We read:
"So it turns out that contrary to widespread impression, the American government is just as willing to step all over people’s right to free expressions as are governments in what are deemed more tyrannical countries.
News has it that the Washington based Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery “is removing a video after complaints from a Catholic group that the images were sacrilegious.” A video by the artist David Wojnarowicz is supposed to be “hate speech,” according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue. The video depicted a swarm of ants crawling on a crucified Christ figure. He contended that it was meant to insult Christians and this warranted its being removed–that is, banned...
And certainly what the Gallery did, however much it had logic on its side, doesn’t differ very much from what radical Muslims did when those Danish newspapers published cartoons in which the founder of Islam was ridiculed.
Source
Trying to impose Christian values on non-Christians was once rather common (Sunday laws etc.) but thankfully has now mostly faded away.
Still, If Muslims are to have their sensitivities protected -- which is now common -- surely Christians are entitled to the same treatment.
As a libertarian, I would wish that both Christian and Islamic censorship were disallowed but we don't live in a perfect world. Mainly under Muslim and Leftist influence, censorship seems in fact to be getting more prevalent. A slippery slope is in operation, I think.
14 comments:
Your line, “As a libertarian, I would wish that both Christian and Islamic censorship were disallowed but we don't live in a perfect world”, sadly, brings to mind John Lennon’s “Imagine.” If only it could happen…
2:46 - I agree, the Christians complained, but they didn't threaten to kill, torture and blow up if their wishes were followed.
Just because Christians or some other group or person doesn't go to ridiculous exxtremes doesn't excuse their wish to censor what they don't like, especially when it's just public art (and personally I think a lot of so-called modern art is trash and just "the emperor's new clothes"). Bill Donohue makes a living from public/media complaining and he even contradicts the official views of the Vatican tho' he is supposed to represent Catholic interests (look at him on U-tube clips!).
Just because Christians or some other group or person doesn't go to ridiculous exxtremes doesn't excuse their wish to censor what they don't like,
Obviously you are confused with "censorship" and "disagreement."
How ironic is it that you believe that people who disagree with something should shut up?
There is a big difference between censoring something and endorsing it with my tax dollars. I would not presume to censor this but I also refuse to pay for it with tax money. It is filth, plain and simple but if an "artist" wishes to create something like this, he or she can do it with their own money.
The gallery in question is supported by public funds, so the public should have a right in this case to determine what they will, and will not, buy.
Would that the same attitude could be extended to other govt spending, eh?
Why is it that no one questions Muslims or jews when they object to offenses against their religious beliefs? In fact, most of the world bends over backwards to right any wrong against them, even an imaginary one. Is it simply because Christians don't believe in constantly whining or beheading people they disagree with? Is that what it takes to gain respect? Perhaps we Christians need to make some changes. Radical changes.
"Why is it that no one questions Muslims or jews when they object to offenses against their religious beliefs?"
---That is no longer true about Jews. The typical US campus is a hotzone of anti-zionism, which is the new anti-semitism.
Also, why is it against the rules to display something religious in a government building but okay to display osmething blatantly anti religious?
When public money is used to display what could loosley be defined as autistic crap in order to provoke public discussion there is something seriously wrong. If the disposal of public funds were directed properly these (bullshit)artsists would be forced to do what their forebears did and starve for their craft. The same should be applied to arts (basket weaving) degrees in universities. A BA should be seen as meaning Bullshit Artist. That way they might at least learn humilty and choose not to offend the hand that feeds them.
There need be nothing more done by the public than to choose to ignore such parasites once their public funding is removed. This cure should be applied to all religions and causes. This is not censorship but public finance prudence.
Free speech should be exactly that, free from all public funding association.
5:27 AM - the complaints were not merely expressing disagreement but a move to have the item removed which it was and this can be described as desiring censorship. I did not say the complainants should "shut up", so kindly don't misrepresent what I said or suggest I don't know the meaning of censorship.
the complaints were not merely expressing disagreement but a move to have the item removed which it was and this can be described as desiring censorship.
Funny, I describe it as "freedom of speech."
I did not say the complainants should "shut up", so kindly don't misrepresent what I said or suggest I don't know the meaning of censorship.
My apologies. After all, you did advocate that there was "mo excuse" for the freedom of speech the people were exercising. It is easy to see how one would believe that you want people to "shut up" and not do inexcusable actions such as voicing an opinion.
PCL said,
---"That is no longer true about Jews. The typical US campus is a hotzone of anti-zionism, which is the new anti-semitism."
Not quite. That so-called anti-zionism is an attack on the state of Israel, not jews in general. In fact, most of those campaigns are run by leftist jews, both students and faculty. This is one of the reasons Israeli's have no love for American jews, most of whom are far-left.
3:43 AM - Thanks for your much appreciated apology. There is of course a diffence between self-consorship and imposed censorship.
Post a Comment