Endymon32

I checked out the webcams on the forum. Most are just static shots of people mugging for the camera. Whatever. But one had a woman dressed as nun giving head, then it changed to a scary skull nun with the quote " what I learned in Catholic school"


I am not offened even though I recieved a wonderful catholic school education. Also I am an athiest, so I dont particularly care one way or the other about these images.

But would the creator of such images ever be brave enough to post images of say, A rabbi buggering another rabbi? Or A female giving a rabbi head?

Or Planes crashing into the twin towers with a quote,
"what I learned in my Madrassa"


Or would that be offensive?


So is it only ok to mock christianity and call it art? Can you mock Islam and call it art? Judaism?


I am curious to see if this artist will ever be brave enought to mock things other than the "safe" target.

kiwiman

If people bashed, say, black people or muslims the way people so openly bash Christians the world would be up in arms.

It's a terrible double standard.

I bet she loves getting all those Christmas presents though.

Mojo_PeiPei

The United States has a strong christophobe movement going on right now (a strong following in the ACLU). Fucks will smear shit on the cross and call it art, they will piss on statues and pictures of the virgin mary and call it "art". If yiu disagree with it or are offended by it you are a closeminded right wing christian fanatic.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Endymon32

I dont have an issue with that, smear shit, whatever floats your boat. My main point is that its that mocking Christianity or Christians is pretty safe. You will not get harmed in any way mocking Christians, but what would happen if Arttelevison was brave enought to mock other religons?

And how fast would he be condemed?

Rekna

It is always ok to mock the majority in an area but never the minority. AKA it is ok to call someone a cracker but you better not use the N word.

irseg

I'm an atheist. Therefore I don't think too highly of any religions, but I am pretty fed up with how it's so trendy and fashionable to attack Christians.

If any religion deserves to be singled out and ridiculed, it's the Muslims. They are the only ones who currently believe it's acceptable to kill anyone who doesn't follow their screwed up beliefs. And if it's just the so-called extremists who get a kick out of flying planes into buildings full of innocent civilians, I'd like to see more of a protest from supposedly "normal" Muslims. I don't see Christians running out and cheering in the streets when some lunatic shoots up an abortion clinic.

kiwiman

What about the Ku Klux Klan? They claim to be very Christian.

Mojo_PeiPei

Thats a false positive though kiwi, they are similar to the wahabi's of Saudi Arabia, they hate other Christian "sects" such as catholics.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Strange Famous

I wouldnt want to watch two Rabbi's buggering each other, but it wouldnt offend me all that much, I just don't have any interest in gay porno.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

guthmund

I didn't find this offensive. I think if you're looking to be offended then you will be. Are Christians picked on more than any other religion? I couldn't say. I've heard derogatory and unflattering things about others as well.

I would probably agree with the notion that because they (Christians) are in the majority that society is more acceptable of others poking fun, ridiculing or mocking that majority.

I have no religious affliation at all, but this was unsettling....

I don't believe any one religion is deserving of such an honor I've seen some pretty flaky stuff from all corners of the world and all religious spectrums.

Because you are a self-proclaimed Athiest I would expect you to be as hard on all religions, but since you've singled out "killing non-believers" and this conversation is in reference to Christianity....Here are some of my 'favorite' quotes from the cornerstone of Christianity, The Bible. (These are from the NIV)

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Rekna

Remember all of those quotes are old testiment not new.

guthmund

you caught me in the middle of an edit.

Yes, yes they are. Does the Old testament not hold the same esteem as the New?

The post seemed to imply (and maybe I read it wrong) that Islam was deserving of mockery because it called for the killing of non-believers. It also took a defensive stand with Christianity against that mockery. I was just trying to encourage the poster to apply the same standard across the board.

There are lots of finer points in lots of religions that we as whole ignore. Maybe because we know better, maybe because we've evolved while religion really hasn't. The point is, there are lots of nutball ideas on every side of the line and to use that idea as the basis of opinion on a pariticular religion is ignorant and lazy.

Now, I'm not calling anybody names, I just think that everybody (including myself) could stand to be a little more informed.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Endymon32

Guthmund, this shows that it would not be offensive to mock Jews or muslims how? All this shows me is that Art Televison is only mocking those that are safe to mock. Why not slap an Amish man? They dont fight back either? If he wishes, I dont know if he even wishes this i am assuming, to be cutting edge and make comentary, which i assume he does, why not mock the NON safe groups? Didnt great artists do just that? Mocking Christians in America is about as cutting edge as painting still life. Its old, trite, and others have done it better.



