http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RELIGION June 29, 2005 To put the Supreme Court's recent ban on the Ten Commandments display in perspective, here is a small sampling of other speech that has been funded in whole or in part by taxpayers: — Graphic videos demonstrating how to put a condom on and pep talks by "Planned Parenthood educators." — sex education classes at public schools across the nation — Korans distributed to aspiring terrorists at Guantanamo. — U.S. military — "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers (than the attack of 9/11), I'd really be interested in hearing about it." — Ward Churchill, professor, University of Colorado — We need "a million more Mogadishus" (referring to the slaughter of 18 American soldiers during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia in 1993). — Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor, Columbia University — "The entire federal government — the Congress, the executive, the courts — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. ... If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture ..." — Bill Moyers' commentary on PBS' "Now" — "Kiss it." — governor of Arkansas to state employee — "For most Americans ... (war with Japan) was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism. ... Some have argued that the United States would never have dropped the bomb on the Germans, because Americans were more reluctant to bomb 'white people' than Asians." — Smithsonian exhibit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VJ Day, later modified due to protests — "Anglos consolidated their control of New Mexico, acquiring huge holdings from the original owners through fraud and manipulation." — Smithsonian exhibit — "Ignored were the less honorable aspects of California history — the profiteering, revolts against Mexican authority and Indian massacres." — Smithsonian exhibit, comment on the painting "The Promised Land — The Grayson Family" — "This predominance of negative and violent views was a manifestation of Indian hating, a largely manufactured, calculated reversal of the basic facts of white encroachment and deceit." — Smithsonian exhibit — "In the Americas, sugar meant slavery." — Smithsonian exhibit — Close-up photos of women's vaginas plastered all over a portrait of the Virgin Mary (which The New York Times will still not mention when it describes the "art"). — Brooklyn Museum of Art — A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled "Jesus Sucks." — NEA-funded performance — A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex. — NEA-funded performance — "F—- a Fetus" poster showing an unborn baby with the caption: "For all you folks who consider a fetus more valuable than a woman, have a fetus cook for you, have a fetus affair, go to a fetus' house to ease your sexual frustration." — NEA-funded performance — Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators. — NEA-funded performance — A novel depicting the sexual molestation of a group of 10 children in a pedophile's garage, including acts of bestiality, with the children commenting on how much they enjoyed the pedophilia. — NEA-funded publisher — Christ submerged in a jar of urine. — NEA-funded exhibit — A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight. — NEA-funded performance — A performance of large, sexually explicit props covered with Bibles performing a wide variety of sex acts and concluding with a mass Bible-burning. — NEA-funded performance (canceled by the venue in response to citizen protests) — A show titled "DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D" featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby. — NEA-funded exhibit — A play titled "Sincerity Forever," depicting Christ using obscenities and endorsing any and all types of sexual activities as consistent with Biblical teaching. — NEA-funded exhibit — Essay describing then-New York Cardinal John O'Connor as a "fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue." Also photographs of men performing oral sex, anal sex, oral-anal sex and masturbation. — NEA-funded exhibit That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to subsidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive! I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times. Now the Supreme Court is itching to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its offensive reference to one nation "under God." (Perhaps that "God" stuff could be replaced with a vulgar sexual reference.) But with the court looking like a geriatric ward these days, they don't want to alarm Americans right before a battle over the next Supreme Court nominee. Be alarmed. This is what it's about. COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Another ludicrous article by a racist loon. The natio was not formed by a compact with God. The supreme court is in now way 'itching to ban the pledge of allegiance'. Her last line is telling people to be afraid based only on her inaccurate statements earlier. As far as every single thing she mentioned that is funded by the govt. I am very happy about that. The more the govt. gives the money to the artists, and let's them make whatever they decide, the better the art will be. Every great civilization was known in a large part for their art. Abortion and teen pregnancy were down under the Clinton administration precisely because of sex education efforts. Handing out religious texts to prisoners is not a problem. Why does she act like it is? The article I read about Dengerate with a capital D said it represents the fetus not that is the actual remains. I would be willing to be bet the article I read is correct, and Coulter lied. Furthermore if people don't want to see the art exhibits, or plays, they don't have to. The Ten Commandments issue is because it is placed on govt. property or public proberty. These plays and art exhibits are not. Furthermore she thinks something is wrong because of a historical California exhibit in the Smithsonian? I'm glad to see she's leading the charge against the messenger telling the truth rather than the bad deeds themselves. And of course my favorite is that Ann Coulter is scared of a satanic bunny? LOL
