Christian Organizations and GOP Members Attack the Smithsonian for Showing Gay Portraiture
43 replies, posted
[quote=NPR]The Smithsonian Institution is under fire for an exhibition called Hide/Seek that is being touted as the "first major exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
[I]ncluded in that meditation is a crucifix — a cross bearing the body of Christ — crawling with ants. The image, according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue, is offensive. He calls the video "hate speech" and says that "the Smithsonian would never have their little ants crawling all over an image of Muhammad."
Donohue says he complained to members of Congress and the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. "My principle is very simple," he says, "If it's wrong for the government to take the taxpayers' money to promote religion, why is it OK to take taxpayers' money to assault religion?"
Donohue admits he has not seen the exhibition Hide/Seek, but he did see the video images of the ants on the crucifix online.
A spokesperson for the Smithsonian says that since the show opened on Oct. 30, the National Portrait Gallery has received only one complaint from a visitor.[/quote]
[url=http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131730255/smithsonian-under-fire-for-gay-portraiture-exhibit]Read the full story and view samples of the gallery here.[/url]
I'm honestly not sure what to think about this one. The crucifix has a very important meaning in gay culture, but it is pretty offensive to some. I say it's not too big of a deal to let the Christians have this one. It just sounds to me like there's more to their objection than just the crucifix.
I never knew it was gay in the first place.
[quote]"the Smithsonian would never have their little ants crawling all over an image of Muhammad"[/quote]
Dear Smithsonian: I will book a flight over to your museum forthwith if you do this.
The organization should just ignore them because they are obviously going to hell so the more they pay attention to them the more they get dragged into their evil devil scheme.
I think they have a right to be offended, it's a sacred image. But the article said it's used to show intense suffering, so at least it's fitting. Donohue's quote is true though, and maybe this image isn't right for a public museum like the Smithsonian.
Also, starting off any thread with "Christian Organizations and GOP Members Attack..." draws in a crowd who is going to be against anything they say or do, no matter what.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26440853][url=http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131730255/smithsonian-under-fire-for-gay-portraiture-exhibit]Read the full story and view samples of the gallery here.[/url]
I'm honestly not sure what to think about this one. The [b]crucifix has a very important meaning in gay culture[/b], but it is pretty offensive to some. I say it's not too big of a deal to let the Christians have this one. It just sounds to me like there's more to their objection than just the crucifix.[/QUOTE]
Wait what?
Unfortunately, Christmas is coming up. So this is an even bigger deal than in any of the other 11 months.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26440979]Unfortunately, Christmas is coming up. So this is an even bigger deal than in any of the other 11 months.[/QUOTE]
Nah, it'd be a lot worse if this was happening in April, around Easter time. That's when the crucifixion and resurrection are celebrated.
If it offends you how about you not go to the smithsonian.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26440853][url=http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131730255/smithsonian-under-fire-for-gay-portraiture-exhibit]Read the full story and view samples of the gallery here.[/url]
I'm honestly not sure what to think about this one. The crucifix has a very important meaning in gay culture, but it is pretty offensive to some. I say it's not too big of a deal to let the Christians have this one. It just sounds to me like there's more to their objection than just the crucifix.[/QUOTE]
It's in a museum, not plastered on billboards or anything. If they take it down just because of a few objections then it will continue the bad precedent.
I mean I don't hang around stormfront for that very same reason.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ellen.PNG[/img]
I was about to make a joke, saying "Ellen DeGeneres?", initially thinking it was a man.
It actually is Ellen DeGeneres.
:geno:
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM]
I was about to make a joke, saying "Ellen DeGeneres?", initially thinking it was a man.
It actually is Ellen DeGeneres.
:geno:[/QUOTE]That's the point dumbass.
Ewww. What was she thinking?
[QUOTE=iPat;26440935]I think they have a right to be offended, it's a sacred image. But the article said it's used to show intense suffering, so at least it's fitting. Donohue's quote is true though, and maybe this image isn't right for a public museum like the Smithsonian.
