Our Taxdollars At Work For The Smithsonian Museum Christmas Exhibit

[twyacht]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/11/30/mrcs-bozell-demands-congress-investigate-smithsonian-abhorrent-christm

Alexandria, VA – As CNSNews.com reported yesterday, the taxpayer funded Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery is hosting an exhibit during this Christmas season featuring images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."

[Link to CNSNews.com story here. WARNING: Story contains graphic photographs of items on display in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery.]

NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) president Brent Bozell reacted:

    “This exhibition is a direct assault on Christianity and the timing – the Christmas season! – shows how offensive it is intended to be. This federally funded vulgarity by the Smithsonian Institution must come to an end immediately. How dare anyone use a federal facility – The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery no less – to exhibit such obscene materials.

    This is an insult to every Christian. This disgrace of an exhibition must stop immediately, but that is not all. We are also calling on Congress to launch a full investigation into the approval process of the Hide/Seek exhibit.

    We are sending the following letter to Speaker Pelosi and Speaker-Elect Boehner on the House side, and to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell in the Senate to demand an investigation. Americans should not rest until we receive answers to why this exhibit was approved, and how the Smithsonian justifies using tax-payer dollars for such a display of anti-Christian bigotry.”

***

I'm all for graphic expressions and the First Amendment Freedoms our Constitution provides, because I don't have to participate. But WHY wouldn't this be at a privately funded exhibit? So the freaks that want to see it can? Why does OUR gov't provide a venue for this at taxpayer expense?

The "moral" compass, of this gov't is never going to be what it was. The Patriotic rhetoric, or any other "words" from our two faced lying gov't, is now the norm.

What a shame and disgrace.

[twyacht]

 UPDATE:::::Ah the power of the dollar, and the NEW House Majority Speaker Boehner. Go boy Go!!!!

    *

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, is still weeks away from taking over the Speaker’s gavel, but is already throwing around the weight of a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, the Speaker-to-be warned the Smithsonian Institution that if it did not pull its controversial exhibit — “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” — which featured images of an ant-covered crucifix and “homoerotic” art, its federal funding will come under serious scrutiny when Congress considers the next budget.

By Tuesday afternoon, the Smithsonian announced that it would remove the portion of the exhibit which showed ants crawling over a crucifix, but insisted the rest of the exhibit would stay. In a statement, the director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery clarified that the exhibit was not meant to be “sacrilegious’:

    “I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious,” the statement read. “In fact, the artists’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today. The museum‘s statement at the exhibition’s entrance, ‘This exhibition contains mature themes,’ will remain in place.”

Among the exhibit’s “mature themes,” as we reported yesterday, are images of male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, a mouth being sewn shut and an Annie Lebovitz portrait of comedian Ellen Degeneres grabbing her breasts.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-gop-leaders-tell-smithsonian-to-pull-homoerotic-exhibit/

****

Amazing what happens when the "light" and funding threat, are shined on these dolts....Still a disgusting remnant of academic, bureaucrats at the Smithsonian remain....

[fightingquaker13]

Sorry TW, but I'm a Christian and this sort of thing doesn't offend me. If I were a muslim, I guess I'd have to declare Jihad and kill some innocent schmuck to show my outrage. Its one of the perks of being a Christian. Not only do you not have to blow yourself up, you can look at stuff like this and just roll your eyes. The reason? Jesus doesn't care. He made that point very clear. Mock him or accept him. Its your call, and not my problem.
FQ13 who wil shake the dust off my sandals and move on with no hard feelings.

[twyacht]

He made that point very clear. Mock him or accept him. Its your call, and not my problem.
FQ13 who wil shake the dust off my sandals and move on with no hard feelings.

Your 100% correct. The point is, taxpayers who FUND this whole enchilada, given no choice to decide what or what not to display at a PUBLIC NATIONAL MUSEUM, should NOT have to have some asshat make a unilateral decision that "this would be cool to display around Christmas"....

Take it to Georgetown, Baltimore, Old Town Alexandria, or NYC, there are plenty of other asshats with galleries that love this stuff..

[SwoopSJ]

Sorry TW, but I'm a Christian and this sort of thing doesn't offend me.

I am a Christian, also, and I AM offended.  That's my personal hang up, though, they have their rights and it's not for me to judge.  I agree with TW, though, in that OUR tax dollars should not fund "art" that is obviously going to be offensive to Christians.  I'm sure they would NEVER allow artwork depicting Islam in an offensive manner.  Remember the South Park fiasco?  I was brought up to believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Swoop

[Sponsor]

[crusader rabbit]

Quaker, you're one of the liberal Christians that tend not to believe in the deity of Jesus, or in the concept of salvation through being born again, or even of the idea of sin--it's all a matter of perspective.  To those of us who still have an inkling of what the Christian faith is all about, this Smithsonian display is blasphemy. 

