Woman Destroys Sacrilegious Painting of Christ

[walter]

She did the right thing but she also has to pay the price. God never said doing the right thing in His eyes would excempt us from man's laws.

I agree that if this was a muslim who had done this the call would be for tolerance of his/her beliefs. This woman didn't threaten to kill anyone, as many a muslim has over the same issue.

I thinks it's high time we as christians showed some backbone.

And as usual, Lance sees this act as one of bigotry. He completely ignores what provoked it.

 

[Theofilus]

I am not argueing that everything which is legal is just and everything which is illegal is unjust. However, you are argueing apples and oranges. The Founding Fathers rebelled because they were fighting for political and ideological freedom. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch proponent of liberal democracy. You are in fact argueing that it is noble to fight for the censorship of ideas and ideology.

I don't know if you realize it, but you just agreed with me. If you're still not understanding it, let me give you another, more modern example.

Even if we feel it should be higher, we should, as a general rule, drive within the speed limit. But what if a passenger is having a heart attack and you need to get him to the hospital as soon as possible? Most people would agree that, in those circumstances, it would be justifieable to go over the speed limit. That doesn't mean that the speed limit should be abolished and we should be allowed to drive at whatever speed we choose or that people should not be punished for violating traffic laws. And neither can special circumstances be used to justify driving over the speed limit all the time, but only in those specific cases.

Nobody is suggesting that treason should be legal, but certain circumstances, such as those that existed before the American revolution, can justify it. Nobody here is saying the speed limit should be abolished, but certain circumstances can justify breaking it. Nobody here is saying that destroying private property should be legal, but certain circumstances can justify it. The only thing people disagree on is whether this was such a case. I belive it was, but that doesn't mean that I condone the destruction of private property just because somebody doesn't like it. This was much more, in my opionion, than just not liking it.

And what if Christian fundamentalists constantly depicting homosexuals as evil and sinful is too much for me? Do I have the right to take violent action against you?

Now who's comparing apples and oranges? That lady didn't take violent action against anyone. She tore up a piece of paper.

 

[walter]

I don't know if you realize it, but you just agreed with me. If you're still not understanding it, let me give you another, more modern example.

Even if we feel it should be higher, we should, as a general rule, drive within the speed limit. But what if a passenger is having a heart attack and you need to get him to the hospital as soon as possible? Most people would agree that, in those circumstances, it would be justifieable to go over the speed limit. That doesn't mean that the speed limit should be abolished and we should be allowed to drive at whatever speed we choose or that people should not be punished for violating traffic laws. And neither can special circumstances be used to justify driving over the speed limit all the time, but only in those specific cases.

Nobody is suggesting that treason should be legal, but certain circumstances, such as those that existed before the American revolution, can justify it. Nobody here is saying the speed limit should be abolished, but certain circumstances can justify breaking it. Nobody here is saying that destroying private property should be legal, but certain circumstances can justify it. The only thing people disagree on is whether this was such a case. I belive it was, but that doesn't mean that I condone the destruction of private property just because somebody doesn't like it. This was much more, in my opionion, than just not liking it.



Now who's comparing apples and oranges? That lady didn't take violent action against anyone. She tore up a piece of paper.

The exibit might have been private property but it was being displayed in a venue that is tax-payer funded. This wasn't someone's private little art piece. This was being publicly displayed. If she had broken into his house she'd be dead wrong.

 

[Lewis]

She did the right thing but she also has to pay the price. God never said doing the right thing in His eyes would excempt us from man's laws.

I agree that if this was a muslim who had done this the call would be for tolerance of his/her beliefs. This woman didn't threaten to kill anyone, as many a muslim has over the same issue.

I thinks it's high time we as christians showed some backbone.

And as usual, Lance sees this act as one of bigotry. He completely ignores what provoked it.

Good post

 

[Lewis]

And to add to that it was against the law for people of color to marry a white in color sister, or to sit on the front of the bus, or to go to a white school, and when they resisted those laws, they were beaten or killed or thrown in jail. So what should we have done ? Continued to live that way, or break the laws and get out of it ? It was also against the law for us to read books or the Bible, should we have not broke those laws, and not read books ? I know, I was supposed to be backing out of this topic, but I just couldn't help it.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

The exibit might have been private property but it was being displayed in a venue that is tax-payer funded. This wasn't someone's private little art piece. This was being publicly displayed. If she had broken into his house she'd be dead wrong.

