Prominent Foundation Threatens to Pull Funding From Smithsonian Over Ant-Covered Jesus Removal
- Posted on December 13, 2010 at 11:12pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
The Andy Warhol Foundation, an organization dedicated to the “advancement of the visual arts,” has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Smithsonian Institution in the past, but that charitable relationship may soon change.
According to news reports, the foundation is threatening to pull all funding donations unless the museum returns video of an ant-covered crucifix to an exhibit it pulled in response to widespread public outcry. 
As we reported, a video featuring a plastic crucifix with ants crawling on it was prominently featured in an exhibition titled “Hide/See” at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington. Republican Minority Leader Eric Cantor called on the Smithsonian to remove “obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season,” despite the museum’s insistence the exhibit was not meant to offend anyone.
But after a number of conservative Republicans threatened to vote against future federal funding for the museum, the Smithsonian removed the controversial video from the exhibit.
Now, the Warhol Foundation is fighting back:
In a letter sent on Monday to the head of the Smithsonian, G. Wayne Clough, Joel Wachs, the president of the Warhol Foundation, said that the foundation’s board voted unanimously on Friday to demand that the Smithsonian restore the work, an excerpt of a video by the artist David Wojnarowicz, to the exhibition or the foundation would reject any future grant requests.
The Warhol Foundation reportedly donated $100,000 to help fund the “Hide/Seek” exhibit, and over the past three years, the foundation has given $375,000 to various Smithsonian institutions.
Tthere has been no hint yet from the museum whether they will consider reinstalling the video into the exhibit.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 345 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 345 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (137)
AutoEuphoria
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 7:09amI thought we all had the right to not be offended? I’d say having an “art” display that desecrates my God is more than a little “offensive” to me.
Report Post »emertz8413
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:46amI was planning to go to the Smithsonian next time I was in DC, but now you can forget it.
Report Post »shellmen
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:41amandy warhol the elitites buddy. art is a matter of opinion and I think andys art sucked along with his friends view.
Report Post »NursingNerd2012
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:23amUm…seriously? If the video had been removed because it offended a muslim, atheist, etc we wouldn’t ba having this conversation. because they‘re protected by this unseen shielding so that they can’t even feel a little bit unsettled without all H*** breaking loose. But when something that would easily offend over half of this country’s people (Christians) is taken out, it offends someone? I say to the Smithsonian, tell them u don’t want their money if this is what they do with it! It’s obvious they wish to defame the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, and we can’t have that!
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:48amIt’s like Comedy Central continuing to slander the Christian/Jewish/etc. religions but doing what the Muslims tell them to do, so they aren’t killed dead.
No street creds for that. No subtle play of light and shade. Shallow weak people that wouldn’t know good art if it hit them side the head with a 2×4.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:41amThere are 10,000 Christian groups in the most poverty stricken, forsaken places on earth, helping the poor.
And the number of atheist groups doing the same thing?
Zero.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:52amThat’s not true. There are plenty of non-religious organisations performing charitable works the world over.
Report Post »New-American-Saviors
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:37amSo stop all the threats and PULL the Funding. “ It does not coincide with our Artistic Values” period !
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:26amIt’s good verses evil once again. We have a vast range of people and organizations set out to discredit Christianity. I received a beautiful e-mail you all might enjoy. http://www.openmyeyeslord.net:80/UltimateFreedom.htm
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:12amAndy Warhol was, in spite of his eccentricities, the son of Slovak immigrants and a practicing Roman Catholic until he died. He was buried at his family plot with the final blessings of a Catholic priest in a Catholic cemetary near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (with only a handful of his New York “friends” attending his burial) I wonder what Andy Warhol would have to say about this mockery of a crucifix, the most sacred of symbol of his Catholic faith? I am sure Andy Warhol was all for artistic freedom but I am also certain he would have not approved of this swipe at his faith.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:44amSwipe at faith all you want, but to pick on Christians and avoid the same thing against Muslims, simply because Christians won’t kill you for it, isn’t courage or leading edge, it’s pandering and cowardice.
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:54amI agree. We don‘t see Catholic’s or other Christians in the USA rioting or threatening to burn down the Smithsonian Institution or the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh because fools at the Warhol Foundation allowed a crucifix to be blasphemed in the name of “artistic freedom” in their name do you? My point was that Andy Warhol was himself a devout Roman Catholic and he would NOT have approved of the abuse of this sacred sybol of his faith.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:14amI really don’t think you can say for certain what the dead would or would not approve of.
