censorship and patriotism, together again!
I saw this interesting piece in the Progressive about an artist who has received death threats because of his 'treasonous' work showing a flag draped USA going down the toilet. Some good 'patriots' want his work removed because it is being shown in a public space, while others would like one of their goose-stepping followers to out and out kill him. Lovely. Is that what Jesus would do?Dissent is one of the cornerstones of democracy, which is why hard core conservatives want to squash it. They do not want a democracy, they want a dictatorship of their chosen party. They want us all to have to adhere to their beliefs or be severely punished (I believe the word is Theocracy, actually). They constantly tell us that the men and women fighting over seas are fighting for our right to free speech, and then get offended if we exercise that right. Well, if you assholes ever get the country you want, you can put my back against the wall first because I won't live in it quietly...
Be afraid of the hyper-patriotic...their kind pave the way for fascism...
posted by AngryYoungMan @ 1:21 PM
6 Comments:
Here's the problem, from an American point of view: why is it necessary to prohibit the display of symbols that offend liberals, but mandatory to permit the display of symbols that offend conservatives?
I say, let the artwork remain. And, allow the display of the Ten Commandments and a big red, white, and blue banner displaying "God Bless America!" in bold letters.
If seeing a crucifix or "God Bless America!" in a public place offends you, then switch your view to America being flushed down the toilet.
If you really believe in freedom of speech, then you have to protect everyone's freedom... not just the anti-Americans.
Yawn, that's pretty standard paranoid white male rhetoric, but you do have a point that many people who call themselves 'liberal' have a problem with allowing displays of christianity and patriotism. On your private property, or in the context of an art exhibit, use these symbols 'till your heart's content. In the context of a permenent display on a public building, that is a whole differant argument. See, we have this thing called 'seperation of church and state' that allows for no religious group to feel like they do not have equal access to the law, which is exactly what happens if we put large slabs with the tend commandments in front of judiciary buildings (I can only imagine this is display offensive to 'liberals' that you are alluding to).
If a fellow artist put a star spangeled G.W. poster with flashing red, white and blue lights and a ten foot tall monument to the ten commandments in the same exhibet, I'd say more power to them. But when they want to make that a permenent ficture in a building that is supposed to represent impartiality, we have a serious problem.
when do the stonings, book burnings & lynchings begin?
i think the only time a liberal is offended by the display of the ten commandments is when it's in a court house/government building due to church/state relations growing ever thicker & the fact that most liberals still believe in the freedom of religion.
As much as seeing the nation carpeted in red, white, and blue by people who prefer not to admit we do any wrong, it's their right to make their statement.
"There was a farmer had a dog and JINGO was his name-O....."
/me rereads original article.
aha. That flag in the toilet piece was in the CA dept of justice? well I can see where that might not be the best venue for controversial art. Your point, john clifford, is now much better taken & I agree that you're seeing something of a double standard.
But it is a temporary display where they had asked law practitioners to display art depicting how they felt about the state of the nation. They got what they asked for, if the venue seems inapropriate I guess it is entirely the organizers' fault.
Post a Comment
<< Home