Ya know, the whole thing might make me smile, but the art went up on public property and it sounds like it is going to cost some money to remove it or secure it in place.
The art went up and the artists left the city to decide what to do.
I'm all for setting up a fund for this art piece before the city decides what to do with it. Donate first, then let the government decide what to do with the money (use it to secure the art or to remove it) . There is a kind of symmetry to that.
It is secure in place. It's well liked by the public on public property. Leave it alone. We don't have time or money for such silliness like having it removed. Besides, Leucadia is the "art and soul of Encinitas" and it's on the north side of Encinitas Blvd. Why does the government stifle public art as good as this? Or those killer mirrored stars that began appearing last year along 101? Bureaucracy. I don't see the symmetry in your idea of collecting funds to perhaps have it destroyed. Besides, let he who never planted anything without permission in the public right of way cast the first stone.
What I tossed was an idea to collected funds for the art piece. Regardless of what I did does not change the situation the city is in or that it might take some money to deal with the art. Does it?
What did I do? I replaced a tree that had been removed by a non-city authorized tree trimmer, probably to make a billboard easier to see. I don’t remember the replanted tree being slated for removal on the tree plan. If that were the case and there was a cost associated with the replacement tree, I’d step up and pay it.
I’ve been growing a bunch of trees for many years that I wanted to have ready to donate to the city, if they were approved for the l101 plant palette, which I thought was something that we would have figured out years ago. I’ve given away most of the trees at this point because we still aren’t close to working out the plant palette.
For "GOD's" sake, the Easter Island statue at Swamis is a religious symbol to those that created the originals. Those have stood for how long? We have SO regressed as a planetary species.....LEAVE the Virgen or cut down the "TIKI"!!!!
My understanding is that the City keeps the art pieces it takes down. There must be a place for this art to go for all to see. In fact, didn't Hwy 101 Traders offer to let this piece go to their site? I think we should ask the City for public art garden somewhere, where all can see these fine artists and their work. I have emailed the Council, have you?
P.S. When I read how the artists put it up, I couldn't help thinking of the scene in Ghostbusters where the guys put on Con Ed suits and started digging under the street for ghost goooo.
I skipped the council. I actually saw the Virgin Mary while surfing yesterday and she said the art will stay or the bridge will fall when God spites us all. I'm not joking this time.
Sammi your comment adds nothing to this discussion and makes you look like a silver spoon douche.
With that being said I think that if we have a law that prohibits "good" artwork from being allowed to stay then we need to take a look at it and revise it so that it does what it suppose to do and doesn’t abuse its power by taking down "real" art that people enjoy.
If the law says this artwork can’t be allowed to stay then it sounds like we need to change this law. Ridiculous that we have to waste the city’s time and money because people can’t make a judgment call on a grey matter.
It seems that the majority wants to keep the mosaic. The city is, as I understand, acting appropriately and thoughtfully. They do not want to damage the art but logically can not allow people to just install public art anywhere they want. I agree. As for the location: you can not view this wonderful creation adaquately. You can not walk back from it to view from even a little distance and people viewing in in their cars wil tend to hit the car in front of them. I sense that the city likes it but the reasonable process was not followed. There areany options as to where it could be advantageously moved. What would help if the artist would offer the method that the art was installed so there is no damage done in removing it and relocating. Please let the artist know that if the installation method were shared them it could be relocated in a better location and not damaged. Otherwise it may be lost and not shared. ARTIST, please help. No one will share your name. Contact: savethesavetheocean@gmail.com Thank you.
Perhaps we could ask for some space at the Hall Property park, and have an art area. I have seen these kinds of things in Santa Fe, Vancouver, San Francisco etc. If people like this idea, I will be the one to ask. Let me know what you think. Either here, or e-mail me at lgreene98@aol.com.
Sorry KC, just razzing you a little to stir the thread. But Sammi, as for you my pretty: "napoleon" should be capitalized; "don't" should be "doesn't"; "else" should be "else's" and you needn't capitalize "caps" (you typical bloggerita, you). And although I may have a few illusions of grandeur, I'm convinced no one's waste will ever be mistaken for lilac.
When it comes to determining the meanings of words or using words to categorize objects and concepts, definition is not always a simple matter.
Reaching for a dictionary or looking to an on-line dictionary for "the definition" can be a reasonable, acceptable way to clarify. But not always. There is more than one type of definition.
