Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[sucker punch]

This is sad and pathetic. Its ****ing art. Grow up.

We really need to start respecting free speech.

[betsy]

This is sad and pathetic. Its ****ing art. Grow up.

We really need to start respecting free speech.

Well I do hope this free speech and free expression applies to all!

Right now, thanks to gay Sven Robinson....you can't say anything against gays!

I'd like to see some artist do this kind of artistic interpretation on gays....if only to see how the gays will handle that. They should be able to tolerate what they dish out.

I know one of their sore point is being associated with pedophilia and NAMBLA. As an artist, that would be my theme.

It could be as tasteless as posible....anyway, it should still be considered as art!

I hope I don't hear them shrieking about gay-bashing!

Edited August 27, 2007 by betsy

[CLRV]

This upsets you, does't it? Here's a little something to cheer you up. I'm sure you'll find it tasteful.

[jefferiah]

This upsets you, does't it? Here's a little something to cheer you up. I'm sure you'll find it tasteful.

I did not watch your video CLRV. I clicked on the link, and when I saw the name I declined. You are being irrelevant. What Betsy is talking about is the freedom to profess the belief that it is a sin. I do not condone the violence that was used at the art display. And I know that pointing the finger at Muslims for being worse has nothing to do with the topic. I do not condone violence or vicious name calling or ill-treatment toward homosexuals. Yet, I do believe it is a sin. But calling it that is becoming dangerous and expensive.

As for your video, judging by your tone in the short post which introduced it, I suspect that you care more about making your point than you actually do about gay people. You are using them. The "little something to cheer you up" says to me that this is more about being against Betsy and co. than it is about being for someone else.

Edited August 27, 2007 by jefferiah

[CLRV]

It took me exactly three seconds to find this artistic expression of disapproval towards homosexuality. I could find dozens more that are a lot more offensive, but I've made my point.

It is directly addressing Betsy's (and your) farcical claim that it has somehow become difficult to criticize gay people. It's a ridiculous and easily disproven whine and it deserved a response that, although somewhat irreverant from my p.o.v. (because no I don't take bigots seriously), nevertheless strikes directly at the heart of the issue. People can criticize fags all they want. Never mind singing a little ditty about God hating fags. Free speech means people can go to funerals and wave those filthy words in front of grieving parents and loved ones.

You would have seen the point if you'd taken the time to look. But you seem almost proud of the way you covered your eyes and ears. Any other groundless speculation about me and my motives you'd care to share?

[sucker punch]

Well I do hope this free speech and free expression applies to all!

Right now, thanks to gay Sven Robinson....you can't say anything against gays!

I'd like to see some artist do this kind of artistic interpretation on gays....if only to see how the gays will handle that. They should be able to tolerate what they dish out.

I know one of their sore point is being associated with pedophilia and NAMBLA. As an artist, that would be my theme.

It could be as tasteless as posible....anyway, it should still be considered as art!

I hope I don't hear them shrieking about gay-bashing!

Why not? They have every right to be upset and morally outraged. They don't have the right to be violent.

Stop being foolish.

[betsy]

It took me exactly three seconds to find this artistic expression of disapproval towards homosexuality. I could find dozens more that are a lot more offensive, but I've made my point.

No doubt I could easily find hundreds of sites online that deal with the whole gamut of bashing and mocking Christ. But since it's online, (and only if I search for such), the only way I can express my disapproval and outrage is through writing my opinion through their forum (if they do have it)...or by e-mail.

I wonder if anyone had tried to torch their computer as a reaction to what they deemed so offensive. All they could so is fume.

That's the beauty of the net.

I repeat what I've said before: I do not support violence. But not all people think or react as I do.

In this day and age of road rage and hot heads (just about anything could be the wrong button)...anyone putting up a public display of something that is obviously offensive to a particular group or to anyone....is sort of taking a risk these days. You never know what reaction you might get.

