obama to condemn Christian film maker before UN

[jillian]

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Once again somehow someway it's America's fault. Always funny how it always turns out this way.

you think the scum who lied to how own 'actors' to make this vile film expressed 'christian' values?

you wackjobs will defend anything.

 

[jillian]

I think you need to learn what condemn means. We've been over this already, your wrong, let it go.

I think you need to read the OP where it says Obama is planning a speech going before the UN and condemning a video which is protected speech under US jurisprudence. After that you should go back and reread my question that challenged you to name a single example of any president condemning the speech of a US citizen in front of the UN in the last 237 years. After you do that you can explain why, since I am using the word condemn properly, I need to learn what it means.

Alternatively, you could take the simple way out and pretend this never happened.

Again does obama condemning mean this man cant make this video again?
Where is this mans free speech violated?

they forget that there's also freedom to treat vile people like the scum they are.

 

[Plasmaball]

I think you need to read the OP where it says Obama is planning a speech going before the UN and condemning a video which is protected speech under US jurisprudence. After that you should go back and reread my question that challenged you to name a single example of any president condemning the speech of a US citizen in front of the UN in the last 237 years. After you do that you can explain why, since I am using the word condemn properly, I need to learn what it means.

Alternatively, you could take the simple way out and pretend this never happened.

Again does obama condemning mean this man cant make this video again?
Where is this mans free speech violated?

they forget that there's also freedom to treat vile people like the scum they are.

Oh they didn't forget.....this is blatant. You think lgs is being forgetful?

 

[Steelplate]

You're still going to burn in hell for being a liberal.

"Oh, I didn't personally support abortion but I kept voting politicians that promoted it."

Liberals are the anti-thesis of being a Christian.

When you vote for Obamination, you are doing an evil act.

Yet...you support killing unborn babies, you support a secular socialist, you were against stopping Saddam and terrorists in Iraq.

Pretty much you're a lying sack of crap. Christian....not, you're going to hell with Obamination, Reid, Pelosi, UBL, Biden, Maher, etc.

Ahhhh... the old "guilt by association" ruse. So....by that same token, I must be queer because I support Gay Rights, I must be drug addict because I support legalization of Pot, I must be a Communist because I support labor rights.

Here's some news for you chum, I despise abortion. I think it's a sin. I don't agree with homosexuality...I also think that it is a sin. Same with drugs and alcohol....they are sins....but since when is this country about legislating sin?

You see, God gave us something that, or so it seems, that people like you are trying to take away. That something is free will. These things that you want to ban are personal choices, and as destructive as they may be, are just that....personal.

I said it last night in this very thread....go back and look. If my 19 year old daughter were to become pregnant and was considering aborting the pregnancy, I would do everything in my power to avoid that black mark on her soul. I would offer to raise that child until she finishes college and would be capable of raising it on her own...I would beg, plead and pray for her to make the right choice. And if she made the decision despite my efforts? I would pray for her forgiveness to God.

You and some other people on this board have a problem understanding the difference between being against legislation and condoning.

No....you are just a whackaloon that doesn't think that Americans can decide for themselves. You are trying to institute your own version of Sharia Law in this country. I happen to disagree with Theocracy...no matter what religion is at the helm.

My faith is my business...I raise my family based on that faith with the hopes that they will do the same. I suggest you do the same and not try to force it down other people's throats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A nation's leader appearing before an international body doesn't have free speech. He is doing the nation's business, as a representative of that nation's people. If he has a personal opinion in disagreement with the people who elected him, voicing that disagreement before others is not the place to do it. obama isn't on his own time but OUR time. obama is a lawyer. He should know that when he appears before a tribunal his right to say "In my opinion my client is guilty" doesn't exist. If that's the way he feels, he should be fired, immediately, and someone hired who understands the obligations of the job.

obama's oath of office is not to defend or condemn this film. His oath is to protect and defend the Constitution that underlies the absolute right of the filmmaker to say whatever he likes. Even if, personally and privately, obama would like to pass his own law making criminal any provision in the Constitution.

obama is going to use his address before the general assembly as a campaign speech. He will yet again apologize for this crass and uncouth country and its ignorant and equally crass and uncouth people.

The filmmaker doesn't have an absolute right. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Two years ago this month, General Petraeus condemned the Koran burning threat on the grounds that it was a danger to US troops.

Was he wrong to do that? Was that a condemnation of free speech? Was that a violation of any oath he might have been working under?????

Petraeus: Burning Qurans Could Endanger Troops - CBS News

 

[GuyPinestra]

Freedom of speech is not a one way street. You would deny that of the President? Is it possible to defend the right to free speech and condemn what was spoken?

Obama is very poorly representing this country.

We are exercising our free speech and condemning his actions.

But Obama can't exercise his right to free speech? So should the President of the United States stand before the world and praise the incendiary film that is not filled with truth, just hate filled propaganda?

Which part of hateful, bloodthirsty pedophile is propaganda?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thanks for PMing me your post.....It's a crock...but thanks anyway. You guys hate the guy so much that any spin on any given issue is the absolute, unadulterated truth you people. Just your terminology displays it...."leftists".....Who's a leftist? Let me guess.....anyone with a D behind their name, right? Anyone who doesn't walk the Conservative line?

I've been on this board for about a year and a half....and both extremes, be it left or right, do the exact same thing.....they scour the Internet looking for "gotcha" articles, or quote their favorite idiot box pundit for something quotable to piss off fellow posters with. Such is the way of Message Boards.

My own political stances has been stated MANY times. I am NOT a leftist....I am certainly not a Conservative either. Life is too complicated to be pigeon homed into a black/white, right/left paradigm. I know it makes it easier for the less intelligent and the lazy to think that way....but it's almost always much more complicated.than that.

Obama and the like are certainly leftists. There's no mystery there, no doubt. I've read his books. I know his politics. I know what he's all about. Just like it's no mystery that you're not a conservative. You didn't have to tell me that. It's self-evident. LOL!

Moving on. . . .

Preverbal black-and-white thought processes are the stuff of metaphysical relativism. On the other hand, the recognition that reality is governed by absolute, universal imperatives is just the beginning of grappling with the infinite complexities and nuances of human consciousness. To the relativist (i.e., the incurious and almost invariably leftist), that is counterintuitive.

Contemporary American conservatism is essentially the ideology of this nation's founding, the Lockean philosophy of government extrapolated from the unique morality of Judeo-Christianity. I have invested years of thought and experience in it. Lived it. I own it. I seriously doubt that you know much about the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition—though you be more intelligent, as you say, than pigeon-holed thinkers like me and so many others, including Locke, the Founders, Smith and so on.

Hence, more seriously, we need not concern ourselves with your rather casual and foolish dismissal of what is in fact a centuries-old, rich and complex body of thought.

Nor need we concern ourselves with your decidedly unsubtle pretensions of free and superior thought, given that you think to reduce a well-reasoned and -articulated observation to a "crock of hate" without first demonstrating an understanding of it, let alone providing any substantive refutation of it.

No.

I see that you find it easier to hide behind pretentious claims without substance, well, other than the clichés to which you consign those with whom you disagree . . . in spite of the actual motives and arguments they might bring to any given discussion.

Indeed, reality in general and human beings in particular are vastly more complex than some would have it.

Sorry, but your response reeks of "gotcha", cliché, slogan and the pigeon-holed sophistry of black-and-white thinking.

But, hey, I'm wide open to discussing and accessing the facility of your "political stances" against the realities and complexities of life if you like, any time you like, the detailed substance, you understand: the bases, the motives, the purposes or goals, and the real-world outcomes of your political stances, not merely the slogans that represent them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

 

[syrenn]

just wondering whats in the new avi inthemiddle...it looks like s'mores

 

[Inthemiddle]

just wondering whats in the new avi inthemiddle...it looks like s'mores

Peanut butter and marshmallow, actually. It's my view of politics. I'm in a pickle, surrounded by salty nutters on all sides.

 

[syrenn]

just wondering whats in the new avi inthemiddle...it looks like s'mores

Peanut butter and marshmallow, actually. It's my view of politics. I'm in a pickle, surrounded by salty nutters on all sides.

Some muslim you are.....

marshmallows are verboten.....

 

[Inthemiddle]

just wondering whats in the new avi inthemiddle...it looks like s'mores

Peanut butter and marshmallow, actually. It's my view of politics. I'm in a pickle, surrounded by salty nutters on all sides.

Some muslim you are.....

marshmallows are verboten.....

LOL, wait, wut? I'm not Muslim. =P

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you need to learn what condemn means. We've been over this already, your wrong, let it go.

I think you need to read the OP where it says Obama is planning a speech going before the UN and condemning a video which is protected speech under US jurisprudence. After that you should go back and reread my question that challenged you to name a single example of any president condemning the speech of a US citizen in front of the UN in the last 237 years. After you do that you can explain why, since I am using the word condemn properly, I need to learn what it means.

Alternatively, you could take the simple way out and pretend this never happened.

I think you need to understand that the OP is not an unbiased source. It is an op-ed piece and added the word Christian to inflame hatred of our President.

This is the source for the OP. I agree it is biased, but it is biased for Obama.

Obama to address Muslim unrest | POLITICO 44 - POLITICO.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you need to learn what condemn means. We've been over this already, your wrong, let it go.

I think you need to read the OP where it says Obama is planning a speech going before the UN and condemning a video which is protected speech under US jurisprudence. After that you should go back and reread my question that challenged you to name a single example of any president condemning the speech of a US citizen in front of the UN in the last 237 years. After you do that you can explain why, since I am using the word condemn properly, I need to learn what it means.