Denotative definitions are the ones contained in dictionaries. Usually we think of denotative definitions as the literal meanings for words. But dictionary afficionadoes and English teachers will show you some interesting ways in which denotative
definitions differ.
For example, there are subtle but important differences between the following denotative definitions for "graffiti."
Oxford Dictionaries (oxforddictionaries.com) graffiti writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place:the walls were covered with graffiti.
American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.reference.com) graffiti A drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public.
Notice that the second definition omits the word "illicitly."
Using one definition or the other (or both) it would be easy to understand why Surfing Guadalupe would be called "graffiti" by some. Inclusion of the word "illicitly" could logically lead to its being defined as the product of a criminal act.
However, the denotative definition of a word (as it is in this case) can be incomplete. There is more to the picture.
In addition to denotative definitions, words can be defined connotatively.
A connotative definition provides us with associations that go beyond the explicit definition of a word. Think of the word "home" and how the literal definition might differ from definitions that include associations, implications, and other nuances. An objective person armed with a dictionary could define "home" as a place made of wood and plaster with a roof over it.
Most of us know a home is more than that. Think of your childhood home. Think of a home you visited where you felt instantly relaxed or more comfortable as you entered.
Anyone who has seen Surfing Guadalupe with their own eyes and watched the ways in which people respond to it and one another knows that the work is more than graffiti. Its location, materials, color, form, and symbolism along with the way in
which it "appeared," contain the sparks of genius that inspire us and improve the quality of our lives.
Surfing Guadalupe transcends graffiti and deserves to stay exactly where it is. It would be a crime to remove it from its current home.
As was said before Winston, you can correct me and apparently yourself any time. Thanks for the edits. The public education system obviously needs more money not less.
Actually, after the seismic retrofit, they auctioned off the bridge and I bought it. Do you want to buy a bridge? I'll put it on Craigslist tomorrow morning. This art stuff should get me an extra fitty.
You really have to feel for our council. The amount of rouge art crimes in this City is unbelievable. We are going to have to create an undercover task force to infiltrate the local artist community and take strong and direct action to prevent rogue artists from defacing bland ugly concrete with art. This is intolerable in a civilized country.
but that doesn't change the fact that it is a religious symbol on public property. it's not that surprising that the majority of people want it to stay, since it is a symbol of the majority (christian) religion. but that is precisely why our founding fathers foresaw the need for separation of church and state... to protect minority thought and diversity of opinion which is central to democracy.
do we really want encinitas to be on par with la jolla and the mount soledad cross when it comes to symbols of majority disrespect for the plurality of our society?
this piece really shows the beauty and power of art in the public realm... but it should be understood for what it is, a statement of defiance (like a banksy) which is inherently impermanent by design.
encinitas should not have any part in the tea-party-esque destruction of church and state going on across our country right now. take it down and relocate it if possible.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or the Devil, but when I see how comforting this image is to all these people, and everywhere I go in town, whether it be Old or New Encinitas, this is all everyone is talking about because it's a great piece of art, and they love it, even ol' non believers such as myself. Times are tough right now, and people are dying in wars, of disease, etc. So what harm is there in making people feel good and peaceful and hopeful by looking at this beautiful image. It's not like it's a gory picture of Jesus nailed to a cross.
I would hope the city lets this one slide, but approves it with the condition that anything else will be removed, because yes, it does "break the rules", but once in a while, can't common wisdom and sympathy prevail? I have often heard folks in council meetings ask for decisions based on "the common good". Is this not one of those situations?
As for the argument that this is a religious symbol that causes controversy, and offends some people, then what about the phrase "In God We Trust" that is put on every dollar bill in this country, eh?
Every religion begs for Tolerance. I suggest we practice some of that right now. It would be the civilized thing to do.
I say Amen to that Mary. It is a beautiful piece of art and is not gory or even a cross, like Mt. Soledad. It could be seen as a picture of a beautiful woman and nothing more. Rules should be able to be bent once in a while, and personally I think this is the time to bend them. It does not have to be seen as a religious symbol if that is the problem. And most people would not see it as graffiti. Please let it be or move it to a business that wants it. Several have already stepped up to the plate.
The Madonna is an Iconic symbol that is widely used in both fine art and outsider art, much like the Asian or African art you find in either Pier One or Cost Plus.
