Boehner and Cantor call for closing of Smithsonian exhibit

[Mursilis]

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% of the time it is a so-called right.

No, the centerpieces of the Democratic agenda (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare) are essentially charity, which is a moral choice being forced upon the nation by the Dems (and is currently bankrupting us). At least when some evangelical church wants to raise funds to send missionaries aboard, you can choose not to give, but when the Dems want to give tax money to people who refuse to work, that's done under threat of law. Much of what the Democrats advocate should be the work of private charities, but is instead forced upon us.

 

[Mursilis]

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.

And a nativity scene isn't?

 

[IBMer]

No, the centerpieces of the Democratic agenda (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare) are essentially charity, which is a moral choice being forced upon the nation by the Dems (and is currently bankrupting us). At least when some evangelical church wants to raise funds to send missionaries aboard, you can choose not to give, but when the Dems want to give tax money to people who refuse to work, that's done under threat of law. Much of what the Democrats advocate should be the work of private charities, but is instead forced upon us.

Really, I'd seem to think all the old people who vote republican would leave that party in droves if you tried to take away their SS and Medicare, yet you call them positions of the Left...

 

[zsdersw]

But the Facility *is* publicly funded.

So? How does that matter?

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.

I don't care if Christmas or religious symbols are displayed in public buildings.. and I'm not religious.

The right to display regardless if some find it offensive is the same, no matter how something is depicted.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Minor clarification -

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 (except Islam) 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 (except Mohammed), but if they show religious icons as they should be they scream about seperation of Church and State, which by the way is not in the Constitution.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I live like four blocks from the Portrait Gallery...a beautiful facility that I have visited many times, both to view exhibits or just eat there for lunch.

I personally do find this exhibit distasteful, but as with all things in life, I will simply vote with my wallet. I may visit the free exhibits but I will not visit this particular one, and I will not purchase or financially support the Portrait Gallery in any way as long as this exhibit is in place. This is good enough for me.

 

[Scotteq]

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.

Actually - if you want to believe what we've been fed for the last number of years, it's still a religious image in a government institution.


Please go back and read my earlier post: You may call it art, but it's Puerile and more deserving of a jr high school locker room. i.e. - It's something my 10 year old nephew would do because he thinks it's funny. IMHO, it doesn't belong in an institution like The Smithsonian or the Guggenheim for that reason.


Now - Let's take the next logical step: Take a statue of a fat man sitting indian style, cover it in flies and shit, and name it "Buddah". Then take a statue of a man in a turban, cover that in flies and shit, and name it "Muhammed"....


Now - Just because you put them in the Smithsonian doesn't make them any less offensive and puerile.

 

[Mursilis]

Really, I'd seem to think all the old people who vote republican would leave that party in droves if you tried to take away their SS and Medicare, yet you call them positions of the Left...

And how many people would flee the Dems if they were actually asked to pay for all the freebies we're giving away to old people? People love those programs in the abstract, because we're not actually paying for them, but if we were, they'd be a LOT less popular. The two parties have reached an unholy bargain which allows both to appeal to their bases but which dooms us all in the long-term (via debt) - the Dems can continue to be the party of gov't freebies, and the GOP can continue to cut taxes, and everyone's fat and happy until we become the next Greece.

 

[Scotteq]

So? How does that matter?

It matters because Private citizens cannot display religious imagery in Government facilities. i.e. - You can call a Nativity scene "Art" (which it clearly IS - since we display an artist's conception of what the nativity was like) - but if a private citizen were to display it on Government property that act gets treated like it's a crime. Everyone throws a fit.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Precisely. A crucifix in a jar of urine is art, but throwing the koran into a toilet is a hate crime.

Actually - if you want to believe what we've been fed for the last number of years, it's still a religious image in a government institution.


Please go back and read my earlier post: You may call it art, but it's Puerile and more deserving of a jr high school locker room. i.e. - It's something my 10 year old nephew would do because he thinks it's funny. IMHO, it doesn't belong in an institution like The Smithsonian or the Guggenheim for that reason.


Now - Let's take the next logical step: Take a statue of a fat man sitting indian style, cover it in flies and shit, and name it "Buddah". Then take a statue of a man in a turban, cover that in flies and shit, and name it "Muhammed"....


Now - Just because you put them in the Smithsonian doesn't make them any less offensive and puerile.

 

[zsdersw]

It matters because Private citizens cannot display religious imagery in Government facilities.

