|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Stephen Nadeau
email: Stenad@aol.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 17:44 PST
I think that the religious segment of our society had gotten too big. People are too sensitive today. The religious people of this country cannot take any public criticism of their crutch. Politically correct is just a means of keeping people quiet about controversial subjects. There are a lot of people who don't like what is going on in this country but are forced to keep quiet so as not to offend anyone. It is sad that this country has come to this.
name: N. White
email: natwhite@mediaone.net
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 18:45 PST
I agree with the Minnesota governor in his asesment
of religion. They are accusing him of bigotry, while they
are the biggest bigots on the planet. They use their religious
views to promote their megalomania and material gain
under the guise of spirituality.
name: Ed Schernau
email: ed@schernau.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 18:50 PST
Government should not fund the arts. Art is serious, moral, profoundly personal taste. Government funding is just that - funds taken
from the public. Since there is no organism called "society" but rather a large number of individuals, this means that a majority of
individuals, or someone claiming to represent them, have the ability to vote away the cash of the minority, and then impose their views of art
on that same disenfranchised minority.
The proper function of government is protecting its citizens from criminals. If people find a style or object
of art offensive, the response is simple. Don't pay for it.
name: Spencer Hahn
email: bbachtung@aol.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 18:56 PST
I am an atheist and a registered Libertarian, which is the most sensible combination of philosophical and political beliefs. Libertarians oppose government funding of almost everything, including schools, which would solve the separation of church and state argument. When the government gets involved in anything, in a democracy, the views of all members of the populace must be considered. The problem with public-funding of arts is that it creates problems such as this. As an atheist, I oppose any promotion of religion by the government; as a Libertarian, I oppose any involvement by the government in the arts, schools, churches, child-care, and nearly everything else. The government inadvertently creates controversies such as these.
name: Duane C. Buchholz
email: tincan@cyberhighway.net
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 20:07 PST
The termination of public funding for a public museum because of one relatively innocuous exhibit which the catholics find offensive constitutes overt censorship of an American freedom by a foreign dictatorship.
name: Mike Mahoney
email: clamgulch@aol.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 22:47 PST
If the art is crap, viewers will stay away in droves and it will die a natural death.
name: Adria B. MacDonald
email: adria@full-moon.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 23:20 PST
What is blasphemous to one person is beautiful, moving and provocative to another. In the United
States of America, what does Freedom of Speech mean if you are able to tie an artist's hands,
change a writer's words or cover a dancer's body? If a person is offended by the content of a piece
of art, then don't view it. There are plenty of other exhibits to view, one for every person. I,
for example, am not a fan of most museum art, however I was able to find something that appealed
to me. This is another example of organized religion attempting to put a strangle hold on
those who do not agree with their views. Also, the Governor should not be attempting what is an
elaborate and legal form of blackmail to attempt to censor the museum. Blasphemy is an indignity
offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to,
or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God also, the act of claiming the attributes or
prerogatives of deity. (http://www.dict.org/) If you hold no belief of a god, God or gods/
goddesses, then how is this considered to be blasphemous? It is individual interpretation
which offends the moral sensitivities, not a piece of art. For example, what would be said if I
declared that "The Last Supper" painting offended me and should not be publicly displayed because it
is offensive to the beliefs of Atheists? Can you hear the uproar?
name: nlm
email: SnkEys@aol.com
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 23:39 PST
Not everyone is going to think alike, get over it. There are more important things to worry about. Or, is anything that important to fight over?
name: D.M. Dunn
email: danmac@risecom.net
Friday, 01-Oct-1999 23:44 PST
As an American, I'm all for freedom of expression. But for the life of me I can't figure out what this 'artist'is trying to express. To me this so called art is a bunch of garbage. I really don't get it with the sliced up animals. Public funds should be used for art created by human beings with at least a little talent and not on people exibiting the anger of their mental illness. This 'artist' needs professinal help and maybe some art lessons.