"Amen to that" is also a secular phrase that has transcended religious definition. Much like "Good Lord" or "Goddammit!!"
My complaint is unrelated to the law, the frequency of Madonna imagery in art, or the level of violence in this particular image. Christianity is vile. Religion across the board is something we must reject from our culture, but Christianity is what we're dealing with here: a death cult whose "holy book" is used to justify and rationalize war, slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, et al (the worst crimes you can imagine). Why? Because the "holy book" condones it. Anything objectionable in the Koran is also in the bible. We as a country regularly condemn tribal societies' adherence to sharia law, yet we turn a blind eye to the same behavior (sometimes on a lesser scale) in our own country.
Consider this: every week most Christians meet at the local office of the world's largest child-sex ring where a supposed magician tells them he's turning a cracker into a zombie (and they profess to believe him)! If you think this is normal, you are rucking fetarded. Ok, maybe just brainwashed/indoctrinated. And yet, Christianity is pervasive and unquestioned in our culture. It's ridiculous, but religion is a mental virus that thrives on us.
Is this clear? Do you folks understand why casually tolerating Christian imagery is bad?
It's like the Force in Star Wars: it can be used for good or evil.
While there are plenty of Christian Sith Lords in the world, there are also Christian Jedis. And I think the latter category is far more prevalent in Leucadia.
The Surfing Guadalupe is clearly the work of a pure-hearted Jedi master.
c'mon mary... you can't actually believe your own worthless logic here, can you? you offer no reasoning for your conclusion that these are secular phrases because there is none to be offered.
and let's be clear about the history of religion in our country. the founding fathers were christian and religious, but they knew enough to see the importance of drawing a clear line between their beliefs and the government... DESPITE THEIR RELIGIOUS PERSONAL LIVES. that is why the official motto of the US was not "in god we trust" but "e pluribus unum" (from many one) until the white-washing of our country in the mid-1950s when the "leave it to beaver" vision of america succeeded in getting "in god we trust" onto our money and references to god into the pledge of allegiance and other places it doesn't belong.
we are still recovering from the many bad ideas of the 1950s that supported discrimination, pollution and long-term economic disaster. you would have us go back to that mentality with your assumptions.
Those in the public who are Muslim might want to kill someone, as depicting the prophet is a capital offense as illustrated by the reaction to Danish cartoons and South Park.
As for the rest of the public, if the Mohammed was as beautiful and inspirational as the Surfin' Mary, I think the reaction would be equally tolerant and positive.
Those in the public who are Muslim might want to kill someone ... As for the rest of the public ... I think the reaction would be equally tolerant and positive.
Thanks for proving my point!
American Muslims might want to kill someone over depicting the prophet? You smear all American Muslims with the extremist violence of ignorant members of tribal cultures in third world countries.
You apparently consider Islam to be a vile religion, but you reject the idea that Christianity is no better. Are you aware of the passages in the Bible that justify behavior similar to what you expect from Muslims?
Ya know, the whole thing might make me smile, but the art went up on public property and it sounds like it is going to cost some money to remove it or secure it in place.
ReplyDeleteThe art went up and the artists left the city to decide what to do.
I'm all for setting up a fund for this art piece before the city decides what to do with it. Donate first, then let the government decide what to do with the money (use it to secure the art or to remove it) . There is a kind of symmetry to that.
It is secure in place. It's well liked by the public on public property. Leave it alone. We don't have time or money for such silliness like having it removed. Besides, Leucadia is the "art and soul of Encinitas" and it's on the north side of Encinitas Blvd. Why does the government stifle public art as good as this? Or those killer mirrored stars that began appearing last year along 101? Bureaucracy. I don't see the symmetry in your idea of collecting funds to perhaps have it destroyed. Besides, let he who never planted anything without permission in the public right of way cast the first stone.
ReplyDelete"art and soul of Encinitas"…. Shame, shame, shame silly Winston. Your public education is showing.
ReplyDeleteArt and Soul of Encinitas should be Caps.
And what is with this sentence? --“Or those killer mirrored stars that began appearing last year along 101?”
Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy…. It’s hard to take you seriously when you just write like a normal blogger.
What’s your story? Are you the typical little napoleon control freak that thinks their shit don’t stink, but everyone else reeks?
What I tossed was an idea to collected funds for the art piece. Regardless of what I did does not change the situation the city is in or that it might take some money to deal with the art. Does it?
