Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Good thing they got both points of view covered there...
As much as I love this artwork, I think that the guy here actually has a point. In case of a gallery or a museum or whatever other place of expression, this painting would go straight to the wall. However, in a public library, funded almost exclusively on governement funds, I don't think this artwork may be appropriate, just, as he points out, an artwork demeaning gays, muslims, or atheists would be inapropriate, or just, as we would probably be the first to cry out, an artwork <span>promoting</span> religion would be inapropriate.Not to say that art in general ought not to be shown in any library (After all, it is a place of mind and litterature, and excluding art from it would be a crime against humanity), but I think that artwork dealing with the matters of religion should probably be avoided, for the same reasons that we would cry out against the ten commandments sitting in the hallway of a state supreme court.
...Wow, Fox. Way to be possibly be right for once on a religious issue.Way to also make yourselves a bunch of hypocritical fools.Way to also twist the 1st amendment, when it's not even necessary. At least Fox is acutely aware that this could backfire, and so they decide to pretend the constitution allows positive religious displays, and not negative ones."Equal protection. Equal treatment under the law.""No place in a tax-payers supported, public law library."If only Fox actually believed this.Seriously, just switch the "controversial" painting for a picture of Jesus, and switch the Mr. Dacus with a Secularist and hopefully Fox will see the irony.
hmm they would never advocate taking down a painting that says "praise Jesus, and repent our sins"I agree non of that should be there, BUT if they allow the above type of painting... they should allow the antithesis of the above as well.
Agree with all the above.
on't expect Fox to actually give any context. This display is part of a fundraising exhibit with 63 other works. It ends in September. The artist has another two paintings which are also anti-religious, including one depecting a muslim woman wearing a hijab. It's definitely anti-religious, but not anti-christian.http://220.127.116.11/pages/creative-merger.aspxAlso,This is the second exhibit in five years at the library and is sponsored by California Lawyers for the Arts. A curator selected the artwork. The title of the current exhibit is "A Creative Merger II: Justice and Peace"http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/16/2893995/artwork-at-sacramento-county-law.html
Fox is a joke, but I agree with a few of you. The painting has no biz in a public building, just as religious painting have no biz in a public building.Also, the artist needs to fix the painting, The Bible WILL impare your jusdgement.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. After all, a library is place where inquisitive people who seek knowledge go to feed their curiosity. Those attributes don't describe the religious ;)
i bet the books are mor blasphemous- they should throw those out too.
I agree...As much as I like the painting, it does not belong.
My initial reaction is that the painting really doesn't belong there. Just as I would say that a religious painting doesn't. I think it is rather bad judgement to have such a potentially devisive piece of art at a public library.
I learned to never trust Fox, and will not make up my opinion on this exhibit until i hear the other side of the story.
I am usually again fox news, but they have a point here. This is offensive and inappropriate for a public area. I love the picture, and I think it is completely true. I went into this video prepared to laugh at him, but he is right. We would not accept it for homosexuals or any other group so why christians? However, it has just as much right to be there as a crucifix or any religious material does. Either they are both there or neither of them are.
it is however completely wrong to not cover both viewpoints. I am sure the artist has a story to tell.
Looks like reading the bible has already impaired Brad's judgement! What an idiotic waste of time to even dwell on this.
Ah. A government-funded law library is an inappropriate place to take a stance on religion.*Reveals Bible*Is this the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
It's interesting that this guy gets all the rules about church and state and the founding fathers pretty much right, considering it's the religious who tend to forget (or forgo) most of those rules.
<span>Uhm... Don't we find artbooks in libraries? I think some of you have fallen victim to the mistake Brad Dacus has made in thinking that this painting is a propaganda piece and not a work of art. Don't think about the work in the context of its subject matter. Think about it in context to the whole of the exhibition: "peace and social justice." Arthur Danto noted the need for an "artworld" in the mind of the audience to appreciate a work of art as art. When you come to achieve this state of mind, you will understand why a public law library is a fitting place for the context of this exhibition. I am not trying to fault or offend any of you... just explaning why Faux News got it wrong, again... and why some of you fell into the trap of its sophistry.</span>
It seems too complicated for the government to be sensoring what an artist can and can't show. They should just say "the views of the artist do not necessarily represent the views of the US government". Then let the artists show whatever they want. If someone complains about it just say that's the artists views we're sorry you did not enjoy the artwork. Its another thing if the government actually buys the artwork and displays it as their own piece. My understanding was that this was part of an art showing of some kind.
It's an art exhibit, they should keep it. It has nothing to do with the government supporting or not supporting anything.If they win in removing this artwork, then all art exhibits in all libraries should be removed.But they should keep it, and then Faux News can keep running stories about this 'travesty' and we can have more people be exposed to the real subtitle that should be ALL religious texts anyway.
Using that logic, the government having the 10 commandments as a work of art from a mason in a public building is okay, that's where the argument will lead. I'm in some form of agreement. The public building is not an art gallery, it doesn't have freedom of expression since every bit of art there is indirectly sponsored by the government's tax dollars. If there was jesus there, us atheists would be upset too. Be fair, and realize that this is a religiously (even if motivated by an anti-religious movement) categorized work of art, and thus having it in a public building at the expense of tax payers is kind of wrong.