That is complete nonsense. The land is tax payed, not the art. The art is there on loan with the museum's promise that it will taken care of. The fact that it is Tax payed means anyone can make a statement.

The women attacked someone's opinion and destroyed it. I remember only a few weeks ago the board everyone was against the burning of the Koran. Now that its a painting its different.


I'm hearing this tax payed land thing, and how there were so many churches in the area, yet I'm also hear about how you are all oppressed.

You are demanding Respect for your savior, but none for the artists.


Nice hypocrisy. Though I don't actually see the problem, I'm supposedly a supporter of burning Children after all. As said by a Christian on this board.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

And to add to that it was against the law for people of color to marry a white in color sister, or to sit on the front of the bus, or to go to a white school, and when they resisted those laws, they were beaten or killed or thrown in jail. So what should we have done ? Continued to live that way, or break the laws and get out of it ? It was also against the law for us to read books or the Bible, should we have not broke those laws, and not read books ? I know, I was supposed to be backing out of this topic, but I just couldn't help it.

Big diference here.

The blacks where fighting for equal rights, this woman was fighting to silence the voice of decent and you are stating that you should break the law to make Christianity a superior Power in the united States.

Its also completely differen't because Christians are in an overwhelming majority in the united States and the only thing keeping this country from becoming a theocracy is the constitution.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Now who's comparing apples and oranges? That lady didn't take violent action against anyone. She tore up a piece of paper.

I did not mean that to be taken in a violent way, and I think you know I didn't mean that.

I don't know if you realize it, but you just agreed with me. If you're still not understanding it, let me give you another, more modern example.

Even if we feel it should be higher, we should, as a general rule, drive within the speed limit. But what if a passenger is having a heart attack and you need to get him to the hospital as soon as possible? Most people would agree that, in those circumstances, it would be justifieable to go over the speed limit. That doesn't mean that the speed limit should be abolished and we should be allowed to drive at whatever speed we choose or that people should not be punished for violating traffic laws. And neither can special circumstances be used to justify driving over the speed limit all the time, but only in those specific cases.

Nobody is suggesting that treason should be legal, but certain circumstances, such as those that existed before the American revolution, can justify it. Nobody here is saying the speed limit should be abolished, but certain circumstances can justify breaking it. Nobody here is saying that destroying private property should be legal, but certain circumstances can justify it. The only thing people disagree on is whether this was such a case. I belive it was, but that doesn't mean that I condone the destruction of private property just because somebody doesn't like it. This was much more, in my opionion, than just not liking it.

Kudos for completely ignoring what I just said. Let's try this again. You believe the destruction of private property is justified if you do not agree with its nonviolent message, because you are personally offend. Likewise, I am personally offended by about half of the Bible. By your logic, I should go around tearing up every Bible I come into contact with. In a civilised society, we respect the ability for nonviolent self-expression and freedom of thought. That many Christians do not respect this, if it offends their religious beliefs, frightens me.

 

[stovebolts]

Let's put this in perspective.

A part of the painting shows a man who appears to be Jesus Christ engaging in a sex act with a man.

That's pretty sick. Why on earth would somebody depict Jesus having sex with a man?

Supporters say it speaks about the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal.

Got it... right. What did I say earlier?

and then we’re upset when sombody looks at how ugly we are, and they make a piece of art in the image of Jesus that they see through us, and we retalieate like those Christ told us not to be like which only supports their distorted view to begin with

I wonder if this gal is Catholic?...

Wanna know what really, really makes me angry? When people who call themselves Christians molest little boys and then hide behind a church. Wake up people cause if the church don't get a grip on it's behavior and stop acting like the rest of the world acts, the art work isn't going to get any better.

BTW Lewis, Paul was in Prison because according to how those in Jewish authority interpreted Jewish law, Paul was a blasphemer punishable by death. What supported these charges? Because Paul believed Jesus to be the Son of God who was resurected from the dead.

Paul broke no laws, none, zilch, nada from a Jewish or Roman perspective. Check out the last two chapters of Acts for youself. Had he not pulled his Roman Citizen right to go before Cesar, he would have been let go with zero charges.

 

[handy]

It would be a big mistake if we start to demand that any and all museums and art exhibits that take tax money cannot exhibit any art that depicts Jesus in a negative light. Reason being it opens the door for the "separation of church and state" mentality that would demand that no religious art be displayed and how do you do that? Eliminate artists such as Michelangelo from the public arena? Don't for a second believe that some wouldn't advocate for the removal of all religious art if we start this fight. And, don't think for a second that there would be no way they could win it either.

