I failed to quite understand the meaning of "Piss Christ" other than to shock. I'm afraid I don't get intellectually excited over disposable shock art. My taste is wide ranging -- I can accept art of the popular culture. I cannot accept banal lumps of marble with words carved into it that are only partially relevant to the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of the law.
The man in the Mountie Suit is quite mistaken. When the spirit of religion is weak, there can be no justice. How can we arrive at a acceptable set of rules for distributive justice if we have no religion.
Does Blatham really believe that the people will adopt the Kantian imperative?
What a ridiculous notion.
It has been many years now that social critics have been telling us that our society was living off of the accumulated moral capital of traditional religion and traditional moral philosophy.
Now, even as the left calls for the complete marginalization of religion, some dodos indicate that our politicians have no moral grounding.
Just how they will achieve a moral grounding is anybody's guess.
Christ, Mohammed, Buddah, Kant and Spinoza having been relegated to the bookshelf as mere curios, the Blatham types think that the public will embrace the Kantian imperative.
What a laugh!
Liberals are of the same mind. They think that private vices will lead to public benefits only if you are further persuaded that HUMAN NATURE CAN NEVER BE UTTERLY CORRUPTED BY THESE VICES, but rather will always transcend them.
I am sure that Blatham does not realize that the fact that the Holocaust occured means that the Nazis did not believe in the Kantian Imperative.
Foxfyre wrote:I'll admit I'm not certain about this, but I don't believe the judge put the statue there. I believe it was a donation from some group to the city. It had been there a very long time by the time somebody objected to it.
It isn't that much different from a small Christian cross that used to be in the lower left hand corner of the county seal. It was not an advertisement for Christianity but commemorated the Spanish priests who founded the first churches, schools, hospitals etc. in the territory. It hurt nobody and had been there since 1912 (when New Mexico became a state) until a few years ago when some athiest activists demanded that it be removed.
It was removed just to remove it as an issue and shut up the very small but very loud group who demanded that.
In my opinion, it is not standing up to that kind of intolerance and stupidity that creates the extreme polarizations that makes everybody more paranoid and improperly activist than they should be.
Good grief, where do you come up with that stuff? Judge Moore's monument was in no way similar to the cross on the county seal.
Quote:2001-AUG-1: Ten Commandments monument is installed: Chief Justice Roy Moore had a 5,280 pound granite monument created. It is four feet tall and displays two tablets on which the Decalogue is engraved. (See photograph above). Also on the monument are quotes from historical American figures which support the Decalogue as the foundation for the country's system of law. It was installed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery, AL, during the middle of the night. The other other Supreme Court justices were not informed in advance. Moore delivered a speech after the unveiling of the monument in which he discounted all religions in America other than Christianity and Judaism. He said: "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God.'' 3
On Judge Moore
In 2002-FEB, Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion in a case before the Alabama Supreme Court in which he blasted homosexuality on religious as well as legal grounds. The case involved a lesbian who sought custody of her three minor children. The court unanimously rejected her case. Moore wrote that homosexuality is "a sin [that] violates both natural and revealed law." He cited verses from the books of Genesis and Leviticus in the Bible. He called homosexuality "an evil disfavored under the law," "an inherent evil," a "detestable and an abominable sin," and "an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it." He suggested that the death penalty is an appropriate response to homosexual behavior. He wrote: "The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle." Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, responded: "It appears that Justice Moore is once again making his decisions on the basis of his personal religious beliefs, not the commands of the law,. Justice Moore would make a great official of the Inquisition, but he doesn't belong on a state supreme court. I don't know what to expect next from Moore. Perhaps a witch burning?"
Source
While you are on a roll defending the indefensible, why not jump over to
the fahrenheit 9/11 thread and defend some of Georges outrageousness?
Oh come on, Lightwizard, even some madmen create some good art.
Defend Piss Christ if you will, and forget the irrelevancies.
kicky
You are formally thanked.
A couple of further quick points...
fox
I think your defence of the marble constructed ten commandments at Moore's courthouse is a tad disingenuous. We know why Moore put them there, rather than a passage from The Tibetian Book of the Dead or an equal number of words from a Wiccan spell. And if the sculptor had chiseled out those things, that 'work of art' would be considered rather differently.
Finally, I really would love to see survey courses on the world's religions in schools, though there is an age/cognitive development aspect in that of course. But even at elementary school level, I'm a fan of days set aside to note religious and cultural celebrations. We do this here in Canada quite frequently. Diversity is a logistical problem (my elementary practicum class in vancouver had 32 students and 3 spoke english as a first language) but though tough, that can be accomodated.
The value is readily apparent theoretically and in practice...the students come away with understandings which they would otherwise not achieve. And the nature of those understandings are inclusive and forge a greater sense of a world community...not them vs us, but them and us.
I could say the same thing about your postings, septembri , but I won't.
So Serrano is a madman -- are you a psychiatrist?
Blatham is dead wrong. When I bring my plans to my architect, the Ten Commandments will be an integral part of the experience.
I will insist that he follows the Commandment- Thou shalt not steal the same as I would.
Blatham seems to think that our daily activities are divorced from our daily actions. As strange as it may seem to the anti-religious, some people in our society are motivated by religion and faith almost their entire day.
It become obvious in a Moslem area in the US when the Moslems are called to prayer.
Blatham probably thinks that this doesn't infuse ALL of their actions with meaning if they are true believers.