It is directly addressing Betsy's (and your) farcical claim that it has somehow become difficult to criticize gay people. It's a ridiculous and easily disproven whine and it deserved a response that, although somewhat irreverant from my p.o.v. (because no I don't take bigots seriously), nevertheless strikes directly at the heart of the issue. People can criticize fags all they want. Never mind singing a little ditty about God hating fags. Free speech means people can go to funerals and wave those filthy words in front of grieving parents and loved ones.

But I was not referring to criticisms. I am talking about free expression. The freedom to express an opinion...whether it be through art form or verbal. Saying that "gays are immoral" is one example of an opinion....anything could've prompted such an opinion about gays to be formed.

You make yourself a good example somehow. I expressed my opinion regarding this topic. That the way I expressed it you obviously found offensive. And here is your reaction. You are chafing. And you seem to be lashing out towards Jefferiah...short of getting personal.

Over what? A simple opinion about being able to stomach what one dishes out - being able to handle the dose of the same medicine.

What more if you are faced with giant posters showing exactly the possible art poses I'd only made up above?

Edited August 28, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Why not? They have every right to be upset and morally outraged. They don't have the right to be violent.

Stop being foolish.

And who said they do not have the right to be upset?

Here is what I said, which you highlighted: I hope I don't hear them shrieking about gay-bashing!

What's wrong about expressing a hope? Or a wish?

Now, who's being foolish?

Pay attention and understand before you castigate.....so it wouldn't be like you spitting in the wind.

Edited August 28, 2007 by betsy

[jefferiah]

I didn't watch the video because it takes time for me to download them on my slow internet. I get the idea that it is a gay bashing video and to me that is irrelevant. I don't need to watch a gay bashing video to know what you are saying. Here is the thing. In order for a charge to be made a Human Rights complaint must be filed. So of course not all examples are going to end up before a tribunal. But they can. And that is the danger.

Edited August 28, 2007 by jefferiah

[CLRV]

Actually, it's a nice video of Christian pop by this guy, a catchy little number called God Hates Fags. If she gives it a chance, I think betsy just might find herself humming it while doing her housework. I honest think she'd approve. You too.

Your chances of ending up before a Human Rights Tribunal are nil.

[jefferiah]

Actually, it's a nice video of Christian pop by this guy, a catchy little number called God Hates Fags. If she gives it a chance, I think betsy just might find herself humming it while doing her housework. I honest think she'd approve. You too.

Your chances of ending up before a Human Rights Tribunal are nil.

No, I honestly think she wouldn't. And nor would I.

A man was sued earlier this year for saying "I believe it is wrong". 1000 dollars. There was a thread here in the winter concerning the matter. He settled out of court though. But he was asked his views in an interview and he basically said "I think they should be treated like anyone else, but I am a Catholic and I believe it is not natural." He was a city counsellor in Kamloops I think. Di Cicco...something like that. Alberta Pastor Stephen Boission has had a case pending for a quite a few years now concerning a letter he wrote to a small town newspaper complaining about his tax money funding gay groups and teaching it in schools to young children. He is being sued for 5000 by a non-homosexual man who was offended. He is requiring that some of the money be sent to gay rights groups, as well.

[betsy]

Actually, it's a nice video of Christian pop by this guy, a catchy little number called God Hates Fags. If she gives it a chance, I think betsy just might find herself humming it while doing her housework. I honest think she'd approve. You too.

Your chances of ending up before a Human Rights Tribunal are nil.

Wow, the way you're really taking this discussion, it seems to have gotten down to a level that is becoming personal.

Did I step on a nerve? Are you gay by any chance?

I'm just curious...because your response seems to be driven more by emotion rather than reason. Perhaps re-reading the whole flow of duscussion will help you understand where I'm coming from.

Edited August 28, 2007 by betsy

[sucker punch]

And who said they do not have the right to be upset?

Here is what I said, which you highlighted: I hope I don't hear them shrieking about gay-bashing!

What's wrong about expressing a hope? Or a wish?

Now, who's being foolish?

Pay attention and understand before you castigate.....so it wouldn't be like you spitting in the wind.

Oh please. Now you're just being ridiculous. We both know exactly what you meant by that post.

And if you want to talk semantics, I never told you to stop expressing a hope or a wish, I told you to stop being foolish. Not that you don't have the right to be foolish if you want to. And it seems you're exercising that right.

[betsy]

Oh please. Now you're just being ridiculous. We both know exactly what you meant by that post.

I don't want to assume that we're both on the right page. I know I am.

So explain to me what exactly do you think we both know what I mean by that post.

And if you want to talk semantics, I never told you to stop expressing a hope or a wish, I told you to stop being foolish. Not that you don't have the right to be foolish if you want to. And it seems you're exercising that right.

Semantics! Well, if a word changed the whole meaning and has an important bearing on a statement...why shouldn't I point it out?

Your logic suggests that the statement "I hope they don't talk to me" is the same as saying "They shouldn't talk to me."

I only pointed out the difference.

You know that you've made a negligent mistake with your comment...a comment that backfired on you. I may find a little humor in it, but I don't think there's any shame about it, after all everyone makes a mistake once in a while.

HOWEVER...(and this is a very big HOWEVER).... instead of just shrugging your shoulders and move on, you try to wiggle-waggle out of it and still stubbornly insists to cling to your same foolish and very-obviously flawed interpretation.

Now, that's not only funny. That's also being ridiculous!

Edited August 28, 2007 by betsy

[sucker punch]

I don't want to assume that we're both on the right page. I know I am.

So explain to me what exactly do you think we both know what I mean by that post.

Semantics! Well, if a word changed the whole meaning and has an important bearing on a statement...why shouldn't I point it out?

Your logic suggests that the statement "I hope they don't talk to me" is the same as saying "They shouldn't talk to me."

I only pointed out the difference.

Is English your second language, sweetheart? If so, then I apologize. If not, I'm stunned at your ability to be literate and yet have such a flimsy grasp on sarcasm, implications and sub-text.

Your clever combination of being condescending and pretending to be ignorant is fascinating though.

[betsy]

Is English your second language, sweetheart? If so, then I apologize. If not, I'm stunned at your ability to be literate and yet have such a flimsy grasp on sarcasm, implications and sub-text.

Your clever combination of being condescending and pretending to be ignorant is fascinating though.

Blah-blah-blah...and a whole kaboodle of more blah. It's the side-stepping circular mumbo-jumbo!

Conveniently ignoring to answer this:

So explain to me what exactly do you think we both know what I mean by that post.

Translation: you can't explain what you mean.

Anyway, whatever.

Edited August 28, 2007 by betsy

[jbg]

Is English your second language, sweetheart? If so, then I apologize. If not, I'm stunned at your ability to be literate and yet have such a flimsy grasp on sarcasm, implications and sub-text.

Betsy is fine as a poster. But isn't the native language there Canadian?

[jennie]

Betsy is fine as a poster. But isn't the native language there Canadian?

I am beginning to think the native language here is s.l.u.r. ...

second language slur ... gay slur ... ?

If Christ was or wasn't gay or was even sexual ... is nobody's business anyway, in my mind. That's the law, I believe.

Gay is not criminal. And if I, a woman, want to celebrate a female earth goddess more that the male biblical one, it's my choice. If someone wants to celebrate a gay Christ ... I don't see how it is a tribute to Christ to burn it.

Not that I see Christ as a religious figure, just a courageous person.

And 'gay' is not a slur but a simple fact of life for some.

The s.l.u.r. is in assuming that it IS an insult to say someone is gay.

So ... if you call me "old" and I am an elder, I might take it as simple recognition.

If you sneer when you call me old, making 'old' a derogatory thing ... I might friggen paste ya!

(Am I being too vague?)

I have also acquired by family some Japanese Shinto gods, of which there are many ... many ... many ... all giving thanks for various blessings. My fav is God of the toilet. It is light hearted, but sincere ... thankfulness for the blessings of elimination. (ok so this may be age dependent humour ... )

Notice ... I have NOT spoken about pedophiles but I must now, for that is heinously criminal. Pedophiles are NOT homosexual ... they are opportunistic sexual predators who would violate a 100 year old man or a 3 year old girl, whatever opportunity exists or they can create.

