fbpx

SPITTING ON GOD! 

SPITTING ON GOD! Do you work hard? What for?


To pay for expensive private schools, so your kids can have a decent education? Or just to put a roof over your head? Perhaps you’ve been saving for a vacation?

How about modern "art"? Would you like to spend some of your hard-earned money on pictures of the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornography and feces? Or dissected animals?

Surprise - you are paying for the modern art described above, whether you know it or not. And since the money is deducted from your paycheck, you may not even realize that you’re paying for this art before you educate your kids, pay your mortgage, or take a vacation. But we’ve always wondered about your priorities.

You can see your tax dollars at work at the federally subsidized Brooklyn Museum of Art, which is hosting the "Sensation" exhibit. In the great artistic tradition of attracting attention through shock value, "artists" such as the infamous Damien Hirst are showing paintings that "explore a complex and bizarre world of sexual identity, transmutation, and commercialism."

The exhibit attacks commercialism - and, in spite of the federal subsidy, charges an entry fee of $9.75. (Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him? What about the unsuspecting art patrons who pay their money and expect to see real art? On the other hand, if someone enters this exhibit, knowing what to expect, we’re glad to see ‘em get fleeced.)

The exhibit satirizes religion, Catholicism in particular, by surrounding a picture of the Virgin Mary with feces and cutouts from pornographic magazines. Yet the promoters of the exhibit show an almost religious belief in the idea that the public should subsidize this sort of thing.

What would happen if an artist, let's say an American white male, had created a painting showing Buddha surrounded by elephant dung? Or Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi, surrounded by pornography? The cries of racism and cultural insensitivity would have made your ears ache. Yet the people who would have yelled the loudest to defend these icons are also those who are most violent in their defense of the right to use taxpayer money to blaspheme the sacred symbolism of the Catholic faith.

Supporters of the exhibit include Hillary Rodham Clinton and some Democratic legislators. "The issue before us is censorship" according to Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). Really? We thought the issue was whether taxpayers are forced to subsidize art they find esthetically and morally reprehensible.

We’re not denying the right of anyone to create and exhibit whatever they like - at their own expense. If this is censorship, then not only do we have an obligation to let Nazis march - we also have to pay for their printing presses.

Parting words from Representative John Sweeney, Republican from NewYork: "I don’t think that when taxpayers said they supported art funding that this is what they had in mind."

************************

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Read more about the controversy over the "Sensation" exhibit.

    ShareThis
  • Comment
    Rage Back
  • 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
    Loading...
    Rate this Daily Outrage

0 comments on “SPITTING ON GOD!

  1. America, land of the brave and home of the free, that is really
    a laugh isn’t it. But, did you know about the couple in Denver
    that has been ordered not to have prayer in their homes with
    their friends. What we need are leaders to tell us what to
    do about these situations.

  2. I don’t find the exhibit offensive. If you do, then don’t go. Have you even seen it or are you just reacting to something you saw on TV? If taxpayers could pick and choose individually what we are willing to support and not spport with our tax dollars nothing would get done. I suggest the editors of Outrage find something significant to rage about. I mean, who really cares about this.

  3. we should not give the Arts one more dime and I pray that the Christians will finally get going a put a stop to all this garbage and filth. I am so discussed with all of this evil, I wish Jesus would just come back and get us all out of this slime…

  4. This is just another nail in the coffin of decency and common sense. Seems to me that liberals support this sort of garbage simply because conservatives (and common sense) are agaist it. This is very, very bad.

  5. I don’t give a rat’s butt what they do but give me liberty,
    or give me my money back.
    We ought to be able to hunt them down and demand our
    donation be given to whomever we designate or else. Ha.
    What a country we live in and its going to get worse and
    to think I fought and almost died for it in Korea.

  6. I found this “art” the most vulgar thing I have seen lately and I do NOT think we should have to pay for stufflike this, period! As for the supporters of this so called art….they are just showing their own crass vulgarity and lack of morals. I think junk like this should be banned and I am certain if our government would just look around a bit they could find much better uses for our money…like maybe feeding hungry children? feeding and clothing the homeless and destitute? etc. Of course I know these things are not high on the administrations “priority” list. This is NOT art it is pure filth…plain and simple and I want no part of it!
    Thank you for letting me air my opinion.

    Jennie Carter

  7. I wouldn’t dare suggest that the museum shouldn’t display the ‘Sensation’ exhibit. When we agreed to financially subsidize the museum to display art, we didn’t disclose what would be considered inappropriate art. That’s for the museum to decide, not the Mayor or the taxpayers. What is art? I don’t know if anyone can truely answer that, but I’ll never forget the display of a single board of plywood at the Art Institute of Chicago cleverly named ‘plywood’. I thought the piece was stupid, but it’s not for me to designate if others should be allowed to see it whether or not my tax dollars were involved. What inspires some does not inspire others. Let it go – the next exhibit will probably be Renior.

  8. No one “owes” an “artist” money to make his dreams (nightmares to art patrons)
    come true.
    Taxpayers’ money should be withheld from those who would flaunt ugliness and fling lack of taste in peoples’ faces.
    Let he with artistic taste support his own menu.

  9. Spit on gods all you want. If your god has anything to say about it, he’ll come down and deal withit himself. If your god has such thin skin and such an easily bruised ego that the antics of a few mere mortals get him all worked up, it’s time to shop around for a more emotionally secure god.

  10. Laura, who didn’t have nerve enough to include her email address is all for liberty and nothing for tasteless, in-your-face trash.
    Tax dollars should NEVER be easily handed out to those who denigrate decency!

  11. “Deacon” – what a phoney handle for someone so disrespectful he refuses to capitalize the “G” in God.

  12. I, for one, am tired of my taxes going to pay for just about
    anything. It’s time we stood up against the government
    and said “ENOUGH!”. I want more say in how my tax
    dollars are spent. I would NOT support this particular
    exhibit, not just because of it’s “shock” approach, but
    because they are also charging money. If it’s REALLY
    worth it, people will pay. If not, DON’T WASTE MY
    MONEY ON IT!

  13. I’m not a religious zealot or right wing extremist. I certainly support the right of this artist to produce and exhibit any kind of “art” that he desires. And I certainly support the constitutional right of every consenting adult in this country to make their own moral decisions in these matters. HOWEVER, when the government subsidizes things such as this, I think we’ve stepped way over the line. I’m not sure how much money we’re talking about but generally, if we’re talking about the government, it’s probably an appauling figure. I really think that my tax money can and should be used for something more constructive than pictures of the Virgin Mary surrounded by manure and pornographic pictures! What happened to the imbeciles that we hired to be the stewards of our tax dollars? Do they really deserve annual 50% pay raises (which also come out of our pockets) for this kind of buffoonery?

  14. Personally I don’t think that the artist should recieve federal funding. With that said, think about this: what about things that other people find morally objectionable?
    What if someone in the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t want to pay their tax dollars to support biracial babies? What if a catholic man doesn’t want to support children born outside
    of wedlock? What if I don’t want to pay taxes to support an immoral president’s wife campaigning for public office? Our
    taxes support lots of things that we don’t like or agree with; I wonder why you choose to ‘pick’ on this subject.

  15. On my yearly ” Income tax forms ” is a place to check or not to check
    so you can contribute or not contribute to the ” Presidential Election Campaign
    Fund.” I believe there should be one on there asking if you wish any of your
    tax dollars to go to pay for art. I would like to see how many people would be willing to pay
    for “Art” as this garbage is called. I see no real connection between art and this so called art.
    As the old saying goes ” The country is going to hell in a handbasket”

  16. I feel that the Federal Government has no obligation or resposibility to subsidize art at all, whether it is “socially aesthetic” of not. The value of art should be determined by those who view it. This should be treated as any other industry: If you offer a good product, someone will pay you for it. If you produce crap, you need to find another line of work. No individual has the right to criticize the taste of another, but they also should not be obligated to subsidize that which they find offensive. It is amazing to me what Hillary Clinton will support to gain a few votes.

  17. This current edition just proves the fact that Sadam Huisen,
    may be right in calling America the great Satan. We have
    three forms of legalized killing – mercy killing, abortions,
    and capital punishment. We have the ACLU figting
    states that have religious symbols in their schools – for
    example the commandments and also there is a suit
    that is suing a state because there is a fish (Christian
    symbol) on a flag. When is this going to change. Maybe
    we should change the pledge of alligence to “One nation
    under satan.” This is clearly not a country under God.
    Better yet, change the currency to, “In satan we trust,”
    instead of “In God we trust.”

    This just gives me another reason to hate this country.
    Today, I am ashamed to call myself an American.

    Martin Williams

  18. No-we should not, I repeat NOT fund ANY art projects in any way shape or form! Censorship! Leave it to the reprobate liberal mind to covolute to the extent that if they can’t express evil- then something is “wrong”!-But let Christians express themselves and “separation” issues arise.Outrageous!

  19. I think what passes for “art” is sad & pitiful – a
    reflection of our sad & pitiful country. What
    happened to America???

  20. Regarding the Virgin Mary’s “art” exhibit. Why is it anything obnoxious, immoral, or just stupid get the media’s attention and hard-working Americans get this trash stuffed in our face? Along with that, if we oppose anything that is such, we are told we are ‘politically incorrect’ ad nauseam.

