Free Speech?

[mrfish]

Originally posted by Kieran
Let me ask you a question to answer your question; how do you feel about a picture of a crucifix in a glass of urine?

disgust.

[Kieran]

As they are both inanimate objects I think that most people would find the image less revolting than a mutilated corps or a graphic sex act with a child.

Well... take a stand. Are you suggesting you can't understand how someone who is religious would be highly offended by that picture? Are you tempted to suggest religious folks grow a thicker skin?

I'll tell you how I feel about all of them- they all offend me. I think all three should not be seen, but I know about free speech and have to allow all three (as far as the law currently allows). I will say that, of the three, the picture of the crucifix irks me more not only because it is a slap in the face of my religion, but because the guy was paid some of my money to do it.

[lord dolf vader]

some of us dont have invisable friends. I think that is a good thing.

[SOB]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Is this going too far?

No, not in my opinion, as long as it's within the law for him to do so.  If he's willing to stand out on the corner like a love muffin, that's his business.  If someone is offended by it enough, they have ways of dealing with it.  They can ignore it, they can call the cops (if they get enough complaints, it may become an issue of being a public nuisance and they'll make him ditch the sign), or if they feel they've been horribly damaged by the image, they can sue him.

I'm also not sure what a crusifix in a bottle of piss has to do with art...seems like more of a political statement about the current state of the catholic church.  But I guess there is such a thing as political art.  Also, I really don't have anything against my tax dollars going to art programs or individual artists, and don't feel it's my place to judge what art is OK for the money to go to.  Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration.


SOB

[ra]

...I think that most people would find the image less revolting than a mutilated corps...

A corpse is the remains of a once-living body, is that what the picture was of?  If so, yes that is disgusting.  If not, wtf.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by ra
A corpse is the remains of a once-living body, is that what the picture was of?  If so, yes that is disgusting.  If not, wtf.

Ah, but there's the crux of the argument, now isn't it? What do you define as a corpse, and what do you define as unviable tissue?



SOB-

I realize you are not religious, and I realize it doesn't mean the same to you. Realize if you are religious, it makes a great deal of difference. I guess about the best analogy would be if they were to hang a huge picture of your grandmother and place a placard under it that read "Crack potato".

[festus]

Mr. Fish>>>"...and women wouldn't need all them faincy pap smears, they could just pray and if they ended up getting cervical cancer, well it's all part o' god's plan."



Eitiology (cause): Certain strains of human papilloma virus.

Pathophysiology (mechinism of action): Infects the cells of the cervix and under certain conditions changes the growth of said cells whom become abnormal (dysplastic or cancer).

How do women get human papilloma virus?  By exposure to the virus.  How do women get exposed? By a noodle that carries it. So logical deduction brings us to the conclusion, no exposure, no cervical cancer. Therefore, does birth control prevent cervical cancer? No. Except one possibility, and that is the condom. However, what is the risk of slippage (well for some of you quite high). Or the risk of tearing? Do you not know that there are holes in these condoms. Some large enough to allow the passage of viruses such as HPV, HSV, and HIV. Probably not because the public health officials in this country believe that young people are going to have sex any way and we don't want to scare them now do we?

Festus

[mrfish]

so some girl may use pills instead of condoms and still be exposed. and how does a girl find out if she's been exposed? at a clinic maybe?  

early intervention is important, clinics play a big role here especially for working women who don't have insurance- they also cure working males that don't have insurance either for that matter.

it's not just birth control but even then, many will choose condoms as an alternative because they have access to them so it's still a net positive.

[festus]

Mr. Fish>>>"you represent a moderate view, most of the people out there or a part of the religious movement against abortion which in most cases involves a parallel view against any form of birth control etc. etc."

"infact, the "holy father" forbids birth control so i shall assume most catholics agree with him.  Maybe he reversed his holy word - anyone know for sure?"

Hey Mr. Fish, I'm not trying to pick on you. Just address some of your comments.

Well, most catholics (at least in the US) don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on artificial contraception. Most of the abortions that occur among christians are catholic. They are what I call cafeteria catholics, they pick and choose of the faith what they like and discard the things they don't like. The Holy Father has only repeated the Churches teachings on artificial contraception since the beginning 2000 years ago. There is nothing new, and this teaching is not going to change. Perhaps you'd like to review the document Humane Vitae http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Festus

[festus]

Mr. Fish, I think you may be missing my point. Of course these ladies need treatment. But its the exposure that causes them the illness. Promiscuity has led to the ennumerable cases of exposure to HPV and other STDs. Unfortunately, once is enough. And by the way there is no cure for the carrier. HPV will reside in the normal cells around the cervix or noodle an remain dormant for some and reactivate for others.

[mrfish]

interesting document- reads like a vcr manual though;)

"To Scientists

24. Our next appeal is to men of science. These can "considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births." (28) It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring. (29) In this way scientists, especially those who are Catholics, will by their research establish the truth of the Church's claim that "there can be no contradiction between two divine laws—that which governs the transmitting of life and that which governs the fostering of married love." (30)

did i read that right? they are appealing to science to help them learn the 'rthym method' for married couples? heh i never knew that.

this is 1968, pre roe v. wade i believe and also with a different pope- anything newer?

[festus]

Yep Mr. Fish you read it right.

Here are some more interesting sites:

http://www.ccli.org/contraception/index.shtml

http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

http://www.ccli.org

[Samm]

That guy with the sign must be breaking some obscenity laws .

And his Idea of obscenity is probably a beautiful woman naked . Society is stupid like that .

[SOB]

Originally posted by Kieran
SOB-

I realize you are not religious, and I realize it doesn't mean the same to you. Realize if you are religious, it makes a great deal of difference. I guess about the best analogy would be if they were to hang a huge picture of your grandmother and place a placard under it that read "Crack potato".

I can't argue with ya about how you feel about it, but I think the analogy is a bit off.  Your example spells out a message pretty clearly "granny's been humpin' for the rock".  The crux in the piss is just an image, open to interpretation.  Unless, of course, the artist (or whatever you'd like to call him ) came out and said "hey, I made this because Christians are a bunch of piss drinking diddlys".

Even if it offends you or anyone else...christ, it'd probably give Granny a heart attack if she saw it (she's as holy as they get, 'cept for the whoring)...I don't see a problem with it.

I guess it boils down to whether or not you support any of your tax dollars going to support artists and their work.  If you do, I wouldn't agree that it's OK for you to pick and choose where that money goes, even if it goes to something you deem offensive.


SOB

[whgates3]

there ought to be limits...