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:17amCOGNITIVE. I think we can safely assume the dead would approve or condemn anything done in their name after they died if those actions deviated from their beliefs which they held dear during their lives here on earth.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:19amOh, I don’t dispute Andy Warhol not liking it, and I don’t disagree, Penn, Just infuriating how they wouldn’t dare do the same thing to Muslims.
I could care less what Andy Warhol believed, I find him and his life and his art and the elitist degenerates he ran with beneath contempt.
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:25amPASSERBY… If you read Andy Warhol’s biography you can read between the lines and understand that he USED those liberal, trendy, phoney NYC society elites. He knew his art was a “gimmick”, a fad, and he capitalized upon it. As I already posted. Andy used these fools and he laughed all the way to the bank.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:26amNo doubt.
Report Post »Big_D
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:11amyou know the smithsonian will probably course correct and put the stupid video think back up. it’s run by liberal leaning people, why do you think it was there to begin with? sadly, i think it will be back up.
one man‘s junk is another man’s junk too.
Report Post »tonguetied5
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:10amBeing an artist myself, it can be hard to define art. I mean, I hate to be arrogant, but really, art is very personal.
Now, the same can be said about trash. My trash can be another’s treasure.
BUT WARHOL’S STUFF IS CRAP AND TRASH. There is no talent there. He found a bunch of suckers to buy his junk, and lucky him. (Wish it had been me!)
Only the same type of person that feared saying “the Emperor has no clothes”, would say Warhol was an artist.
THINK FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:40amYour post has at least three conflicting ideas in it.
First you state that art is personal, secondly you state that Warhol’s work is trash and expect that to be an absolute judgement, and then you state that everyone should think for themselves after you’ve just told me what to think.
If art is personal, than it is completely possible that something you think is trash I can think is art and that is thinking for myself.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:59amLet the Warhol Foundation pull its funding. That much less bad ‘art’ at the Smithsonian–America’s national museum–far as I’m concerned.
Guaranteed–in two months, the Foundation will begin donations again, because all the bad artists attached to it will have no other place so large to show their works.
Report Post »tonguetied5
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:13amExactly.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:50ama fool and his funding…….
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:48amGo on, put the ants on a statue of Muhammad, “Andy Warhol Foundation”.
Jump up bad man.
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:09amThe reality and violence of Islam is “off limits” to all Western left wing artists, writers, and movie makers. They know that if they “offend” Muslims or Islam in any way shape or form their lives will be threatened. Look at how fast Comedy Central cancelled their skit making fun of Mohammed when their producers got death threats from Muslim radicals. The Christophobe’s (Christ haters) on left are obsessed with mocking Christianity because we are safe targets who will do nothing and we “respect” their Constitutional right to use us as targets in the name of “artistic freedom”. These left wing fools want to undermine and destroy the faith that inspired and built Western Civilization and at the same time during a time of modern Islamic Jihad against our civilization these same people say or do nothing to “offend” Muslims because they know Muslims do not play games. God help us.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:24amWell, a lot of people don’t know, that in the Pew Polls, after 9/11, most Muslims on earth supported Al-Qaeda and killing our women and children in cold blood. But after Iraq, (and even more now with success), and demonstrating we’d fight back, the number was cut in half. Heck, in recent polls, only 4% of the Afghans support the taliban, with 90% supporting the government. The US is more popular in Afghanistan than perhaps any other country in the world. Big secret, inconvenient if we want to abandon them.
http://pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
Report Post »psykeskaos
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:06amLook at what happened to those cartoonists in Europe who drew Muslims with turbans shaped like bombs, or how about the threats to Rushdie for his book Satanic Verses. You need to think twice before embracing a faith you seem to know very little about.
Report Post »In a Muslim world, there would be no Art. And yes I believe the Smithsonian should be politically correct and have Ants on Mohammad. This is not Art by any means, but propoganda. Art stimulates the eyes and imagination.
isobamamadd
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:40amDo that to muslims People stand up for your Religion
Report Post »DVT
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:24amoh my, a threat? really? keep your money…better yet why dont you donate that money towards the national debt instead !
Report Post »RealityCheck
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:00amProbably because they know who owns the National Debt, Do you know who owns the debt in America? Do you know every time money is printed it is printed by a privately owned bank? Did you know that every dollar printed is a loan from this privately owned bank which incurs interest ? It’s written on the top of every bill, The Federal Reserve. Wake up ! Do you people really think we will ever get rid of our National Debt ? Why oh why do you think people in power here in our country are fighting to collapse our economy and create a global economy ?