    Reminds me of a Bible saying to the effect of when evil becomes good and good becomes evil, the day of our reckoning is at hand.

    Wake up America! Stand up to our immoral government and just say “enough is enough”!

  21. Every protestor and media hound lends credence to this exhibit, by their incessant blabbering. Best thing to do? – DON’T buy the tickets, DON’T recognize its existence. What SHOULD have been over in a week, has now taken its toll on our senses far too long. There is NOTHING sacred about an ICON.

  22. People from New York love crap like this!!!
    They are sick, sick, sick but
    after all, they also love
    “Slick Willie”

  23. Quite frankly, if I must pay taxes, I’d rather it be on something worthwhile, like feeding hungry children, helping the homeless, or beefing up the military. But if they’re just going to spend it on what passes for art these days in New York, then send it back and I’ll use it to feed hungry children or help the homeless or whatever…

  24. its funny that these people want to poke fun at commercialism yet their shock value is bringing millions of visitors thus lots of money. sounds like more commercialism. ????

  25. Deacon. I want you to remember these words forever.
    “God will take care of it in due time.” Prepare yourself, sir,
    for judgement.

  26. I think that art should be pleasureable and appeal to the the masses and not some crap that we should finance. Anybody that thinks that the filth at the NY museum is art has all their taste in their mouth.

  27. None of our tax dollars should
    be given to the arts. The National
    endowment for the arts should
    be done away with. If the
    liberals want to support them,
    contact all of those misfits
    that live in Hollywood and get
    them to spend some of the big
    bucks they make.

  28. Everybody has a different “definition” of art. What
    appeals to one person may not appeal to another.
    I don’t think we should have to pay for art in ANY form,
    whether the majority likes it or not.
    If somebody considered burning the Americal flag a form
    of art… would Hillary support THAT?
    If somebody considered a video of her husband with
    Monica… would Hillary support THAT?
    I could go on, but I won’t waste my time…

  29. If I had the money, I would photograph the Madonna’s picture and mail a nice 11×17 to each of the Clinton supporters and ask them to please display it proudly. I wonder if I could get a grant to show someone squatting and deficating on the faces of Alec Baldwin, Geraldo Revera, W.J. Clinton and wife, Janet Reno, etc. After all,,,it only expresses my opinion.

  30. Simple! Let the entire art world stand on their merits or sink by their own
    scum. They nor anyone else needs to be supported by handouts from
    the illegal collection of taxes. Let the heads roll!

  31. This is ridiculous. Free speech is one thing, but this is not free speech. I’m glad its not my tax money paying for that trash, because if it was, I’d destroy it. What a waste.

  32. A PS to Deacon – I’m not religious, but am religious
    enough to believe that somebody had better pray for
    you. People who think like you are the cause of much
    trouble in this world. And the question had nothing to
    do with the thickness of God’s skin, but rather the fact
    that our tax dollars are being spent on filth.
    So I’ll pray for your reading lessons, as well……

  33. Errol Helton wrote: Regarding the latest abomination called art by the leftwing socialists “Madonna and Dung” or whatever it’s supposed to be.

    > I think the solution lies in more Libertarians and Conservatives taking up
    > the practice of popular art.
    >
    > Why not have an exhibition where we illustrate how the animal rights
    > idiots, wear leather shoes, belts and other items that involve animals and
    > illustrate the process of how those leather items come into being – from
    > the slaughter house to the slave labor shops of China. The display will
    > also include their ragged t-shirts and faded jeans and or tennies, produced
    > with the sweat, blood and tears of children and slaves. We could have
    > pictures of those cute little prarie dogs being squeezed and crushed into
    > leather pelts and vests or seatcovers for the BMW’s of the leftwing. The
    > resulting spray could be dripping off the statue of Franlin Roosevelt
    > hugging Adolph Hitler, his fellow socialist.
    >
    > Why not an exhibition showing the sinking of Greenpeace Ships with Harpoon
    > anti-ship missiles. Bearded environmentalists being crunched and munched by
    > waiting sharks. Perhaps, a moutain lion of California feeding on a three
    > year old child, dragged from the family picnic to a waiting pride of cubs.
    > His family screaming but unable to react for harming the lion is a federal
    > crime subjecting them to years and years in prison and huge fines.
    >
    > How about a portrayal of Pete Seeger, smeared with dog dung, vomiting into
    > a guitar that flows into a pristine river filled with naked, fornicating,
    > academics in acid drenched color awaiting the spray.
    >
    > Let’s take a copy of Roe v. Wade and drench it in blood and guts and post
    > it on the hallowed halls of the New York Times and the Supreme Court, with
    > images of deranged aborionists, covered in gore, sucking babies from the
    > womb into stainless steel sinks…as they dance in glee.
    >
    > Let’s create a monument that illustrates Jane Fonda, laughing as she pours
    > buckets of blood of American pilots over the names of those who gave their
    > lives in Vietnam – The Wall, supported by Willy Clinton, and holding high,
    > his banners from his activity in the I hate America, Moscow parade.
    >
    > Let’s take the holy images of Lenin and Marx and smear them with blood and
    > gore to illustrate the millions who have died to spread the
    > socialist/communist themes. Perhaps, a giant meat grinder into which
    > families are being tossed with the resulting gore forming the color of the
    > red banners held by Clinton and Gore.
    >
    > Let’s show the truth about the halls of Ivy – those schools long revered as
    > centers of learing available only to the wealthy and the obscene. We can
    > illustrate those noble buildings as overflowing with homosexuality and
    > perversion as the poets wax on about environmental issues and their gods,
    > Al Gore and Willy Clinton sneer down at them from an elevated cesspool,
    > dripping onto innocent children being lead as lambs to the slaughter…the
    > registration buildings.
    >
    > You see, it’s time to fight fire with fire. Too long we’ve protested the
    > outrages launched at things we hold sacred, while the socialist elite,
    > strut to and fro from one media show to another, proclaiming the artistic
    > value of the obscene. We need to attack their icons and display their
    > treasured traditions before the world for all to see. Maybe, just maybe,
    > the point will be driven home that ticking us off is going to be a most
    > unfavorable experience for them.
    >
    > Let’s portray the homosexuals as they act in the clubs of most major
    > cities. Let’s have the vile scene, smeared with the wasted bodies of those
    > who contracted all manner of disease from their perversion, spraying more
    > gore on the vile scenes of sodomy and sickness.
    >
    > You see, anybody can be an “artist” if they think about it for awhile – so,
    > let’s give it a try and listen to the outrage from the left – can you imagine?
    >
    > Errol Helton, South Bend, IN
    > Knowledge and Wisdom
    >
    > “Knowledge is the complete understanding of the theory of the consequences
    > of motion, mass and energy when applied to an immobile object.”
    >
    > “Wisdom comes when you actually hit your thumb with the hammer”
    >
    > “one hears much better with mouth closed” Errol

  34. The problem is that once we head down the road of denying an artist funding that is availible to them because we do not agree with their message, we start down a very slippery slope. My personal opinion is that we should as a society bite the bullet on this particular exhibit as the price we pay for all of the good that has come from NEA funding. NEA funding is so minuscule that even if the whole budget for it was returned to the taxpayer, we would not even notice it. If the Artist could not back up his position people could maybe have an argument against his funding, although this is not the case. Nobody has even mentioned the fact that the artist could back up his piece w/ a very intelligent argument.

  35. We have very little say over how tax dollars are spent. Congresses’ bloated salaries, people on welfare who keep having more children, corporate subsidies, animal and genetic experiments, etc. Funding cuts always come from the Arts. Focusing on this exhibit takes the focus off other more important spending issues.

  36. I don’t think that subsidizing art (or music or literature) is a proper function of government. The arts will in all likelihood survive quite nicely without government money, guidance,or interference. For that reason I think the National Endowment for the Arts was a misguided (however well-intentioned) idea from the start. Am I outraged? Not very. I am upset about the space program’s wasting hundreds of millions of our tax dollars because some rocket scientist forgot to convert some numbers to metric. I must agree with some previous writers that this is hardly the most outrageous topic available. Oh, and lest we forget the lunatic religious fringe, exactly who (whom?) is going to set the standards for determining what is acceptable? That’s always the catch. Unless, of course, it’s going to be me — I can live with that.