ReplyDeleteWhat did I do? I replaced a tree that had been removed by a non-city authorized tree trimmer, probably to make a billboard easier to see. I don’t remember the replanted tree being slated for removal on the tree plan. If that were the case and there was a cost associated with the replacement tree, I’d step up and pay it.
I’ve been growing a bunch of trees for many years that I wanted to have ready to donate to the city, if they were approved for the l101 plant palette, which I thought was something that we would have figured out years ago. I’ve given away most of the trees at this point because we still aren’t close to working out the plant palette.
Whoever pulls the trigger to "remove the art" is going to be one unpopular fellow come election time!
ReplyDeleteFor "GOD's" sake, the Easter Island statue at Swamis is a religious symbol to those that created the originals. Those have stood for how long? We have SO regressed as a planetary species.....LEAVE the Virgen or cut down the "TIKI"!!!!
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the City keeps the art pieces it takes down. There must be a place for this art to go for all to see. In fact, didn't Hwy 101 Traders offer to let this piece go to their site? I think we should ask the City for public art garden somewhere, where all can see these fine artists and their work. I have emailed the Council, have you?
ReplyDeleteP.S. When I read how the artists put it up, I couldn't help thinking of the scene in Ghostbusters where the guys put on Con Ed suits and started digging under the street for ghost goooo.
ReplyDeleteI skipped the council. I actually saw the Virgin Mary while surfing yesterday and she said the art will stay or the bridge will fall when God spites us all. I'm not joking this time.
ReplyDeleteI sent an email to the city asking for Mother Ocean to stay.
ReplyDeleteSammi your comment adds nothing to this discussion and makes you look like a silver spoon douche.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said I think that if we have a law that prohibits "good" artwork from being allowed to stay then we need to take a look at it and revise it so that it does what it suppose to do and doesn’t abuse its power by taking down "real" art that people enjoy.
If the law says this artwork can’t be allowed to stay then it sounds like we need to change this law. Ridiculous that we have to waste the city’s time and money because people can’t make a judgment call on a grey matter.
It seems that the majority wants to keep the mosaic.
ReplyDeleteThe city is, as I understand, acting appropriately and thoughtfully. They do not want to damage the art but logically can not allow people to just install public art anywhere they want. I agree.
As for the location: you can not view this wonderful creation adaquately. You can not walk back from it to view from even a little distance and people viewing in in their cars wil tend to hit the car in front of them.
I sense that the city likes it but the reasonable process was not followed.
There areany options as to where it could be advantageously moved.
What would help if the artist would offer the method that the art was installed so there is no damage done in removing it and relocating.
Please let the artist know that if the installation method were shared them it could be relocated in a better location and not damaged. Otherwise it may be lost and not shared.
ARTIST, please help. No one will share your name.
Contact: savethesavetheocean@gmail.com
Thank you.
Perhaps we could ask for some space at the Hall Property park, and have an art area. I have seen these kinds of things in Santa Fe, Vancouver, San Francisco etc. If people like this idea, I will be the one to ask. Let me know what you think. Either here, or e-mail me at lgreene98@aol.com.
ReplyDeletejconway, you know not what you speak.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry KC, just razzing you a little to stir the thread.
ReplyDeleteBut Sammi, as for you my pretty: "napoleon" should be capitalized; "don't" should be "doesn't"; "else" should be "else's" and you needn't capitalize "caps" (you typical bloggerita, you). And although I may have a few illusions of grandeur, I'm convinced no one's waste will ever be mistaken for lilac.
When it comes to determining the meanings of words or using words to categorize objects and concepts, definition is not always a simple matter.
ReplyDeleteReaching for a dictionary or looking to an on-line dictionary for "the definition" can be a reasonable, acceptable way to clarify. But not always. There is more than one type of definition.
Denotative definitions are the ones contained in dictionaries. Usually we think of denotative definitions as the literal meanings for words. But dictionary afficionadoes and English teachers will show you some interesting ways in which denotative
definitions differ.
For example, there are subtle but important differences between the following denotative definitions for "graffiti."
Oxford Dictionaries (oxforddictionaries.com)
graffiti
writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place:the walls were covered with graffiti.
American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.reference.com)
graffiti
A drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public.
Notice that the second definition omits the word "illicitly."