Imagine, if you will, that we had a cartoonist depicting the prophet Mohammad is a less-than-flattering light... 

But then, that did happen and he ended up with a fatwa on him. 

In my opinion, it's time for Christians to start standing up for what we believe...  before the cock crows thrice.

[fightingquaker13]

Quaker, you're one of the liberal Christians that tend not to believe in the deity of Jesus, or in the concept of salvation through being born again, or even of the idea of sin--it's all a matter of perspective.  To those of us who still have an inkling of what the Christian faith is all about, this Smithsonian display is blasphemy.  

Imagine, if you will, that we had a cartoonist depicting the prophet Mohammad is a less-than-flattering light...  

But then, that did happen and he ended up with a fatwa on him.  

In my opinion, it's time for Christians to start standing up for what we believe...  before the cock crows thrice.

Crusader, we've corresponded a few times. However, my faith wasn't one of the topics so I'm surprised by your "knowledge" of my beliefs. I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't ask before posting as well, but no harm no foul.
In order (not that it should matter):
 I came to God when I was 25. It was a very intense thing and yes I am "Born Again" although I don't like the term as its come to be more political than religious these days.
Belief wise? I am a very orthodox Christian. I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian in the CS Lewis mode and do believe in the divinity of Christ, the sanctity and reality of the sacrements, apostolic succession, and the Nicene Creed. Forgive me if I think that means I've got a fair clue as to "what the Christian faith is all about". I don't believe in Biblical literalism, but I do think its inspired, authoritative and true, not something we make up as we go.

As to the rest of your post, you prove my point. You mention the fatwa on the cartoonist. I'm saying no Christian would even consider such a thing. I believe God isn't mocked so why should we care? You, when saying "Christians should stand up for ourselves" seem to think that the muslims have the right idea in punishing blasphemy. I know thats not what you meant, but its how it reads. Me, I think that if this offends you, its not because they're mocking God, but mocking you. Its the sin of pride brother Rabitt. God doesn't care and so why should we take umbridge at someone mocking us? Who cares? Speak the truth in love, fufill the great commision, obey the golden rule, and get on with your day. If He can be crucified, I can sure take a few insults without letting it bother me.
peace
FQ13

[TAB]

I am a Christian, also, and I AM offended.  That's my personal hang up, though, they have their rights and it's not for me to judge.  I agree with TW, though, in that OUR tax dollars should not fund "art" that is obviously going to be offensive to Christians.  I'm sure they would NEVER allow artwork depicting Islam in an offensive manner.  Remember the South Park fiasco?  I was brought up to believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Swoop

Art tax dollars should not fund any art, period.

[SwoopSJ]

I think that if this offends you, its not because they're mocking God, but mocking you. Its the sin of pride brother Rabitt.

Okay, not to be cross, but by your logic if someone calls your mother a ____, then you're not offended by the fact that they've insulted your mother, but because your pride has been hurt.     I'm offended by things that are anti-Christian because I have the greatest respect for, and fear of God.  I also feel Jesus deserves the highest regard for the many things He has done for me.  Much, I'm sure, like you feel about your mother or father.

TAB:  Many museums of art are funded by our tax dollars and I think that is a good thing.  How many people have developed an appreciation for or artists been inspired by experiencing artwork firsthand? I understand that almost any piece of artwork will be found offensive to some, "David", for example.  However, "art" that is intentionally offensive to any group should not be funded with our money.  That's sort of like being forced to pay someone to slap you in the face... unless you're into that sort of thing.  I think you get my meaning, though.

Swoop
 

[fightingquaker13]

This a subject where I think we can respectfully disagree Swoop. My position is this. When it comes to God you get it or you don't. Why should I care what those who don't say? They speak from ignorance. To address your point, were someone I don't know to to call my mom a whore or worse? Why would I be angry? Is it because they insulted her? No, they haven't met her. They are merely insulting me and trying to goad me into a fight by dragging her into it. Why would I let myself be baited? Its foolish. Same with God. Say what you want. You don't know Him and aren't trying to insult Him. You're trying to insult me, and frankly, I don't much care. Maybe this is what happens when you spend a few years teaching at a Quaker college, but honestly, I really don't get why you and Crusader don't just let this roll off your backs. It means nothing unless you choose to make something of it. Its just sound and fury Swoop, sound and fury. Blessed are the peacemakers (particulary those made by Colt).
FQ13