  37. Dear Outrage,
    It has never been a question of drawing lines or censorship…only WHO gets to draw those lines or do the censoring. Will it be a small cabal of liberal elitists or the other 95% of the American public?
    There are works of ‘art’ which even Hillary Clinton or Mario Cuomo would find so reprehensible that they would not want them funded, shown publicly, nor even recognized as art. For instance, a photo of a toddler performing oral sex on an eighty year old member of the opposite sex. Or..a female performing oral sex on some animal in all of it’s graphic clarity.
    I don’t mean to sound so gross,…I onlt want to illustrate what I believe would be works so offensive to human sensitivities that no sane person would condone their existence…much less assign them the rank of ‘works of art!’
    So it isn’t that we abhor censorship in any form. There are just certain individuals who want exclusive rights to perform that censorship. Once we agree that there are INDEED lines drawn which may not be crossed, then we must decide who has the right to draw those lines. Cries of denial of constitutional rights place the average person at a disadvantage and grant the privilage to that small segment of our culture who believe that only they deserve to decide when, where, and how our money is spent.
    I would argue that, given the right to create to whatever degree they desire, when it comes to any creation or showing of works which require taxpayer dollars to enact, the 95% of the public who will fund such works has the final say.
    There are enough rich liberals in Hollywood and other liberal enclaves to individually fund and endorse any and all types of so-called ‘art’. They can salvage what we, the unwashed illiterati, refuse to support
    and provide funding for private showings all across the country.
    We have too long allowed ourselves to be intimidated by early cries of ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘censors’, et al. There are occasions when being called some of these names should be worn as a badge of honor…as in this present case involving the Virgin Mary. Censorship has always existed and will always exist. It is just a matter of who gets to do the censoring. It should be the public…in all instances.

  38. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing art in any way. There
    is plenty of private money for this purpose. Taxpayers
    should only be paying to PROTECT THE LIVES AND
    PROPERTY of the public.

  39. Hey!!
    If I hear the phrase ‘slippery slope’ one more time I will throw up! We have the power and control to stop any slide whenever and wherever we want. To allow trash to be funded and publicly displayed at our expense because of some imaginary ‘slippery slope’ of extremism is totally absurd!
    (Once we allow 16 year olds to drive it will be just a matter of time until 10 year olds will be mowing down innocent bystanders by the dozens at bus stops all across the country)
    Sounds stupid, right??
    So does the same phrase in any other context. You stop wrong when it occurs and stop when you feel you have gone too far! It’s that simple. Denying exhibit status to this garbage is proper and censorship is also correct when practiced by the masses and not a few select elitists.
    Grow up!!
    chic abner

  40. The liberals have made a travesty out of anything good. They want to give you everything and have no one accountable for their actions. Whatever happened to decency, morals and all the good people of the good old USA. And you wounder why our young people behave the way they do. The key word is responsibility.

  41. I do not feel that the government should support ANY form of the arts. If they are worthwhile, the public will provide the support, and if they are not they will, as they should, disappear.

  42. I am 100% against our tax money going to this museum to exhibit this material. It is Catholic bashing at its worst and could only be directed against the Catholic religion. Thank God for Mayor Guiliani for having the courage to stand up for what he believes in. This is a disgraceful situation against our Blessed Mother.

  43. I don’t think taxpayers should subsidize this kind of art (actually I think “art” is not the correct word here). American taxpayers should only subsidize art that we would not be ashamed of other countries viewing because, if we subsidize it, we have given it our own signature.

  44. I consider myself to be a very liberal person who abhors censorship, yet this article really angered me off. Censorship is, in fact, NOT the issue…(obviously because these “works of art” are being displayed)…the issue is that there are people who do not want to support blasphemy. I can accept the fact that not everyone feels the way I do, but I would have liked the chance to make a choice about this one. I am simply a poor kid trying to make it, and Uncle Sam is taking my money to support sacreligious works of art. I am all in favor of supporting the arts. But with subject matter as sensitive as this, shouldn’t I have been given a choice?

  45. 1. Catholicism is one of the great obscenities of the modern age. The faeces is well placed.

    2. The subsidies for art make the US a better place, a minor (infinitessimal) counter balance to the $270bn spent each year improving the US ability to bomb the rest of the world.

  46. I don’t think anyone should have to subsidise anyone else’s artistic whims – surely starvation is traditionally the right and privilege of the “true artist”. However, is it possible that Senator Sweeney might support art subsidies if the art produced was to his taste? Just wondering…

  47. I am appalled, sickened, and disgusted by this waste of our tax dollars. Yes, artists have the right to create and display anything that they want; however, tax dollars should not be subsidizing them in any way. If they have enough talent, they should be able to make a viable living. Almost considering trading in my “democrat card”.

  48. Comparing this “art” to Renoir (etc) is like comparing me sitting repeatedly on
    the keyboard with my butt to a Chopin Nocturne. You can compare them
    but that doesn’t make them both art. You want to fund me sitting on the keyboard with my butt? Where do
    I apply??? 🙂
    The way to tell truly great art is that you forget how beautiful it is between viewings…does this measure up???
    Chuck

  49. Oh, BTW, as for whether it should be funded, put a ballot box outside exhibits and then let the viewers decide (although
    that would not be completely unbiased unless the viewers were unaware of the “artistic” content before viewing it). Take a tally after a month, if thumbs are down, stop the Federal funds!

    Thank you for this news.Please use my name any way that will help put a stop to such Santanic horror.
    Stephen S. Taylor
    5419 Dairy Dr
    Fayetteville, NC 28304

  50. Leave it to the Democrats, especially Mrs. Clinton, to lead
    our country even further down the road to hell and moral
    indecency. Of course this is not surprising from the woman
    who proudly stood by “her man” while he was fondling young
    interns with high priced cigars. No this is not what Americans
    intended with thier tax dollars. But, as history has proven time
    and time again, the people rarely get what they expect from
    government.

  51. I agree. Anybody can display or create anything they want . . . AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.

    But NOT AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

    And THAT’s the bottom line.

    So not all of your tax dollars end up where **you** want them. At least you know what the art community spends its funding on…ART.. If only other government organisations were as open and forthcoming regarding their spending habits. Everytime the art community does something it opens itself up to public scrutiny, what other government department is willing to expose itself so openly, so often.

  52. Dude, you’re usually so open minded, what happened? I pay for football stadiums with my taxesa and I find the game reprehensible. I pay for highway construction that lasts for years and blocks traffic for miles. WE pay for a lot of things not everybody uses, takes advantage of or enjoys. But the founding principal in our country’s laws is not to protect the majority, which in this case represent those who would find this art offensive. The laws are supposed to protect the minority because the majority already has protection in numbers. Guliani and everyone else is twisting this besides. That “virgin mary” is nothing that any of those scared righteous people in the majority would be offended by if they saw it. Sure they might hold their nose, but this virgin mary is not the white and blue clad pasty which woman we picture. She’s black, with very african features, deliberately african. She is definitely with child, Id say Eight months and twenty nine days with child. Shes wearing beads and african garb, and part of this fertility goddess is the FERTILIZER she wears. Elephant dung is after all not simply sh*t. This is an african twist on catholisism. Or so I may see it. And if we can get past our victorian prudishness for ONE MOMENT perhaps we can appreciate sex in art as it is in this century as opposed to the fifteenth and all their fig leaves.
    GUliani is a fool and in this matter so are you.

  53. Outrage it is. The government has no business subsidising and form of art. the government should give me back my dollars and let me spend them on art if I wish, or on food for my family if that is my choice.

  54. This just illustrates how insane and removed from God this nation has become.There should not be any tax dollars spent to support the so called “arts”.

  55. Had there been no taxes involved, dung draped religious icons are quite defensible as “freedom of expression,” although, considering how often white people are criticized for their cultural insensitivity, one would think the liberal media filth who do most of that criticism would expect a London based African artist to show more respect for his fellow world citizens than to degrade their religious icons with animal crap. But then there’s that ol’ liberal double standard, that makes the mushheaded liberal media quite sure that no black is ever a racist, no white is anything but , so, of course, this particular artist will be “liberally” defended, just as vociferously as they would condemn a white. London based. South African artist for covering a portrait of Miles Davis with elephant dung.

    But taxes WERE involved , hence this was injustice, just as forcing people to fund their own degradation is always injustice… an injustice that is as typical of the human dung called “Democrats” during today’s AffirmaNazi era, as it was of the Dungocrats when they were all segregationists.

  56. For the record, the NEA funded the Brooklyn Museum of Art, not the (British) artist.
    Anyway, I think the NEA should remain intact. Art is relative. The author of “the Tin Drum” recently won a Nobel Prize in Literature, but the OK City police confiscated videos of the movie because someone thought it was child porn.
    My high school would not see “Schidler’s List” because someone objected to the nudity in the shower scene.
    I’m not crazy about mummies, but that doesn’t mean museums showing them shouldn’t be funded. I don’t like some of the books my public library carries, but other patrons (and taxpayers) probably don’t like my choice of reading materials.
    A lot of people in my area think Billy Joel’s “Only The Good Die Young” is blasphemous. Should it therefore be banned? No. They can simply not buy the album and turn off the radio when the song comes on.
    It’s a free country. If you don’t like the exhibit, you can protest it, write letters, or simply not see it.

  57. Furthermore, none of the city funding is for exhibits……it’s reallllly scary to think that we live in a country (called “America”) where if politicians don’t like art to proclaim it either good or bad, or even worse: be responsible and be ALLOWED to stop federal funding for the museum.