Report Post »Steve Smith
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:41amIf that‘s art I’m glad I’m not an artist. I’ve always wondered how nervous these people are when a thunderstorm pops up. I guess atheists are really confident. Every time I hear someone in Washington discuss spending tax payer money on anything the standard answer is, no that would just be a drop in the bucket. Usually only 20 million here or 20 million there. They don’t get it that if a bucket is put out in the rain all of those drops will eventually fill the bucket.
Report Post »Will they ever follow what most of us have to do and don‘t spend it if you don’t have it?
rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:39amwth, this is plain and simple! We dont care what anyone else thinks, we want our trash put back on.
/sarc
Can noone remember this is still a Judeo-Christian based nation!
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:50amThe Judeo-Christian tradition, from the Torah to Jesus, (Christian or historical) has about 1000 sayings in support of the poor, and/or condemning the rich, including redistribution of wealth far in excess of an existing country, and not one, not a single solitary one to the contrary.
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:54amlink please!
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:01amThe link would be any on-line copy of the Christian or Jewish Bibles, I suspect I can’t post all 1000, but we’ll see how many it will take, starting with the books of Moses, the Torah and ending with the Epistle of James from the Christian Bible…
To love other Jews Lev. 19:18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
To love converts Deut. 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Not to oppress the weak Ex. 22:21 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
Not to hate fellow Jews Lev. 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.
Not to speak derogatorily of others Lev. 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
To rest on the seventh day Ex. 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
To rest from prohibited labor on Yom Kippur Lev. 23:32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of solemn rest, and ye shall afflict your souls; in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye keep your sabbath.
To rest on the first day of Passover Lev. 23:7 In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work.
Not to do prohibited labor on the first day of Passover Lev. 23:8 And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work.
To rest on Shavuot Lev. 23:21 And ye shall make proclamation on the selfsame day; there shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no manner of servile work; it is a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.
To rest on Rosh Hashanah Lev. 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest unto you, a memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns, a holy convocation.
Not to do prohibited labor on Rosh Hashanah Lev. 23:25 Ye shall do no manner of servile work; and ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
To rest on Sukkot Lev. 23:35 On the first day shall be a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work.
To rest on Shemini Atzeret Lev. 23:36 Seven days ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD; on the eighth day shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD; it is a day of solemn assembly; ye shall do no manner of servile work.
Each man must give a half shekel annually Ex. 30:13 is they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary–the shekel is twenty gerahs–half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.
To leave gleanings Lev. 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.
To leave a corner of the field uncut for the poor Lev. 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
To leave the forgotten sheaves in the field Deut. 24:19 When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.
To separate the “tithe for the poor” Deut. 14:28 At the end of every three years, even in the sahut thy hand from thy needy brother;
To give charity Deut. 15:8 but thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth.
To leave free all produce which grew in that year Ex. 23:11 but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.
To release all loans during the seventh year Deut. 15:2 And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbour; he shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother; because the LORD’S release hath been proclaimed.
Not to refrain from lending immediately before the release of the loans for fear of monetary loss Deut. 15:9 Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart, saying: ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand’; and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother, and thou give him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin in thee.
The worker must not take more than he can eat Deut. 23:25 When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes until thou have enough at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
Lend to the poor and destitute Not to press them for payment if you know they don’t have it Ex. 22:24 If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
The creditor must not forcibly take collateral Deut. 24:10 When thou dost lend thy neighbour any manner of loan, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.
Return the collateral to the debtor when needed Deut. 24:13 thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.
Not to delay its return when needed Deut. 24:12 And if he be a poor man, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge;
Not to demand collateral from a widow Deut. 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the justice due to the stranger, or to the fatherless; nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge.
Not to demand as collateral utensils needed for preparing food Deut. 24:6 No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge; for he taketh a man’s life to pledge.
Not to lend with interest Lev. 25:37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase.
Not to borrow with interest Deut. 23:20 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.
Jesus and the New Testament:
There are hundreds of sayings by Jesus, in and out of the Christian Bible, in direct support for the poor and/or in opposition to the rich and powerful. and not one, not a single one in support of the rich. For brevity I won’t repeat them all here, but things like don’t lend at interest, lend to someone you don’t expect to get repaid from, blessed are the poor, the rich man that died, a rich man is as likely to get into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, etc. etc. etc. etc.
