1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Modern Art & Censorship

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Natan'el Bar Tholmai, Jun 2, 2001.

Top Posters
  1. Natan'el Bar Tholmai

    Natan'el Bar Tholmai New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    This came from the Grif.Net weekend edition and was written by R.C. Kirkwood, editor of the Daily New Record in Harrisonburg, VA.

    "The latest outrage to leak from the cranium of an artist is a sculpture of the Blessed Virgin adorned with the head of a pig.

    It was cryptically called "Homo Scrofa", but the artistic genius was lost on offended Christians, who promptly knocked the ugly swine's orb off Mary's body. And therein is the controversy: Was this an appropriate reaction to calculated blasphemy?

    Now blasphemous art in now de rigueur . . . with "Virgin in a Condom", a canvas of the Virgin Mary adorned with elephant scat, while another shows Our Lady in a bikini. And don't forget the publicly subsidized "Piss Christ", which featured a crucifix in a jar of the artist's urine.

    None of the artist mean to offend Christians (they say) . . . but sadly, Civil Libertarians defend this trash. They gibble and gabber that 'offensive speech must be tolerated in a free society, that we can't censor unpopular ideas, writings or art.'

    Now, the answer to that question: A free society does not censor offensive speech, at least not officially. But whole groups cannot be expected to accept the artistic equivalent of an egg in the face. If you insult my mother, expect a punch in the nose. If your insult the Blessed Mother, expect two!

    Blasphemous art is an exclusive specialty of the artistic left. The lower-octane, intellectual left tenaciously defends it, wagging an admonitory finger and telling Christians to 'ponder the First Amendment' or 'turn the other cheek'.

    That wouldn't be so bad if just once, while we were turning, the civil libertarians warned these artists to stop offending. But they don't. It never stops. If such injurious art came from the 'right', these same folks would be howling for 'responsible conservatives' to do something.

    Thus Alec Baldwin appeared before Congress to defend taxpayer subsidies for "Piss Christ" and other horrific art. You wouldn't hear Charlton Heston defending art that trashed Jews, blacks, or Hindus.

    'Homo Scrofa's' creator aimed to offend Christians. He got what he richly deserved."
     
    #1 Natan'el Bar Tholmai, Jun 2, 2001
  2. Santa

    Santa Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That wouldn't be so bad if just once, while we were turning, the civil libertarians warned these artists to stop offending.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    No one should be warned to stop offending. This is America not Nazi Germany. I would be offended if they stopped because someone warned or threatened them. Yes their art may offend me but I don't have to look at it. I agree the government shouldn't fund controversial art, you get no argument from me, but it should never act to warn or even reprimand someone simply because their speech is untasteful.
     
    #2 Santa, Jun 2, 2001
  3. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe I am grasping at straws,but isn't this art that is religious in nature? In other words, the State is supporting through taxes art that is at least anti-religious in nature."Separation of Church and State" is the battle cry of some,EXCEPT when their art state-funded art is anti-christian!The want their cake and eat it too. Do you agree, or disagree?
     
    #3 Pastor KevinR, Jun 2, 2001
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, RevKev, that is WHY I sent out the Grif.Net early this morning. There is an argument from "cultural obligation" (don't offend someone's religion) and a "legal obligation" (don't fund someone's religion with my tax money) that has BOTH been trodden upon by the liberal artists.

    If I had put a gay-pride symbol in a bottle of urine, don't you think there would have been an outcry?

    If I had put a Palestinian flag covered with donkey dung, don't you think that would have been wrong?

    There ARE limits to free expression of art, speech, writing. Of course, it's a slippery slope to limit any of these.

    Let's start with an easy one. Gross pornography (incest, s/m, children) is allowed in our city parks, buildings, streets, but the 10 Commandments aren't . . .
     