Using one definition or the other (or both) it would be easy to understand why Surfing Guadalupe would be called "graffiti" by some. Inclusion of the word "illicitly" could logically lead to its being defined as the product of a criminal act.
However, the denotative definition of a word (as it is in this case) can be incomplete. There is more to the picture.
In addition to denotative definitions, words can be defined connotatively.
A connotative definition provides us with associations that go beyond the explicit definition of a word. Think of the word "home" and how the literal definition might differ from definitions that include associations, implications, and other nuances.
An objective person armed with a dictionary could define "home" as a place made of wood and plaster with a roof over it.
Most of us know a home is more than that. Think of your childhood home. Think of a home you visited where you felt instantly relaxed or more comfortable as you entered.
Anyone who has seen Surfing Guadalupe with their own eyes and watched the ways in which people respond to it and one another knows that the work is more than graffiti. Its location, materials, color, form, and symbolism along with the way in
which it "appeared," contain the sparks of genius that inspire us and improve the quality of our lives.
Surfing Guadalupe transcends graffiti and deserves to stay exactly where it is. It would be a crime to remove it from its current home.
Surfing Guadalupe
ReplyDeleteCatholic and Protestant,
Muslim, Buddhist, Jew,
Druid, Heathen, Atheist,
Agnostic or Hindu--
call it what you want
but read the message, too.
Sparkling like the glassy waves
she makes a dark place shine.
She tells us, "Keep the water clean;
Good God! Don't change it into wine!"
Surfing Guadalupe's dropping in.
Save the Ocean says the sign.
Jim Babwe
As was said before Winston, you can correct me and apparently yourself any time. Thanks for the edits. The public education system obviously needs more money not less.
ReplyDeleteThe Surfing Madonna is art.
ReplyDeleteThe petty tyrants are graffiti on the soul of Encinitas.
Who owns the bridge, City, NCTD, or?
ReplyDeleteCity
ReplyDeleteBS, when the bridge went through a seismic retrofit and reinforcement several years ago, the City didn't do it. So NCTD doesn't own the bridge?
ReplyDeleteActually, after the seismic retrofit, they auctioned off the bridge and I bought it. Do you want to buy a bridge? I'll put it on Craigslist tomorrow morning. This art stuff should get me an extra fitty.
ReplyDeleteWho painted and put the bird net on the bridge?
ReplyDeleteYou really have to feel for our council. The amount of rouge art crimes in this City is unbelievable. We are going to have to create an undercover task force to infiltrate the local artist community and take strong and direct action to prevent rogue artists from defacing bland ugly concrete with art. This is intolerable in a civilized country.
ReplyDeleteas art, the piece is sweet... no doubt.
ReplyDeletebut that doesn't change the fact that it is a religious symbol on public property. it's not that surprising that the majority of people want it to stay, since it is a symbol of the majority (christian) religion. but that is precisely why our founding fathers foresaw the need for separation of church and state... to protect minority thought and diversity of opinion which is central to democracy.
do we really want encinitas to be on par with la jolla and the mount soledad cross when it comes to symbols of majority disrespect for the plurality of our society?
this piece really shows the beauty and power of art in the public realm... but it should be understood for what it is, a statement of defiance (like a banksy) which is inherently impermanent by design.
encinitas should not have any part in the tea-party-esque destruction of church and state going on across our country right now. take it down and relocate it if possible.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or the Devil, but when I see how comforting this image is to all these people, and everywhere I go in town, whether it be Old or New Encinitas, this is all everyone is talking about because it's a great piece of art, and they love it, even ol' non believers such as myself. Times are tough right now, and people are dying in wars, of disease, etc. So what harm is there in making people feel good and peaceful and hopeful by looking at this beautiful image. It's not like it's a gory picture of Jesus nailed to a cross.
ReplyDeleteI would hope the city lets this one slide, but approves it with the condition that anything else will be removed, because yes, it does "break the rules", but once in a while, can't common wisdom and sympathy prevail? I have often heard folks in council meetings ask for decisions based on "the common good". Is this not one of those situations?
As for the argument that this is a religious symbol that causes controversy, and offends some people, then what about the phrase "In God We Trust" that is put on every dollar bill in this country, eh?
Every religion begs for Tolerance. I suggest we practice some of that right now. It would be the civilized thing to do.