But perhaps the word of his brother James, leader of the Jerusalem Church for the decades after the cross says it best in the Epistle of James. Jesus preached for a year, James repeated it for decades. It is about two subjects, the Written Law of God, and how we treat the Poor….
Epistle of James:
1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:11amthis sounds like you share the wealth!
Report Post »Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God.
RealityCheck
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:15amPasserby
I’m not sure but I think you are missing the point in those scriptures or I am misunderstanding your first post. It is not redistributing wealth, most of what you posted say to loan to the poor to help, not charge interest. While the poor should not take more than needed, as with the grape passage. Once you loan or help someone in need you are not to go and collect but rather trust in the Lord that what you have loaned will be returned. I fail to see this as redistribution but more of a love for your fellow man.
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:19amExcuse me passerby, But it does not condemn the rich. It says to share your wealth not to have it taken from you. It is the same as the collection plate that is passed around, give as you can, not everything in your pocket/bank account. We can give as we are able and receive as we need, nothing more or less. This is my Humble opinion and as I understand the Lords Word, Not peelosi’s version!
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:20amSharing the wealth, manditory income redistribution, is the Law of Almighty God. Not a single solitary Law in the Torah/books of Moses, not a prophet, and not Jesus, in or out of the Christian Bible ever even hints at the contrary.
Not that the left isn’t grotesquely offensive and could care less about the poor. All they care about is destroying family values.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:25amOh no, not just the labor laws and not loaning at interest or requiring collateral and not requiring it to be paid back, there’s dozens of required redistribution of wealth. Not just being able to walk on another person’s land and eat all you want, (without taking any with you), but the corners of the fields and gleanings ALL belong to the poor who can take it home.
The Torah doesn’t condemn the rich, just requires massive draconian wealth redistribution. Jesus was openly hostile to the rich, repeatedly. “A rich man is as likely to enter Heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle.”
And the Greek word for “Poor” Jesus used, in all those sayings isn’t the poor sharecroppers he preached to, it’s those with nothing, that sleep in the streets.
Report Post »American_Woman
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:35amAndy Warhol’s pieces are pathetic attempts at art. Take someone’s face, copy it nine times, put different colors on each face. They are tolerable only to those smoking some funny stuff or on acid trips. His “art” is down there with the ants on Jesus.
Report Post »RealityCheck
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:05amThis is a prime example of why I dropped Art as a major. Art is not the content you see but the BS you can spew to describe what you see and what it represents. To me Art should be more about the talent of painting, drawing, etc.. not the philosophical thought behind the paint splatters on a canvas.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:31amWhich part of freedom of speech involves silencing people you don’t agree with (or, in this instance, censoring art you disapprove of)? Isn’t that Mr. Beck’s issue with Media Matters, that they’re somehow (though it’s never quite made clear how) trying to take away his First Amendment rights?
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:41amSo the taxpayer funds this cr-p and we dont have a voice to say what we want to see. Do I have that correct? Blah!
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:43amOK lets have the “muhammed with explody-turban” permanently exhibited @ the Smithsonian, with taxpayer funding .
Report Post »What could go wrong ?
rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:48amcheezwhiz, that is funny!! I like it!!
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:31amYou don’t really have it right, no, since the exhibition isn’t funded by the taxpayer.
Report Post »RealityCheck
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:47amHow exactly is this a free speech issue? 2 groups funding the place of the exhibit, 1 doesn‘t like it and will no longer provide funds because they won’t support it, the other says they‘ll pull funds if it’s not put on exhibit. Now the place of the exhibit must choose ( a right of choice to display or not display and a right to fund or not to fund ) weather or not they want to display the so called art. Now, if they were saying that the so called art couldn‘t be exhibited anywhere at all I’d see the freedom of speech issue. Get a clue and think rationally, why I had to explain this proves the lack of intelligence on display.
Report Post »STANDINTHEFIRE
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:52amWho is trying to silence him? We are talking about the Smithsonian not a private art gallery. Or are you suddenly ok with christian symbols in government buildings? Are you saying you would support putting the ten commandments and nativity scenes back up in government buildings/grounds?
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:52amb-but, We do fund the Smithsonian with taxpayer money! So I repeat, do we not have a say?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:19am@realitycheck – thank you for effectively addressing both parts of my question. It’s a free speech issue because the organisation threatening to pull funding is the government. Beck‘s beef with Media Matters is NOT a free speech issue because he’s not guaranteed the freedom to broadcast his opinions on television.
@standinthefire – we’re not talking about religious symbols in public buildings, we’re talking about art in a gallery.