That said, I don't think anyone is advocating that Christianity become a "super power" in this country or that America should become a theocracy. What the artist did was intended to be provokingly offensive, and surprise surprise, someone was so offended she was provoked into a rash act.

This sort of reminds me of the big bru-ha-ha over "homosexual Teletubbies", remember that one? The writers of the show were deliberately pushing the envelop by including subtle gay innuendos with the "Twinky" character ("Twinky" get it, wink, wink :bigfrown). Then, when a high profile Christian called them on it, oh, all was innocent, why Twinky didn't even have genitalia, how could there be "sexual orientation" with a sexless character. Yeah, we're supposed to be that stupid....

This artist is trying to hide behind "the voice of dissent" mantle, and saying that his art isn't blasphemous at all, no, it was a commentary on those evil child molesting priests. Yeah, no priests were depicted. There was one nun who was made up like a whore, Mohammad kneeling before pig-like women on a bed and Jesus engaged in oral sex. So, where exactly do the child molesting priests come into the picture? Oh, yeah, I'm that stupid, I obviously am too stupid to "understand" his art.

Let's stop pretending that things are somehow not what they are. The artist produced a vile piece of trash that was deliberately provoking to both Christians and Muslims. It's probably to his benefit he just had an angry Christian woman take a crowbar to the art work, rather than facing what some angry Muslims might have done instead. Chagoya should probably give Kurt Westergaard a call about what he could be facing if some of the Muslims catch onto the image of Mohammad in the work.

No, America doesn't need to be a theocracy, no we don't need to force museums to censor art, and no, Christians don't need to feel that we are above the law.

At the same time, the artist was seeking to provoke someone, and he did so. The woman should not have taken a crowbar to his work, but, if she gets convicted (and she should be, because she did break the law), I guess I will be sending a dollar her way to help pay the bills.

I wouldn't if the artwork depicted child molesting priests, or homophobic preaching/closet homosexual preachers, or gluttonous piggy Sunday School teachers who rail against strip clubs...but the artist did not depict any of that...he blasphemed my Lord. I don't agree at all what my sister in the Lord did. I think its right she was arrested, she needs to be tried, should be convicted (as there is plenty of evidence that she did exactly what she was arrested for) and should be fined. But, she is my sister in the Lord, and it was MY LORD that was blasphemed, not my fallen church brethren, and therefore, I'll stand behind her.

 

[Theofilus]

I did not mean that to be taken in a violent way, and I think you know I didn't mean that.

How else do you interpret the words "take violent action against you"? You were exagerating the situation and trying to compare tearing up a piece of paper to assaulting someone. There is no other way to interpret those words. Destroying property isn't taking violent action against a person.

Kudos for completely ignoring what I just said. Let's try this again. You believe the destruction of private property is justified if you do not agree with its nonviolent message, because you are personally offend.

I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth while completely ignoring what I actually said. Or did you maybe miss the part where I said: "...that doesn't mean that I condone the destruction of private property just because somebody doesn't like it. This was much more, in my opionion, than just not liking it"?

 

[LostSoul]

Thinks this discussion is turning into an all out bashing......

Let us please be done with the rudeness towards one another. Please...?

 

[Lewis]

Thinks this discussion is turning into an all out bashing......

Let us please be done with the rudeness towards one another. Please...?

Yeah I guess you are right let's tone it down some guy's that goes for me to, because I am no better than any one else.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

How else do you interpret the words "take violent action against you"? You were exagerating the situation and trying to compare tearing up a piece of paper to assaulting someone. There is no other way to interpret those words. Destroying property isn't taking violent action against a person.

I am sorry mate. I should have worded that better. The destruction of property, in my opinion, is violent. For example, if a cartel trashes a store that refuses to pay protection money, that is violent. I got confused because I forgot how I worded it. However, I am not comparing this woman's violent actions to violence against persons, themselves. If I made that assertion it was out of error on my part. In fact, the image I had in my head the whole time was trashing the altar, for some reason.

I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth while completely ignoring what I actually said. Or did you maybe miss the part where I said: "...that doesn't mean that I condone the destruction of private property just because somebody doesn't like it. This was much more, in my opionion, than just not liking it"?

