From comment 151:
No one outlawed the word ‘Easter’ on it’s own.
That is precisely what happened and what started this whole discussion! Did you even read the same article as I did?
“HUCK: Technically, the reason is, we are using public money and we cannot do something that is strictly religious for a single religion to promote that. …It is the buzzword of Easter that’s causing all the problem. ”

It is precisely because the word Easter has a religious meaning that it was removed. To Americans, Easter is the time of the resurrection of Jesus. Ask a sampling of Americans (not passionate liberals or conservatives or self professed pagans) and they will tell you that it is the time Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. That’s what Easter means in our time, nothing more, nothing less. I won’t argue whether the word origin is as mentioned in this thread or the corruption of a totally different word.

Yup, won’t deny it. People are human and all make mistakes. Most of us just have problem with conservatives acting as though they are morally superior, when (like you just said).
Do you have any idea what Christianity is all about? Christianity exists because be we all make mistakes repeatedly. Anyone who suggests he doesn’t isn’t a true Christian. I live my life surrounded by a church family full of the kindest, most loving, giving, honest people you will find. And everyone of them will tell you that they are sinners. And yes there are people who will claim to be Christians for what it can get them. Judge their behavior, not their words. Are they truly repentent when they have sinned or just sorry they got caught.

“What is it with conservatives and needing someone to attack? Muslims, liberals, secular progressives, puppies… all you want to do is attack, attack, attack. War on Terror. War on Drugs. War on Christmas. War on Easter. War on Christians. ”

We aren’t the attackers in the War on Christmas, Easter and Christians. We are the victims. And we aren’t attacking Muslims because they are Muslims, in case you are referring to the war. We are attacking TERRORISTS. As far as attacking Muslims in this discussion, the question was, why is it ok to attack Christians publicly in the media but not Muslims.

“We killed that goddamned faggot Jew carpenter once, and we’ll kill him again, just as often as it takes.

Joke! Joke!”

I’ll be expecting everyone to jump on this poster because I don’t find this funny at all. It’s very offensive. And I’ll expect to see a joke just as vile and offensive about Muhammad if you all can’t come to the defense of Christians because you have so much respect for all peoples beliefs. I know you do because you say it so often.

As for comment #165, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really believe what you wrote.

“Let me point out first that we don’t have any photos of Muhammed (PBUH) to cover with dung or anything else.”
Once again, can we leave the semantics out? It makes for a very difficult discussion in a forum like this when people constantly have to return to clarify the obvious. Excuse me for being less than crystal clear and using the word photo instead of depiction. So let’s try this again. We all saw what happened (many murders) when there was a less than flattering depiction of
Muhammed. How about a little experiment in the media. Try a depiction of Muhammad doing something noble such as helping the poor or leading prayers and see if Muslim fanatics go nuts and start killing Christians again (by the way, I seriously doubt that the cartoonist that started all the trouble was Christian and yet Christians were killed over it. Attacked unjustly?) Then print depictions of Muhammad covered in dung and see what happens. I have a very good idea of how it would go and so do you!
You can’t put a good spin on covering something in dung. What happened to “know your audience”? If the creator of the offensive Virgin Mary painting didn’t know it was offensive in this country, why didn’t those running the exhibit point it out. I seriously doubt that anyone has difficulty understanding that waste is offensive and covering a loved religious figure with it would cause problems. No I don’t find it mysterious and other worldly. If it had not been called the Virgin Mary, I would have just thought it was an odd looking painting of something that somewhat resembles a woman.

On to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ. The work is not, in fact, a crucifix submerged in urine. This is a common misunderstanding among those who are not attentive to art. The work is a photograph of a small, plastic crucifix submerged in a yellow liquid. The artist has hinted that the liquid may have been beer or apple juice, and that he used what produced the visual effect he was after.

This doesn’t even deserve an answer, but here goes. Do you honestly believe that “The artist has hinted that the liquid may have been beer or apple juice, and that he used what produced the visual effect he was after.” makes it ok? Can you truthfully say you believe that makes it ok? This is the name, “Piss Christ”, correct? This was done solely to offend, to get a reaction. There is no way to change this so it isn’t offensive. There are, however, many, many, many acceptable ways to make “a statement on “what we have done to Christ” – that is, the way contemporary society regards Christ and the values he represents.”

