Liberal police force ignores blasphemy; Christian sues
57 comments
This isn't blasphemy, DevNull, it's just plain bad taste. Statues with erections are considered pornographic and should not be displayed in public, regardless of who is sporting the erection.
Also, Conservapedia strikes me as a Poe.
[Well, not quite alone, as we suspect all Christians and people with any decency at all will support her.]
So...they're admitting that there are decent people who aren't Christians? :)
Get over yourselves, politically correct whiners!
Oh, wait. You say that to us, but we don't get to return the favor.
@ The L - "This isn't blasphemy, DevNull, it's just plain bad taste. Statues with erections are considered pornographic and should not be displayed in public, regardless of who is sporting the erection. "
How is it bad taste to show an erection? What's wrong with erections? The only reason penises, breasts and/or vaginas are considered poor taste and/or blasphemy is because of the Abrahamic religions saying that sex is evil. Personally I see nothing wrong with a statue of an erect penis. Perhaps if there is more art like that then people will become more accepting of the human body. Just my two cents.
Sisyphus: Are you the same Sisyphus that ran the hilarious Poe known as B4B? I salute you, sir! You even had me fooled!
There is a difference between nudity in art, and erections in art. Erections are generally considered pornographic. Public display of pornography is banned in most civilized countries.
There's a difference between something offending a small fringe group, and something offending the majority of the population of a large country.
It's been said before, and I'll say it again. She will fail. This may be hard for a fundie to grasp, but there are many countries with sensible, politically neutral judges, and Britain is one of them.
And Conservapedia really needs to brush up on world politics. Just because a party (nominally, anyway) is founded on the basis of supporting the working classes (hence the name Labour Party) does not mean OMGZ!!1!TEH COMMIEZ IZ HERE!!!111!!BBQ!!!
The very freedom of speech you're using to blast said person is exactly what you're trying to take away, y'know.
Oh wait, I forgot. Freedom and liberty for me, and such.
I'm not sure how she thinks the case will succeed. We have no blasphemy laws and as I read it there were numerous signs warning the public of the graphic nature of the exhibition. I'm not sure it's offending public decency if it's behind closed doors and you are well warned of the content. If she didn't want to see Jesus with a boner, she shouldn't have gone in now should she?
"Ms. Mapufa, as a Magistrate adhering to the laws of God, I have to dismiss your case.
Well, you have, Ms. Mapufa, shown a blatant disregard for God's laws yourself. This court punishes you to 50 whip lashes!
@ The L
"This isn't blasphemy, DevNull, it's just plain bad taste. Statues with erections are considered pornographic and should not be displayed in public, regardless of who is sporting the erection."
Ergo, nothing wrong with displaying them and a certain Christian is shit out of luck.
"Well, not quite alone, as we suspect all Christians and people with any decency at all will support her."
In this case, I support freedom.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The American Legal System would tell these people to suck it. I'm so glad I live in America. :)
Wow... having googled the pics Jesus is hung. It was a little odd looking though, I'm not really sure that I would personally consider it art, so much as shock value, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be displayed... in its... ummm... "full glory"?
Going in a handbasket for that comment I'm sure.
www ... another of his pieces uses "... glass shards, stones and artist's blood and shit..." - direct quote from the site.)
If the exhibit should be taken down, it should be so by way of lack of attendance. it's a pile of shit, but if people want to see it, I'll tolerate it.
You know that quote about "I don't agree with what you're saying but I will defend to my death your right to say it"?
I'm no fan of jesus.. he didn't exist. But exhibits like this deserve bad reviews for being obvious and unartistic.
What would this fundie think of the Turtle Boy, in my hometown of Worcester,MA? Everyone seems to like him, but you can't help but make a few jokes about a young boy who appears to be screwing a marine reptile.
image
"socialist-controlled region"
well, that just about blows any objectivity that Conservapedia MIGHT have had.
BTW Moondog, that photo is fucking hilarious!
Last I heard, New Labour were not socialists. Goes to show the morons at conservapedia really don't fact check.
FFS, lady. It's a cock, get over it. Religious cranks don't get listened to in Britain. Sarah Palin would be dismissed as the lunatic she is. Why can't America do the same?
@The L
Erections are pornography if they are there just to arouse. In the context of art they fulfill quite a few other functions.
@fundie quote socialist-controlled region Wtf? We don't really have a left wing anymore in this country. New Labour is more Tory than the Tory party and have passed more laws during their leadership than the Bush administration.
Do they mean the Liberal Democrats? I gather that means something completely different in the US.
Princess Rot: "FFS, lady. It's a cock, get over it. Religious cranks don't get listened to in Britain. Sarah Palin would be dismissed as the lunatic she is. Why can't America do the same?"
I think it's because the Republican Party and the theocratic wackos forged an obscene alliance a few decades ago, and now the lunatics are in charge of the party--or, at least, a large enough segment of the party that, if McCain wants to win, he can't afford to ignore them or piss them off. (Seriously, I feel kind of bad for Republican moderates, because their party hardly represents their interests at all anymore.) Hence, Sarah Palin--a massive bone thrown to the fundies (and, I feel, something of a cynical stunt nomination, but that's another subject).
Lol, this is the first time I've heard of conservapedia.
I like how the first picture in their article of evolution is a picture of Hitler.
Blasphemy is not a crime, lovey. Never should have been. Now go sit in the corner, think about what you've done, and in half an hour, please write one hundred lines of "The freedom of speech is a cherished human right"
WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! Your poor Christian fee fees were all hurted!! WAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!
Seriously. We aren't in dark ages, blasphemy is no longer a crime. Except in third world countries
The phrase 'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' exists for an extremely good reason.
Because unless your J-boy is prepared to accelerate his 'Second Coming' purely for the sake of your fee-fees and appear - in physical form - in the witness stand, then all you'll be doing is proving what we Atheists have been saying all along: that he doesn't exist. Thus you don't even have a case before it started.
Just ask yourself this simple question: If your J-boy cared about your subjective 'opinions', what was stopping him from making his 'Second Coming' happen there & then...?!
You know the doctrinally lethal implications, if your answer is the only one possible. But then, just ask Jonathan Edwards.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