@rojotx – the fact that the Smithsonian receives public funding (though this particular exhibition is not being funded with public money) does not mean they should only display art that appeals to everyone. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that public funding should encourage a gallery to take risks rather than pander to the lowest common denominator.
You have no right to not be offended. You do, however, have the right to not look at art that you think might offend you. As far as I know no-one’s making you watch this video, or attend this show.
As a matter of interest, how many times have you been to the Portrait Gallery in the last year?
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:20am@ Stronge
You don’t really have it right, no, since the exhibition isn’t funded by the taxpayer.
Report Post »——————
The exhibits maybe privately funded for this exhibition ,
but the Smithsonian is not.
So this exhibition should be held at a privately owned art gallery .
Private art, private funding, private venue.
Don’t poke the taxpayers in the eye just to be cool.
cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:49am@CHEEZ
But don’t people who are gay also pay taxes? Why should they be denied the right to display art in an institution they help pay for and provides space for paying members of the public to present their art?
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:17amBeck‘s beef with Media Matters is NOT a free speech issue because he’s not guaranteed the freedom to broadcast his opinions on television.
——————————
Beck is guaranteed the right to broadcast his opinions on any privately funded media outlet .
Report Post »Just as Ed Shultz is .
And going by the logic that taxpayers should be funding “ art” offensive to Christians, taxpayers should be funding “ art” offensive to other religions too, maybe we can start with the airing of movie Fitna on NPR. Or how about taxpayers funding Beck just as they fund Bill Moyers .
nptden
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:20amWhat about the amazing art of the murdered Dutch cartoonist??…re Mohamed??? Shouldn’t there be an exhibit to express his second amendment rights?…
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:27amwe’re not talking about religious symbols in public buildings, we’re talking about art in a gallery.
————————
We are talking about the cross and image of Jesus Christ , the one shown on this exhibit, right ??
Report Post »Are you saying that as long as religious symbols are desecrated and filthied by “ artists” , they are OK anywhere. Just don’t exhibit them in their pure clean form ?
So when its a pure Cross, its religious and should be banned .
But as soon as the Cross is soaked in urine, it becomes art and should be supported by taxpayer money ?????????
cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:35amBut don’t people who are gay also pay taxes? Why should they be denied the right to display art in an institution they help pay for and provides space for paying members of the public to present their art?
————————
Report Post »Sure, gay art should be exhibited in a taxpayer funded gallery.
As also the Westboro Baptist Church’s art / signs/ art/ whatever they can come up with ?
Why not ?
Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:38am“Beck is guaranteed the right to broadcast his opinions on any privately funded media outlet .”
That’s not actually true, is it? He has the right to be employed to broadcast his opinions by anyone who chooses to hire him in that capacity, just as advertisers have the right to withdraw their support for his show by choosing not to buy advertising airtime during its broadcast, but he doesn’t have a fundamental right to occupy an hour of airtime 5 days a week. No-one does.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:45am@cheezwhiz
“Are you saying that as long as religious symbols are desecrated and filthied by “ artists” , they are OK anywhere. Just don’t exhibit them in their pure clean form ?
So when its a pure Cross, its religious and should be banned .
But as soon as the Cross is soaked in urine, it becomes art and should be supported by taxpayer money ?????????”
I think you‘ll find there’s plenty of religious art to be found in galleries.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 3:56ambut he doesn’t have a fundamental right to occupy an hour of airtime 5 days a week.
—————
Report Post »He has the right to do and say whatever he wants and whatever his employers and listeners want.
Its the government’s job to make sure his rights are not trampled . The government is supposed to stand up for his rights, and everyone else’s rights. Thats all.
If Beck doesn’t take taxpayer money, the government has no business trying to silence him just because the government can’t prove him wrong and that frustrates them to no end.
Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 4:12am@cheezwhiz
“He has the right to do and say whatever he wants and whatever his employers and listeners want.
Its the government’s job to make sure his rights are not trampled . The government is supposed to stand up for his rights, and everyone else’s rights. Thats all.
If Beck doesn’t take taxpayer money, the government has no business trying to silence him just because the government can’t prove him wrong and that frustrates them to no end.”
You seem to be getting a little confused. Beck has the right to express himself as he sees fit for as long as his employers choose to put him on the air. We agree on that. But his right to freedom of speech does not guarantee him the right to be on television, just as it doesn‘t guarantee any American’s right to be on television. And if advertisers choose to not be associated with his opinions, it is their right to pull their support.
What’s that about the government trying to silence him?
