Can the county simply say we do not allow art displays on our grounds?

 

If someone sculpted the TEN COMMANDMENTS and asked if they could be put on display, I say they say NO WAY

This doesn't have to do with religion.

I politely disagree. The primary emblem upon which this "artwork" was constructed was a cross... one of the most powerful religious emblems in the world. The fact that Santa was depicted as being cruficied upon that cross removed any ambiguity about the "artist's" intent. Our version of Santa Claus is derived from the real life St. Nicholas who is a saint in both the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. There is only one religion in the world that celebrates Christmas.

 

I am not so dense as to miss the "artist's" intended message... but you cannot escape the fact that if someone had displayed a cross, with a fully fleshed Santa next to it, the ACLU and countless others would have spoken out against it as a religious display.

 

The only reason this display was permitted is because it used Christian symbols in an anti-Christian manner.

 

I'm sure some will disagree, but let this brave "artist" display a large cartoon lampooning Muhammed or burn a Koran during Ramadan and see how "non-religious" this event is.

 

This has to do with the Constitution.

Yes... but freedom of speech with freedom to offend others with that speech is not a guaranteed right on publicly owned property. Even essentially harmless billboards are restricted in certain areas... on both public and private property.

 

As long as we enjoy the freedoms we do, there will be "costs" associated, i.e. the freedom to NOT believe, the freedom to say or express the offensive.

In a day and age when "expressing the offensive" seems to include the Christian message, I would think that your point would be validated by permitting displays of the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes in public locations. Everyone is free "NOT" to believe the Gospel. :thumb:

^ From reading the article it sounds like this thing was allowed because anybody was welcomed to use the lawn for displays as part of a Christmas parade. If that's accurate then it sounds like anyone can add their own work. If they are discriminating based on message then I agree with you. Otherwise it's free speech and should be welcomed. And freedom of speech specifically includes the "offensive" or else it would be powerless.

Ya' know, there used to be a thing known as good taste. Rather than being narrowly subjective, it was nearly an objective standard shared by virtually everyone in the society, because the vast majority of citizens shared the same fundamental standards and expectations. Even those who chose not to live up to them personally understood what was and was not acceptable.

 

Under this shared understanding, it was understood that while any citizen had the "right" to express their freedom of speech through offensive messages, symbols and images, most had the restraint not to do so. Those who did understood and accepted the scorn and rejection they might face… but even then, the vast majority chose appropriate venues for their expressions.

 

I could not care less that this "artist" chose to crucify Santa Claus upon a cross. I wouldn't care if he built a platform upon which he could squat and defecate upon his "masterpiece" as viewers look on in amazement. What I do question is the venue for his "work of art". If there is a museum or gallery willing to display his works to an audience of knowledgeable aficionados, so be it. BUT to put something this visually disturbing upon a public lawn during the celebration of a solely Christian holiday, where two-year-olds and four-year-olds and six-year-olds are going to view this "artist's" twisted vision is entirely inappropriate. It's not a matter of whether he has a "right" to do so, but a matter of "should" he do so.

 

The result, strikes me as either misguided (at best) or entirely self-serving and self-glorifying for the “artist” regardless of who he scars emotionally with his imagery.

So for those of you supporting this display. Would you still support it if the Santa fell off and blew away, leaving only the cross on the courthouse yard?

So for those of you supporting this display. Would you still support it if the Santa fell off and blew away, leaving only the cross on the courthouse yard?

 

No they wouldnt, they would cry religion has no place on public property

Here's how they share public space in Calif. By lotto. http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-messages-displace-ca-park-nativity-scenes-194651974.html

Edited December 14, 201114 yr by cammando

So for those of you supporting this display. Would you still support it if the Santa fell off and blew away, leaving only the cross on the courthouse yard?

 

Absolutely.....Why people are making a big deal of this simply goes back to people looking for something to complain about. It's a stupid display, who freaking cares? You don't like it, don't pay attention to it. Problem solved.

Absolutely.....Why people are making a big deal of this simply goes back to people looking for something to complain about. It's a stupid display, who freaking cares? You don't like it, don't pay attention to it. Problem solved.

 

yeah why should we explain it to a 5 year old kid or why should they have to see it when their mind doesnt understand it yet. Why not let to gay guys get naked and touch each other on the court yard and say it is art, is that ok.

Ya' know, there used to be a thing known as good taste. Rather than being narrowly subjective, it was nearly an objective standard shared by virtually everyone in the society, because the vast majority of citizens shared the same fundamental standards and expectations. Even those who chose not to live up to them personally understood what was and was not acceptable.

 

Under this shared understanding, it was understood that while any citizen had the "right" to express their freedom of speech through offensive messages, symbols and images, most had the restraint not to do so. Those who did understood and accepted the scorn and rejection they might face… but even then, the vast majority chose appropriate venues for their expressions.

 

I could not care less that this "artist" chose to crucify Santa Claus upon a cross. I wouldn't care if he built a platform upon which he could squat and defecate upon his "masterpiece" as viewers look on in amazement. What I do question is the venue for his "work of art". If there is a museum or gallery willing to display his works to an audience of knowledgeable aficionados, so be it. BUT to put something this visually disturbing upon a public lawn during the celebration of a solely Christian holiday, where two-year-olds and four-year-olds and six-year-olds are going to view this "artist's" twisted vision is entirely inappropriate. It's not a matter of whether he has a "right" to do so, but a matter of "should" he do so.

 

The result, strikes me as either misguided (at best) or entirely self-serving and self-glorifying for the “artist” regardless of who he scars emotionally with his imagery.

Thank you for expressing so well what my feelings are on this subject.

 

I don't question this guy's right to express himself, I just think this is an inappropriate venue for it.

yeah why should we explain it to a 5 year old kid or why should they have to see it when their mind doesnt understand it yet. Why not let to gay guys get naked and touch each other on the court yard and say it is art, is that ok.

 

That's just stupid mtn ref. They didn't do anything that's against the law, which indecent exposure is.

 

Let me ask you this....If it were a cross with Jesus on it, or just a plain cross, would you have started this thread? Would you still have a problem with it?

That's just stupid mtn ref. They didn't do anything that's against the law, which indecent exposure is.

 

Let me ask you this....If it were a cross with Jesus on it, or just a plain cross, would you have started this thread? Would you still have a problem with it?

 

I am sorry to say but a lot and I mean A LOT consider nudity to be art. Two gay guys on the lawn exposed is nothing but the same thing as a person posing nude to be drawn by artist.

 

I wouldnt have started this thread if soemthing stupid like wha tthe guy did right before christmas and crucifying Santa was on it. Why should a parent have to explain to their 5, 5, 7, 8, year old about that, why should a little kid have to be able to see that stuff anyway. It is stupid and should not be allowed.

^Answer my question. If it were just a plain cross, or a crucifix would you have a problem with it?

^Answer my question. If it were just a plain cross, or a crucifix would you have a problem with it?

 

No I wouldnt have a problem with it.

 

If they crucified santa in July I could care less too.

 

Christmas, especially for little kids is not the time to be crucifing Santa, that is stupid and ignorant.

So you'd have no problem with it, because you agree with the message that a cross or crucifix represents. Just because you don't agree with the message that this display represents, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to attempt to censor it.

 

To be clear, I don't necessarily think any displays with any type of religious undertones should be done on government property, but if we're going to allow one, we have to allow all, even those we don't agree with or in some cases are offended by.