I don't believe that.

Everyone throws a fit.

I don't.

I also don't believe the government gets to set the standard of what is "acceptable" and what's "unacceptable", either. Individuals decide for themselves what they want to see or what they want to avoid.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's a political/religious display on public property though isn't it? It's not just art. It's a statement about a religion isn't it? Not that I agree or disagree with the message, but it's clearly a message.

Where is the line?

If it were Mohammed with ants crawling on him, the exhibit would be closed. In fact, they never would have put it up, right?

 

[thraashman]

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.

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this to you and I'll use very small words so that you can understand get it. First, with your gay marriage argument you fail to realize something. Just because a majority agrees with something, doesn't make it right. When interracial marriage was legalized, a majority disagreed with it. When slavery was cancelled, a majority in the slave owning states agreed with it. It's not about morality it's about legality and equal rights. You get by point? Probably not. You don't seem to get the difference between having art in a museum vs having a 10 commandments display in a COURTHOUSE. Now, you can call the 10 commandments display a piece of art, which is fine, then it belongs in a museum. Just like the idea of teaching the Bible in public schools. Most liberals aren't actually against that, they're against teaching religion. The Bible can be taught in a philosophical context or a historical context (thought as a history book is is sorely lacking in facts).

Now I realize I'm not likely to get through to you as so far you seem to be about as retarded as one of Sarah Palin's kids (Bristol).

 

[zsdersw]

"Everyone throws a fit" about a lot of things, only very few of them are legitimately worthy of it. Perhaps we should recognize that, instead of worrying about one set of unnecessary fits while ignoring the other.

 

[Scotteq]

It's a political/religious display on public property though isn't it? It's not just art. It's a statement about a religion isn't it? Not that I agree or disagree with the message, but it's clearly a message.

Where is the line?

If it were Mohammed with ants crawling on him, the exhibit would be closed. In fact, they never would have put it up, right?

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

 

[sandorski]

I suspect the Smithsonian does show Religious Art on occasion. I'm sure DaVinci or some other Classical Painter has been shown at least once.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Ditto. And no responses...

 

[zsdersw]

If it were Mohammed with ants crawling on him, the exhibit would be closed. In fact, they never would have put it up, right?

Would you object if such an exhibit were displayed instead?

I sure wouldn't.

 

[zsdersw]

Back to my original point... Boehner and Cantor wouldn't object to the exhibit if it weren't offensive, whether it's a religious display or not. So much for focusing on only fiscal conservatism; something that they said they'd do.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Would you object if such an exhibit were displayed instead?

I sure wouldn't.

OK, we get that you're being pretty even-handed here; I respect that. But the point that some of us are making still stands. Political Correctness is the left's version of forcing their morality on society. Based on your writings in this thread, I would never call you a hypocrite, but I can't say the same for many on the left, Peace out.

 

[Scotteq]

I suspect the Smithsonian does show Religious Art on occasion. I'm sure DaVinci or some other Classical Painter has been shown at least once.

Not arguing, since the Smithsonian clearly has (and clearly would at every opportunity), proudly display such items.

BUT...

I'd like to point out that a painting on the order of what we now consider the Classics - (a good example might be Raphael's image of the Archangel Michael defeating Satan) - has a strength, presence, and impact independent of it's religiously based subject. Christians, non~Christians, and Anti~Christians all can appreciate the work solely based on it's inherent qualities.

Please re read that last sentence, and ask yourself if a fly~covered man achieves that standard. If it weren't for the religiosity, would it carry any meaning?

 

[sandorski]

Not arguing, since the Smithsonian clearly has (and clearly would at every opportunity), proudly display such items.

BUT...

I'd like to point out that a painting on the order of what we now consider the Classics - (a good example might be Raphael's image of the Archangel Michael defeating Satan) - has a strength, presence, and impact independent of it's religiously based subject. Christians, non~Christians, and Anti~Christians all can appreciate the work solely based on it's inherent qualities.

Please re read that last sentence, and ask yourself if a fly~covered man achieves that standard.

So now you just want Art you prefer?

 

[Scotteq]

Would you object if such an exhibit were displayed instead?

I sure wouldn't.

I would object, and for the same reasons.

 

[theeedude]

And a nativity scene isn't?

In a museum?

 

[Infohawk]

As sure as you can count on Democrats to overspend, you can count on Republicans wasting time on things like this.

But let's face it liberals would be upset too if this was desecrating Muslim religious symbols.