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 4:23amAnd if advertisers choose to not be associated with his opinions, it is their right to pull their support.
What’s that about the government trying to silence him?
———————————–
Report Post »Its not the job of the government and its overt and covert agents to threaten and punish his sponsors, overtly or covertly.
Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 4:26am“Its not the job of the government and its overt and covert agents to threaten and punish his sponsors, overtly or covertly.”
And do you have any proof that they are?
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 4:41amAnd do you have any proof that they are?
—————–
Report Post »Who are the people and groups that have organized boycott of Beck’s shows by threatening his sponsors ?
How many of those people / groups are funded directly by taxpayers ? How many are funded by taxpayer money laundered through various left wing front orgs ?
Have these same people / orgs ever before organized boycott of ANY other broadcaster ? on any other network ? Ever ? How many of those who are thirsting for Beck’s blood associated with Obama / Democrats / Sore-@$$ / Van Jones / Unions/ Communist -marxist subversive orgs etc ?
Who benefits directly and solely if Beck is silenced ?
If not Obama and this government, then who ?
Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 7:54am“Who are the people and groups that have organized boycott of Beck’s shows by threatening his sponsors ?
How many of those people / groups are funded directly by taxpayers ? How many are funded by taxpayer money laundered through various left wing front orgs ?
Have these same people / orgs ever before organized boycott of ANY other broadcaster ? on any other network ? Ever ? How many of those who are thirsting for Beck’s blood associated with Obama / Democrats / Sore-@$$ / Van Jones / Unions/ Communist -marxist subversive orgs etc ?
Who benefits directly and solely if Beck is silenced ?
If not Obama and this government, then who ?”
I’m intrigued: do you actually believe all of that? Or any of it?
And how, exactly, would your government profit from Beck being silenced?
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 5:36pm@ Stronge
“I’m intrigued: do you actually believe all of that? Or any of it? ”
Yes, as a matter of fact tens of millions believe that, since it has been shown to be true with their own words on Becks’ show. Too many people have now awakened to what the Progressives and Globalists are planning. More are waking up every day.
We vastly outnumber Progressives and the military & police (those few that would not be standing with us, along with their armories & weapons) combined, are generally well-armed, and getting more & more organized as well. We won’t fall into the trap of being baited into starting violence, but if those who think like you do are fools enough (and suicidal enough) to attempt to use force to strip us of our Constitutional rights, we *will* defend them. And you *will* lose. Badly.
Nervous yet?
Good! :D
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:25pmAnd how, exactly, would your government profit from Beck being silenced?
—————
If THIS government has nothing to benefit ( or PROFIT, your word) from silencing Beck, why is it funding his intimidation ?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 7:12pm@bluestrat – nervous? Because some eejit makes unsubstantiated claims on an internet message board? Nah, not at all. I‘m sad for you and the way you’ve been taken in by some huckster whose schtick seems to consist of splicing together heavily edited soundbites with illogical (some might be cruel and call them deranged) imaginative leaps, all topped off with some Mormon end-times rhetoric.
And can I just say it’s nice to see you being so open about your violent proclivities?
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 7:15pm@cheezwhiz
“If THIS government has nothing to benefit ( or PROFIT, your word) from silencing Beck, why is it funding his intimidation ?”
And again I ask, can you prove that this government is intimidating Beck? Because the only intimidation I‘ve seen is in Beck’s attempts to keep his audience afraid (all the better to buy “food insurance”, gold coins, and whatever else he happens to be shilling on any given day).
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:40pm@ Stronge
“Violent proclivities”??
No. Americans like myself aren’t violent. They are tolerant, generous, and peace loving.
They are, however, NOT all helpless and/or stupid victims. Don’t buy all your own propaganda.
Progressives generally exhibit tremendous hubris from the delusion that *they* are always the smartest people in the room.
Keep in mind that the Progressives’ historically relatively-recent structures and organizations in the USA and the world may not be the only, the most powerful, the best-organized, nor the most well-submerged structure and organization.
Remember also, people willing to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the country and the Constitution have been around and able to submerge, organize, & plan ever since since the countries’ founding…far longer than the Johnny-come-lately Progressives.
The Progressives *could* suddenly find themselves blindsided and in the position of a field mouse cornered by a rattlesnake if things got dire for the nation.
I find it fascinating to observe that, throughout history, tyrants and those who conspire for tyranny are always and inevitably brought down by their own blind hubris.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:55pmAnd again I ask, can you prove that this government is intimidating Beck?