    Everyone who has a brain to think and/or an eye to see should know that Art is Art or art is art…it all depends on how *YOU* see it. Freedom of choice or freedom to not see art are still our rights as Americans. Shame on those who would take our personal liberties away. If you don’t want to go and see these works, then for the sake of God above, don’t go…but if I want to go, it’s my RIGHT to go, not yours to make not be able to go and see what I want to see, if I so chose…thanks for listening…

  58. THIS COUNTRY’S IGNORANCE IS BLATENTLY
    DISPLAYED IN THIS ARTICLE.

    AT FIRST, I WAS OFFENDED BY OFILI’S
    PORTRAYAL OF THE VIRGIN MARY.
    THEN I FOUND OUT THAT HE WAS
    A CATHOLIC AND HE WASN’T DEFACING
    THE VIGIN MARY IN ANYWAY.
    I REALIZED THAT IN SOME AFRICAN
    COUNTRYS, ELEPHANT DUNG ON HER
    BOSSOMS SYMBOLIZES NOURISHMENT
    AND LIFE TO THE COUNTRY’S LAND.
    (OCTOBER 5 1999 NEW YORK TIMES)

    BASED ON THE COMMENTS AND REACTION,
    OFILI IS JUST PROVING HIS POINT ON THE
    IGNORANT AND NARROW MINDED
    NATURE OF THE PEOPLE HERE.

  59. Budwiser Beer :

    Jesse Jackson’s sons were provided Chicago area distributerships for no money down. Push Organization used its influence to see : Jesse Jackson Budwiser Yahoo! search
    Incredible but true: Stop drinking bud and write the corp.

  60. just a simple question-After the september 11th attacks, how can anyone be so cold hearted and criticize America and the American people? First of all, before anyone criticize’s us, how about we look at the accomplishments of countries across the world…who is the most sucessful? who’s the wealthiest? which country is the “land of the free?” so f*ck all of you who continue to pass negative judgement on the U.S, because this certainly isn’t any type of time to do so. there is nothing that can justify what happend on the eleventh of september, other then Musslim countries in the middle east have always been jealous of what we have and what they dont. AND FURTHERMORE, if you have problems with the American government, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO SHARE THEM. Just as well, if you have problems with America, GO F*CKING LIVE IN AFGHANASTAN YOU DUMB PIECES OF $HITS! SEND ME F&CKING POSTCARDS!

  61. i have to say something about the lawsuit about removing the words, “under god”, out of the Pledge of Alligence. First of all this is stupid. I am an American and I want to show my support to my country. Correct me if I am wrong, but the first people to the Americas came here for religous freedom. Eventually, many different religons came to America. All believe that there is someone, or at least someone looking down on us. Our first president, while reciting his oath, added the phrase,” so help me god.” Our founding fathers believed in a god and it would be disrespectful to totally remove it from our daily life. How have students acted in school after pray was removed. If the supreme court removes this, it will just be another step in the “fleecing of our country”! If you disagree with me email me and i will argue with you and say you are disrespecting America! GOD Bless America!

  62. This is typical of our government today. Most of our representatives try to treat the public like they are mushrooms, I.E. FEED US POOP AND KEEP US IN THE DARK.

  63. I don’t think that any tax money was given to the creator of the exhibit; just the exhibition hall is subsidized. I don’t have a problem with that because it means I am not paying for the art with tax money. The subsidy would be the same if all that it showed were Margaret Keane paintings and Family Circus cartoons. (Now THAT would be a waste!

  64. As far as the art exibit goes, That’s what makes living here in the
    United States so great. If it bothers you, don’t look at it. Period.
    Whomever it was that decided to create this “Art”, had the
    right to do what he or they felt like doing, with out any bodys
    permission,like it or not. Move to another country where your
    suppressive personalities would be appreciated. Like, USSR or
    China. The last time I checked, this is still a “FREE” nation.
    Like it or not….

  65. another glaring example of the abuse of the 16th amendment. Abolish the income tax and these outrageous expenditures of public funds will stop

  66. I am disgusted by the way these people are disguising pornography behind the 1st amendment! I don’t think this is what our forefathers had in mind when they passed the 1st amendment bill. What if it was Mohammed or Allah that was on the picture? Would it have been on display for more than a day? I think not! The Democrats would’ve have been screaming foul at the onset! Why is it ok to bash Christianity and claim its the 1st amendment right, and when something like this happens to minorities or another religious sect that they are outraged? I think our government is gone below the gutters…….

  67. Americans have been fleeced long enough by the traitors in D.C. These rebels have been making you pay for Foreign Aid to other countries at the tune of 3 Trillion dollars since 1945. All this crap is unconstitutional, and its time to make them come and get the money if they want it. The power to tax is the power to destroy. I say its time to stop paying the income tax any way you can and then arm yourselves to the teeth and hunker down. You will then see a side of your “benevolent” Federal Government that you didn’t think existed.

  68. Can you imagine a politician so stupid that (s)he thinks that not wanting to spend tax dollars on trash is censorship? They are just so used to the gov’t paying for everything that they are treating is as a sacred right.

  69. Art should be PRIVATELY funded.
    I wonder what would happen if the feces coverer a portrate of Matrin Luther King? Or the Star of David? I’ll bet it wouldn’t have seen the light of day.
    Just let a Chirstian display of the Nativity or the Modonna be placed in public and along comes the ACLU. What a travesty. Where are they when the rights of decent people are trampled?

  70. This is so awful I can’t believe we have come to this in America. God Help us all. We will all pay for these things in America most of all are children.

  71. Your next to the last paragraph sums it up perfectly:

    “We’re not denying the right of anyone to create and exhibit whatever they
    like – at their own expense. If this is censorship, then not only do we
    have an obligation to let Nazi’s march – we also have to pay for their
    printing presses.”

  72. This is just another example of the sick society we live in today.
    It’s a shame and a disgrace that our present government
    condones this type of trash, and has the nerve to call it art.
    If the people of the United States don’t wake up and face reality
    soon, this country is doomed to hell. It is heartbreaking to
    see our country as it is today. I believe God has turned
    away from us. This country was founded under God, and our
    children can’t even pray in school. SO, WHAT ARE WE
    GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ????????????????? Let it
    Continue or take action where it counts. AT THE POLLS!
    sHERRELL bROAM

  73. Do not fund any art. Go back to the old way with patrons paying the bill. To many so-called artist are not artist at all but a bunch of nit-wits

  74. This is the worst example of federal waste I have heard of in a long time. I am
    a full-time college student with a family I am trying to feed and they take my money for this smut?
    I want a refund!

  75. The issue is not whether people should be forced to subsidize art they don’t like, but whether the government should be subsidizing art at all. Who decides what is acceptable?
    Only the free market should decide. Government has no
    business taking our money to subsidize art.

  76. The last thing I want the Government doing is decideing what is or isn’t art. Besides, How expensive can feces be?

  77. This exhibit was a known money maker in Britain, and it will bring in lots of money for the arts and the museum here,
    especially now that there’s controversy. Lots of art is distasteful. I find Bosch’s Garder of Earthly Delights and most of the paintings ofSt Sebastian gored by arrows and many of the crucifixion interpretations highly unpleasant. It’s so hard to judge what is art. So, I feel one should avoid or tolerate what one dislikes, but it is a measure of cultural advancement to promote a favorable climate for art.

  78. If I had the option I would say, “Please send the portion of
    my tax dollars back to me to spend on food and cloths
    for my family instead of sending to this art gallery. It may
    be art. It may not. Like beauty, its in the eye of the be-
    holder. But, while you’re at it, please send the portion of
    my tax dollars back to me instead of sending it to the
    military because I believe that they will use it in the art of
    maiming and killing innocent men, women and children of
    some foreign country. They might even use it against me
    for saying this.”

    Basically, there are so many more important outrages in
    this country that seem more important than that piece of
    art. I believe that we are both wasting our time. Don’t get
    me wrong. I love “the Outrage”; wish I got it more often.
    But I have already heard way to much about this “art”.

  79. As there is seperation of church and state, art and the state don’t mix
    If some one wants to comission an art project, byall means.
    I do not want a part of it period.

  80. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t.

    I would LIKE to see art self / privately funded, but realize some government funding is necessary to preserve the field.

  81. Travelgate! Filegate! Watergate! Waco! Womengate!
    Totally Outrageous Art (?) Bombing perfume factories!
    Bombing the innocent civilians of Kosovo and Serbia!!
    Insulting World Wide Catholics with Filth for ART!! I am
    not a Catholic, but am just as insulted, because my money
    was used!! Sickening, OUTRAGEOUS! Somehow, it
    must STOP!!

  82. I wish I could say I was surprised!! I am grossly OUTRAGED,
    but NOT Surprised! I feel ashamed that MY Money and
    YOURS was used in This Insulting FILTH! Not just wasted,
    as usual, but used in OUTRAGING people of good faith.

    Is there NO END, to the injury that Bill & Hilliary have caused,
    both here and abroad, to the law-abiding, well meaning
    people of the world???

    God bless us every one!

    KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!

  83. I’m 68 years old, gave 14 years to defense of our Country, and have seen and done almost anything you can think of. I don’t begrudge artists expressing him-or-herselves in whatever way they feel necessary. I even wish them luck in supporting themselves during this endeavor. I do balk at anyone telling me that I have to either view or approve of what these “artists” have generated. I have personally created some of the most exquisitely shaped, colored and textured feces(especially after eating corn) imaginable, but I know better than to call it art or expect anyone else to pay me to look at it. I also balk at the idea that I, who must supplement my meager Social Security with part time minimum wage slavery at the local fast-food emporium, must allow deductions from my paltry paycheck in order to help some butthead display one of his creations that is totally and deliberately offensive to both me and my chosen religion. Do you think I might get Uncle Sugar to pay me the next time I take a dump if I promise to put it on display, smell and all, at a museum of choice? I think they need to flush that “work of art” just as I flush my own works of art, and bill that butthead for the money he received under false pretenses!