name: Zachary Moore
email: zacharym87@hotmail.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 01:15 PST
First of all, government has no business funding the art world in the first place. Art is a private matter, and should be left to the discretion of private citizens. As for content, one of art's most significant functions through the centuries has been its subtle ability to question socail norms and practices, and to rob modern artists of this ability can acheive nothing other than the undercutting of their creativity. As for Guiliani and The Catholic League's delusional notion that offensive material somehow falls outside of first amendmant protection, the first amendment exists so that American citizens can be free to speak their mind, whether or not they express popular sentiments. Apparently the Catholic League believes that one has "freedom of speech" only so long as one does not dare voice an opinion. It is precisely for the Larry Flynts of this world that the first amendement was created. I will close with the following from Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
name: Ralph
email: qrgezus@aol.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 01:56 PST
I am insulted that they have put a catholic religious depiction in a public museum. This is my comment to the holier-than-thou who want to be the nazi censors for the public. The public is paying for a building, they are not buying the catholic artist's promotion of catholicism; they ain't bought the painting, unless I am misinfomed.
name: Neil Miller
email: neilinmich@home.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 04:03 PST
I do not trust "controls" on free expression. Who is going to control the controllers? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell?
No, I do not want to open a door that invites politically minded zealots to have an influence on what publicly funded art is elligible for public viewing.
If you don't like it, don't look at it and move on to find something you do like. It is a big world, there is room for everyone.
It is not a perfect world so lets get over it.
name: Timothy Brown
email: destination@pensys.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 11:22 PST
If those making noise weren't also seeking election, we'd have never heard about this exhibit.
name: Zach H.
email: Bananaman@elkgrove.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 15:06 PST
Religous groups everywhere seem to overreact every time some idea go's agianst their beliefs. For some reason I guess they fear that ideas oppsed to their beliefs can be hamrful to them and weaken them, as they may well do. With the small number of us that there are, we have learned to tolerate them, while they, in such vast numbers, cannot and will not stand to hear any of what we have to say. Yes we do seem to have less rights or we are always last to be considered when it comes to a decision. It seems that the religous groups will not stop until there is no one left to oppose them.
name: Carrie Rostollan
email: sueq@flash.net
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 16:34 PST
When public money goes to our school systems, the government always asserts its authority to control the curriculum. So why can't it assert some authority to control the content of art exhibits when public money is funding it?
If this had been a painting of a rainbow with a pink triangle behind it (and so been recognizable as a gay symbol), appointed with elephant dung, it would have been declared a work of intolerance and could not have been shown in any art show in the world. I guarantee it.
Every artist should support themselves with private funds, or sell tickets to their own exhibits and see if they can make money.
"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson, "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 2, p. 545 (1950).
name: Ralph Voltz
email: MacVoltz@ix.netcom.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 18:35 PST
Cultures are judged heavily on their artifacts.
Art as a measure of a culture should not be
influenced by monetary considerations because art
that depends on private sponsorship would not be
free. Minority voices would suffer by having to
fight popularity contests. We have a chance to
present ourselves to future generations in the most
democratic way possible.
Censorship would know no boundaries once it starts.
Who is to set the boundaries? Only the individual can
decide for him/herself what to observe by conducting
democratic censorship.
name: sheila l. chambers
email: sheilach@earthlink.net
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 18:47 PST
While I may concider some of the "art" to be in bad taste, I would not censor it. I personally would add a disclaimer that the views expressed by the artist do not necesarily express the opinion of the museum or it's sponsors.
name: Juliana
email: JulianaWP@aol.com
Saturday, 02-Oct-1999 21:58 PST
I am willing to let my tax dollars support the arts, even when I do not understand or care for the art itself, just for the opportunity to get me or someone else to think about what the artist is trying to say. The government should NOT CENSOR any type of public expression, even if it is offensive, AS LONG AS THAT EXPRESSION DOES NOT ENCOURAGE ONE TO COMMIT VIOLENCE OR PHYSICAL HARM. Distatsteful or offensive art will not kill us or make us bleed, and if we think about it long enough, we might be led to a point the artist was trying to make. And if we don't get there, well, we haven't died trying. If you don't like it, don't look at it, don't recommend it to your friends.
