Blasphemy?

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm sure Jesus wouldn't approve of His Mother being mocked!!!!

I do not think the intention of the artist was to mock. Besides, we do not know what Jesus's mother really looked like, so we do not know if the painting is a resemblance or not - most likely not. Why would Jesus care less if someone painted a picture of someone who was not his mother ? She was only mentioned a handful of times in the bible anyway, and Jesus said " This do in remembrance of me ". Those offended by a piece of art should worry about other things in the world like overpopulation ( the worlds population is EIGHT times more than what it was when our great great grandparents were born ), climate change, global warming, world hunger etc.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

I do not think the intention of the artist was to mock. Besides, we do not know what Jesus's mother really looked like, so we do not know if the painting is a resemblance or not - most likely not. Why would Jesus care less if someone painted a picture of someone who was not his mother ? She was only mentioned a handful of times in the bible anyway, and Jesus said " This do in remembrance of me ". Those offended by a piece of art should worry about other things in the world like overpopulation ( the worlds population is EIGHT times more than what it was when our great great grandparents were born ), climate change, global warming, world hunger etc.

What would be your opinion if an "art" painting was made of your mother depicting her in a disrespectful way, and a public institution spent Irish taxpayers money promoting it instead of local Irish artists that are trying to get a break ?

gimmebroadband

gigino wrote: »

I do not think the intention of the artist was to mock. Besides, we do not know what Jesus's mother really looked like, so we do not know if the painting is a resemblance or not - most likely not. .

It was the intention of the artist to mock alright, he used an image based on the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe!

News story here!

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

News story here!

She identified herself as the ever virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the True God for whom we live, of the Creator of all things, Lord of heaven and the earth.

Not backward in coming forward anyway.

lmaopml

LOL, Blaspheme your heart out. Hopefully you will find a reporter to report it, and some protesters that protest. - Idiots the lot!

strobe

dvpower wrote: »

Not backward in coming forward anyway.

lmaopml wrote: »

LOL, Blaspheme your heart out. Hopefully you will find a reporter to report it, and some protesters that protest. - Idiots the lot!

If I was inside then other times I slipped inside the eye of your mind, cabbage...

Only in the other time, inside I knew it was grey...


...

oceanclub

ISAW wrote: »

I=Now back to the relativism. People who say there is no absolute right or wrong and it all depends on the individual or the society at the time. Certain atheists promote this agenda of no overarching absolute natural law which says some things are always right or always wrong. They will tell you such a think depends on the society of the time. So they would say child porn or insulting a religious icon is acceptable to them if society wants that. And a society without natural law will permit such a thing.

Got it?

Relativism of course is terrible. Until it's used by the Catholic Church to defend their attitude towards the commiting and coverup of child rape in previous decades, in which case they pull "moral relativism" out of the bag and claim it wasn't considered a serious matter than like it is now.

P.

Fanny Cradock

What?

Take it to the appropriate thread.

philologos

For the sake of discussion this is the offending image.



I looked at it and wondered what all the fuss was about. Now the Gardaí are investigating it. This is a good reason why we need to have a referendum on the place of blasphemy in the constitution.

gimmebroadband

The Blessed Virgin, bore the Son of God, the Eternal Word made flesh in her womb, and I don't think trashy images like the above appropriate!

philologos

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Blessed Virgin, bore the Son of God, the Eternal Word made flesh in her womb, and I don't think trashy images like the above appropriate!

That's fine, but it's another thing to threaten people with the law as a result. I don't see the picture as "trashy". It's applying a human perspective to Mary. Sure she would have never been as exposed as this. Then again Mary would never have been Caucasian and more than likely wouldn't have been blue-eyed.

If the picture is trashy, don't go to see it! The complaints of blasphemy have produced free advertising for the event. More people want to see it as a result.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

That's fine, but it's another thing to threaten people with the law as a result. I don't see the picture as "trashy". It's applying a human perspective to Mary. Sure she would have never been as exposed as this. Then again Mary would never have been Caucasian and more than likely wouldn't have been blue-eyed.

If the picture is trashy, don't go to see it! The complaints of blasphemy have produced free advertising for the event. More people want to see it as a result.

I'm sure you would not like to see your own Mother's character deliberately misrepresented and skewed in a political agenda artwork promoted by a third level institution. I would also suspect if it was an untruthful image of Jesus being promoted using state funding, you would not be so understanding.