How so? And remember, that the Christian faith is your opinion, just as my lack of faith is my opinion.

 

[Mike]

I agree. If the tension isn't toned down, we're going to have to lock this up. If you're addressing another member, respect the person!!

Let's make this a productive discussion.

 

[Theofilus]

I am sorry mate. I should have worded that better. The destruction of property, in my opinion, is violent. For example, if a cartel trashes a store that refuses to pay protection money, that is violent. I got confused because I forgot how I worded it. However, I am not comparing this woman's violent actions to violence against persons, themselves. If I made that assertion it was out of error on my part. In fact, the image I had in my head the whole time was trashing the altar, for some reason.

Applogy accepted. I agree that destruction of property can be violent. It was just your use of the words "against you" that caused the misunderstanding. I'm glad that's cleared up.

How so? And remember, that the Christian faith is your opinion, just as my lack of faith is my opinion.

Since you are not religious, it is hard for you to imagine how this affects us Christians. Try to imagine this hypothetical scenario: You walk into a museum to see the art on exhibit there. When you walk in, you see a pornographic picture hanging on the wall. This isn't "erotic" art, but hard-core pornography. It depicts the vilest adult (it's legal) sex acts you can imagine. You are deeply offended by the sight of it and by the fact that your tax dollars are being used to fund a museum that displays such filth. But then you notice something. The picture has been photoshopped, and the head of the woman in the picture is that of your own mother.

Wouldn't seeing such a picture offend you much more than someone telling you that you will go to Hell if you don't repent? People can say all kinds of things about Christians and offend them in many ways. Most of us can handle it most of the time. But when they put our Lord and God in a pornographic picture, they offend us more deeply than you can imagine. You see, we love Christ even more than we love our own mothers.

 

[Nick]

Some posts have been deleted. If this is not toned down then the topic will be locked and infractions given.

 

[Barley]

It's a difficult topic because the woman broke the law for the sake of justice. It reminds me of a time that as a child care provider I witnessed a parent emotionally/ verbally abuse a child. I wanted to "make it right". There was but so much I should've done versus what I could've done. I wanted to tell that parent off and not allow the child with the parent. I feel as though doing that wouldve been just and right. In reality I was supposed to report it and contain myself so that I didn't lose my job so that I may continue to be there for the children. Needless to say I chose the latter. Sometimes we have "radical" instincts and other times there are procedures that should be done so that things are done right.

I've never actually seen the exact painting but It's sickening to imagine what kind of person would display something like this. I can't say that I wouldn't have been tempted to be brave and destroy this piece of "art". I do know that it wouldn't ever serve any purpose for me to be locked up somewhere. I disagree with the actions of this woman.

 

[Oats]

It's a difficult topic because the woman broke the law for the sake of justice. It reminds me of a time that as a child care provider I witnessed a parent emotionally/ verbally abuse a child. I wanted to "make it right". There was but so much I should've done versus what I could've done. I wanted to tell that parent off and not allow the child with the parent. I feel as though doing that wouldve been just and right. In reality I was supposed to report it and contain myself so that I didn't lose my job so that I may continue to be there for the children. Needless to say I chose the latter. Sometimes we have "radical" instincts and other times there are procedures that should be done so that things are done right.

I've never actually seen the exact painting but It's sickening to imagine what kind of person would display something like this. I can't say that I wouldn't have been tempted to be brave and destroy this piece of "art". I do know that it wouldn't ever serve any purpose for me to be locked up somewhere. I disagree with the actions of this woman.

Great post...you changed my view on this...I still think her church should bail her out and gat hur loyar

 

[Jam]

I hope we are, most of us at least, agreed that this blasphemous "art" should have been destroyed, but I think we need to separate the woman's actions from the consequences of her actions.

The consequences of the woman's actions were good - the destruction of a blasphemous painting.

The actions of the woman were, however, not good - trespass and vandalism.

Now you may disagree with me on this, but I think that, like Immanuel Kant (I believe?), 'morality is not about consequences; it is about principle.' Regardless of how "right" it would seem to destroy the painting, we cannot justify the actions of the woman based upon their consequences. Trespass and vandalism are principally wrong, and are not made "right" because their use achieves something desirable.


Of course, my input is totally irrelevant if there is a Bible verse that commands us to destroy blasphemous objects? In that case, its destruction would be perfectly acceptable, I believe!