  84. The government shouldn’t subsidize the arts any more than it should subsidize relgion. I _do_ think that artists ought to be exempt from income-tax, as is the case in Ireland — but I think the IRS ought to be abolished and never, never resurrected, as it is, so that doesn’t count. Beyond that, though, for the government to subsidize the arts would thereby create a situation in which the government could arbitrarily exclude from subsidies any art it did not like, a sort of tacit censorship as well as a possible tool for manipulation of the public mind via those artistic and literary creations deemed politically correct. No, thank you. I don’t want the federal government to subsidize the arts any more than I want it to regulate our religions or any other form of free expression, belief, and public assembly.

  85. The “Sensation” exhibit now on display should not be
    subsidized from the pockets of average Americans. If this
    art is so good and neccesary let the great American Dollar
    be the final judge for censorship. If every person that went
    to see this exhibit had to pay the full price to support the
    so-called art exhibit the display would never have opened.
    Why does a TV network cancel a new after only three
    episodes? Because there is not enough of a viewer base
    so advertisers don’t want to buy time on the show. This
    is the best form of censorship because if nobody wants it
    then nobody is forced to pay for it.

  86. I personally think that this exhibit is acid on the moral fabric of America. I think that these days people are trying to outdo eachother in trying to create shock in the general God-fearing public. I really feel sorry for those who don’t believe in things they can’t see. I guess they are not breathing air! I guess that they don’t believe in a growing baby inside a mothers womb. How Sad!! If they do believe in these things, why is it so hard to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? I think that people should have a say as to how their tax dollars are spent. I do not think that there is room for this kind of controversial exhibit in a museum that is being funded by public dollars!! Thumbs up to Rudy Giuliani for expressing his views on this subject. Hillary, Let your conscience be your guide. You claim to be God-fearing, but how can you tolerate people desecrating your religion?

  87. I began reading some other response to this, and I was OUTRAGED. The bottem line is not what you think of one individual piece of “art”, but of art as a whole. Should the gov. sub. art? I honestly don’t know how I feel about it, but if enough people don’t want it to happen than they need to get off there butt’s and do something about it. There are many things that the gov. sub. that a few people may not agree with. Just remember that the USA is not all about you and your beliefs, it is about freedom. I read many comments in regard to religion and God, quess what all, this country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion. Not on God. Just a reminder for those who tend to forget, and assume that everyone is or should be Catholic. Not saying I’m not, not saying I am iether, just that I have the choice to be or not. What you consider wrong is not always wrong in anothers eyes. Don’t go see this “art” if you disagree with it, and if you feel so strongly about the governmemnt having there hands in the arts, remember that when they take them out they will take them out of ALL art, not just what you don’t happen to approve of. Free country remeber? Seperation of church and sate also, don’t forget that one.

  88. I only included this E-mail to include my E-mail address in case anyone wants to reply to my previous comments made below.

  89. THAT IS NOT ART! HOW DID IT QUALIFY AS ART? IT IS GARBAGE! I DO NOT WANT MY MONEY SUOPPORTING THAT TRASH!

  90. The decadent left will take the American taxpayer for a
    ride as long as people continue to vote for people who
    do not share their “heartland” sensibilities, but rather
    drink of the water of the Potomic. In a healthy democracy
    it all comes down to election time. Since elections are
    shaped mightily by the media, people tend to vote for
    those who project an appealing media image. We can
    be thankful that Ronald Reagan did and that “W.” does
    and distressed that Bill Clinton does so also. At election
    time, we must all carefully consider the consequences of
    our vote (or non-vote) and place our vote in the hands of
    someone who will not trash our most cherished beliefs
    (taking into consideration Supreme Court appointments,
    etc., etc.). As long as many of us do not do so, we will
    continue to have presentable people telling us with a
    straight face that unless we contiue to endorse the
    funding of gross and disgusting art, we are repressive
    consors and hopeless philistines.

  91. This is my opinion is not art — I’am totally against government
    funding this so called “art work.” I queston funding art – in
    any form; but I’m not against the right to create or display,
    with private funding, whatever these folks believe is truly “art.”
    Without public funding this type of “art” would, at some point,
    fade away and almost disappear.

  92. The funding of the art exhibigt reminds me of our earlier outrage. Taxation without respresentation. We solved the former by dumping tea in the harbor. Perhaps we should dump the art exhibit in the NY habor. The pretense of a neutral position on religion by the government is just a mental exercise to distance God from one’s life. With God removed, one may do as he desires without dealing with his conscience.

  93. I “do-not” want my money going to anything like this. Fine if they think they have the right to show it, but not with my tax dollars. If this is art I don’t want any.!!!

  94. Some art is good, and some art is bad. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. But, good or bad, crap is crap! It doesn’t take an artist to throw dung on a canvas. Any two-month old chimpanzee can do that. Whether or not I’m in favor of taxpayer-funded art (and I’m not), I’m certainly not in favor of taxpayer-funded crap.

  95. When is it enough! How soon can we stop the “Liberal” agenda? The media & liberals are not respected amoung my many friends, etc. Trust me we do not “buy” into what is being shoved in our “face”! How can we re-build America? My grandpa use to say “We were protected by the “Armor of the Lord.” Do you think we still are?

  96. As a Catholic, I am deeply offended by the subject this protrays and I can only pray for those who are so morally depraved that they consider this art. I am a perpetual student of art and there are times that Ifind the works distasteful or unpleasant to study, but this cannot be considered art. The very definition of art contridicts it. Skill and craftsmanship are reqired to consider something art. This obviously lacks both. Although I once fully supported the federal funding of the arts, I can no longer stand by and allow the federal government to make a mockery of itself. Yes, we promote freedom of religon, but what is it we swear upon in a court of law? Ah, yes, it’s the Bible. THE BIBLE. Its contents contain beautiful parables, messages of hope and salvation, and meticulously written instructionsof how to live including the respect to be given to the Blessed Virgin. Check it out, skeptics, it’s there! One of Christs very last statements on earth-“Woman behold your son, Man behold your mother.” Dying on the cross, Jesus Christ instructed John to care for and adore his mother. As well should we. I am revoking my support to any and all federally funded “art” programs until a clear and tasteful definition can be determined. With the Baldwins and the Clintons, there is plenty of money in the private sector anyway. Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee….pray for us sinners!

  97. STOP WITH THE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE STOP! YOU PEOPLE ARE SO IGNORANT IT AMAZES HOW U REMEMBER TO BREATHE! THE ELEPHANT DUNG IN SOME CULTURES HAPPENS TO BE A SIGN OF RESPECT! TAKE YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR OWN DUNG FOR A MINUTE TO STOP BEING SO ETHNOCENTRIC! THE ARTIST PUT THE DUNG THERE BECAUSE AS MOST OF YOU DON’T KNOW HE IS A HIGHLY RELIGIOUS CATHOLIC (WHAT??) AND IN HIS CULTURE IT IS A SIGN OF RESPECT NOT AN ATTACK! THATS ALL FOR THE VIRGIN MARY PART! SIMPLY TAKE A MINUTE TO STOP BEING SO ETHNOCENTRIC (THAT MEANS VIEWING OTHER CULTURES FROM YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW) AND REALIZE THAT THE VIRGIN MARY HAS BEEN RESPECTED!!

    FOR THE OTHER WORKS OF ART LET US BE REMINDED THAT THE SCUPLTURE OF DAVID WAS NOT WELL RECIEVED DURING ITS DAY EITHER! THESE WORKS OF ART MAY NOT BE WELL RECIEVED TODAY BUT ART IS AN EXPRESSION OF A PERSON AND HIS/HER ENVIROMENT! GUESS WHAT PEOPLE…….THAT IS HIS ENVIROMENT AS HE SEES IT! THUS WHAT U SEE IS ART! NOT WELL RECIEVED ART BUT ART NONE THE LESS!
    LASTLY AS I SAID BEFORE STOP BEING INGORANT AND SO ETHNOCENTRIC!

    MOST IMPORTANT:
    TAKE YOUR HEADS FROM BETWEEN YOUR LEGS FOR A FEW MINTUES TO REALIZE THAT THE USA IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY, CATHOLICISM IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION, AND YOU CULTURE IS NOT SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE’S!

    COMING FROM A 20YO MALE THAT UNDERSTANDS THE “SICK AND DISGUSTING” WORD AROUND HIM!

  98. Why is it they support religious ideas like this but if a person puts the
    Ten Commandments in a public place the ACLU is all over them threatning with lawsuits?

  99. If taxpayer money goes to support art, then it should be used for all art. We should not get to pick what is “good” art and worthy of our money. That would be censorship.

  100. We are going the way of the Romans…………………………………………………………….Did you hear the one about the artist who put his TURDS IN A CAN and sold that as art? Its another sad day in America.