I could show you an even longer list of Koranic Rules on how to treat the infidel, rules that are STILL to be obeyed, but that is not the point of this thread.

Endymon32

But you do have interest in seeing Christians mocked?

Rekna

Actually yes, the old testment is a description of a vengful God. But with the life and death of Jesus, God became forgiveful. Jesus died on the cross so that God would forgive our sins. That is why the new testiment holds more weight than old especially when talking about judgment.

Strange Famous

Not really. if the woman in the Nun's habit was hott I might glance at it. I don't have any interest in watching religious icons or beliefs that people hold dear to them being mocked. The idea of someone urinated on a crucifix as "art" is just as ridulous and offensive to me as is US troops defiling Muslim holy sites and holy places in Iraq.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Tophat665

Sure, the particular scene you describe has the capacity to offend. So what? It's no one's right to not be offended.

I am beginning to view the plaints of Christian bashing as just another effort on the order of the successful one that gave us the myth of a Liberal Media. Get over it. There are more Christians in this country than any other religion. Merely on a per capita basis, they should be criticized more often. Now, there are some very vocal, very organized Christian sects that have successfully gotten their members selected (elected or installed is not the argument I am making here. Save it for later) to be the highest officials in this country. This means that national policy will be shaped by fringe Christians, fundamentalists, people who are every bit as Christain as, say, Ariel Sharon. Still they call themselves Christians, even though they are actually Old Testament fetishists, and, by and large, those who are truly Christians - you know: faith is Christ, love thy neighbor, forgivenss is a virtue type people - don't get up in arms about this. Well, if one disgrees with the policy, then the Christian Fundies shaping our national agenda deserve one's opposition, the groups that they rode to power deserve one's anger, and the folks who actually believe in Christ who have let their faith be hijacked deserve one's contempt.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Fundamentalist Muslims and Jews and Hindus every bit as much. Fundamentalist Jews block any move by Israel toward peaceful coexistance with the palestinians. And fundamentalist Muslims, well, they would largely like to see this country turned into a sheet of radioactive glass. It seems to me that fundamentalism is any religion is the same as mistaking the religion's metaphors for literal truth. So Fundamentalists are not going back to fundamentals; they are mistaking the symbol for the substance. Because of this it is not possible to argue with a fundamentalist. What is is written and that is all there is to it. One can kill fundamentalists, but then one goes to jail, and rightly. They're still people, if ridiculous people. The only viable option is to ridicule them at every opportunity.

Now, in order to effectively ridicule Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists, one must set up the conditions that make them look unreasonable. Right now, American foreign policy does not do that. American foreign policy is, at the moment, controlled by Christian Fundamentalists. Therefore, as a matter of effect, the Christian fundamentalists must be ridiculed to the point of marginalization (or until they do something so grossly stupid that they can be locked up as a clear and present danger to the security of this country. One would think that advocating the Nuking of Foggy Bottom would have been enough to get that ball rolling, but low friends in high places and all that.) Once we get some leadership that is willing to see the world the way it is instead of just reading about it in the Bible, then we can start on marginalizing the rest of the fundamentalists.

This Does Not Mean that I advocate driving all Christians into the ocean or anything similarly drastic. This means that The majority in this country, actual factual believing Christians, have got to take back their religion. If they don't even try, then they deserve my contempt and my ridicule as well.

Other things that would really help to keep Christians from being ridiculed:

Do something about priest buggering little boys. (Yeah, it's the Catholics, but they are a big part of Christianity. the first part, at that.)

Figure out exactly when the soul enters the body. We know it is before birth, but one loses credibility when one claims that a blastocyst is a human life.

When Creationists get vocal, intelligent Christians need to shout them down.

Stop trying to get books banned from the library. Stop trying to censor the internet. Make sure that people know that being Christian is about a choice to hold faith, not limiting the choices of others. What do you care if I go to Hell? If I tell you it is not your problem, you need to respect that.

OK, I have gone on a bit.

In summary, there is no actual increase in Christian Bashing. There is an increase in Fundie bashing because the most bloody problems of the world and this country are being fueled by fundamentalists of one stripe or another. Christians can actually take steps to further decrease manifestions of contempt by making sure that people know they are not fundies and by working to solve the problems that fundies cause and to stop them from creating more.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Lebell

If someone is offended by the screen shot, please report it to an admin or supermod.