name: Randall Reiss
email: randalljr1@yahoo.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 08:51 PST
I find it absolutely hilarious that religinoids are upset and offended by this "art". Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art sometimes makes political statements. It is quite possible that the artist in question is making such a statement. I for one would like to make one...Has it ever occurred to chritians that they belong to a cult that has murdured, tortured and discriminted against millions of people throughout history whose sole "crime" was they did not think or believe as they do? The organization Chritianity, which was responsible for the crimes of the Inquisition, The Crusades, witch hunts/trials in early New England, hiding of pedophiles in thier churches, suppression/subjugation of women and slavery has never been brought to justice? Now THAT is blasphemy!
name: Bill
email: billkapoun@yahoo.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 12:45 PST
When there is a large catholic voting population it only makes sense that if their money is funding programs such as this, they should have some control over where their hard-earned tax dollars go, and i don't think a painting of jews being killed with swastikas all over it would fly, or the beating of gays but it is okay to attack a large group, such as catholics.
name: Bill
email: billkapoun@yahoo.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 12:53 PST
How much funding does it really take for shit like this, i am totoally against censorship but if this guy gets any sort of large sum of money for cutting off a cow head and chucking dung on a painting, that makes me more sick than the disgustingly extravagent salaries paid to professional sports figures and actors.
name: Magyck
email: MagyckMe@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 13:32 PST
I don't think the arts should be publicly funded. But if they ARE publicly funded, there can be no strings attached to the money. If that were the case, and we eliminate the controversial art work in THIS exhibit, where's the line drawn next time? No art depicting slavery because no decent person would be pro-slavery? No art depicting nude figures because no decent person would be pro-nudity? No Islamic figures because Christians would be offended? No Christian artwork because Buddhists would be offended? Please. And then we'd get favorite artforms supported by certain politicos at the expense of others as well. Either the public money's generically applied, or there's no public funding at all.
name: Robert Carver
email: Carver67@worldnet.att.net
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 13:50 PST
Either you fund the arts and everybody gets to utilize the funds as they see fit or the government gets totally out and leaves artists alone. Censorship is just not an option in a free society.
name: Monty Gaither
email: MLGATHIEST@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 14:35 PST
Constitutionally it is legal for government money to go to irreligious or secular art. But, it is not constitutionally allowed to support religious art. I would also, say that the 1964 civil rights act would prohibit the funding of racially discrementory art.
name: JuanCompos
email: zaeboola@ix.netcom.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 14:35 PST
"If government funds the arts, should there be controls on the content of what is presented?"
I found the above question to be rather vague. I answered "Yes" merely because "controls" includes things like not having art that poses a serious risk to public safety.
A nitroglycerine fountain might be art, but not in my town, thank you.
Aufwiederlesen Y'all
Ser JuanCompos ¦¬)
name: Brad Michaels
email: michras@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 14:37 PST
Idiot Atheists. They oppose "Ten Commandments" that
espouse morality and decency, yet support "art" (if animal shit on a canvas is art
then we are in trouble)that offends and mocks other american's beliefs. If you want free speech with blasphemous art, then alow free speech for the ten commandments.
You can't have it both ways you hypocritical idiotic atheists.
name: Doug
email: atmame77@yahoo.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 14:39 PST
Freedom of expression, means just that.
name: Michael Alexander
email: kestrel9@worldnet.att.net
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 15:01 PST
There are two separate questions here. (1) Should there be censorship and (2) should Mayor Rudolph Giuliani be the head censor? Some level of censorship seems inevitable, but I don't Rudy Giuliani leading the charge.
name: Kenneth F. Flaherty
email: Sirecho@MSN.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 15:09 PST
Public funded schools, are for all citizens, not just a certain type.
Public funded roads, and buildings, are for all citizens, not just a certain type.
Public funded Police and fire services, are for all citizens, not just a certain type.
Public funded arts, are for all artists, not just a certain type.
Where does religion get the idea, that it has, even a pretended right, to interfere with this system? It has no such right. It is in fact, breaking the law, of separation of church and state, in its attempt to censor artists.
