Will Obama and Hillary condemn the Piss Christ exhibit?

Your threads fkucing suck

 

Is there a foreign policy issue caused by an 1987 artwork?

For what it is worth, a number of political figueres, including two GOP Senators, did condemn it and the artist also received death threats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Are you gonna keep on making inane threads about Obama's opinion on a bunch of stuff? "Why hasn't Obama condemned 'Busty Schoolgirl Gang Bang 36'?"
"Why Hillary no condemn video of masturbating guy on chat roulette?"
"Will Obama condemn Kanye for dating Kim?"

 

Probably because the cinematography, character development, and subtext were FAR superior to Busty Schoolgirl Gang Bang 35. Though the score was sorely lacking. Effing Danny Elfman...

 

Has any Christian religiious group offered a $100,000 reward for killing the artist? Ahhhh, that's right. They are Christians -- not backward barbarians like those of another religion we all know.

 

“There’s nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects"

Who said that?

 

Per Wikipedia:

The piece caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, part of it from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy.[9] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[10][11] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[12] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[12]



Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[13][dead link]
During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[14] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[10]

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[15][16] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

 

What year is it?

 

The exhibit had nothing to say about what kind of man Jesus was or really anything about the Christian belief system. Maybe if the current controversy was over a painting of Mohammed made with feces instead of a total tarnishing of his character, this would be a more apt comparison.

 

Are they going to? ARE YOU?!

 

Will the current Republican nominee ever condemn gwayneco's nasty habit of inhaling his own farts?

 

Open an account here http://answers.yahoo.com/ and stay there.

 

So only if there are riots and murders because of some free speech in your own country, your government should condemn that free speech?

In your "logic", the government's reaction should be based on how violent the reaction to the speech is. The more violent, the more one should pander to them.

Interesting.

 

Will your threads one day make sense?

 

Obama and Hillary won't condemn it because they're hypocrites like most liberals.

 

This information is per "Wikipedia." Still, no organized Christian religion put a homicidal bounty on the head of the artist.

 

No organized Islamic religion put a bounty on the maker of the Mohammed film, one guy in Pakistan did. He is a government minister representing a small regional party in the governing coalition but the Pakistani government quickly condemned this guy's bounty.

You are confusing this with the fatwa issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran on Salman Rushdie.


And if you are saying Wikipedia is wrong about Serrano getting death threats, can you cite some sources that said so? Maybe nobody put a monetary value on his death, but a death threat from unorganized Christians is still scary.

People who call themselves Christians, and Christian churches have not stop committing violence in the name of religion, or using it as an excuse, for that long.

Yes, contemporary Middle East has been particularly harsh and violent religious attitudes but let's keep it in perspective.

 

Not necessarily. If the riots/murders are due to people thinking that our government supports the message contained within that free speech or that the views are widely accepted by the US population, then I think its definitely appropriate for government officials to make it clear that this is not the case. Not doing so will only serve to validate their wrong impressions.

This isn't pandering. Its defending the image of our country against all those opportunist politicians and clerics that are trying to rile up the "rabble".

 

The govt. did not condemn the free speech. They condemned the hateful, bigoted movie. They have not outlawed making movies like that.