Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[betsy]

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.

Well it depends on how the art display was intended. In this case, I'd say it was intended more as an insult not only to Christians but also to Christ.

Speaking of respect....does art showing Christ kissing a Hindu god showing respect for their God (if it is to be believed these gay organizers truly think of Christ as their God)?

And what is this faggot crucifixion? What does the Crucifixion means among Christians? Isn't faggot an insulting name for gays?

The organizers wanted to be controversial I guess. This display was spurred by activism...plain and simple.

Along the same level as the so-called art of the urinated Christ.

And speaking of respect....respect begets respect! This display was a sneer towards Christianity.

And yes I do not condone violence...nevertheless I, and anyone who'd like to criticize this display, to give our review of this so-called art....or to sneer back.... have absolutely the right to do so. We do not have to be respectful about it either.

So yes, to some of us, it is a hateful display!

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.

Not all sexual predators have anything to do with homosexuality....but I wouldn't go as far as to claim that there are no homosexual predators....or that ALL sexual predators have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

The subject may not be to everyone's liking....but being as painful and disgusting as it is, yes it definitely belongs in an intelligent and mature discussion....with the hope that it remains civil.

Edited September 4, 2007 by betsy

[jennie]

This display was a sneer towards Christianity.

... So yes, to some of us, it is a hateful display!

Because to you "Gay" is an insult ... (is that right?)

It might not be seen that way by everyone.

[betsy]

Because to you "Gay" is an insult ... (is that right?)

No.

Although that's the way you want to see it. It is the old typical liberal ploy of using the "bigot card"...in an indirect way.

It might not be seen that way by everyone.

Obviously.

Btw, are you saying calling a gay a faggot is not an insult?

Edited September 4, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Because to you "Gay" is an insult ... (is that right?)

It might not be seen that way by everyone.

Don't forget, we're talking about a so-called art display that was opened to public scrutiny and interpretation.

Just think of this like a movie. Of course there'll be different reviews and critiques about it.

That to some of us it's gotten the tomato rating...not because it was a gay group that organized it....but because of the way it was made and presented. Perhaps some of us would say otherwise if the presentation of their message (that Christ belongs to everyone), was done differently.

So, those who saw and hated the movie Brokeback Mountain because it was such a long and boring movie....you think they found it boring and hated it just because it was about the love affair of 2 gays? That's the sum of what you're saying here.

Edited September 4, 2007 by betsy

[Moxie]

Alright lets deal with your misrepresentations.

1Tyrants 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.

Wow Rue well stated, I agree with your assessment and your clarity. I highlighted my favorite parts. Nicely written.

[jennie]

No.

Although that's the way you want to see it. It is the old typical liberal ploy of using the "bigot card"...in an indirect way.

Obviously.

Btw, are you saying calling a gay a faggot is not an insult?

No one would ever mistake me for a "typical liberal", believe me!

I am not trying to play a bigot card. I am trying to understand the extreme reaction to this. My apologies if I seem insensitive. Not my intent. I will stop now because I do not like where you are going.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[betsy]

No one would ever mistake me for a "typical liberal", believe me!

I am not trying to play a bigot card. I am trying to understand the extreme reaction to this. My apologies if I seem insensitive. Not my intent. I will stop now because I do not like where you are going.

But what "extreme reaction?" If you're talking about the violent scuffle....yes you may say that reaction was extreme. But again, those who were involved were said to be "youth". We see strange extreme reactions perpetuated not only by youths, but by adults as well during Hockey or Football seasons....the rampage and vandalisms on the streets whether to celebrate a victory...or to mourn their loss.

But I do find some reactions on this thread from those who supports gay rights to be on the extreme side.

It only demonstrates what some of us mean that one cannot give an open opinion without being insulted, or personally attacked, or pegged or implied to be a bigot....or gay-hater. In other words, you can't say boo. Gays must belong to the most-protected rare species.

Isn't that something?

[Melanie_]

Are you condoning the "violent scuffle"? Excusing it because it was "youth"? I wonder if you would excuse someone else contravening the Young Offenders Act so easily (yes, I know the original post dealt with an incident in Sweden, but the spirit of condemnation or acceptance can be extended to Canada). The actions of sports hooligans doesn't mean that religious hooligans are exempt from criticism.