In the public arena, religion must be prepared, to accept its share of insults, and degradation, that all other institutions and citizens receive. As the ACLU accepted, the insults and degradation, from President George Bush. As liberal organizations, homosexuals, abortion doctors; accept the insults and degradation from the religious.
An artist, cannot be an artist, if his ideas and emotions are censored by anything or anyone. As a flower cannot bloom, it it is restricted by anything.
name: Dorsey
email: dorsey@pobox.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 15:36 PST
I flat out don't believe that there should be
public funding for the arts at all. It is far
too easy to use a denial of funds as a form of
censorship. The government has no place saying,
"We like this art, so we'll subsidize it, but we
don't like your art, so no money for you." And
there is no even remotly leagal way for the
government to censor an art exibit that is
privatly funded. If a piece of art is worth
existing, someone somewhere will pay for it.
name: Samuel Rivier
email: HUMEanist@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 16:32 PST
Censorship is a fairly self-explanitory word. Offensive content is not. John Stuart Mill changed John Locke's plans for democracy to ensure the protection of minorities. If we must censor offensive material, we must censor all material. This is because there is no art that is not offensive to some group of people out there. If we only censor those objects which are offensive to the largest groups, we tear apart everything modern democracy stands for. This gives us only two solutions.
The first one is to support the indifferent people, because all the other groups protest entirely different things. Basically, just make them pay for it despite their beliefs, because the only agreement is a mutual disagreement.
The second is not to fund the arts all together because of its offensiveness. This may seem ideal, but then we would have to take funding from all public institutions, because every single one of them offends someone. Cut funding from schools because evolution offends the creationists. Cut funding from hospitals because the Jehova's Witnesses think blood transfusions are evil.
There is clearly only one path to take due to our democratic system. It is the worst decision in the world aside from all the others.
name: Mark
email: spark@unm.edu
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 16:47 PST
It is more important to protect our 1rst amendment
rights than the feelings of and group of people.
If we ever comprimize our 1rst amendment rights
for something as minor as this our nation is truely
in danger.
name: Frank
email: Micromegasii@yahoo.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 18:11 PST
As an artist and a member of the entertainment
industry as well, I have witnessed first hand
how destructive censorship can be to the rights
of EVERY citizen...even those who call for the
censorship in the first place. It's ironic that
the political and religious right rail at "Big
Government" and constantly battle for LESS
government intrusion into their lives EXCEPT when
they feel they are being held back from
proselytising their own superstitious dogma.
As the old expression goes, "they want their cake
and to eat it too"...free rights of expression to
everyone...except those they don't agree with. How
wonderful it is to be able to look at issues such
as this in a logical, reasoning and concerned way
without the shackels and blinders of "faith". If
Catholics, fundamentalists, cult members, Jews,
Hindus, Muslims and the thousands of other
religious splinter groups around the world ever
used their brains and checked their emotions for a
second, they might thank those of us who stand up
for an exibit such as this. We are standing up
for THEIR rights even though they don't realize
it. Weird huh?
name: Richard D. Parmentier
email: rich1634@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 19:42 PST
Free Expresson--Good!
Public Funding of the Arts--Good!
Blashpemy--a crime this Atheist cannot comprehend.
name: Polly Rothstein
email: Nontheist@wcla.org
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 20:49 PST
If the First Amendment doesn't protect the Brooklyn Museum's exhibition, then what does it protect?
Government shouldn't control speech through funding.
About Giuliani, no comment.
name: Greg Chambers
email: gcham11690@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 21:10 PST
Rhetoric aside, is this a free country or not?
Is this a democracy or not? In a free country free expression is key. In a religious society free expression, thought and science (our only dependable method to search for truth) are a primary threat to religious controls using ignorance, fear, superstition and hate to control the masses. Governor Ventura is without a doubt correct; organized religion is indeed a sham.
name: Dale C. McGiboney
email: dalemc@hrfn.net
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 21:39 PST
I am surprised how many voters support public funding of the arts. Let any artiste-poseur display anything he wants, no matter how stupid or appalling, on his own time, money, and property. It is a sufficient drain on the national economy just to provide for the constitutionally-mandated items; nothing more is needed.
name: David Wilkes
email: davewilkes@aol.com
Sunday, 03-Oct-1999 21:57 PST
Once again I find myself defending from the censors a so-called "work of art". I only defend it because the Catholic Mayor of New York wants to censor it. In reality the piece shows no artistic talent whatsoever.