Alternatively, you could take the simple way out and pretend this never happened.

So...you are saying he should embrace the film?

Well...perhaps he should go on there and embrace the KKK, Nazism, the Westboro Baptist Church(there's an ambassador of Christ, right amazed?), pornography, snuff films, and a host of other shit that people have the RIGHT to do(except, of course....the snuff films).

Condemning the film takes no one's rights away. It's a message of disapproval....nothing more.

Let me ask you this....when in the last 237 years....which is a bullshit number, BTW because the UN has only been in existence for 67 years....since 1945.....but when in the last 67 years has a citizen of the US created such unrest that this shit is necessary to try to calm things down?

Of course, it seems that you guys don't want to calm things down. You want a holy war and any stupid, fucked up reason is good enough. Haven't you seen enough bloodshed? Haven't you seen enough pain? Haven't you seen enough wasted time, money and lives?

No, I am saying what I have said multiple times, the government should not have a position on the content of speech. Period.

Tell me something, if Romney gets elected and goes to the UN to condemn The Book of Mormon, would that be acceptable in your world? In mine, it would be just as wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of speech is not a one way street. You would deny that of the President? Is it possible to defend the right to free speech and condemn what was spoken?

Obama is very poorly representing this country.

We are exercising our free speech and condemning his actions.

But Obama can't exercise his right to free speech? So should the President of the United States stand before the world and praise the incendiary film that is not filled with truth, just hate filled propaganda?

Let me see if you can understand this simple concept, Obama has a right to free speech unless he is talking as President of the United States. As president, all he has is a duty to represent the country and to support, and defend, the Constitution of the United States.

In other words, unless he leaves the trappings of office behind when he speaks to the UN he cannot take a stance on the content of any speech without being wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But Obama can't exercise his right to free speech? So should the President of the United States stand before the world and praise the incendiary film that is not filled with truth, just hate filled propaganda?

He shouldn't make any remarks condemning someone exercising free speech.

Obama is shamefully representing this country especially in front of the UN.

Really? So President Obama is not to be afforded freedom of speech, because you don't like what he has to say.

Actually, I agree with him, the film is shameful, and does not represent the attitudes of the US. That does not change the fact that, if he speaks as president, he should not say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is Hussein Obama going to condemn the crucifix immersed in urine at the UN also? After all, he stated the United States doesn't tolerate ANY and ALL religions being denegrated. Last time I checked, Christianity is a religion and claimed by over 70% of the population here in America.. Just who does Hussein Obama represent?

Irony abounds here...

Christian fundamentalists in France destroy "Piss Christ" artwork

Monsterandcritics

Paris - A group of Christian fundamentalists armed with hammers and screwdrivers destroyed two artworks in an exhibition in the southern French city of Avignon at the weekend, one of which depicted a crucifix immersed in urine, French media reported Monday.

The attack on the photographs of US artist Andres Serrano, which were being shown as part the I Believe in Miracles exhibition of contemporary art followed calls by the local Catholic archbishop for the 'Piss Christ' photograph to be taken down.

The photograph, taken by Serrano in 1987, shows a plastic crucifix wallowing in a glass of the artist's urine. The Christ figure appears to glow in the image, which caused a scandal when it was first exhibited in 1989 and which has since toured the world.

Civitas, a lobby group which says it aims to 're-Christianize France,' called the piece 'sacrilege vis-a-vis God and Catholics' and launched a petition for it to be removed from the exhibition at the residence housing the Yvon Lambert collection.

On Saturday a group of around 500 people shouting Christian slogans demonstrated outside the building, Liberation reported.

The following day four youths wearing sunglasses entered the building and surrounded two security guards stationed in front of the artwork, while others began hacking at it and another of Serrano's photographs, showing a nun meditating.

Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand denounced the incident as an 'attack on the freedom of creation.'

While 'recognizing that the (Piss Christ) artwork could shock certain audiences,' Mitterand said 'any act of violence, destruction and intolerance is unacceptable.'

The attack is not the first involving the artwork. A copy of Piss Christ was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in the Australian city of Melbourne in 1997, during a Serrano retrospective.

The Melbourne gallery later cancelled the show.

Eric Mezil, the director of the Lambert collection, said he would leave the shattered artworks hanging so that the public could 'appreciate the barbarity committed by extremists.'

Posted in: Radicals

How many embassies were burned? How many people died? How many police were needed to control the worldwide riots?

 

[Steelplate]

Thanks for PMing me your post.....It's a crock...but thanks anyway. You guys hate the guy so much that any spin on any given issue is the absolute, unadulterated truth you people. Just your terminology displays it...."leftists".....Who's a leftist? Let me guess.....anyone with a D behind their name, right? Anyone who doesn't walk the Conservative line?