—————————–
Can you prove that this government is NOT intimidating Beck , either overtly or covertly ?
Report Post »Can you prove that those elements that are calling for his blood are NOT
agents / supporters / co-idealogists / fellow Democrats
of Obama and this government ?
Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 12:50am@cheezwhiz
“Can you prove that this government is NOT intimidating Beck , either overtly or covertly ?
Can you prove that those elements that are calling for his blood are NOT
agents / supporters / co-idealogists / fellow Democrats
of Obama and this government ?”
Can I prove a negative? Of course I can’t. Can you prove a giant cockroach won’t eat the USA in 2020? I, however, am not the one throwing around allegations. The burden of proof is with you.
Report Post »Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 1:05am@bluestrat
“No. Americans like myself aren’t violent. They are tolerant, generous, and peace loving.”
Really? Because most people who aren‘t violent by inclination don’t feel the need to talk about how non-violent they are. They also don’t feel the need to bang on about how well-armed they are.
Are you “tolerant, generous and peace-loving” towards muslims? And gays? What about abortionists? Or even just people whose opinions are different to yours? Outside an internet message board, would you go around making claims to strangers about how well-organised and how well-armed you are?
“They are, however, NOT all helpless and/or stupid victims. Don’t buy all your own propaganda.”
Would you tell me more about my propaganda? Apparently you’re confusing me with someone you know something about.
“The Progressives *could* suddenly find themselves blindsided and in the position of a field mouse cornered by a rattlesnake if things got dire for the nation.”
Again with the violent imagery.
As a matter of interest, how would you define things getting “dire for the nation”? Someone you don’t agree with in power? (Stupid democracy giving everyone the vote and not those who share your beliefs.)
“I find it fascinating to observe that, throughout history, tyrants and those who conspire for tyranny are always and inevitably brought down by their own blind hubris.”
I would be interested to know how you define tyranny. Because you seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 3:59am@ Stronge
Can I prove a negative? Of course I can’t. Can you prove a giant cockroach won’t eat the USA in 2020? I, however, am not the one throwing around allegations. The burden of proof is with you.
———————–
As I said before :
Who are the people and groups that have organized boycott of Beck’s shows by threatening his sponsors ?
Report Post »How many of those people / groups are funded directly by taxpayers ? How many are funded by taxpayer money laundered through various left wing front orgs ?
Have these same people / orgs ever before organized boycott of ANY other broadcaster ? on any other network ? Ever ? How many of those who are thirsting for Beck’s blood associated with Obama / Democrats / Sore-@$$ / Van Jones / Unions/ Communist -marxist subversive orgs etc ?
Who benefits directly and solely if Beck is silenced ?
If not Obama and this government, then who ?
—————–
The answers to the above questions are easily available and prove that there are no negatives which need to be proven. The proof is in front of our eyes. We are just looking at it .
We need to see it .
Stronge
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 4:37amSeriously, prove it. Actual proof. Not guilty by association, not speculation passed off as proof, but actual proof. Proof that your government is trying to silence Glenn Beck.
Report Post »The Bees Know
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:27amIs there no room for more traditional art any longer? Does it all have to be harsh? What has happened to our sensibilities? Let the Warhol group go. Maybe then the Smithsonian will be funded by groups with more mainstream values.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 1:13amLooks like the Warhol Group is really committed to the further degrading of the visual arts.
Report Post »Hayeksgirl
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:28amHave you seen the anti-dada video at Marc Rubins website??? It explains it. Dada is progressive, progressive is dada. I watched it yesterday. Very informative.
Report Post »Ch
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:23amRemove your funding. Hey, evidently Andy was very rich…soon the government will take his money rather the foundation likes it or not.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:55amEvidently you don’t know who Andy Warhol is – if you don’t even know if he was rich – ROFL!
Report Post »http://maboulette.wordpress.com
NickDeringer
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:20amThat does it. I’ll never buy an Andy Warhol painting for as long as I live.
Hmmmm…wait a minute…
Report Post »KenInIL
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:25amThese are the outfits they need to raise taxes on – Foundations. Like Ford, Rockefeller, Annenberg, Carnegie, etc. These foundations have been taken over by folks who have distorted the direction of the donors. They should be taxed out of existence over time, like 9% of assets per year in addition to taxes on earnings.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:20amSlightly O/T :
Report Post »Smithsonian has put on exhibit the white and blue jumpsuit Colbert wore in the
goonioun + jihady+junky+communist junket in DC . You know the one to restore stupidity !!