As for blasphemy, offending the Church, and other reasons for removing the piece: Blasphemy is a victimless crime (was Madalyn the first to say that?), and the Church has been more offensive to others than they have ever been to the Church. How much more offensive can one be than to kill someone for their opinions?
David
name: John Favinger
email: swampjohn@yahoo.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 00:38 PST
While my support of public funding of the
arts is lukewarm, if they are funded it should be
completely uncensored. As to blasphemy, it is by
definition covered by the separation clauses.
Unless the subject has been given a government
blessing, there cannot be a legal grounds for
blasphemy. If I were to worship rocks, could I
then try to shut down a quarry for crushing
stone?
name: Don Hirschberg
email: dhirsch@centurytel.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 01:50 PST
I'm inclined to think there should be no tax money
spent on art. We have such a murky situation here
determining what constitutes religion and what
constitutes art. Public money should no more be
spent making religion look good than on making
religion look bad. American Indian art, for
example, nearly always includes some kind of
spooky religious content. But it is routinely
displayed as cultural, rather than religious. How
could we rationally prohibit Christians from doing
the same thing. If there is no tax funding then
here is no censorship problem - Seems the best way
to promote complete separation of religion and
goverment.
name: Sharon
email: smh@tyler.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 07:36 PST
I don't think that there is anything about the Virgin Mary piece itself that makes it worth the national attention it's been getting. The shock artist, I'm sure, is loving it. I don't imagine the piece was ever intended to draw approval, but rather to offend people. The mayor has generously made the work famous and quite likely increased its monetary value enormously with the commotion he's raised over it. I wonder if he's getting a cut for all the free publicity he's generated for it. ;)
name: Dave Keever
email: dlkeever@hotmail.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 08:49 PST
Is the "Virgin Mary" piece art? Not to these eyes. Is it blasphemy? Not to me, I'm an atheist. But _without the First Amendment and public monies_ I wouldn't have had this: the freedom to make *my* choice.
It's ironic - if the "powers that be" had not thrown such a hissy fit over the exhibit I suspect that most of the public would have "voted" their opinions with a lack of attendence. By throwing this fit these "powers" demonstrate what they are truly thinking: _you_ (and me!) do not have the ability to think for ourselves. I, for one, feel more than just a little bit insulted, how about you?
name: Giuseppe Panettieri
email: Jerseyjoe-1@webtv.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 11:47 PST
In a time when free expression has gotten so expensive that only major corporations, and political action groups can get their message accross, publicly funded art is an important venue for the expression of dissenting ideas. It seems to me that the powers that be feel threatened by any dissenting thought.
name: Christopher Pearsoll
email: chrisgp@cc.usu.edu
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 13:02 PST
What people seem to be forgetting in this issue over artwork in museums is that nobody is forcing them to go see the art in question. Those that are protesting the piece in the Brooklyn Museum are not objecting to the artist's interpretation, just their own. If they don't like it, they don't have to look at it, but they shouldn't be telling anybody else that they shouldn't look at it. It should be the individual's choice.
name: Dick Young
email: dick.young@gsa.gov
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 15:12 PST
To quote Mark Twain:
"Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is
as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He
is as little as that, He is beneath it."
Either way,"blasphemy" is nothing more than an
ad hominen aimed at protecting "truths" that are
unable to stand on their own two feet.