Also, starting off any thread with "Christian Organizations and GOP Members Attack..." draws in a crowd who is going to be against anything they say or do, no matter what.[/QUOTE]You're right, I should have chosen a more neutral title.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26441161]That's the point dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Yes yes, the caption even says that.
But still.
[editline]2nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;26441173]Ewww. What was she thinking?[/QUOTE]
She's Ellen DeGeneres, she's insane.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26441176]You're right, I should have chosen a more neutral title.[/QUOTE]
wait so what does a crucifix have to do with gay people.
I'm still confused.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;26441137][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ellen.PNG[/img_thumb]
I was about to make a joke, saying "Ellen DeGeneres?", initially thinking it was a man.
It actually is Ellen DeGeneres.
:geno:[/QUOTE]
If that's at the Smithsonian, wait till they get a load of this:
I call it, "Portrait of a Blank Paper"
"If it's wrong for the government to take the taxpayers' money to promote religion, why is it OK to take taxpayers' money to assault religion?"
We do promote religion by not taxing religious organizations. The government promotes religion all the damn time and it shapes a lot of our laws.
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;26441251]wait so what does a crucifix have to do with gay people.
I'm still confused.[/QUOTE]
When you're gay you normally have to redefine your religion or give it up. I'm not exactly sure what Tails means but the cross has a very powerful impact on some homosexual people because it is a large part of their struggle.
I didn't mean that the actual Crucifix itself is a gay reference, I meant that the portrait holds some pretty deep meaning for gay life. Think about the artistic implications; what do ants do, what do they represent?
Ants crawling over Jesus is not assaulting religion ffs. Just because you get offended over the most retarded shit does not mean people are attacking you.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26441688]I didn't mean that the actual Crucifix itself is a gay reference, I meant that the portrait holds some pretty deep meaning for gay life. Think about the artistic implications; what do ants do, what do they represent?[/QUOTE]
The Crucifix is Billy Mays, and the ants eating away at him are his subconscious fear that he is unable to get on the ball with Oxyclean.
Oh my god shut up religion
[QUOTE=Mingebox;26441791]The Crucifix is Billy Mays, and the ants eating away at him are his subconscious fear that he is unable to get on the ball with Oxyclean.[/QUOTE]
Billy Mays [i]is[/i] God.
Hey conservatives, we know that you don't understand art and that you fear things like museums and whatnot but please shut up now
The way I see this, this is just like the protests over that Danish Mohammad cartoon. In both cases, a piece of art offended a certain group of people, and those people spoke out against it. I support both people's rights to free speech via art, but I also believe that Bill Donohue and others have a right to be offended, and I, also, have the right to call Mr. Donohue a bigoted asshole with his head stuck so far up his ass, it makes him look fat.
[QUOTE=TailsPrower;26440853] Donohue says he complained to members of Congress and the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. "My principle is very simple," he says, "If it's wrong for the government to take the taxpayers' money to promote religion, why is it OK to take taxpayers' money to assault religion?"[/QUOTE]
Fuck this guy.
If 'assaulting religion' means treating gays like actual people I'll do it with the biggest fucking smile on my face.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26441992]The way I see this, this is just like the protests over that Danish Mohammad cartoon. In both cases, a piece of art offended a certain group of people, and those people spoke out against it. I support both people's rights to free speech via art, but I also believe that Bill Donohue and others have a right to be offended, and I, also, have the right to call Mr. Donohue a bigoted asshole with his head stuck so far up his ass, it makes him look fat.[/QUOTE]I think the real question is should such a message be supported with tax payer money.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26441959]you fear things like museums and whatnot but please shut up now[/QUOTE]
Truly the stuff of nightmares:
[img]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1664/creedlightsonoff2232403.jpg[/img]
Get over it Christians. First amendment all up in here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.