[Argus]

This is sad and pathetic. Its ****ing art. Grow up.

We really need to start respecting free speech.

Free speech includes the right to express ones irritation and indignation at so-called artists who try to shock in order to mask their complete lack of talent.

[Argus]

It took me exactly three seconds to find this artistic expression of disapproval towards homosexuality. I could find dozens more that are a lot more offensive, but I've made my point.

It is directly addressing Betsy's (and your) farcical claim that it has somehow become difficult to criticize gay people. It's a ridiculous and easily disproven whine and it deserved a response that, although somewhat irreverant from my p.o.v. (because no I don't take bigots seriously), nevertheless strikes directly at the heart of the issue. People can criticize fags all they want.

There is still freedom of speech, despit the best efforts of the politically correct. However, you will not see much in the way of criticism of gays or gay cultures in the mainstream media, and certainly not among our clique of so-called artists. You will, however, see a lot of mockery and disdain openly expressed towards Christianity from every quarter (though oddly the same quarters will normally be aghast at any criticism of any other religion).

[Argus]

Is English your second language, sweetheart? If so, then I apologize. If not, I'm stunned at your ability to be literate and yet have such a flimsy grasp on sarcasm, implications and sub-text.

Your clever combination of being condescending and pretending to be ignorant is fascinating though.

Apparently no pretense is required on your part.

[betsy]

I am beginning to think the native language here is s.l.u.r. ...

second language slur ... gay slur ... ?

If Christ was or wasn't gay or was even sexual ... is nobody's business anyway, in my mind. That's the law, I believe.

Gay is not criminal. And if I, a woman, want to celebrate a female earth goddess more that the male biblical one, it's my choice. If someone wants to celebrate a gay Christ ... I don't see how it is a tribute to Christ to burn it.

Not that I see Christ as a religious figure, just a courageous person.

And 'gay' is not a slur but a simple fact of life for some.

The s.l.u.r. is in assuming that it IS an insult to say someone is gay.

I am not following you. Where was the "assumed insult" to say someone is gay?

Notice ... I have NOT spoken about pedophiles but I must now, for that is heinously criminal. Pedophiles are NOT homosexual ...

There are heterosexual pedophiles as well.

However, there is a different term used for those male sexual predators who target boys ages ranging from 12 to 14. I can't recall what it is....but then, that definition can be argued. It would make another good topic though.

they are opportunistic sexual predators who would violate a 100 year old man

I don't know if the predator who'd violate an elderly is called a pedophile.

[jennie]

I am not following you. Where was the "assumed insult" to say someone is gay?

Here, for example ... "just how hateful that art display was" ... It is not an insult to say someone is gay if it is the truth, and said respectfully.

So why is a gay Christ a "hateful display"?

It is considered a hateful display because someone thinks it IS an insult to say Christ may have been gay.

"Gay' is only an insult if it is used or perceived as such.

There are heterosexual pedophiles as well.

However, there is a different term used for those male sexual predators who target boys ages ranging from 12 to 14. I can't recall what it is....but then, that definition can be argued. It would make another good topic though.

I don't know if the predator who'd violate an elderly is called a pedophile.

I repeat: So-called 'pedophiles' are not homosexual or heterosexual ... they are omni-sexual if you like ... they will molest anyone who is vulnerable and available to them. They are simply sexual predators who prey on easy prey ... children, regardless of gender, or they will also assault vulnerable adults such as the developmentally challenged, aged or infirm, or probably a passed out sophomore on a beach too!

Being a sexual predator has absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality, as so many posters here have implied.

Those allegations are false and defamatory and disgusting and do not belong in intelligent civil discourse.

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

[sucker punch]

Free speech includes the right to express ones irritation and indignation at so-called artists who try to shock in order to mask their complete lack of talent.

Absolutely. And I would fight for your right to express your feelings about said art, whether it be positive or negative, whether I agree with you or not.

What I have a problem with, in this case, is the alleged violence that took place.