No doubt many "artists" resort to sensationalism to
help subsidize their meager talents, but freedom
of expression should not be placed in peril because
there are those who exploit this medium for personal
gain. Eventually those who are frauds will end up
on the proverbial dungheap themselves.
name: Eroc
email: eric@nccw.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 15:28 PST
Even though I am not a big art fan I feel censorship is what makes people narrow-minded and uneducated, so if someone feels they should paint something racist or anti-religious then let that person express what he/she feels. Remember art is a form of EXPRESSION (It only shows one persons view not everyones) and shutting out one form to keep people from getting upset is not a good idea. Perhaps, we as nation should change America's saying from "The land of the free" to "The land of the faceless."
name: Paul Sweeney
email: siegedracut@yahoo.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 15:40 PST
I dont believe that tax payer's money should be used to promote private artists. But when the money is provided by the government, the government's involvement should end. Every piece of "art" so funded which has become controversial can be condemmed on the basis that it is poor "art". Blasphemy is not a crime and the government shouldnt be involved at all.
name: Dennis Cassidy
email: reazonozaer@yahoo.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 15:45 PST
I believe that art is an essential part of socity
and should therefore be supported. I also don't support
Censorship, because if ANY lines are drawn across
free speach then who knows how many more will be
drawn?
name: Azinnic
email: Zeenric2@gate.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 15:55 PST
I would also object to public funds being used to
support art/propaganda that ridicules humanist,
rationalist, or freethinking philosophies!
name: William Kipp
email: billkipp@juno.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 18:42 PST
I think that the question regarding the Brooklyn
Museum raises some rather interesting questions
for American Atheists.
Aanews makes much of a total separation of state
and religion. It decries the use of personal
expression at Christmas regarding paintings and
statues in public places. It not only complains,
but also makes a legal issue of Christian symbols
on the doors of certain state senators/congressmen, etc. If Christian symbols
are not to be allowed at taxpayers' expense, then
how can American Atheists promote an image of
Mary in a tax-supported museum? Would American
Atheists allow a painting of Mary being the only
one portrayed, but having her crying with a shadow
of a cross in the background? It seems to me that
separation is separation, not just when it promotes a religion,
but when that religion is denounced as well.
name: stoney
email: stoney@stoneynet.net
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 19:23 PST
Art is a method of expression. People come up with
different conclusions based on the same input. I do not
favour censorship or the bullying tactics of the Catholic
League and the Mayor of N.Y.
They are free to object and protest. They are not
being forced to go to the exhibit. Sadly, both the
Catholic League and the Mayor are demanding the freedom
they would deny others.
name: Arthur B. Waugh
email: abwaugh@sirius.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 20:41 PST
I am somewhat amused by the so-called Christian art critics. They surely lack "faith" in their religion and its power. I supposed they think that if blasphemy is allowed God just might put her foot down in Brooklyn and some of the fall out might injure the innocent bystanders. Surely a religion that claims origin of the universe must have the power to dispell any voodoo dodo. A little elephant shit cant hurt the Virgin Mary.
name: Arthur B. Waugh
email: abwaugh@sirius.com
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 21:09 PST
Critics of public funding of the arts in the United States fail to look at amount. The United States is really very stingy. The entire budget of art support in LESS than the City of Berlin spends on the same endeavors. It is also a downright lie that most of the money goes to support trashy, pornographic, blasphemous art. If one will take the trouble to read the whole lists one can see hundreds of worthwhile local endeavors: symphony orchestras etc.
name: Christopher Pearsoll
email: chrisgp@cc.usu.edu
Monday, 04-Oct-1999 23:31 PST
This comment is in responce to another that is allready posted. I don't believe that atheists are opposed to the display of superstitious symbology on the holidays in question, just to their placement on public property or anywhere else that would suggest government endorsement. If they want to do the nativity scene or anything else, that's fine - as long as it's not on public property. Same goes for monuments to superstition such as the Mount Davidson Cross. Build whatever you want, just not on public land.
name: Rob B
email: dmg5371
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 00:26 PST
The government definitely shouldn't stop funding the arts. However, if some art offends certain groups, then perhaps a rating system similar to the one used for movies should be implemented, and maybe certain wings in museums should be set aside to accomodate these "controversial" pieces. The problem is, who would determine the ratings for artwork?