We'll look at it and decide if it crosses TFP guidelines, regardless of what religion is being portrayed.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Endymon32

Top hat, no offence, but you are saying that Arttelevison couldnt set up a screen shot that is offensive to Muslims and Jews? Only to Christians? That is bunk. All your post says is that its ok to mock Christians, but under current us policy, impossible to mock Jews and Muslims. Total crap.

I alreay posted ideas of how Art Televison could mock them, the fact is , he is walking the road most traversed, and most easliy trode.

He can mock Christians all he wants, I dont really care, but he is shooting fish in a barrel. If you think he cant mock Jews or muslims than you have a low opinon of him as an artist, or making the claim that under american political views its impossible, which is wrong.

I am just think that he is just another ho hum "shock" artist that is just trying to validate his love for porn. I love porn too, but i dont have to pretend to be an artist to justifiy it.

guthmund

I think I stated quite clear that it's only offensive to those that allow themselves to be offended. You claim to not be offended, yet I wonder....

Offend Muslims? Jews? Christians? Slap an Amish man? Who cares? I suspect that anyone, if they allowed, could offended by that image for many reasons if you were to look hard enough.

I have neither the inclination, nor have the ability to explain to the motives and meanings of ARTelevsion's image. Why did he pick a symbol of the Catholic church to combine with oral sex? I have not the foggiest clue. Why oral sex? Again, I have no idea. Why not mock the 'non-safe' groups? Only Art can shed the light on Art's intentions.

If this was the point of the argument, it would have been better to simply PM Art and ask him why he chose this subject matter above all others. The question was, however, if this image was offensive. I answered, but let me reiterate my particular stance. It's only offensive if you allow it to be offensive. You asked if it would be offensive if he had used other religious symbols. I replied that there is only offense where offense is taken.

I'm guess I'm confused. Are they more deserving of mockey and ridicule because their list is longer.....? Isn't the word of God to still be obeyed? The point was to simply say that nutball ideas abound all over the world. It is our responsibility to be informed well enough to separate the chaff from the wheat.

I didn't say it was the point of the thread. The first part of my first reply was in answer to the "point of the thread" (Would this be offensive?) the second half concerned itself with the reply of irseg.


You are implying that God changed? God's immutablity is a central tenet to Christian philosophy. There are scores of examples in the Old Testament, but here are some from the New....

These are from the New Testament

God is all knowing...
God is perfect...


God is unchanging...


God cannot change. It's not that He hasn't the power. He has no reason to change for he is perfect already. So, if God is all knowing, perfect and unchanging, then the God of the New Testament is the same one of the Old. While the emphasis might not be in the New Testament, God is God.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Tophat665

No no no. What I am saying is that it is wise an opportune to mock Christian Fundamentalists now, that all Fundamentalists deserve mockery, and that if Christians won't take back their religion from Fundamentalism, they have no call to complain when the broad brush catches them. (No offense taken.)

I am not suggestion that he couldn't mock another religion, just that Christianity seems most pointful at the moment. Put another way, it's much harder to homebrew American Standard Lager than it is to brew Stout, but telling me that isn't goin to change the fact that I would rather drink Stout, so that's what I would make.

But you are right. I missed your point. Sorry. I think only Art has the right to truly answer that contention.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Rekna

I have never heard of anyone refering to God as unchanging before. There is a clear change between the vengful God of the old testiment and the Forgiving God of the new testiment.

lions20

The one thing that I have been noticing increasingly more over the years is the double standard we create wi political correctness and race issues. It seems like one group can always take the brunt of all criticism and it is ok but when a different group is criticized it is a crime. My point being it is ok for different races to criticize white people, but if you are white you cannot say anything about anyone else. A white comic has to be cautious about jokes concerning other races, but a comic of another race can say whatever he wants about whites. I am not racist nor do I care about another race making fun of my skin color, but if you are going to make laws about speech and was is correct or incorrect make it the same for everyone.

Zeld2.0

Great way to drag in the race card.

The double standard has always been around, its not something new, and yes while people put themselves into political correctness, its for their person gain in the end.

Put it this way, i'd rather be politically correct and gain power as a politician, than be bruntly truth about things.