    #4 Dr. Bob, Jun 2, 2001
  5. Santa

    Santa Guest

    Rev Kev I agree the state should not be funding religous nor controversial art.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gross pornography (incest, s/m, children) is allowed in our city parks, buildings, streets, but the 10 Commandments aren't . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I would like an example where kiddy porn is allowed in any of those places you listed. If you can't find a link to that I would like to see where porn of any kind is allowed where religious objects are not.
     
    #5 Santa, Jun 2, 2001
  6. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Santa, you are attributing to me a quote by Dr Bob. And I think Dr Bob is 100% right! :D
     
    #6 Pastor KevinR, Jun 2, 2001
  7. Santa

    Santa Guest

    In that case kev why don't you answer my questions I asked him.
     
    #7 Santa, Jun 2, 2001
  8. Q. Marlow

    Q. Marlow New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not an art critic and will stay out of it. Although I say it is disgusting with the trash they are getting away with!!! My question is the way you use the word "blessed mother". I am not trying to offend, but isn't this from like the Catholic Church? Jesus refers to has Woman, not as blessed mother. So my question is this right or not? I am not sure if it is or not! I do know I will not refer to Mary, as the blessed mother becuase of the Catholic image of her. So why do you refer to her as blessed mother???
     
    #8 Q. Marlow, Jun 3, 2001
  9. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Santa, I cannot answer this question as it is not my area of expertize.However please re-read your previous post.It appears you started off with me and then quoted Dr Bob, hence, my previous post. I suppose that's the problem with writing back and forth, we think a point is being made, when another point is...does that make sense? Sorry, cowboy! ;)
     
    #9 Pastor KevinR, Jun 3, 2001
  10. Santa

    Santa Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question is the way you use the word "blessed mother". I am not trying to offend, but isn't this from like the Catholic Church? Jesus refers to has Woman, not as blessed mother. So my question is this right or not? I am not sure if it is or not! I do know I will not refer to Mary, as the blessed mother becuase of the Catholic image of her. So why do you refer to her as blessed mother???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    My response is simple, is not Mary blessed? If so why not refer to her in such a manner? Why do you care if one is Catholic. Christ doesn't care so why should you?
     
    #10 Santa, Jun 3, 2001
  11. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've got no problem with anyone putting out any sort of art they like or with the use of the phrase "Blessed Mother".

    My problem is with the government using my tax dollars to pay for it.

    Even more than the issues of the afforementioned art being religious in nature, I have serious problems with the government trying to determine what art is when we just put up with eight years of a "president" who doesn't even know what "is" is.

    If it's up to the government to determine what art is, the next logical progression would be for them to determine what art is "appropriate". Since some art contains political sentiment, is the government then to determine which political statements are appropriate?

    This is scary, scary stuff.

    Exactly where in the Constitution does it say there should be public funding for the arts?

    [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]
     
    #11 Mike McK, Nov 26, 2001
  12. NeilUnreal

    NeilUnreal New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with many of the posts above: censorship of art is bad, but no artist has a right to public funding. Publicly funded art is important, but by-definition it requires the input of the public.

    If an artist wants to produce work for which no one is willing to pay, he/she can subsidize it by also producing commercial work. Or do what lots of artists do -- get a day job and do art at night (that's what I do).
     
    #12 NeilUnreal, Nov 27, 2001
  13. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Santa:

    My response is simple, is not Mary blessed? If so why not refer to her in such a manner? Why do you care if one is Catholic. Christ doesn't care so why should you?    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Santa:

    Are you a Baptist? If not please only post to the other religion forum.
     
    #13 Chris Temple, Nov 27, 2001
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:


    Exactly where in the Constitution does it say there should be public funding for the arts?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Absolutely nowhere, in fact the constitution specifically gives the house of representatives sole authority to allocate money, lists the things that they have the power to deal with, and prohibits them from dealing with anything not specifically listed. Art (and education and welfare and agriculture and many other things) are not among them. Trouble is that the leaders of the two major parties have agreed to run an illegal government, and we keep electing their candidates.
     
    #14 Pennsylvania Jim, Nov 27, 2001
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...