No one should be outraged over the blaspheming of Virgin Mary, anyway. People should be outraged at all the religious art that clutters museums, especially all the angel sculptures.
name: Barb Reiland
email: bfreiland@cavemen.net
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 09:41 PST
Am stanuchly opposed to censorship in any form.
name: Elaine Lazar
email: lazare@guilford.k12.nc.us
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 10:00 PST
Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. carefully selected Selma, Alabama - a wealthy, white community -for his march for civil rights, so also did the American Nazi Party select Skokie, Illinois for their anti-Semitic parade. The reason behind both marches was the same: to get a reaction from the people that group most despised. With King, it was rich, indifferent, rascist southern whites; with the Nazis, it was the Jews. Democracy is flawed, as are all governmental constructs; freedom of speech, however, is not one of the American Constitution's flaws.
name: Steve
email: pierogiguy@msn.com
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 11:35 PST
I do not believe that the government should support the arts. I also believe the government should not subsidise corporations or farms. The government should protect us from international enemies, supply an infrastructure and provide courts of law wherein citizens can settle disputes. Other than that, I believe most "things" should be left up to the American citizen to privately fund. When the government becomes involved in funding of arts they have a stake in what the artist is trying to convey. If it's the government's money then it is the people's money. Not everyone is a champion of the arts. The government can provide farmers with money and tell them how many beets or cabbages to grow. My fear is that the government will try doing the same to arts using public funds. As an atheist and someone that believes in church-state separation, I am opposed to school vouchers. There is a similarity here: I don't want my tax dollars used to provide someone with a Christian or otherwise theistic education just as Christian tax payers do not want their money used to support art which they deem offensive and blasphemous. In no way do I support censorship in any form for any medium of expression, but when the government becomes involved they have a vested interest. If they were kept out of the equation all thogether (i.e. no public monies for the museum)they would have no say as to what the content of any exhibit was. In conclusion, if the government were kept out from the beginning, then there would be no controversy today.
name: Bonnie Yates
email: apples2oranges@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 13:41 PST
The first amendment guarantees everyone freedom of speech, even if others don't like what is being said. So long as no one is being put into physical danger by someone else, the rights should stand. At some time, everyone is offended...but the first amendment is what should be adhered to.
name: John Melby
email: jbmelby@advancenet.net
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 18:06 PST
As an artist (a composer) myself, I have learned from bitter experience that public funding of the arts, which works very well in some countries, is simply unworkable in the US due to the tendency of our politicians and religious leaders to seize upon controversial works of art to further their own political ambitions--and not infrequently, unfortunately, to line their own pockets with the long green as well. Therefore I reluctantly take the position that "as long as you're not paying me for the creation of a work of art, then keep your filthy fingers away from it!"
name: Heather Stratton
email: Lilith523@aol.com
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 18:34 PST
I feel that the government should not be FORCED to fund the arts, but that if it decides to do so, it does not have the right to decide what is art and what is not, nor to censor certain exhibits because they may offend someone. I find it unfortunate that freedom of expression, which is granted to us by our Constitution, is being curbed so that we can make everyone happy. Frankly, no matter what they showcase in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, SOMEONE will be offended by it. Just because Mayor Guiliani feels that it is blasphemous doesn't mean that no one has a right to see it. Is his faith so weak that it cannot stand up to one art exhibit, which was not even meant to be offensive?
name: Stephen Miller
email: maxomaggot@aol.com
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 18:38 PST
If the government is to sponsor anything, there should be no contraints as to content whatsoever. So long as no one is being finanicially or physically hardmed or altered without consent, etc., the government should, basically, be able to do what it wants. Of course, I can't go into much detail here, but my opinion concerning censorship is concise - do not have it. We have freedom of speech. However, if there are privately funded things, they may have restrictions. They may do what they like. The government should not interfere. Since I do not agree with the manner in which out government works, I could not properly answer the question "do you believe that there should be government funded arts?"
name: Jeff Williams
email: jeffrey.williams@prodigy.net
Tuesday, 05-Oct-1999 20:48 PST
Every American has the right to express his views opinion and art. This goes without saying. Every American does not however, have the right to have a publically funded exhibition of his art work. That is a privilege. If the local government chooses not to fund it, it is not in any way censorship. You may disagree. You also have the right to express your dissatisfaction with the public officials involved. Keep in mind, there are many starving artists who have no real hopes of a government subsidized showing any time soon. Are they being censored too? Or do they need to rely upon themselves to find a way to connect to their audience. The government can not stop the showing of any piece of art. The government can, and does legally decide, where to put our money, however.