  101. who the hell are you to say what is art? who the hell cares? we should look at the big pitcher and see that the goverment is spending a buttload of money on useless or harmfull programs all the time please dont let religen blind you to what is really going on fool!!!!!

  102. Tone (one of the non-ignorant) is right! Read his comments (below)again!
    Most of you don’t have a clue about the world around you. Have any of you even seen the exhibit or read any reviews or viewed it on the web? Judging from your ignorant postings it is obvious that you haven’t. Why not take some time and educate yourself before speaking? Are the OUTRAGE editors that convincing that you can’t think for yourself?

  103. The Government has NO business funding the arts. Abolish the National Endowment for the Arts and cut off all federal funding of anything having to do with “The Arts.”

  104. Article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution specifically states what our government my do:
    Article I., Section 8.
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
    To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes;
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; – And
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Editors note: If a function of the present “government” of the United States is not listed in the above (Article I, Section 8), it is unconstitutional and should be struck down as null and void!
    This includes the above mentioned National Endowment of the Arts!

  105. I just cant seewhat all the furor is about in the comments. The NEA is not a legal expenditure under the constitution. Abolish the income tax and this left wing garbage with it.

  106. As a librarian, I’m always fascinated by the spectrum of topics and treatments different folks get upset about, to the point of demanding they be burned/buried/shredded or defunded! Paraphrasing Mary Kay Chelton, a revered teacher, publisher and youth advocate (who was actually speaking in a public-library context), “A good publicly funded art exhibit ideally has something in it to outrage everybody.” Bear in mind that, in as large and diverse a population as that of the U.S., at least *some* taxpayers will not be offended *in the slightest* by this particular work (of a Catholic artist, I believe) which presently has you fulminating — they may even see redeeming social commentary in it! Shouldn’t they get value for their art-tax contributions, too? Ease up! Let people avail themselves of their wonderful First-Amendment rights without all this rushing to roll out the guillotine! [Incidentally, as you wordsmiths ought to know, English nouns are pluralized with an “s” or “es,” not an apostrophe-s; thus, not “Nazi’s,” but “Nazis.”]

  107. The issue IS free speech. Let’s say we let people like those of this site start deciding what is art ans what isn’t? Who’s next on your hit list? Picasso had some pretty weird work. What about Dali? Human mutations galore. But these are just two examples of alternative artists considered to be “masters”.

    What’s the saying? One mans garbage is another mans art. Your tax dollers subsidize a lot worse things than free speech. And once you get done with the art world what’s next? The possibilities are limitless.

    If you don’t like something don’t do it, don’t go see it, don’t read it or don’t look at it. But PLEASE don’t presume to know what is best for the rest of us.

  108. That’s right! It’s not about free speech. It’s about who pays for it. Period.

    If I want to paint a picture of Martin Luther King urinating on the AIDS quilt and call it art, or dress up like Ted Kennedy and wear a “Chapiquidick Sucks” t-shirt and call it art, that’s my perogitive.

    Where the line is drawn is making you pay for it. If I want to rent a hall and charge admission to show off my “art”, that’s fine. But I am not entitled to take public money to do the same.

    It’s about the money, stupid.

  109. A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s show said it best, I think. Would the museum be showing a picture of the Blessed Mother at all if it were not offensive? We should all expect to see a Nativity scene at Christmas if they have no objection to religious art. I think we all know what the chances of that are.

  110. After reading Tone’s comments below about how he buys into the story that elephant dung is a sign of the artist’s respect, I think he should know there’s a rather famous bridge in that borough for sale; he might want to buy that too.

  111. unfortunately this is what becomes of freedom of speech in america.i support our freedom of speech. the fact is that this is public and that this exhibit is protected buy our constitution. my opinion is if you don’t like it don’t go and see it. and if it out rages you that much, i highly recomend you exercise your freedom of speech and protest,picket or anything else you can come up w/to bring attention to it.

  112. The people who approved this
    outrage are sick, sick, sick!

    They should be forced to pay
    for this out of their own pocket instead of stealing from the taxpayers!!!

  113. ART subsidy, as all subisidies, corrupts both the giver and receiver,
    morally, for the theft involved. This transfer of power from those
    who have earned it, who cannot then spend it on what they desire, and
    those who steal it (even through the ‘legal’ means of taxation) and
    spend it on what THEY desire, affects the whole free market. Those things
    desired by money pressure, are of course delivered, in any free market
    system. Thus our whole society has been corrupted by the practice of
    subisidy for many decades.
    There should be a seperation of economy and State, for this reason.
    The State should be a protector, and even have the power to tax to pay
    for it’s defense of property and persons from agressors foreign and domestic.
    It can even be a facilitator, keeping records of property ownership,
    and providing public forums for debate of issues.
    But it should never affect the economy in a free society, or we are
    no longer free to decide what we want, with out largest and most important
    votes; how we spend what we earn.
    Roger Erickson
    Libertarian Party (Central WA State chapter chair)

  114. LOVE THE SINNER AND HATE THEIR SIN.
    ??????SPIT ON GOD??????
    WERE NOT PROMISED TOMMORW SO I HOPE YOU GET THE CHANCE TO BE FORGIVEN TODAY
    – GOD BLESS-

  115. Taxpayers should not subsidize
    this garbage. Leberal Democrats are to blame and its high time Americans of all walks of life send them
    a resounding message. Stop
    wasting out tax dollars. By the way, how about a Tax Cut?

  116. To be honest, there’s nothing I’d rather do than to go see a Picasso, or a Degas, or some other form of real art. Unless, of course, that would be paying for an artist’s right. Are we that arrogant and unthinking that we don’t want to sponsor any modern art due to a few sickening pieces? There’s much more going on out there than just the Mother in crap. There are inspiring, thought provoking pieces of art that no one pays attention to, because all eyes are on the shocking. America’s attentino is perversely drawn to the shocking. And who’s to say that shocking art isn’t thought-provoking? I want to sponsor all of it, not just the stuff I like.
    As Voltaire once said, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll die fighting for your right to say it.”

  117. NO…..if the museum wants to show exhibits of that nature, tell them to find private funds (i can think of better places for that 5 million to be spent, ie: schools,child welfare…) thanks for the outrage!

  118. No, we should not subsidize art at all. But since we are doing that now, the feces caked Mary can be subsidized also. I am of the opinion that if you don’t want to see it, don’t pay your $10 to get in the door or stop going to that art museum at all, then they will have to take it down because they are losing business, Or they will get more subsidations (or something like that). I think it’s funny that people want freedom of speech unless they don’t like what they hear, or in this case, see. I think people should think of what they are about to say before doing so, but it is painfully obvious that they don’t. Kinda like the news article about the 300 protestors surrounding the 41 KKK members at a rally in Ohio and then they complained that it wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars. Of course, if no one had gone to protest the KKK probably would not have had very much of an audience, unless they were already KKK members, but then it is preaching to the choir. I mean, come on! I thought we were supposed to be getting BETTER as a society, not worse. I’ve done the same kind of thing, then I started to really think about what I was doing instead of drowning myself in the everyday hum-drum of life and I am finding that I don’t do that any more (as in, create a problem then complain that there is a problem, even though, if i had thought about it, the problem could have been avoided with a few moments of thought.) Doh!
    Someone once said to Voltaire, “Life is hard.” And he said, “Compared to what?”
    Life is only hard because we make it this way, so don’t go whining to mommy that life is hard.

  119. Also, all art is in bad taste because I have no speacial fondness for Van Gogh or most well accepted artists, so that wouldmean that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People still like orange plaid bellbottoms. I find them horrendous and in bad taste, but they find my jeans and t-shirt in bad taste. Who is right? Or are the bellbottoms inherently evil and wrong. Or is it the jeans or the t-shirt. Or maybe we have a difference of opinion so it is best just left alone. I wear my clothes, they wear theirs. Semms so simple, yet so hard since it DOES NOT HAPPEN. Anyways, since I don’t like most “art” that is generally accepted as art, you know what I do about it? DON’T GO! That’s right, I don’t go to the art museum or I just avoid the stuff I don’t want to see. Yet again, so simple.

  120. last one, i swear. 🙂

    The framers of the constitution never meant it to become the sacred document that it is. You learn this in college government, i’ve never been to college and I know this. They re-wrote it a few times. as far as I know, the one that we harold as the “holy bible” of our government was enacted in 1778, two years after our original one in 1776. You know what that means? Yes, they changed it to suit the needs of the country for the period of time they were written in. Had to mention that since people were complaining about constitutional rights being violated. They kept their non-working constitution for 2 years before scrapping it, and we keep our “working” constitution for 200+ years. Kinda funny, yes? If it worked there would be less problems, wouldn’t there? When something works there are usually very few problems. When something doesn’t work there are problems everywhere. What do we have, almost no problems or quite a lot of problems? Besides, if what the constitution says on it are taken as inalienable human rights in this country, why are there people in prison? Some of these inalienable human rights would have to be violated. Inalienable human rights means that no one can take them away, but they are taken. So why do convicts have rights at all? Because they are people, yes? If they are people, why are they locked in cages, seems kinda cruel and inhuman. On the other hand, if they are animals, as so many people say they are, then why do they have rights at all? Indesiciveness is fun! Especially when it messes over someone else’s life. No sympathy for the devil.