When I deal with my fellow parishoners, I conduct my business with a handshake because I know that they are moral people, their morality being based on religious beliefs.
I am sure that Blatham always hires a lawyer.
I hope he goes to the states to get a lawyer. I understand that the Canadian law schools are filled with charlathans.
Curious syntax of using sentences as paragraphs.
Are we going to be quoting Judge Posner anytime soon?
I can call Serrano a madman. It seems that people without evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt can call President Bush a liar. Why can't I call Serrano a madman. Many others do.
Many people on these posts pontificate without giving evidence. If it is truth that is sought then most of the posts written are useless since they do not bring sufficient evidence to the argument.
About matters of taste, of course, there is no point in arguing.
About matters of truth, dispute is fruitful. We may have to live a long time with disagreemnts that cannot be easily resolved.
According to Karl Popper, the line of demarcation between knowledge and mere opinion is determined by ONE CRITERION: falsifiablity by empirical evidence, by observed phenomena.
AN OPINION THAT IS NOT VERIFIED BY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT KNOWLEDGE BUT MERE OPINION.
People like Blatham pontificate as if their every word was correct when, even a cursory reading of his posts show that he makes many unverifiable assumptions.
One assumption that has been almost omnipresent on these posts is that President Bush lied when he spoke about WMD's
The problem is that the opinion that he lied flies in face of the DFEFINITION of lie, in the law.
Definition: An INTENTIONAL statement of an untruth designed to mislead another.
The opinions do not have empirical evidence( a la Karl Popper) to back them up.
In order to show that President Bush lied it must be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that his Statement was INTENTIONAL, UNTRUE AND DESIGNED TO MISLEAD OTHERS.
While I understand that partisans will make the charge, my response( following Popper's guideline) would be "prove it".
So,Light Wizard. it is my Opinion that Serrano is a madman. Some say that President Bush lied.
Both are opinions- for what they are worth.
Are you sure that you would understand Posner, Lightwizard? I can quote some of his best stuff if you wish.
I am really disheartened by your critique of my writing style.
I will do better in the future. I promise.
Comparing that someone lied (those without sin I suppose have never lied) is quite a stretch to stating categorically that Serrano is a madman.
stretch? stretch? Of course, it is all a stretch without emprical evidence.
Again, Opinions without empirical evidence aren't worth very much.
That is why I have always been fond of using documentation, evidence and quotes.
I'll give you an example, Light Wizard.
There are those who decry President Bush's statements on WMD's.
On quite a few of these posts, I have QUOTED the former leader of the Democratic Party with regard to WMD's. President Clinton gave a speech on December 16th 1998( after he ordered missles to be sent to bomb Iraq) in which he stated:
quote:
"First, without a strong inspection system. Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years"
That is proof that the head of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, not only thought that Saddam would enlarge his WMD stores( in 1998 unless something was done,) but that he still had them--note the President's use of the word RETAIN.
Words do mean something.
You challenged my labelling of Serrano as a madman. I told you it was my opinion. Howver, my quote about Clinton's view of WMD's was NOT my opinion. It was his recorded quote in a major policy speech.
That is the difference between opinion and evidence.
Interestingly enough, light Wizard, no one has seen fit to try to rebut the particular piece of evidence in which Clinton said that Saddam would RETAIN and rebuild.
Opinions are cheap. It seems that evidence, however, for some on the left, difficult to rebut.
Clinton was also giving an opinion and based on whether or not one believes our intelligence was any better then than it is now. Now if you have some private cache of intelligence we are not privy of, I'd certainly submit it to our present administration.
Septembri, in almost all of your posts, you are talking alot, but the only thing I really hear you saying is that "the left" is wrong, and "the right" is, well, right. I have a feeling that either you are intentionally trying to bait people, or you are a right wing nut who can't debate an issue without saying, "They did it first!"
Come on Kicky. Refute what he says if you can, but he is entitled to annoy people as much as I am.
Please, Lightwizard. When I read Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman or Tom Friedman or Bob Herbert say:
"Clinton LIED in his speech of Nov. 16th 1998. THEN, I will give the left wing some slack.
Before that, his speech is prima facie evidence that he believed that Saddam had WMD's and would build his WMD stock to a greater level.
But, President Bush is not allowed to make such statements.
Why? Partisan sniping altogether unrelated to evidence. I don't know if you are aware that almost every Intelligence organization in every Western Country agreed that Saddam had WMD's in 2002.
Of course, President Bush controlled and manipulated those agencies also!!!
Please!!!!!!
And, kickycan, I don't know if you ever studied History.
Your comment, "they did it first" is invalid.
I am sure that you realize that in History, the actions of one's predecessors do strongly affect the present.
You cannot cut off the past legislation, USSC decisions, executive mandates, etc. You have to work with them.
I am sure that you realize that President Clinton strongly backed NAFTA, GATT, and MFN status for China. Does this influence the present?
You had better believe it.
I am sure that you realize that under President Clinton a massive welfare reform took place. Does this influence the present? You had better believe it.
All presidents and administrations are bound in many ways to what happened in the past. Can that legacy be changed? Of course. but, as I am sure you recognize, governmental changes go very very slowly.
Do you really think that the Bush Administration and Bush's advisors did not read Clinton's 1998 speech many times and utililze its contents to buttress their own ideas?
septembri wrote:And, kickycan, I don't know if you ever studied History.
Does this imply that YOU did?
It seems appropriate to post here the comments of Ronald Reagan in 1984 re religion and his religious views:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/82384a.htm
