Gays Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Novus Collectus
New Member
I believe California has an extended meaning of free speech. I cannot remember if it is because of the state's Constitution and the California's high court precedent, or if it is just the Califronia's interpretation of the First Amendment. I can't remember which.PJumper said:
bcp
In My Opinion
BS, everybody knows if they would have been following the examples set by republicans, the picture would not have been of the last supper with them all seated around the table.Geek said:Maybe they are following the example set out by Republicans.
it woudl have been the last pooper with them all in individual stalls tapping their feet.
If you are going to be a smartass at least you can get it right.
]
No. One is social commentary; the other is *meant* to be offensive.Novus Collectus said:
If the fetishist freakjobs painted a picture of priests luring little boys into their chambers, THAT would be social commentary. Certainly it would offend some, but it would be similar to the Mohammad/bomb cartoon in that there's an element of truth to it.
The Last Supper parody was meant to piss people off. There's no other reason for an artist to do something like that.
And a word about "free speech":
We went through this during the Dixie Chick debacle. Someone exercises their right to be offensive. So those that are offended exercise THEIR right to tell the offender off.
Yes, people are calling for the town council or whatever to step in and prohibit this display, but that is the right of the citizen to voice a grievance to their government.
So you folks who are crying about free speech, that works both ways.
We went through this during the Dixie Chick debacle. Someone exercises their right to be offensive. So those that are offended exercise THEIR right to tell the offender off.
Yes, people are calling for the town council or whatever to step in and prohibit this display, but that is the right of the citizen to voice a grievance to their government.
So you folks who are crying about free speech, that works both ways.
bcp
In My Opinion
cant keep claiming you are being picked on if everybody does not hate you.vraiblonde said:
you know, as far as people choosing what to be offended by.
this picture would be ok on another forum, and they would argue the values of free speech etc... yet the same people would ban you if you posted a picture of well, lets say Hitler with a halo on him as a form of silent protest at being called a Nazi everytime you mentioned sending illegals back.
those on that forum might also take great offense at someone saying "boobie"
anymore its getting to hard to figure out what to say or show that is not going to offend at least half of the country.
personally I hope whoever came up with the idea of the last supper being used in this manner, dies along with those in the picture, a horrible death from untreated aids.
Im sure that will disturb some people also
And I will go on record as being AGAINST doing something for the sole purpose of pissing people off.vraiblonde said:
smoothmarine187
New Member
I think you and I could be great friends. Lets meet later for a beervraiblonde said:
Vince
......
vraiblonde said:
Absolutely. They're mad because Bible and the Christian faith is telling them that they are wrong in their choice and beliefs, and obviously it/they do/does. They want to strike back and did it just to pizz the Christian community off. And don't anyone sit there and try to 
me and tell me that it's art. It wasn't done so someoone would consider it art. 
Thor
New Member
I disagree, in fact I think that poster is social commentary. Addressing the fact that religion is so intolerant, pointing out hypocrisy is something social commentary is designed to do.vraiblonde said:
Just because you find it offensive not not make it so for everyone. Perhaps the fact that religious folks do find it offensive might have something to do with it's message hitting a little too close to home?
I always laugh when religious folks get their panties in a bunch over free speech issues. Free speech for all unless it contradicts what I believe.
Thor
New Member
Vince said:
No one said it was art. I certainly didn't, although someone could make an argument for that.
Now on to the real crux of the matter. Who gives you or anyone who shares your beliefs the right to dictate lifestyles or beliefs systems to anyone else? What makes your "holy book" more relevant then any of the other "holy books" out there, or someones personal moral convictions which might not be based on a book for that matter?
What part of that poster points out religious intolerance? It's a bunch of freaks surrounded by their favorite toys.Thor said:
Here's the picture:
http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/photo/2007/092507FolosomFull.jpg
(may be NSFW)
I am not a "religious folk".Thor said:
I just do not like people who do things simply to piss off and offend others. I find it juvenile and hateful.
Novus Collectus
New Member
So when it is not meant to be offensive, then it is ok then. Got it, someone who has a sex kink and is a Christian with a particular view somehow that makes them associate their spirituality with their sexual kink and is the way they express both, then that is ok regardless of who it offends as long as the "intent" was not to offend.vraiblonde said:
??
It is a dangerous position to take determining a speaker's intent, but even when the intent really was to offend, it is still free speech. Like it or not, depicting the S&M Last Supper is a social commentary of some sort whether it was intended to offend or not, and whether it depicts an element of truth or not. It could have a message beyond the intent to offend and saying it doesn't based on subjective observation is not justification enough to claim they have no right to express it.
When we restrict some free speech, we may as well disallow it all unless government permission is granted prior to expressing it.....like they do in Communist Cuba.