TruthTalker
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:19amThey and their money should leave.
Kaen
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:35amI’m sure Americans everywhere will be devastated…lol
cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:31amWow, you really have a grudge with the art world there Marc.
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:49amAndy Warhol was, inspite of his eccentricities, the son of devout Slovak Catholics and a practicing Roman Catholic. After his sudden death in the 1980′s when he was buried beside his parents at a Catholic cemetary near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and only 3 or 4 of his New York artistic and trendy “friends” bothered to take the time to journey to Pittsburgh from New York City to attend the funeral. Andy never forgot his Eastern European roots or his Catholic faith as it’s on record that he went to Mass almost every Sunday and Holy Day and received Communion often. After graduating from Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh he went to NYC where he used his genius and he pulled the biggest con job in art history on the artsy types starting with his Campbell’s Soup Can paintings. These suckers and their rich freinds made Andy a multimillionaire and I am sure he was amused at what fools they were. But, as they say, he laughed all the way to the bank. Andy Warhol would not have approved of a foundation using his name to allow the most sacred symbol of his faith to be blasphemed in his name.
Report Post »Dstarr55
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 5:02amThe Smithsonian is taxpayer funded and as such is accountable to taxpayers. If you pay someone to paint your house, who decides what color it will be? If the Smithsonian wants to continue to receive funds from taxpayers it will need to address their concerns about exhibits. You can say there is a ‘free speech’ issue but when you accept funding from anyone, you are in essences giving them rights as to what should or should not be exhibited. If this ‘art’ is offensive to the majority of taxpayers, than it should not be displayed in an institution funded by said taxpayers. I understand private funds were used but the major cost (staff and overhead) is not privately funded. The artist does not have a ‘right’ to be displayed, just as you say Beck does not have a right to be on TV. It is the market place the drives what is acceptable and what is not.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 6:49amThis Anti Christian scum can take their filthy money elsewhere! Maybe there is a dark damp cell in North Korea somewhere that might want to host their “art”
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 7:16amEFF EM…..$100.000′s
EFF em and andy effin whorehole too…
Keep your effin pennies and DIE ,,freaks.
Nutthuggers
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 8:05amPeople like Strong and The Warhol foundation are so heroic, noble, and just when protecting art that defames Jesus because Christians don’t kill people in the name of God. But these same people turn into cowards, when they think their lives might be threatened in the name of Art. In other words “let’s be cool and display offensive art in the name of artistic freedom, but let’s pretend to be disgusted about offensive art of Muslims because they might actually beat us up”. Strong=Coward
Report Post »Marcobob69
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:02amGoodbye, Andy and co. Garbage, by any other name, is still garbage. Take your Christ-hating ASSES to some other socialist country!
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 9:26amThere would be a different song singing by these antichrist’s if it were Mohammed they were depicting.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 10:10amGood, let them fund the entire Smithsonian. Capitalism at work for the art world and they deserve it – no government funding would be a good way to start cutting the budget.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 11:11amIf this foundation does pull their money, it is their own choice. They can chose to boycot the Smithsonian the same way would be viewers and visitors can; with their feet and their wallets. The ultimate freedom of capitalism in action.
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on December 14, 2010 at 12:15pmScrudge warhol, @pennswoods Posted on December 14, 2010 at 2:49am
It is a shame you do not understand the history of your pagan religion. America got along very well until that religion started coming over here. The British Queen Elisabeth beat it to a pulp where it could not hurt them anymore and here it is running part of OUR country. Please go back to Italy and Spain and do your famous murdering Inquisition there.
We started this as Protestant Christian nation and constitution and do wish you would go away. It is tough fighting Islam, Reform Jews, Socialist, Hindus, Buddhist and the like and keep a Christian nation held together. Go somewhere and pay your 6 billion sex debt off for the Church…I cut this short there is a lot more of history to this…
Report Post »OneFunR6
Posted on December 15, 2010 at 4:55pmA.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, pp. 284-287:
“The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health, and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy his favor. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if he, the only “Lord, the Giver of life,” be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.
Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly, like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric? Who is responsible for the rapidly-increasing, almost universal, desecration of our ancestral Sabbath ? Who is responsible for the prevalent corruptions in trade which loosen the bands of faith and transform the halls of the honest trader into the gambler’s den ? Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the Church to a monstrous propagandism of Naturalism and Atheism ? Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the State is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial Headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?”
A.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, pp. 284-287:
Virginia is for Huguenots
http://virginiahuguenot.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »