Hamburglar and all the rest.

Finds your lack of faith disturbing....

I don't have many other choices if I want my jalapenos.

Yep, I know where you are coming from

Violence. And so the weakness of religion's truths is revealed. Where there is true strength, there is no need for violence.

But this violence pales in comparison to that perpetrated by the Chinese Government against theists.

Do not miss the forest for all of the trees.

This thread is about a satirical piece of art in Israel, and the response to it. That is what I am discussing in this thread. It is not about that other thing. You will find me in your thread discussing that there.

This is bad art at best. Quite cartoonish in fact.

You say it is cartoonish, and I tend to agree with you, but I am not the artist. Is cartoon art bad? Many would disagree.

What did the artist mean by putting Ronald MacDonald on the cross? I don't know that, either, because I haven't asked him or her. Do you know?

But those questions are irrelevant, really. Someone created a piece of art, which is hanging in some building because someone thought it was of some artistic merit or meaningful. Otherwise, the artist would have seen his or her artwork rejected for display. It's not my building. It's not my artwork. It's not my business, really.

However, some Christians in the area, as identified in the news story, decided that the art was bad and that they disliked it. So, they protested by throwing Molotov cocktails at the building. Now, if I thought the art was of poor quality or in poor taste, I would have simply avoided going to view it. I would not have resorted to destructive, dangerous methods to state my dislike of it.

That is not what happened, though. A group of Christians in the area threw Molotov cocktails at the building containing the artwork.

See, I think that is a really bad idea and illustrates some real intolerance of freedom of expression. It's also very dangerous and could destroy property or injure people. Molotov cocktails are the weapons of terrorists, and have been for a long, long time.

Now, you liken this to the official intolerance of China, but I don't see the connection there at all. In this case, it was a group of religious people who did not like a work of art so they tried to destroy it and the building it was in. A group of Christians in one place, acting on their own account. They were not a country. They were not doing anything but carrying out an act of terrorism, based on their religious zeal.

There is a great deal of bad art on display almost everywhere, in my opinion. I have my own preferences when it comes to art. However, if someone displays art I think is bad or even in very poor taste, I simply ignore it. I see cartoonish representations of Jesus all the time, with him depicted as a blond-haired, blue-eyed European. I'm not even fond of religion in the first place. Bad art, but what is that to me? I am not going to try to destroy it or even protest its existence. Why would I bother?

This thread is about violence carried out by a group of Christians in Israel who were offended by a work of satirical art. I find that troubling. You find official intolerance of Christianity in China troubling. Are you going to throw molotov cocktails at the Chinese Embassy in protest? No, of course you are not going to do that. The most you will do is complain about it here on DU, as far as I can tell.

Molotov Cocktails? That's pretty far over the line, don't you think? But it's not equivalent to official government intolerance of a religious group. That's even worse, but not something I can do anything about. Certainly not with a terrorist attack using incendiary devices.

Bad art? Really? Who cares?

loves such "art".

She loves the way it causes violence. Act for America, as I am certain you know, has been designated a hate group by the SPLC.

Motivation? To incite.

Ronald MacDonald crucifix? I didn't see that in the news story, if so. If not, then her opinion is irrelevant to this particular instance. Why do you bring her up?

Art is often used to incite action. The social justice and civil rights movement has used art in that way frequently. Perhaps you were not aware of that. For example:

that might suggest that you might wish to do some research on Act for America and Geller.

So what! Nutcases abound.

Do.

Tell.

someone was trying to say. Irrelevant example, but example. You can find anything on Google. Look what I found while looking for examples of satirical use of the crucifix:



Now, that's irrelevant, too, but I did find it on Google while doing a relevant search. Maybe people have to think about things before posting them. Do you suppose?

...you only have yourself to blame!

Whatever you do, don't be provocative!

It looks more like a satirical piece of art than McJesus.

It's on google, though, so...

Is their a motive for incitement?

magazines office and murder the people inside, it is the victims we should blame for their own murders?

One group creates images. The other group throws rocks and Molotov cocktails.

...equivalent.

We should count up all those times when someone was burnt and/or disfigured because there was an advertisement on the side of a bus.

A bus advertisement is just as bad as a Molotov cocktail.

Oh and off.