  121. If we didn’t have funding for the arts, then all the art you find “legitimate” wouldn’t get any funding either. The “starving artist” image is way played out. And as previously pointed out, the work itself doesn’t receive the funding. BUT, specific artists can get grants, LEGITIMATELY, after a screening process. Granted, some weird things get through, but that shouldn’t mess it up for the others.

  122. Contrary to the ‘outraged’ opinions of many, I have a strong belief in our personal liberties. That is one of the strongest liberties we here in America have. In China, Cuba, and many other countries, artists do NOT have freedom to BE artists. They must “conform” to what the State’s idea of appropriate art is. For most of this century, Artists behind the Iron Curtain were not *Allowed* to show art that did not meet the ‘party line.’ Clearly, many individuals are confusing their own *Dislike* (which is perfectly acceptable) with Legal and Morally Reprehensible…and worse. When we here, as Americans, reach the point, where we can NOT say what we WANT, paint what we WANT to….then, where are we? I might not like what you say, but…I’ll defend to the death your *unalienable right to SAY IT!!* It’s a very scary world to be living in where one must listen to a politician tell us what we MUST like or not like in art….then, why not music or literature, or how we dress, or where we live, what we eat, where we go or where we work…where is the End of it? What really IS FREEDOM if you can’t paint a picture that YOU want? Art is Art, not photocopying or mindless submission to the wills of those who CannotSee, therefore Know Not. This is after all, ………….AMERICA!!! And I say, God Bless America, and Long May She Reign. Love it or leave it for a country where they WILL tell you what ‘art’ to like.

  123. how can a society support one form of art and oppose another? its all art. and besids, how much in tax dollars are you acctualy paying? compared to, oh, say WELFARE?

  124. I think this misuse of our tax
    money should be stopped. If a
    person wants to create a piece
    of art then that is their own
    business. But not with my tax
    money. To have dung even in the
    area with Mary is rediculous,
    not to mention unholy. I have
    always flushed my dung down the
    sewer. That is where this crap
    should be also. There are better
    ways for us to spend our money
    than on someone’s demented mind.
    I would no more enjoy seeing this
    displayed openly than I would
    any murders evidence of their crime.
    Some things are to be kept
    sacred and private. Our love of God
    and dung are on the opposite ends of
    common sense. Time for us as citizens
    to do what is “right” and stop
    this kind of outrageous mess.

  125. A committment was made and all attempts, no matter how distasteful, should be made to honor that committment.
    Freedom of speech is NOT about what is said, but IS about who gets to decide what can and cannot be said.
    I agree with the right of freedom of speech. I also agree with my right not to view a piece of art that I consider objectionable. The difference is that I am making the decision for me.
    As for the tax dollars, a financial committment was made to the museum and should be honored. It has been pointed out to the government many times that they should get out of the art business. Perhaps after their committments are honored, they will finally listen and act appropriatly.

  126. There’s a positive side to all this, you know.

    All those communities who wanted to put Christmas nativity scenes in front of town hall can now do so without fear of ACLU retribution. Simply scatter some dung around the animals in the manger — what’s more natural than that? — and you’ll have a constitutionally-protected work of art.

    Last I checked, private funding for the arts came to about $9 billion a year, while the National Endowment for the Arts’ budget hovered around $100 million.

    And since leftists have diligently pointed out how much richer the rich have been getting, surely it’ll be no sweat at all for rich folks to pony up an extra .01 percent to cover a zeroed-out NEA budget.

  127. I think that mrs.clinton should be forced to pay to have someone take a picture of someone defecating on Chelsea while she is naked. This photo should then be enlarged to life size and put in the brooklyn museum. If Clinton should oppose this, then we should press charges for infringing on our first amendment rights.

  128. Hell no to any funding ofany group by tax dollars.
    Pray for the distruction of God’s and OUR enimies.Psalem 83:

  129. NO! John Q., should not pay for such.
    Those that miss use or create bad art should replace the money they waste.

  130. Kudos for a terse and intelligent examination of the real issue- government involvement in areas where it has no business being. If these so-called artists are really convinced of the value of their ‘art’ let them test themselves in the marketplace. Or perhaps they could find private patrons who will support their indulgences. After all, Michaelangelo and DaVinci did fine in the private sector.

  131. I do not think that taxpayerws should subsidize art or acting. If people want to see the exhibit, advertise and let those that like the show pay. Just like going to a movie.

  132. I personally have not seen the exhibit in question, but I think it should be funded. Those of you who say that art should support itself in the open market. If we did that then this country, would fall even further into the dismal abyss, we Americans are on average, already some of the most uncultured people in the world, we wouldn’t pay for art if we didn’t have to, and so art would simply disappear, to be replaced probably by a big photograph of a mcdonalds hamburger. Without things like the NEA there would be no art, no theatre, nothing even the slightest bit sophisticated, at least not for anyone who isn’t rich.

  133. It really is so sad what this country has come to. We really have become a disgraceful country. I pray that God will not turn away.

  134. If you take away government funding of the arts, does that
    not also include arts programs in schools like the all-American
    high school band? Or choral concerts? Or how about
    finger painting for kindergarteners? OF COURSE
    IT DOES! Before you start attacking the arts and questioning
    the need for taxpayer money, look at all this really does to
    enrich our lives. This exhibition is just a small piece of a
    larger picture that really does help us to express ourselves
    and be creative. It’s not the artists or the people who display
    the art who are hampering our ability to grow, learn, and
    create… it’s the people who are too closed minded to ever’
    look at something and themselves in a new light and discover
    that maybe things aren’t always the way they should be.
    Regardless, just think of a high school football game without
    the half-time band and THEN you might get more of an idea
    of what you’re thinking about killing.

    (God it’s late…)

  135. If we paid taxes on only what we support would this not exclude for some people parts
    of the defense budget, immigration, sports stadiums, corporate tax shelters, welfare etc. etc. The list goes on. What a system. Develope a formula and let us withold taxes on what we do not support.

  136. The government should not be subsidizing any grotesque art with feces or such. But I am sick and tired of people defending religon. If it weren’t for the government subsidizing it, what the hell is the problem? OH yeah, the tax-free shelter, that is the religous crutch, should decide what this country thinks. My ass!

  137. I have always felt the Arts endowments were a waste of money. If you can’t make a living with your particular form of artistic impression, or garbage in this case, then your “art” should be considered a hobby and not be subsidized by the taxpayers of America. If there is a demand for such filth, then let the consumers support it! Keep up the great work!

  138. MY ONLY COMMENT IS; A SOCIETY GETS WHAT IT DESERVES. WE ARE A NATION OF CHEATS,LIARS LAZY PEOPLE. ALSO ANY SPECIES THAT FEEDS UPON ITS YOUNG IS DOOMED.”GOD BLESS AMERICA” LAND THAT WE LOST. I HOPE THE NEXT GENERATION WILL BEHAVE MORE RATIONALLY.

  139. Any government funding of art is theft from the taxpayer. It is not constitutionally mandated. If people want to support ort, then let them, regardless of the content, but do not force me, nor any other taxpayer, to support what we detest against our will. We should end all government subsidies to art. Again, it is not the constitutional function of government to support art.

  140. There millions of children in this country who are potential victims of the drug trade, street violence and premature parenthood (to name a few). Healthy mental pre-occupation with perfomance and graphic art could literally save some of these youngsters live. Simply because these activities challenge, for example, their (our) concerns for humanity and concepts of beauty.
    The sad truth, however, is that the children most in need of these virtuos diversions will hear from the Public School District in which they are sentenced, that there is no money for drama teachers, dance masters, (real) graphic art instructors or the physical space and facilities needed.
    With these disheartening facts staring us in the face and a realized end result of such neglect (much earlier than Collumbine), the well bred, well fed whose children will learn about Street Life on TV or film can afford to sit on their liberal rumps and shout “Anything goes!”. The caveat is “Chicken will come home to roost!”.

  141. I agree that using taxpayer money to fund art is ludicrous. Art that is pleasing to me may or may not be pleasing to another. Its disgusting enough that we have to pay such high taxes for social welfare and other services that allow people to sit on their rumps, but at LEAST I have heard some lucid and intelligent arguments as to why this is necessary. ART is a luxury and NOT a necessity. Sure, I want to expose my kids to it, but I don’t want YOU to have to fund that if I cannot afford to expose them to “great art”. I also agree that if someone took a Koran and mounted it on canvas and then splattered it with dung and pornography, the artist would promptly and swiftly receive death threats and maybe even be killed by militant groups of various (I’m sure one can imagine) backgrounds. After all, Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses had a “hit” out on him put there by Muslim fanatic groups. His free speech was enormously compromised. Furthermore, I doubt the museum would display any such art that desecrated symbols from other religions (other than Christianity). They would be too afraid of the consequences.

  142. The author of Spitting on God shows extreme lack of objectivity both in the title and piece. YOUR personal prejudices are evident in your attack on this singular event. The issue of tax dollars being spent for Art exhibits that offend is second to the Author’s obvious contempt for any opinion that is not like his or hers, whichever is the case. My snap judgement is no tax money should be spent on these art exhibits that possibly offend the more sensitive member of our society. On closer examination one must ask “how can everyone be satisfied”? what good is produced by funding these artist? Does it give unknown artist a platform to express their ideas (even radical ones.) Perhaps even exposure for an artist who may otherwise continue unknown. If it were art that showed the blessed mary walking in the park, Would you complain then?