I haven’t the time to properly edit this, as we are leaving town for a few days. I would love to return and read comments specifically addressing my comments. No sematics, no jumping on typos, possibly limit the sarasm for the sake of disscussion? And again, I know you will admonish all the who make vile comments because you have so very much respect for my religious beliefs.

A little hard to fit on your standard-sized bumper sticker. :)

Even by FOX’s low standards, he’s an absolute embarassment.

Peace Action, the merger of SANE and The Nuclear Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for nearly fifty years.

As the nation’s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries, and eliminating funding for new nuclear weapons, Peace Action and its 100,000 members have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the international movement for peace.

At Peace Action we believe…

…that war is not a suitable response to conflict.

For nearly 50 years Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long standing global conflicts require long-term solutions, and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new US foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We are against pre-emptive war, and call for a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

…that every person has the right to live without the threat from nuclear weapons.

There are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on hair trigger alert—ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition. The U.S. must lead the way to a safer world by taking our weapons off hair trigger alert, halting our research and development of new nuclear weapons and disarming and demilitarizing our warhead stockpile of over 10,000 nuclear warheads. We can reduce the threat to the world posed by nuclear weapons, but we must start by getting serious about getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction.

…that America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, school are using outdated textbooks, and millions of Americans are without basic health insurance.

For what the US will spend on the War in Iraq, 26,701,621 children could have attended a year of Head Start, we could have built 1,815,194 additional housing units for the poor, we could have hired 3,493,706 additional public school teachers for one year, and we could have provided 9,772,998 students four-year scholarships at public universities(source – National Priorities Project). We believe that these are priorities that should come before war.

What we do at Peace Action…

We are the nation’s largest grassroots Peace network, with over 28 state affiliates, and over 100 local chapters. We organize our grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizens lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading organizing member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals.

Through our Peace Voter awareness campaigns, we inform citizens about their choices for both local and national campaigns, by highlighting different candidates’ stances on issues relating to peace. Our annual Congressional Voter Guide gives credit to those in Congress who voted for a peaceful future, while holding accountable those who voted for larger Pentagon budgets, spending tax dollars on nuclear weapons, and voted for wars of aggression and occupation.

Given the right tools, ordinary people can change the world.

At Peace Action, we recognize that real change comes from the bottom up and we are committed to educating and organizing at the grassroots level.

When you join Peace Action you become part of an effective citizen movement. We work hard to keep you informed through our quarterly newsletter and publications about the most important news and issues in the peace movement. As a member you can join our Action Alert Network which allows citizens throughout the country to rapidly respond to important legislation online. As a member, you can become an important part of a fast growing national movement, and help us change the direction of our country and the world towards a more sustainable, peaceful future.

Together, we have the power to change the world.

Support Peace.

http://www.peace-action.org/

Comment by Zooey — March 7, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

Actually, Zooey, that bumper sticker is an anachronism. It should now read “Torture a Gay Muslim Wolf and force him to denounce Liberal Jesus”

Let me point out first that we don’t have any photos of Muhammed (PBUH) to cover with dung or anything else. Muhammed (PBUH) died in 632 AD, well before the light sensitive properties of silver nitrate were known, even in the scientifically advanced Arab world.

The painting The Virgin Mary that CC invokes is by Chris Ofili, much of whose work is about the experience of being a black person in Britain. He has won the Turner Prize for another work, The Upper Room, and is both highly prized by collectors and a sometime flashpoint of controversy for his comingling (common in art since cave painting) of the sacred and profane. On a visit to Zimbabwe, he became fascinated by the plastic (shapeable) properties of elephant dung, and began to use it in his paintings as an integral element and to invoke his African heritage via its appearance and scent. (He covers the dung in finished works with shellac, but reportedly viewers still experience its earthy, olfactory presence.)

Dung is, of course, vital to subsistence agrarian communities as fertilizer, as fuel, and even as building material. The relationship to dung in Africa is altogether different from the reflexive western horror of excrement. Dung makes life possible in much of that world, and the elephants who produce it are treasured and pampered. (Well, not Pampered!) It is not “waste.”

Ofili has, by the way, used proceeds from his sales to help support the elephants at the London zoo, who produce his art supplies, and to support organizations who protect elephants in the wild.

In short, Ofili’s use of dung in his paintings is in no way perjorative or negative. Naturally, ideocentric westerners are apt to make that mistake, but that is revealing of them, and not of the art they have made no effort to engage with.

