays, but images of Christ covered in Flies are somehow perfectly appropriate.
 
Scotteq said:
But the Facility *is* publicly funded.

Therefore I will say it again: It is laughable and patently ridiculous that we are not allowed to portray Christmas related exhibits in public buildings as part of the Holidays, but images of Christ covered in Flies are somehow perfectly appropriate.
Click to expand...

If you don't like it, move to a country with a different Constitution.
Christ covered in flies is not a government endorsement of religion. It's an artwork in a museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top