I have no interest in the blasphemy law. My main difficulty is that this exhibition is being paid, promoted, and hosted, using state funds, while real artists, who have genuine talent and don't require abusive controversy to get attention, are ignored.

philologos

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

I'm sure you would not like to see your own Mother's character deliberately misrepresented and skewed in a political agenda artwork promoted by a third level institution. I would also suspect if it was an untruthful image of Jesus being promoted using state funding, you would not be so understanding.

I wouldn't go and see it. I don't expect the State to protect my beliefs. It is up to Christians to put forward Christian beliefs in society through churches and in their general lives. The reaction that Christians give to stuff like this will ultimately determine much of how people will tell about Christianity. Some times it is simply better to turn the other cheek and recognise that people will blaspheme.

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

I have no interest in the blasphemy law. My main difficulty is that this exhibition is being paid, promoted, and hosted, using state funds, while real artists, who have genuine talent and don't require abusive controversy to get attention, are ignored.

You mightn't but unfortunately others want to use the law as a means of censoring material. If we desire freedom of speech to communicate the Gospel of Christ, this means permitting others freedom of speech even if we disagree with them.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't go and see it. I don't expect the State to protect my beliefs

Neither do I, but I wish the state would keep out of them, instead of sponsoring those who wish to attack them. A truly secular state remains neutral in such matters. There is plenty of superior and inoffensive local art that could do with the states promotion.

philologos

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Neither do I, but I wish the state would keep out of them, instead of sponsoring those who wish to attack them. A truly secular state remains neutral in such matters. There is plenty of superior and inoffensive local art that could do with the states promotion.

The artist doesn't wish to attack RCC belief. She's stated this quite clearly in the Examiner. The amount of media attention this has just because of people complaining is ridiculous.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

The artist doesn't wish to attack RCC belief. She's stated this quite clearly in the Examiner. The amount of media attention this has just because of people complaining is ridiculous.

She can spin and twist all she wants. That is of no interest to me.
I could easily depict something grossly untrue about your mother and then say it's not my intention to do so when challenged. It’s meaningless. I've seen quite a few examples of her 'art' and what she depicts. The drivel she creates is of no interest to me, my main objection is the state paying for and promoting this work, while excellent local Irish art that does not offend anyone is not promoted.

I could claim that because I personally don't find a derogatory picture of your mother offensive, then its not offensive, and that the sate should pay to put it on display to make my point clear.

philologos

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

She can lie and twist all she wants. That is of no intrest to me.

How is she lying or twisting about her own art?

gimmebroadband

philologos wrote: »

How is she lying or twisting about her own art?

I think what Bob Cratchet meant was that she was lying or twisting about offending Catholics, not her art!!!!

philologos

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I think what Bob Cratchet meant was that she was lying or twisting about offending Catholics, not her art!!!!

I'm sure she did offend some. The point is that she didn't intend to offend. People can be offended, but when people try to bring the law into it that's when I find it objectionable.

gimmebroadband

philologos wrote: »

I'm sure she did offend some. The point is that she didn't intend to offend. People can be offended, but when people try to bring the law into it that's when I find it objectionable.

Aw come on......how can she take an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and gussy her up in a floral bikini and not think it would offend anyone??

I don't know much about Blasphemy laws, so can't comment on why the law would be brought in!

philologos

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Aw come on......how can she take an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and gussy her up in a floral bikini and not think it would offend anyone??

I don't know much about Blasphemy laws, so can't comment on why the law would be brought in!

A few people have reported the exhibit to the Gardaí. I fail to see how this painting warrants that.

Bob Cratchet

I must dream up and paint up something very offensive and controversial to Protestants or Perhaps Gays or Immigrants to get noticed, as I'm a Catholic the press will be all over it like a rash hypocritically condemning me, then I can get a state institution to pay me taxpayers money to host a public exhibition of it on their property. The precedent has been set now. Easy money. I am an Artist after all.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

A few people have reported the exhibit to the Gardaí. I fail to see how this painting warrants that.

Even more to the point, how does it warrant a state sponsored exhibition ?

marienbad

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

I'm sure you would not like to see your own Mother's character deliberately misrepresented and skewed in a political agenda artwork promoted by a third level institution. I would also suspect if it was an untruthful image of Jesus being promoted using state funding, you would not be so understanding.