Here is Ofili’s painting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10704194503,00.html

Anyone can see it is iconic and transcendent, and not at all demeaning to anyone or anything. OK, almost anyone. And, by the way, a professed Catholic, Dennis Heiner, defaced the painting in New York in a criminal act for which he was duly convicted. Not murder, but certainly violence.

On to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ. The work is not, in fact, a crucifix submerged in urine. This is a common misunderstanding among those who are not attentive to art. The work is a photograph of a small, plastic crucifix submerged in a yellow liquid. The artist has hinted that the liquid may have been beer or apple juice, and that he used what produced the visual effect he was after.

The leading art critic Sister Wendy Beckett, a consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, admired Piss Christ in a television interview at the time of the original controversey. She explained the work as a statement on “what we have done to Christ” – that is, the way contemporary society regards Christ and the values he represents.

Serrano is a lifelong Catholic whose work often explores the fragility of human life and the suffering of the least among us. For instance, he did a major project in the subway tunnels of New York City by taking a fashion photographers lighting equipment into the hollows and cubbies where homeless people refuge and photographing them like high art. These are wrenching, heartbreaking works. (Which I much prefer to his still lifes like Piss Christ, btw.)

Anyway, here’s that photo: http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html Again, the work itself defies accusations of defamation of religion. Instead, it has a mysterious and other-worldly quality, wouldn’t you say?

Some – though a minority, I think – Christians are quick to claim their martyrdom by projecting their personal persecution fantasies onto people they don’t know, whose motives are anything but. These are two examples of how this error has been fanned by irresponsible public persons to extract money and allegiance from the gullible.

But, you know what? Artists are in no position to attack anyone. They have no power to curtail or restrain. What an artist does is create an experience that, s/he hopes, will give the audience a new and unexpected experience, an experience that makes a new view or new idea possible. Neither of these works defames Chritianity or anything else. They may – only may – precipitate a fresh experience of faith. Sure, maybe not. But that only says art is no more perfect than are the people who look at it. Let alone the people who skip the looking and get right on to their one-sided fantasies of conflict.

I’ll stop there, rather than addressing the rest of CC’s complaint, except to say that there is all the difference in the world between restraining religious practice (nowhere in evidence on this thread) and cracking wise in disagreement. If CC wasn’t aware that some serious and educated people have always thought Christianity is baseless and fantastical (Thomas Jefferson, anyone?) then maybe s/he would benefit from a larger circle of acquaintance.

Pax Deorum!

Comment by tom baker — March 8, 2007 @ 12:17 pm

Hard to believe. Easter Bunny is a myth of mainly protestant countries…

The Pope!!!!!!!!

Comment by bobcat_grad — March 8, 2007 @ 9:22 am

Dang it, thought I proof-read that post thouroughly.

In #148, the sentence should read “But I don’t condone your belittling attitude towards an entire faith.”

Comment by bobcat_grad — March 8, 2007 @ 9:44 am”

Glad to see it only took you a few lines to learn what a typographical error is, or maybe you were just trying to deflect attention from the subject again.
I’m sorry you have missed all the affronts to the Christian religion religion. I could do a search and come up with plenty, but then again you could do that yourself and you would just focus on my typos again. The two that come immediately to mind are the “art” exhibit with the Virgin Mary covered in dung and another with a cross upside down in a jar of urine. I’d like to see where you protested these. I’m sure you did since you feel this way. Remember this quote? “Imagine if someone desecrated some particualr core belief of your faith, how would you feel? ” The Muslim instance was one time with a few cartoons and they killed people in various places around the world. I’ve named two and I don’t think any Christians killed anyone over it. And don’t even try to say that this didn’t violate a “core belief of my faith.” It was much worse. Print some photos of Muhammad covered in dung and see if you don’t get the same reaction.
I assume you must have missed all the previous posts on this topic that contained unkind, if not vile, references to Christians and our beliefs. Anyone who believes this, “their faith (which is a different, but no less legitimate faith than yours)”, must feel the need to defend all faiths equally.
In the minds of Americans, Easter means the season of the resurrection of Jesus. There is no need to argue the origin of the word Easter. It means what it means now. And that is why this is seen as an attack on Christians. Removing a word that is associated with the resurrection of Jesus, a core belief in our faith. And this “attack” wasn’t started by Christians, it is perpetrated against Christians. Please feel free to ignore any typos this time and address the issue. No strawmen, please.