I say Amen to that Mary. It is a beautiful piece of art and is not gory or even a cross, like Mt. Soledad. It could be seen as a picture of a beautiful woman and nothing more. Rules should be able to be bent once in a while, and personally I think this is the time to bend them. It does not have to be seen as a religious symbol if that is the problem. And most people would not see it as graffiti. Please let it be or move it to a business that wants it. Several have already stepped up to the plate.
ReplyDeletethe Easter Island statue at Swamis is a religious symbol to those that created the originals...LEAVE the Virgen or cut down the "TIKI"!!!!
ReplyDeleteFalse, and a poor comparison to boot.
"It is a beautiful piece of art and is not gory or even a cross, like Mt. Soledad."
ReplyDeleteit is clearly disingenuous to claim that this is not a religious symbol.
"amen to that" reveals your faith and inherent inability to render an unbiased opinion in this matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Madonna is an Iconic symbol that is widely used in both fine art and outsider art, much like the Asian or African art you find in either Pier One or Cost Plus.
ReplyDelete"Amen to that" is also a secular phrase that has transcended religious definition. Much like "Good Lord" or "Goddammit!!"
For what it's worth, here's what the First Amendment says about freedom of religion:
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Notice it very clearly does not call for a purging of all cultural or religious symbols from all public places.
In fact, the next phrase suggests quite the opposite:
[...] or abridging the freedom of speech [...]
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd kick Richard Phillips' ass.
My complaint is unrelated to the law, the frequency of Madonna imagery in art, or the level of violence in this particular image. Christianity is vile. Religion across the board is something we must reject from our culture, but Christianity is what we're dealing with here: a death cult whose "holy book" is used to justify and rationalize war, slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, et al (the worst crimes you can imagine). Why? Because the "holy book" condones it. Anything objectionable in the Koran is also in the bible. We as a country regularly condemn tribal societies' adherence to sharia law, yet we turn a blind eye to the same behavior (sometimes on a lesser scale) in our own country.
ReplyDeleteConsider this: every week most Christians meet at the local office of the world's largest child-sex ring where a supposed magician tells them he's turning a cracker into a zombie (and they profess to believe him)! If you think this is normal, you are rucking fetarded. Ok, maybe just brainwashed/indoctrinated. And yet, Christianity is pervasive and unquestioned in our culture. It's ridiculous, but religion is a mental virus that thrives on us.
Is this clear? Do you folks understand why casually tolerating Christian imagery is bad?
Rob,
ReplyDeleteIt's like the Force in Star Wars: it can be used for good or evil.
While there are plenty of Christian Sith Lords in the world, there are also Christian Jedis. And I think the latter category is far more prevalent in Leucadia.
The Surfing Guadalupe is clearly the work of a pure-hearted Jedi master.
May the Force be with you!
Thought experiment: how would the public react if that were Mohammed instead of Mary?
ReplyDeletec'mon mary... you can't actually believe your own worthless logic here, can you? you offer no reasoning for your conclusion that these are secular phrases because there is none to be offered.
ReplyDeleteand let's be clear about the history of religion in our country. the founding fathers were christian and religious, but they knew enough to see the importance of drawing a clear line between their beliefs and the government... DESPITE THEIR RELIGIOUS PERSONAL LIVES. that is why the official motto of the US was not "in god we trust" but "e pluribus unum" (from many one) until the white-washing of our country in the mid-1950s when the "leave it to beaver" vision of america succeeded in getting "in god we trust" onto our money and references to god into the pledge of allegiance and other places it doesn't belong.
we are still recovering from the many bad ideas of the 1950s that supported discrimination, pollution and long-term economic disaster. you would have us go back to that mentality with your assumptions.
oh brother
ReplyDeleteThought experiment answer:
ReplyDeleteThose in the public who are Muslim might want to kill someone, as depicting the prophet is a capital offense as illustrated by the reaction to Danish cartoons and South Park.
As for the rest of the public, if the Mohammed was as beautiful and inspirational as the Surfin' Mary, I think the reaction would be equally tolerant and positive.
Those in the public who are Muslim might want to kill someone ... As for the rest of the public ... I think the reaction would be equally tolerant and positive.
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving my point!
American Muslims might want to kill someone over depicting the prophet? You smear all American Muslims with the extremist violence of ignorant members of tribal cultures in third world countries.
You apparently consider Islam to be a vile religion, but you reject the idea that Christianity is no better. Are you aware of the passages in the Bible that justify behavior similar to what you expect from Muslims?