And believe it or not, 'whites' do bash 'blacks' a lot, just not publically, and I find it true that peopel will always stereotype others, whether they claim they are racist or not, because in teh end, we are all racist in a sense.

The double standard doesn't really exist, its percieved as a threat, but then again, others view that same agenda as a threat from a different perspective.

MSD

Acceptable targets change over time. What's a blonde joke now used to target rednecks, beffoore that it was the Polish, before that, Jews, before that, African-Americans, before them, someone else. Now, christianity is a culturally acceptable target for hate and offensive jokes because of the child-molestation scandal.

It doesn't matter who you target, it's all hate.

filtherton

People get offended when they want to get offended. Some people get offended by cuss words. Well, fuckin a, sorry to offend you, but get over yourself. Some people get offended by pop music, does that mean that we should all pretend we don't listen to britnet spears so as not to step on anyone's toes? To answer the threads question, yes, someone, somewhere, is probably offended by it. Someone somewhere is offended by everything. It is interesting to see someone who seems to lean right argue for more political correctness.

It always gives me a sad chuckle to hear anyone express righteous indignation over satire. You know there are whole groups of people who consider themselves catholic who mock and criticize the catholic church. So is it allright for a catholic to criticise or satirize catholicism, or is criticism just off limits alltogether? Should we just pretend that the catholic church is flawless and has never done the world any ill will? Not to single out catholicism, because there are quite a few religions who suffer from a serious lack a sense of humor.


The difference between religion and race is that religion is a matter of choice. When you claim to be a member of such and such religion you are making a statement about what you believe. Whereas being black or white or chinese or whatever has no bearing on who you are as a person or what you believe.

Endymon32

I am not calling for politcal correctness. I am just saying that if ARtelevision thinks he is "Bold" or "dangerous" or "cutting edge" than he is fooling himself. He is mocking a safe target. Hardly bold, dangerous or cutting edge.

But then mabye he doesnt think he is bold, cutting edge and dangerous. Mabye its just porn for porn sake, and not too good porn at that.

Tophat665

Or maybe you wish you were getting blown by a sexy chick in a nun's habit? Come on, man, this started out as good thread with a good question as to the nature of offense and allowable/opportune/challenging targets for it. Can we go back there?

How's about this: The Holocaust and a millennium of endemic anti-semetism have left Jews justifiably aggrieved and extremely sensitive to both trends pointing to a renewal of anti-semetism and techniques with which to quash those trends. The effect is that any criticism of Judaeism better be pointful and accurate or B'nai Brith is going to land on it with both feet. Even if it is pointful and accurate, one had best be ready to defend their position in such a way that one is clearly giving constructive criticism, not merely stirring people up, and even then it's a chancy proposition.

Here's the bottom line - satire only works if people laugh. People have been trained not to laugh at Jewish jokes.

Now, as for Islam, one wants to be careful when making even valid criticisms of Islam. If one jackass determines that you might be given too much creedence, you could have a fatwa issued against you.

Q: What's bleached blonde, lives in Sweden, and has enormous implants?
A: Salman Rushdie

On top of that, a joke that needs to be explained is no joke. Beyond standard foreigner bashing, which gets old really fast, most good jokes about Islam don't play to an ignorant audience. Heck, I can't even think of a good Muslim joke. So the jokes that are left are sex-with-livestock, poor-hygiene, ignorance, talks-funny, and wife-beating, and didn't we all get over that in elementary school? The only clever anti-muslim humor I have seen in the last couple years has been the South Park episode in which Cartman plays Bugs Bunny to Usama bin Laden's Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam.

To top that off, there is something vaguely erotic (or not so vaguely) about the whole harem sexual fantasy thing. It stops being satire and starts being pure porn. Veils, shaved pubes, harem pants. This is not the stuff satire is made of, and even if I have to wear a khaffieyeh for entrance, let me at 'em.

So, to review, it's not that Christianity is an easy target, it's that it's the only religious target that makes sense in this country. (Except for Scientology)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Superbelt

That actually was a valid piece of art. It was pro christianity. The artist is an African, I forget from which country exactly. Materials, mannerisms, culture is different over there.
The feces symbolized dirt, fertilizer. The way the artist explained it, Jesus is something to plant yourself in, and when you do you grow.

irseg

That's nice. But I'm more concerned with what followers of a given religion actually do today. And I don't see too many Catholics or Lutherans blowing up restaurants full of children or flying passenger jets into buildings. Christians got over the "kill all the nonbelievers" kick centuries ago.