I don't see the support of gay rights in this context to be extreme. Freedom of expression is an inherent right in our society. It is the actions of the gay bashers that are in question here.

[betsy]

Are you condoning the "violent scuffle"? Excusing it because it was "youth"? I wonder if you would excuse someone else contravening the Young Offenders Act so easily (yes, I know the original post dealt with an incident in Sweden, but the spirit of condemnation or acceptance can be extended to Canada). The actions of sports hooligans doesn't mean that religious hooligans are exempt from criticism.

I suggest a re-read of all my posts so as you wouldn't confuse my statements as a "support for the violent scuffle."

Jennie is criticizing what she percieves as an extreme reaction from some of the posters on this thread. The only extreme reaction I could cite would be that of the scuffle. But then again, aren't some of the pro-gay rights reactions to this thread quite extreme for reacting to the said scuffle....when scuffles such as this is quite common all over the world over the results of game sports?

And to think that youths were involved in this gay scuffle - not that it is an excuse - but that again in comparison to some gaming shenanigans where-in adults usually are involved, this bleating about this gay fiasco obviously is the very example of an EXTREME REACTION, not to mention the way one or two gay-supporters had easily resorted to personal insults and personal slurs to those who did not agree with their views. Do we make a big deal of sports-related violence?

AS for the Youth Offenders Act, I would heartily support incarceration in a boot camp for those juvenile delinquents! I'd be one of the last persons you'd think of being lenient to youth crimes! I'm one of those "extremes" who'd say discipline begins in infancy!

Poverty or Broken Homes are not an excuse in my book, unlike what a lot of bleeding hearts would want you to believe.

It is the actions of the gay bashers that are in question here.

In what way? Just claiming it is so does not make it so. Can you cite a specific example....perhaps I've missed something here.

Edited September 9, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Freedom of expression is an inherent right in our society.

And this freedom of expression should be for EVERYONE!

Hence I said that the gay activists who practiced their freedom of expression (that they know would be offensive to Christians) should be able to stomach the kind of offense they dish out. That they should be able to take the same dose of the same medicine.

Let me illustrate an example.

How about an art show organized by Christians Activists responding to social changes and situations that are also threatening the foundation of their religious beliefs. Let us do a REVERSE PORTRAYAL Of The Gay Art Display.

Come to think of it....could Lucifer himself be gay?

It's odd how Webster refers to him as "the planet Venus when it is the morning star", and how he is characterized by beauty and vanity. And yet he is referred to as a he.

Anyway...

Let's say in this Christian art show certain artistic expressions depict the theme of: LUCIFER'S LACKEYS

You know like those servants doing their big boss' dirty jobs for him.

As the Christians know, Lucifer is a master deciever and he has those decieved to actually work for him.

Art could show how gays are decieved and used by Lucifer into this.

Instead of humbly bowing to God's Will....this "fight" to challenge the teachings of Christ and fight for changes that causes upheaval and divisions among Christ's flocks can be artistically be interpreted as being spurred by arrogance and vanity (the classical depiction of Lucifer).

The way the Churches are being besieged, harassed and tormented for changes....and the way the Churches had been soiled, maligned and demonized (what an apt word) due to all the molestations of children and minors....the Church of Christ being dismantled brick by brick!

How about a float on a gay pride parade with gays portrayed as seductive sirens beckoning to society...except that they symbolize the devil luring you to damnation.

Unwittingly becoming the mass recruiter for the beast. Or being the new-age Faust.

These make for relevant religious depictions in the name of art and freedom of expressions!

The question is: how will the gay activists react to this? How will the liberal society respond to this art gallery?

I'm sure there'll be an outrage and this gallery will be closed down, and all the organizers will be facing charges of hate crimes.

Edited September 9, 2007 by betsy

[moderateamericain]

like all things of this nature, it only gains noteriety if you pay attention to it. For the record. In several places in the bible it condemns homosexuality. I will never look down on someone for being homosexual because that is between them and god. Just like this artist will have to answer to Jesus for her "view". I wouldnt wanna be in her shoes. Besides I am definetly not a moral compass.

Edited September 12, 2007 by moderateamericain

[moderateamericain]

deleted for accidental double post.

Edited September 12, 2007 by moderateamericain