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC126.HTM ...Even Art Has Its Limits ... During the intense debate surrounding Congressional funding of the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) in 1990, a parade of artists testified that there must never be any limits placed upon their freedom of expression. In other words, "art" that is shackled or limited in any way is really not art at all. However, this is not true. Art, like every other form of expression, does have its limits and these limits are imposed with an iron fist, not by the legendary "Baptist Bluenose Brigade," but by the Neoliberal artists themselves! Take for example the use of fetal remains in artwork. Several artists during the time period 1985 to 1990 "created" earrings and other forms of adornment that featured small preborn babies encased in plastic or plexiglass. These "works" were widely praised by art critics. In 1989, the "Degenerate Art Show" received a symbolic $500 NEA subgrant from "Artist Space." This show featured Shawn Eichman's "Alchemy Cabinet," which displayed <b>her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby</b> next to the obligatory twisted wire coat hanger.[10] Eichman proudly described her 'work' as "Degenerate with a capital 'D,'" and it was displayed at New York City's Black and White in Color gallery at a show entitled "The Helms Degenerate Art Show/Protest." These displays were defended by the Art Establishment because all of the artists were pro-abortion and were transmitting a Neoliberal message.
I do agree that she could have chosen a better noun than "compact"-- since neither God nor Man actually signed the Bible... ... and "itching" to ban the Pledge is a little colloquial to be taken literally. You cannot deny that the Pledge has been and is being targeted for restrictions on its expression and use. What's next?
They are funny when they are posed as factual news, but instead aren't especially when they try and warn people about Satanic Bunnies. It is also funny that she is upset because $500 is given by the NEA grants. I will say that the ...capital D show is not the one I read the article about, so Coulter may be right about the content on that one, and I was wrong. Thanks for posting the other article about it. I will be hoping that until Rockets season starts that we can all shield young Americans eyes from satanic bunnies.
It's the principle. As a highly-principled individual, I'm sure you understand that. Why is it that anything goes except something which is foundational to the shaping of our great nation? Satanic Bunnies -- good name for un up-and-coming band I suppose!
Some people are, but where do you get the idea that the Supreme Court is itching or even remotely interested in doing that?
I don't think it is all that accurate an assertion by Coulter, but I don't think it's a lie. How about hyperbole?
In general, the best way to learn about art is through Chrisitan websites, right giddy? If you actually knew anything about any of this it would be much worse, I suppose. Easier to leave the light off.
Thanks for your usual dismissive contribution... What exactly do I not know "anything" about? The art? The politics? All of it?
Sure, just about all: How the NEA works - it almost never gives money directly into anything. It generally goes to supporting funds or awards that go to institutions. The Whole "Pissed Christ" thing, for example. Not only did people misunderstand the idea behind it (it was not anti-religion as Serrano is a Catholic) but they latched on to "he got NEA funding" without realizing that he won a grant from a museum that had received aid from the NEA. Not for the grant, but for general budgetary stuff. The specific "Degenerate" show on which this thread has focused was a protest to the Helms crusade to abolish the NEA (and NEH) in response to Mapplethorpe (when a gallery director got arrested for peddling smut), Serrano, et al, and for his calling the work profane, smut and degenerate. Degenerate, by the way, has a huge context in art because it was the name of an exhibition in Germany that Hitler arranged - to show the evils of modern "Jewish" art. It has since become one of the most important exhibitions in history not only for political reasons but also because it was a gathering of such talent, many of the great early masters of the 20th century. Poor Hitler. So, yeah, those artists were intentionally being offensive as a form of public protest, just as other groups have done. Further, they were apropriating imagery used by pro-lifers (during their public protests) for ironic effect. And, of course, the show was not directly funded by the NEA. Anyway, just one example and not very important. As you saw in your google search, the only people still talking about it are Christian website bloggers.
you are not an idiot. however, rimbaud is correct in challenging your learnedness in regards to art with a capital a. personally, i don't think you are any more aware of what i'm saying than he is. what?
So all this is okay because it is a degree or two of separation from a direct grant and because it is intended as irony or protest?
