NationStates Jolt Archive

This last week I'm reading the paper and there's an article about a business that sells concrete statuary being cited by the county government for obscenity.

The reason, somebody driving by was "offended" because they had statues of Michealangelo's "David" and statues of the Venus de Milo in front of their business and they were sure their children were going to be "influenced" by the statues.

WHAT! :headbang: I could not believe what I was reading. How prudish can you get? Instead of taking the opportunity to discuss great works of art and how beautiful the human body can be they turned it into something dirty.

It's a good thing the Civil Liberties Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

It's a good thing the Civil Libertys Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

if however that was a figure of Jesus Christ something tells me they wouldn't have cared (oh!!!!)

with court decisions that we don't even get to vote on being froced on us (if you hadn't gussed I'm a pretty conservative fellow) you've got nothing to complain about

if however that was a figure of Jesus Christ something tells me they wouldn't have cared (oh!!!!)

with court decisions that we don't even get to vote on being froced on us (if you hadn't gussed I'm a pretty conservative fellow) you've got nothing to complain about

Um, hello?

A private business was involved here. Private property. So, the ACLU would not have an issue with a Jesus statue.

If public funds or public property is used, there is this little thing called the First Amendment ....

This last week I'm reading the paper and there's an article about a business that sells concrete statuary being cited by the county government for obscenity.

The reason, somebody driving by was "offended" because they had statues of Michealangelo's "David" and statues of the Venus de Milo in front of their business and they were sure their children were going to be "influenced" be the statues.

WHAT! :headbang: I could not believe what I was reading. How prudish can you get? Instead of taking the oportunity to discuss great works of art and how beautiful the human body can be they turned it into something dirty.

It's a good thing the Civil Libertys Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

Join the croud.

What do I think?

I think it's wonderful. Since these Xtian Conservatives find the human body so loathesome it's absolutely inconceivable that they would - er, conceive. In just over a generation they should be wiped out!!

Sarcasm aside, I'm wonderring if anyone happens to have statistics for birth rates in the US broken down by religious denomination?

Um, hello?

A private business was involved here. Private property. So, the ACLU would not have an issue with a Jesus statue.

If public funds or public property is used, there is this little thing called the First Amendment ....
I see this as an obstruction to property rights. And I agree with your point.

if however that was a figure of Jesus Christ something tells me they wouldn't have cared (oh!!!!)

I agree... but just to be fair, I have never seen a statue of Christ with his wanker hanging out.

I agree... but just to be fair, I have never seen a statue of Christ with his wanker hanging out.
Really?

And are you American, just that I have seen 'wanker' being used in that way before?

It's a good thing the Civil Liberties Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

It will end once a police state has been allowed to take root throughout your country.

I see this as an obstruction to property rights. And I agree with your point.

There was not a photo with the article so I am unsure of the types and styles of statues sold. I am willing to bet there were Jesus', Madonnas, etc. there, also any number of animals that might have atomically correct appendages. But still, how far must this kind of nonsense go before we outlaw ourselves into becoming the likes of the Taliban.(dynamited ancient Buddhas)

I mean come on, even the US Attorney General had the statues of the figure, "Justice" covered because her breast is exposed... :headbang:

Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

It's a good thing the Civil Liberties Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

It will end once a police state has been allowed to take root throughout your country.

Of course, that will mean there will be no organizations like the ACLU to step in, but with all dissenting voices effectively gagged, there will be no chance of backlash.

There was not a photo with the article so I am unsure of the types and styles of statues sold. I am willing to bet there were Jesus', Madonnas, etc. there, also any number of animals that might have atomically correct appendages. But still, how far must this kind of nonsense go before we outlaw ourselves into becoming the likes of the Taliban.(dynamited ancient Buddhas)

I mean come on, even the US Attorney General had the statues of the figure, "Justice" covered because her breast is exposed... :headbang:
When we've gone too far, thats when we'll see.

This last week I'm reading the paper and there's an article about a business that sells concrete statuary being cited by the county government for obscenity.

The reason, somebody driving by was "offended" because they had statues of Michealangelo's "David" and statues of the Venus de Milo in front of their business and they were sure their children were going to be "influenced" by the statues.

WHAT! :headbang: I could not believe what I was reading. How prudish can you get? Instead of taking the opportunity to discuss great works of art and how beautiful the human body can be they turned it into something dirty.

It's a good thing the Civil Liberties Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:
that reminds me of that Simpsons episode where David was coming to Springfield and people were trying to get it banned

never thought it would ever actually happen...

Really?

And are you American, just that I have seen 'wanker' being used in that way before?

I live in America, yes. In fact I spent the better part of my childhood in a town called Sioux Falls, S.D. - A conservative midwestern town that also happened to have an emormous replica of the statue of david in one of our parks.

It will end once a police state has been allowed to take root throughout your country.

A THEOCRATIC police state. And, incidentally who says they aren't already (http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/58_comm2.html) a police state?

I live in America, yes. In fact I spent the better part of my childhood in a town called Sioux Falls, S.D. - A conservative midwestern town that also happened to have an emormous replica of the statue of david in one of our parks.

Wasn't attacking you. Just wanker is (AFAIK) British for masturbator (used in a derogatory way), never seen it used as a synonym for penis.

The problem is that people here are taught that the naked body is sinful because it provokes lust and "impure desires". They don't really consider that there may be beauty in naked form, but instead rely on the knee-jerk "Nudity is Naughty" reaction.

Now, I'm not saying that all nudity is beautiful or should be publicly displayed, but that people should stop trying to censor artistic nudity, like "David" or the statue of justice. Honestly, the attorney general has to worry about the entire justice system of the whole country, but instead worries about the effect a bare breast on a statue has on America. Real smart.

if however that was a figure of Jesus Christ something tells me they wouldn't have cared (oh!!!!)

with court decisions that we don't even get to vote on being froced on us (if you hadn't gussed I'm a pretty conservative fellow) you've got nothing to complain about


Ummm, excuse me, but no on ever said you get to vote on court decisions. They interpret the law as it is written. If you don't agree with the interpretation, change the law. I am sick of hearing of people complain of activist judges who do nothing but what they are supposed to do!

Ummm, excuse me, but no on ever said you get to vote on court decisions. They interpret the law as it is written. If you don't agree with the interpretation, change the law. I am sick of hearing of people complain of activist judges who do nothing but what they are supposed to do!
Hey, conservative judges are just as activist as liberal ones, so don't play innocent.

Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
Or worse, having an orgasm.

Hey, conservative judges are just as activist as liberal ones, so don't play innocent.


I'd like to see one area where you can show that a judge has rewritten or changed a law (besides striking down on consitutionality). Show me that and I'll show you that a person who is pissed because their personal viewpoint wasn't enforced.

And for the record--I was defending the liberal judges that conservatives are so fond of attacking. I am a liberal.

A THEOCRATIC police state. And, incidentally who says they aren't already (http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/58_comm2.html) a police state?

Incidentally, I says they already is, too.

The reason, somebody driving by was "offended" because they had statues of Michealangelo's "David" and statues of the Venus de Milo in front of their business and they were sure their children were going to be "influenced" by the statues.
I notice how no one's protested the statue of a crucified man with nails trough his wrists and ankles, bleeding all over, with thorns in his hair, in nearly every Christian church :rolleyes: ?

So... Peaceful statue with penis=Bad for children.
Statue of a person who's been tortured and crucified=Good for children.

Can someone explain the logic here? :headbang:

Can someone explain the logic here? :headbang:

Since when has logic ever weighed in on matters such as these?

I'd like to see one area where you can show that a judge has rewritten or changed a law (besides striking down on consitutionality). Show me that and I'll show you that a person who is pissed because their personal viewpoint wasn't enforced.

And for the record--I was defending the liberal judges that conservatives are so fond of attacking. I am a liberal.
Oh, damn I'm sorry. Usually when I hear activist its from a conservative. I didn't read it thoroughly. I was pointing out that all judges are activist to an extent because they usually base their decisions on their own viewpoint.
You have my apologies, and this cookie.

Plus, you guys know how much Ashcroft spent on covering justice's breasts?
$8,000 of taxpayer money
and I think I might be missing a zero
nice to know where your money goes... into killing people and covering pieces of art.

This last week I'm reading the paper and there's an article about a business that sells concrete statuary being cited by the county government for obscenity.

The reason, somebody driving by was "offended" because they had statues of Michealangelo's "David" and statues of the Venus de Milo in front of their business and they were sure their children were going to be "influenced" by the statues.

WHAT! :headbang: I could not believe what I was reading. How prudish can you get? Instead of taking the opportunity to discuss great works of art and how beautiful the human body can be they turned it into something dirty.

It's a good thing the Civil Liberties Union is stepping in, but when will it end? What are your thoughts? :mad:

:D

The US as we know and love them... Michelangelo was a DIRTY PR0NOGRAPHIC ARTIST!!!

Oh, damn I'm sorry. Usually when I hear activist its from a conservative. I didn't read it thoroughly. I was pointing out that all judges are activist to an extent because they usually base their decisions on their own viewpoint.
You have my apologies, and this cookie.

Mmmmmm, chocolate chip. NumYum.

Sorry to harp on this question. I know it's only tenuously related to the thread. But does anyone know where I could find the US birth rate statistics broken down according to religious denomination?

I just want to know whether Christian Consevatist's repressed sexuality leads to low fertility or REALLY HOT (marital, for-the-procreation-of-children only) sex.

Sorry to harp on this question. I know it's only tenuously related to the thread. But does anyone know where I could find the US birth rate statistics broken down according to religious denomination?

I just want to know whether Christian Consevatist's repressed sexuality leads to low fertility or REALLY HOT (marital, for-the-procreation-of-children only) sex.


All I can give you is anecdotes. Most Catholics families I can think of have at least three children if not more. Most Protestants and atheists have two or less. Granted, this is just personal experience and I'm sure that some bias goes into my recollection.

Wasn't attacking you. Just wanker is (AFAIK) British for masturbator (used in a derogatory way), never seen it used as a synonym for penis.

I'll be damned... I had meant to type "shlong" and instead typed "wanker". This is hard to admit, but... I have been struggling of late with an issue. If only there were someone out there that could help me! My "self-atonement rituals" are getting completely out of hand.

if however that was a figure of Jesus Christ something tells me they wouldn't have cared (oh!!!!)

with court decisions that we don't even get to vote on being froced on us

When in the history of the country have you ever NOT had court decisions imposed on you without you voting on them?

Last time I checked they didn't hold a referendum every time a judge banged their gavel to make sure the majority of the public agreed with their ruling, nor are they supposed to.

I'll be damned... I had meant to type "shlong" and instead typed "wanker". This is hard to admit, but... I have been struggling of late with an issue. If only there were someone out there that could help me! My "self-atonement rituals" are getting completely out of hand.

Umm, are you jerking off a lot?

You have three options: a) keep doing it
b) have sex with someone (and keep doing it while you are apart)
c) die

Sorry, those are you only options. (I don't recommend c)

Umm, are you jerking off a lot?

Yes... but I swear it's only to Renaissance artworks! You see, that's what happens when you grow up in a town with a statue of a guy with his shlong hanging out.... you turn into a wanker! Alexandria Quatriem - help me!

Yes... but I swear it's only to Renaissance artworks! You see, that's what happens when you grow up in a town with a statue of a guy with his shlong hanging out.... you turn into a wanker! Alexandria Quatriem - help me!

Thanks for brightening up an otherwise dreary, humorless day. :D

The US as we know and love them... Michelangelo was a DIRTY PR0NOGRAPHIC ARTIST!!! Well, he was teh gay, you know. ;)

Hmm...this keeps coming up...
If the body is dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer.

Did they place David right behind Venus? Make it look like ol' Dave had a thing for quadrapoligics?(sp)

I'll be damned... I had meant to type "shlong" and instead typed "wanker". This is hard to admit, but... I have been struggling of late with an issue. If only there were someone out there that could help me! My "self-atonement rituals" are getting completely out of hand.

It still sounded pretty fucking funny though, so no bad.

See, this is the thing. The philosophical problem with conservatism is that it either waits too long to admit "We were wrong, before" or simply never does. Humans make mistakes, and refusing to change a system that is flawed because we make mistakes is foolishness. This, in and of itself, isn't too terrible, and I can see how philosophical conservatism could benefit a political entity for short times.

The problem with conservatism in America is that it's mostly based on the values and morals of Christianity, which doesn't work for all of us anymore. Heck, there's reason to believe that it never worked for all of us. Those of us for whom it doesn't work are just gaining a stronger voice of late.

The patriarchy in Christianity is being called into question by women.

The religious intolerance of Christianity is being called into question by other faiths.

The "sin" of Christianity is being called into question by civil rights activists.

The cultural vampirism of Christianity is being called into question by those who advocate separation of church and state.

We've always been here. We're just mustering the courage to speak for the first time since the Spanish Inquisition, now that killing someone for their beliefs is no longer tolerated.

Yet, practically, it is tolerated. This is a shout-out to all you who grumble about "those damn liberals" or "dirty faggots". Have you ever considered that your words are motivating others' deeds?

No tolerance for intolerance!

Why do I have to look at a 'I love Jesus'-sign at every corner? I'd rtather look at David and Venus de Milo.

Yet, practically, it is tolerated. This is a shout-out to all you who grumble about "those damn liberals" or "dirty faggots". Have you ever considered that your words are motivating others' deeds?

No tolerance for intolerance!

Reminds me of the phrases, "those damn Christians" or "fucking conservatives". Have you ever considered that your words are motivating the deeds of others?

The first step towards violence is the dehumanization of your opponent. That's not the sole province of conservatives, nor is it something that militant feminists have been free of.

And I'm tired of pinko-communism making the right look bad just because they cant win an election and have to resort to making up lies and other liberal hogwash!

BUSH WON! AMERICAN WANTS CONSERVATISM! GET OVER IT!

Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Stupidity. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy living a life considired "puritanic" by others.

:rolleyes:
Couldn't resist.

See, this is the thing. The philosophical problem with conservatism is that it either waits too long to admit "We were wrong, before" or simply never does. Humans make mistakes, and refusing to change a system that is flawed because we make mistakes is foolishness. This, in and of itself, isn't too terrible, and I can see how philosophical conservatism could benefit a political entity for short times.

The problem with conservatism in America is that it's mostly based on the values and morals of Christianity, which doesn't work for all of us anymore. Heck, there's reason to believe that it never worked for all of us. Those of us for whom it doesn't work are just gaining a stronger voice of late.

The patriarchy in Christianity is being called into question by women.

The religious intolerance of Christianity is being called into question by other faiths.

The "sin" of Christianity is being called into question by civil rights activists.

The cultural vampirism of Christianity is being called into question by those who advocate separation of church and state.

We've always been here. We're just mustering the courage to speak for the first time since the Spanish Inquisition, now that killing someone for their beliefs is no longer tolerated.

Yet, practically, it is tolerated. This is a shout-out to all you who grumble about "those damn liberals" or "dirty faggots". Have you ever considered that your words are motivating others' deeds?

No tolerance for intolerance!



*Sigh* Lets take a history lesson shall we. America was founded on Christian beliefs! If you dont like what America stands for or how it runs itself then get the hell out! again.....ITS WHAT MOST AMERICANS WANT! SOOOOOO GET OVER IT!

BUSH WON! AMERICAN WANTS CONSERVATISM! GET OVER IT!
yes, Bush won. but American doesn't appear to like him much any more, nor does America support the conservativism being forced upon them by the GOP. check out polls on Bush's approval rating, as well as poll results on recent "conservative" issues like the Shiavo case and Social Security.

if you want the results of one set of polls (the last presidential election) to define what America wants, then why not accept more current polls and adjust your claims accordingly?

I think the topic is fairly interesting.

If someone was actually offended by "unclothed statues", then I find it completely and utterly hypocrytical to tell that person that they cannot have that moral conviction, all in the name of "open-mindedness". Translation: "You can believe whatever you want, as long as I don't disagree with it" - that's the same thing the "ultra-conservatists" are being accused of in this post.

I feel that if someone had issues, they should speak to the proprieter of the property about it. If he's sensitive to other people's desires (within reason, of course), and if there really is a problem here, he could (perhaps) move the statues in question more to the middle of the pack - not visible from a road, I don't know.

If, on the other hand, the OWNER of the property refused to go along with the request, then that's his choice. Is it the "right" choice, tho? I can't know without seeing pictures.
HOWEVER, there's a fool in the city of Topeka, Kansas by the name of Fred Phelps - he wanted to place an engraved bench in the city cemetary next to a known homosexual's grave that reads: "Burn in hell, <name deleted>"
Technically, he's allowed to do this by the city laws. Legally, he's allowed to do it because of "free speach', etc.
Off the record, he's an ass who should find his OWN temperature fairly warm and toasty (in my beliefs) - and there's no way he should be permitted to go ahead with it.

Summary: "Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it should be done"

Oh. That, and "try not to judge conservatives based on their moral convictions"

I think the topic is fairly interesting.

If someone was actually offended by "unclothed statues", then I find it completely and utterly hypocrytical to tell that person that they cannot have that moral conviction, all in the name of "open-mindedness".

Try paying closer attention. They can have that moral conviction all they like, and nobody is saying they can't, they just don't have any legal right to do anything about it because the statue is on someone else's private freaking property and they have the right to display it.

*Sigh* Lets take a history lesson shall we. America was founded on Christian beliefs! If you dont like what America stands for or how it runs itself then get the hell out! again.....ITS WHAT MOST AMERICANS WANT! SOOOOOO GET OVER IT!

Somebody here certainly does need a history lesson:

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.

Conservatives claim to love their country so much, and they don't even know their own history...

Oh, and the whole "accept it or get out" bit is the exact OPPOSITE of what the USA was founded on.

*Sigh* Lets take a history lesson shall we. America was founded on Christian beliefs! If you dont like what America stands for or how it runs itself then get the hell out! again.....ITS WHAT MOST AMERICANS WANT! SOOOOOO GET OVER IT!


Let's take a real history lesson--not some Christian revisionist "This is the way we wish it happened" lesson. America is not and never was a Chrsitian nation. We were not founded on Chrisitan beliefs. Neither the word God nor the word Jesus appear anywhere in the Consitution. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed during the early stages of our nation when our Founding Fathers were running the government, explicitly states that we were in no way founded on Christian beliefs. While some of the FF's were Christian, many were Deist. It was either Jefferson or Franklin (yes, I am at a loss to remember which at the moment) who wrote that Christianity was the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind. America is based on freedom of religion--not hegemony by Christians.

And this whole "It's what most Americans" want arguement doesn't cut water on some issues fo rme. If most Americans believed that straight peopel shouldn't marry or have sex without a license, would you be okay with that? If most Americans believed that Christians couldn't drive cars, would you be okay with that?

Of coiurse you wouldn't! Because that would be the majority taking rights away from you because you are the minority--and even in Republic that's not okay. Equality and civil rights should exist regardless of who is in power, without respect of what religion says or doesn't say about it. As I recall, one of the major teachings of Jesus is (in my own words stolen from someone:) to put yourself in the other person's shoes and walk a mile in them. Christians lately seem to be completely unable to do so. If they could, perhaps they would be less quick to condemn and judge.

Oh, and the whole "accept it or get out" bit is the exact OPPOSITE of what the USA was founded on.

Wasn't it TR who said that when people stopped challenging, questioning, and doubting the President (government in general coudl work sjust as well) then that is when America would cease to exist and he would give up? Isn't it amazing how many Conservatives think that if you disagree with them, you are the one destroying America?

Wasn't it TR who said that when people stopped challenging, questioning, and doubting the President (government in general coudl work sjust as well) then that is when America would cease to exist and he would give up? Isn't it amazing how many Conservatives think that if you disagree with them, you are the one destroying America?

I never liked the statements like "you should support the president 100% because we're at war" and the frequent use of 9/11 to justify everything this administration wants to do. While I do not criticise the response to the war on terror in regard to Afghanistan, I find it ridiculous that people could even consider using BS excuses like I mentioned above to deflect criticism. Just because we're at war doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise it. By not taking issue with our government and allowing them to do whatever, how does democracy survive?

Reminds me of the phrases, "those damn Christians" or "fucking conservatives". Have you ever considered that your words are motivating the deeds of others?
Yes, I have considered this. That's why I'm very careful not to use hate speech or fighting words. If you think I've said something that could be taken as a call for violence, please point it out to me so that I can avoid doing so in the future.

The first step towards violence is the dehumanization of your opponent. That's not the sole province of conservatives, nor is it something that militant feminists have been free of.
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't liberals or feminists out there who dehumanize. I can't be responsible for them, though. I can work to correct it wherever I see it, but ultimately, it's their choice to use stupid tactics for their cause.

Your point, though, is taken, and I'm going to take this opportunity to extend my shout-out to everyone. Don't dehumanize your opponents in debate! Violence is never the solution to our problems, so don't even start down that path!

It amazes me that people still somehow think that this nation was found on Christian beliefs despite the absurd amount of evidence against it, especially the Treaty of Tripoli, which specificially says that this nation was not founded under christianity.

About the Treaty of Tripoli I just wanted to point out that it says not founded on the christian religion not christian beliefs those are two totally different things. The founding fathers were for the most part Diests. but it should be noted that a good deal of values in the contitution were also christian beliefs this does not mean that they are christian beliefs because christian wrote them in just that some of them were good ideas like not killing people. notice how we didn't knock out te possiblity of no other god then one and the fact that adultary is legal even if you want to kick a president out of office for it.