name: Jeremiah Pepper
email: kharmapayback1@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 06-Oct-1999 12:15 PST
The mayor of NY should keep himself out of the
business of art, and concern himself with the
issues he was elected for, primarily managing
New York.
name: Steven Thomas
email: wemilo@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 06-Oct-1999 21:49 PST
I think we the people are big enough to support the arts just fine. There should be no question whether or not arts should be in our budget. As for censorship, we must all accept the risk of taking offense at someone else's point of view, until we are ready to surrender our own to silence.
name: HB Mischling
email: mischling@hotmail.com
Thursday, 07-Oct-1999 15:22 PST
Unfortunately, Americans do not seem to be mature enough to support the arts using public funds, so I must say that at this point, the government should stop funding all artistic endeavours. I feel sorry for the majority of non-controversial artists and institutions who rely upon this funding, but we cannot allow the government to pick and choose which sorts of art it will subsidize. Sad, but issues such as this allow politicians to introduce terms such as "blasphemy," which has no meaning outside of its religious context, into the political sphere, where it has absolutely no place according to the Constitution.
name: George Bingham
email: gbingham@tfs.net
Thursday, 07-Oct-1999 15:26 PST
I do not condone censorship. Nor do I condone public funding for the arts.
If however public funds are used to sponsor an art gallery or exhibition, then
people have the right to object to their funds being used to support particular
works of art.
The call by the Mayor of New York City to withdraw public funds from the Brooklyn
Museum is not the same as "censorship". I don't believe that an organization that
benefits from public money has the right to use that money to offend, denigrade,
or otherwise oppress their public benefactors.
That's why our freedom is important. People who want to espose views like these
have every right to do so, as long as there is private funding of their cause.
name: Steve Krueger
email: ebolashock@yahoo.com
Thursday, 07-Oct-1999 23:24 PST
Art is art. Art is one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind. If someone wants to draw something or glue a piece of dung to a painting, that's their choice. It's sad that we live in a country that kisses the rear ends of every religious group, but when it comes to the ones without religion they knock us down and strip away our rights. Let the exhibit go on. You don't have to agree with what is there. If you can't stomach it, don't pay to see it.
name: Charlie George
email: gt5586b@prism.gatech.edu
Friday, 08-Oct-1999 12:52 PST
Supply and demand operates in the free art world. If an exhibit is "too offensive" (whatever that means), it will be unpopular. Such exhibits will not receive future public funding, in the macro. If there is a substantial segment of the public who wants to see blasphemy raised to an art form, so be it. That's why we have art, entertainment, and free expression. We musn't be afraid to express politically incorrect opinions, lest the culture stagnate. Free expression ensures an influx of new ideas, which are essential to maintain social innovation. Such an endeavor deserves public funding. To isolate oneself from free expression is to bind oneself to imperfect and outmoted ideas.
name: Tom Koeberling
email: tkoeberlin@aol.com
Friday, 08-Oct-1999 16:12 PST
To be logically consistant, one cannot be for public funding of the arts if you wish total freedom of expression for the artists.
Public funding is the bestowing on monies collected from the entire society on an individual or group. One must then respect the wishes of the entire collective of society. To offend any sector of that society means that they have paid to have themselves offended, though they clearly did not choose this outcome. In other words, their freedom of expression has been violated because they were forced to "vote with their pocketbooks" for something they clearly did not want.
To avoid this dilemma, the only solution is the abolition of public funding of the arts. Those who are against such an argument should look deeply in their hearts and answer the following questions truthfully:
a) When did you last support public television.
b) When did you last support public radio?
c) When did you last contribute your time or treasure to any cause related to the arts?
Actions speak louder than words. Keep the politicians out of the arena of the arts, and thereby keep the arts free! Then, vote with your pocketbook and time and truly keep those examples of human expression which you truly value. The cranks, the poseurs, and misanthropes will then fall by the wayside from lack of support.
AND IF SOMETHING OFFENDS YOU, DON'T LOOK AT IT!
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