Endymon32

Back to my main point. Art television is doing nothing new, nothing dangerous, and nothing shocking. He is just another ho hum artists justifiying his porn as art. And it aint even good porn.

kiwiman

I think some people here are finding it hard to see the difference between muslims and extremists.

I think the West Wing said it:

Islamic extremists are to muslims what the KKK are to Christians

Endymon32

True Kiwiman, but you hear about the Christians that DENOUNCE the KKK, I never hear shit about Muslims denoucing Al Queda.

floydthebarber

I've heard several Muslims denouncing radical Muslims. Maybe you're watching the wrong news channel or you're mingling with the wrong people at parties.

As to the actual question at the start of this thread. Poking fun at religion has always been around and will always be with us. You'll find people poke fun at the majority, so it stands to reason that Christians will be the butt of jokes in the US.

__________________
wish you were here

Rekna

The problem is the ratio of extremist muslims to muslims versus KKK to christians is much more. I hope that people can be tought tollerance of one another and the hatred goes down.

OFKU0

Hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately sometimes those who are offended go another step and play the 'victim' card for big money because, well,...they've been victimized. I was called a name and now everyone in the world must get down on bended knee and kiss my fat ass to the tune of xxx millions. Thanks. Now fuck off.

Big business. Everyone is doing it.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

John Henry

I don't know if anyone has actually PMed Art about this to ask his motivations, but has it occured to anyone that he did not want to shock people by mocking christianity because it is a soft target, but was simply telling the truth... Y'know, Art, beauty, beauty, truth, etc... maybe I should fuck off back to the philosophy board, if only it wasn't full of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, Agnostics and goddamned Atheists giving out about their various spiritual beliefs.

I'm with Stuart Lee on this one. Stuart Lee is a British comedian who once received a letter of complaint regarding his occasional christian-themed comic monologues and sketches. The complaint was essentially the same as this one. Sadly I can't find his response as it was originally worded (and it was very funny), but it was along the following lines:

"...As a comedian I naturally take my humour, to some extent, from the world around me and my experiences of it. As someone who was born a Catholic, was confirmed, attended a Roman Catholic school, was a chorister in my church choir, studied theology at A-level, etc, etc... I feel that I have enough knowledge and experience of Christianity to make some comment on it. Not having been raised a Muslim or Jew, I do not have enough experience of these religions to write informed, intelligent material on the subject..."

As an artist, Art is to some extent limited to making portrayals based upon his own experience. Is it more offensive for someone to make an ill-informed attack on a culture they know very little about, than to share with you the experiences of their childhood? Yes. A lot.

As for the idea that people tiptoe around other religions and wrap them up in cotton wool: Was there outcry amongst the international Christian or Atheist communities against Salman Rushdie, for the attack on Islam he published in 'The Satanic Verses'? No. Nor should there have been.

Endymon: Maybe in the States you don't hear about Muslims condemning Al Quaeda, but I don't know how free the media are over there. I'm not claiming that the British media are any more free, but over here we have quite a large Muslim population, so I guess their views are better represented, or maybe we have fewer extremists in general. Anyway, I have seen many many Muslims on TV here condemning Al Quaeda as completely against the principles of Islam, as a slur on the name of Islam, as evil, as murderers etc etc.

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

Endymon32

The Satanic Verses was a PRO muslim work, it just goes to show how silly and repressive the muslims that ordered Salman's death sentence are. The villians in that book were Britian and the west. But Muslims are just misunderstood......

John Henry

Hmm.. Don't know about that as I haven't read it and don't have enough knowledge of Islam to understand all the metaphor, but I saw this review on Amazon

Endymon32

Did you read it? I did. And mabye things did escape me as I am a westerner, but the book was told from the west's percpective and the character of Mahound was ridiculed, but as the book progresses you see that Mahound is the sympathic character. It becomes clear that he is made to look bad through a flawed perspective. Again, mabye i did miss something, and there are a few critisicims of Islam, not attacks. I thought the book targeted Britian and the west as the bad guys. This book, like the Last Temptation of Christ, to me anyway, were works of a faithful person trying explore their own faith in a non traditional way.
Also keep in mind I am an atheist so again, it is hard to insult me in that aspect.
Also, no one called a Fatwa against Martin Scorsesi...