As an example of my views, let's take the Westboro Baptist Church. You know, the people who picket soldier's funerals with signs that say things like "God Hates Fags." I think they're the scum of the Earth, and hate who they are and what they stand for. But I would never stop them from making their opinions heard. Control where they protest perhaps, so they're not taunting the family of the deceased, but it is their right to do what they're doing. As much as I despise them, I would go to bat to protect their right to free speech as well.

[Rue]

Installing the Taliban to fight the Russians for us?

Installing Saddam to fight Iran for us?

Maintaining the tyrranical rule of the House of Saud lo these many years?

Any of this ring a bell?

Alright lets deal with your misrepresentations.

1. The Taliban or Mujahadeen or Fedayeen whatever you want to call them alreay existed. They were not installed. What the CIA did was to supply them with guns and train them how to shoot at those Russian helicopters with shoulder mounted missiles.

2. Saddam was not installed by the CIA. He was in fact installed if you must use that word by his own Bath Party. He killed his way to the top of the Bath Party and became its leader and then was funded in a war against Iran. He was given weapons to fight Iran by the CIA.

3. The U.S. does not maintain the House of Saudis as you refer to it. That family, the descendants of Faisal may be kept in power partially through the support of the US, Britain, and many other countries who depend on them for oil, but the existence of this Riyal family and the one in Jordan which is related to it, could not have come about without it first existing.

Tyrants aren't magically installed like wind up toys. These figures rise to the top on their own, usually through ruthless internal power plays as military leaders kill their own people to get to the top.

It is only when they seize power, the U.S. and for that matter every other nation in the world then decides whether to deal with them.

It is the height of ignorance to think the U.S. or any other Western nation has the ability to infiltrate Muslim socieities and tell people who to install. What the U.S. and other countries can do however is bribe leaders, or fund them with weapons, or control their economies through the international markets or even black-mail them with sex, etc., but its a hell of a lot more complex then "installing" people.

Coruption, tyranny, ruthless cold blooded totalitarian dictators may be bribed and temporarily controlled and exploited by the West or Russia or China, etc., but these tyrants come to power because of their own actions and no their day to day internal activities are not controlled. The countries that ally with them and allegedly "prop" them up do not interfere with what they do as long as such countries get what they need, i.e., natural resources, oil.

There is a limit to how much you can blame on external alliances or "colonialists". The fact is tyrants still have moral culpability for what they do to their own people.

The failure in the Muslim world to engage in democracy is not simply caused by the West simply because our oil corporations bribe corupt leaders.

It also flows from the lack of freedom of speech, the use of secret political police to torture and kill, and corput brutal leaders born in societites where the majority of people still do not read or write and are easily controlled by Mullahs and Muftis who get into bed in power relationmships with the governments of their own countries.

You want to point fingers-start by looking at the role of the Muslim clergy in Muslim countries and their relation to governments. They are no different today then the role say the Catholic Church played with monarchies and governments in Europe in the recent past and still do in Latin America, and the poorer underdeveloped parts of Europe.

You think these tyrants who take the money and weapons are complete puppets? If they are such mindless puppets and do whatever they are told why is it the US has to arrest Noriega and hide him...could not kill Ghaddafi, can't control the government in Iraq, and has no direct control over Mubarak or the Saudis?

If the US was such a puppet master why is there any terrorism anywhere? Why hasn't its puppet leaders simply wiped out terrorists?

Does anyone think the Saudis do what the Americans want when it comes to stopping terrorism? Does anyone think Mubarak doesn't use the US as much as the US tries to benefit from his alliance?

Iis it a simple MAster/Victim relationship between Western countries and powerless Middle East countries when Tony Blair goes running to Libya to suck on Ghaddafi's shoes?

The coruption and exploitation is far more complex then good v.s. bad, evil colonial west v.s. innocent exploited east.

You think the British told Robert Mugabe to infect himself with third stage syphilis of the brain and destroy Zimbabwe?

Mr. Mugabe was the darling of the West for years because he was suitable to the same tredy leftists who now stay silent as he mass murders his people.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Rue