I've been on this board for about a year and a half....and both extremes, be it left or right, do the exact same thing.....they scour the Internet looking for "gotcha" articles, or quote their favorite idiot box pundit for something quotable to piss off fellow posters with. Such is the way of Message Boards.

My own political stances has been stated MANY times. I am NOT a leftist....I am certainly not a Conservative either. Life is too complicated to be pigeon homed into a black/white, right/left paradigm. I know it makes it easier for the less intelligent and the lazy to think that way....but it's almost always much more complicated.than that.

Obama and the like are certainly leftists. There's no mystery there, no doubt. I've read his books. I know his politics. I know what he's all about. Just like it's no mystery that you're not a conservative. You didn't have to tell me that. It's self-evident. LOL!

Moving on. . . .

Preverbal black-and-white thought processes are the stuff of metaphysical relativism. On the other hand, the recognition that reality is governed by absolute, universal imperatives is just the beginning of grappling with the infinite complexities and nuances of human consciousness. To the relativist (i.e., the incurious and almost invariably leftist), that is counterintuitive.

Contemporary American conservatism is essentially the ideology of this nation's founding, the Lockean philosophy of government extrapolated from the unique morality of Judeo-Christianity. I have invested years of thought and experience in it. Lived it. I own it. I seriously doubt that you know much about the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition—though you be more intelligent, as you say, than pigeon-holed thinkers like me and so many others, including Locke, the Founders, Smith and so on.

Hence, more seriously, we need not concern ourselves with your rather casual and foolish dismissal of what is in fact a centuries-old, rich and complex body of thought.

Nor need we concern ourselves with your decidedly unsubtle pretensions of free and superior thought, given that you think to reduce a well-reasoned and -articulated observation to a "crock of hate" without first demonstrating an understanding of it, let alone providing any substantive refutation of it.

No.

I see that you find it easier to hide behind pretentious claims without substance, well, other than the clichés to which you consign those with whom you disagree . . . in spite of the actual motives and arguments they might bring to any given discussion.

Indeed, reality in general and human beings in particular are vastly more complex than some would have it.

Sorry, but your response reeks of "gotcha", cliché, slogan and the pigeon-holed sophistry of black-and-white thinking.

But, hey, I'm wide open to discussing and accessing the facility of your "political stances" against the realities and complexities of life if you like, any time you like, the detailed substance, you understand: the bases, the motives, the purposes or goals, and the real-world outcomes of your political stances, not merely the slogans that represent them.

Well, if it's a philosophical discussion you want....that's fine. But I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic of the thread. You and I will probably never agree....and that's OK. There's no law saying that we HAVE to come to a consensus.

As far as my response "reeking" of gotcha....I disagree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Irony abounds here...

Christian fundamentalists in France destroy "Piss Christ" artwork

Monsterandcritics

Paris - A group of Christian fundamentalists armed with hammers and screwdrivers destroyed two artworks in an exhibition in the southern French city of Avignon at the weekend, one of which depicted a crucifix immersed in urine, French media reported Monday.

The attack on the photographs of US artist Andres Serrano, which were being shown as part the I Believe in Miracles exhibition of contemporary art followed calls by the local Catholic archbishop for the 'Piss Christ' photograph to be taken down.

The photograph, taken by Serrano in 1987, shows a plastic crucifix wallowing in a glass of the artist's urine. The Christ figure appears to glow in the image, which caused a scandal when it was first exhibited in 1989 and which has since toured the world.

Civitas, a lobby group which says it aims to 're-Christianize France,' called the piece 'sacrilege vis-a-vis God and Catholics' and launched a petition for it to be removed from the exhibition at the residence housing the Yvon Lambert collection.

On Saturday a group of around 500 people shouting Christian slogans demonstrated outside the building, Liberation reported.

The following day four youths wearing sunglasses entered the building and surrounded two security guards stationed in front of the artwork, while others began hacking at it and another of Serrano's photographs, showing a nun meditating.

Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand denounced the incident as an 'attack on the freedom of creation.'

While 'recognizing that the (Piss Christ) artwork could shock certain audiences,' Mitterand said 'any act of violence, destruction and intolerance is unacceptable.'

The attack is not the first involving the artwork. A copy of Piss Christ was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in the Australian city of Melbourne in 1997, during a Serrano retrospective.

The Melbourne gallery later cancelled the show.

Eric Mezil, the director of the Lambert collection, said he would leave the shattered artworks hanging so that the public could 'appreciate the barbarity committed by extremists.'

Posted in: Radicals

Last time I check France is not in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Then tell lady gun licker President Obama should not comment on or condemn the crucifix immersed in urine at the UN also. He doesn't represent France.

US tax dollars paid for that art, which was made in the US.