I have no interest in the blasphemy law. My main difficulty is that this exhibition is being paid, promoted, and hosted, using state funds, while real artists, who have genuine talent and don't require abusive controversy to get attention, are ignored.

you keep referring to ''your mother'' in defence of your argument as if there was some poor woman living down the road being subjected to savage depictions by some vile artist ! get a grip , you are not comparing like with like.

on your second point concerning ''real artists'' - how do you know they are real artists ? who should decide ?

philologos

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

I must dream up and paint up something very offensive and controversial to Protestants or Perhaps Gays or Immigrants to get noticed, as I'm a Catholic the press will be all over it like a rash hypocritically condemning me, then I can get a state institution to pay me taxpayers money to host a public exhibition of it on their property. The precedent has been set now. Easy money. I am an Artist after all.

Bob, I believe that Mary was a hugely significant woman in the formation of Christianity. I believe she was a powerful servant of God. However, I don't particularly care if people wish to present a painting at an exhibition. My faith in God is stronger than that. I don't believe that my faith should be threatened my a painting.

I believe God is bigger than a painting and I believe that He will have the last word on blasphemy. Blasphemy is highly rude and disrespectful, it is socially undesirable, but should it be illegal? I don't think so. That said, I don't see this painting as being hugely offensive either really. It's just a woman. It's interesting in one way in that it puts a human side to Mary rather than the constructed Caucasian version we've come to be familiar with in Ireland. That said it is a little bit too exposed to be presented as a realistic portrayal as Mary. It would be more valuable had the artist simply tried to put a human side to her.

She claims that she isn't depicting the mother of God in the picture though.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

Bob, I believe that Mary was a hugely significant woman in the formation of Christianity. I believe she was a powerful servant of God. However, I don't particularly care if people wish to present a painting at an exhibition. My faith in God is stronger than that. I don't believe that my faith should be threatened my a painting.

I believe God is bigger than a painting and I believe that He will have the last word on blasphemy. Blasphemy is highly rude and disrespectful, it is socially undesirable, but should it be illegal? I don't think so. That said, I don't see this painting as being hugely offensive either really. It's just a woman. It's interesting in one way in that it puts a human side to Mary rather than the constructed Caucasian version we've come to be familiar with in Ireland. That said it is a little bit too exposed to be presented as a realistic portrayal as Mary. It would be more valuable had the artist simply tried to put a human side to her.

She claims that she isn't depicting the mother of God in the picture though.

I couldn't care less about her blasphemy problem, that's her problem.

Whatever the subject, I'm asking how does any picture considered very offensive by many in our community warrant taxpayers money and a state sponsored exhibition, in one of the states third level institutions ? I very much doubt it would be promoted by the state and tolerated if it was as offensive to any other group in the community.

philologos

Are you suggesting that UCC should pick paintings to show based on what a few Roman Catholics find offensive? Or a few Sikhs? Muslims? Jews and so on? UCC hosted an exhibition for people who are interested to see. If you're not interested don't go look.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

Are you suggesting that UCC should pick paintings to show based on what a few Roman Catholics find offensive? Or a few Sikhs? Muslims? Jews and so on? UCC hosted an exhibition for people who are interested to see. If you're not interested don't go look.

When have UCC ever hosted such works ? And why should they obtain state sponsorship and promotion ?

lmaopml

I'd tend to agree with Philologos on this. I think the artists impression speaks volumns about them moreso than Our Lady. If we started censoring everything in the State than we'd have a huge problem, because people get offended by so many things, and some people love offending and getting notice for stupid stuff.

I haven't seen the depiction, I don't really have an interest in feeding anybodies misplaced ego, and wouldn't be arsed going to view it either... If the painting hangs and people go and think it's incredibly arty than ye know....good on em....'Art' imo has gone considerably downhill daily mail style.

Meh..

Bob Cratchet

lmaopml wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with Philologos on this. I think the artists impression speaks volumns about them moreso than Our Lady. If we started censoring everything in the State than we'd have a huge problem, because people get offended by so many things, and some people love offending and getting notice for stupid stuff.

I haven't seen the depiction, I don't really have an interest in feeding anybodies misplaced ego, and wouldn't be arsed going to view it either... If the painting hangs and people go and think it's incredibly arty than ye know....good on em....'Art' imo has gone considerably downhill daily mail style.

Meh..

The question is why should they obtain state sponsorship and promotion at the expense of non contentious Irish works ? Is UCC not supposed to be inclusive ?