  143. When you argue that tax payers should not be forced to support art forms that you in particular find offensive
    you also argue against art programs in public schools. Would you deny a child an art education for the sake of one exhibit that offended you?
    If the answer is yes, you need help.
    This is clearly a censorship issue. What one person calls art another calls trash, and what one person could the populas agree on to define what art is, no one.
    If you dicredit a single artist’s work as trash you are censoring.
    A single artist who’s expression contains images a Catholic may find offensive is no reason to put restraints on an entire community of artists.
    Oh and if you want my opinion: God asked for it 🙂

  144. The government should help with art. Simply because you see it as something awful does not mean it is not art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  145. I think everyone should support the arts, what would this
    country be without art? Wasn’t the entire basis of this country
    supposed to be freedom of speech, the right to express
    yourself? I think that particular artist had just as much right
    to express himself with that “work of art” as you have to critisize
    it. Don’t be so stupid and close-minded. Besides, if you think
    education is expensive, try ignorance.

  146. Religions contain no value at all
    except as stimulants for
    contemptuous laughter.
    OOOH! the bad ol artists mocked
    catholicism? SHAH!That pretty mild
    compared to what Cortezs’ boys did to
    the Indians or the Spanish
    Inquisition.
    Only fools defend religion ,or be live in god for
    that matter.
    Unprescribed me from this piece of
    papist poop!

  147. now you’ve done it !!!!! don’t you realize that it is only by
    the grace of the elite left that they allow us to keep 1/2 of
    what we earn?!! and when we complain about how they
    spend ” their ” money, it only shows how ungrateful we
    are for their benevolence. they are soooooo morally
    superior to any of us….. how can you even question their
    choice of “art”?!! their spiritual leader in our white house
    exemplifies the length, breadth, and depth of their
    morallity ( scatch length and breadth)

  148. I have read the constitution several times. The first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech and press. It does not say I have to pay someone to say or right something. The goverment as usual has over stepped it’s bounds in telling us how we will spend our money. The goverment should not censor what we see. But the goverment should not controle what we see by paying people to show things we don’t want to see. If you want to see it pay for it yourself.

  149. The Government has no busuiness in the art business. Our tax dollars were never meant to subsidize any thing of the sort. Where and when did all that nonsense start in the first place? During the enlightening and awakening 1960’s? We all complain about how our tax money is squandered and wasted and this lastest controversy is a perfect example of why the government needs to stay out of supporting the “arts”. Private donations should only be accepted.I’m more outraged about my money being used to fund such frivolous and unimportant programs such as the arts than of the subject matter. Pornography is all over in our society now. It’s all in the open. It was just a matter of time until our own government would be supporting it and calling it “art”. After all, Bill Clinton has mainstreamed Larry Flynt. What’s next?Subsidising “Husler” magazine at our expense? Or, how about gangster rap concerts? Th possibilities are endless. Oh well, are we at all surprised? Just another example of how our money is used for frivolous and nonessential programs at our expense and the saddest part of all is that most people don’t even know nor do they care. Seems odd, we can’t have religious diplays on school grounds that may promote any sort of religion but the government can defend any sort of sick or disgusting diplay of religous or even non-religious art and expect us to pay for it.

  150. It is not art, whatever it may be, though. It is, perhaps, just what its name implies, meant to sensationalize and shock — not different from P.T. Barnum’s reason for displaying freaks. “A fool and his money are soon parted.” (“A sucker…., etc.”) No God would be God if he were offended by mortals’ pranks. Neither Catholics nor the Virgin Mary have been desecrated by vandals in this sense that has not happened before. Life goes on… and God’s in his Heaven. Christianity and Americans have suffered too long being easy to take advantage of as they do not retaliate in modern times for insults to the truths they hold to be self-evident and dear to them. I would not waste a penny on such exhibitionism and waste of human endeavor.

  151. I think this is a totally disgusting statement about what the world has come to today. I am the mother of two young children, and have been increasingly dismayed about the state of our government and society. I dread to think what will be subsidized by our tax dollars when my kids are adults. There is not a single reason on earth why our tax dollars should be subsidizing such trash! Of course Hillary supports this, wonder if she has brought her darling Chelsea to see the exhibit when she was in NY last week? Why would I not be surprised?

  152. Also, I think someone should create a painting of Hillary and Bill surrounded by elephant dung. Or maybe that would be an outrage, I don’t know!!

  153. The question I have is this, if the art work has merit, why not display the work with private funding? That is, let the market determine the value of the art.

  154. Why is it that the Christian community is the only one that is crapped on and does not stand up for itself. Is it because they know we are so diversified that we’ll only fight amoungst ourselves before any real action can take place? I think it is. Why must we take the jibes and insults of these people. If we actually stood up for our beliefs instead of cowering in some secluded hole, hoping that it will just pass us by, then our religion and belief in God the Almighty will be outlawed by these “free-thinking” liberals. It is time we stood up and voiced ourselves to OUR government. It is time we make a stand for what we believe in. In the Old Testament, wars were fought for the belief in God. It is time we thought like that again and stand up for him! His Son died for us, We can stand for him!

  155. Any federal tax subsidies of art is a violation of our Constitution. I’m vehemently opposed to the NIH, NEA, DOE (both of them) and all other fereral agencies which are not explicitly required by this document that is supposed to be “the law of the land”.

  156. Only the wealthy can afford expensive, outrageous art. They pay incrediblly high prices to the artists who, in the course of time and IF their “art” really IS art, become quite well-to-do. Having made it into the big leagues, they buy large homes and studios, epensive cars and the art of other tax-funded artists closing the cycle. In the meantime they pay income tax supporting, among other things, armies and navies, schools and sewer systems and artists whose work they think is crap.

  157. the virgin mary, no matter what surrounds her, is always
    protected by her son. i don’t think we need to worry about her, but about the poor souls
    who’s minds work that way. they scare me.

  158. This is not the first time that our money has been used for something that is not worth showing at an xxxx rated

  159. I’m outraged by Sweeney’s argument. The question is not whether or not you should subsidize Nazis propaganda if you subsidize anti-catholic art. The point lies in the fact that art is varied, and it varies from pro-catholic to anti-catholic art all over the world. Sweeney doesn’t ever seem bothered by the fact that museums do contain pro-catholic works. In fact, he would rather see pro catholic paintings than anything else.
    Art cannot be impartial. Art is a tangible expression of the artist’s emotions, it can therefore, by definition, never be free from “propaganda”. And freedom of expression is exactly what this is about. We let KKK members march in the streets and we let people build churches anywhere they want because they have freedom of speech and the freedom to hold different values than you do. And even though that church across the street from my house may bother me because I don’t believe in the ideals it symbolizes, I have to accept its existence because I want that church to accept my existence.
    As for the tax payers, they pay for both this exposition as well as the hundreds of other expositions that contain pro-catholic or even neutral content. Sweeney’s argument is thus void. In fact, I think that perhaps Sweeney would prefer the government to choose the morally acceptable pieces of art to be displayed in our “Democratic Country”, and burn the unacceptable ones. Perhaps, Sweeney is proposing that we pay for Nazi propaganda so that we can help spread his ideals.

  160. What do you expect, when the president of USA has less
    morels than an alley cat. Clean up our gov`t,. Put a moraly responsible person in.

  161. If you elect a government that has a commitment to funding the arts thats great. If you didnt, then complain. If you are one of the many who fail to vote, shut up. If you are realy concerned about your tax contribution then wail about the gross over expenditure on the military aimed at making Americans feel good about themselves by the slaughter of innocents. Wail about the US funded military regimes suppressing third world economies. Wail about bizarre penal codes that tie up funds in the penal system. Third world America wont result from a few dollars spent on a piece of art. It will be born of apathy and ignorance.

  162. We are now subject to rule by minority, and a sick minority at that. Are we so afraid to call pornography and trash by its true name? Why do we keep rewarding the politicians who keep voting to fund the dissemination of this material?

  163. I think that your problem is that you are missing the point – art is meant to stimulate, provoke and agitate (and Damien Hirst and co. have obviously done the trick), and to get you thinking on a deeper level, rather than drawing mindless criticism.
    Also, the point about white artists creating art based around other cultures’ religions, while being generally valid, is somewhat redundant in this case, Damien Hirst being a white, English, protestant.
    Yours
    Henry Palmer

  164. don’t you think it’s about time the people in this country either let the racism fly (and probably the bullets too) or stand up for more than just their own self-serving interests… i am sick and f***ing tired of the stale rhetoric that is served by the ‘hack/politico’ of the day, be it sharpton, stern, or any other neo-anything. the fact that the catholics didn’t blockade this event like the african, asian, or jewish americans would have sends what kind of message? are catholics lazy or is everyone else over the edge?

  165. I think it’s disgusting and I’m appalled to see my tax money used like this.
    Everett Dirksen once said “a million here and a million there and first thing you know it’s real money”. A lot of our politicians just don’t get it.

  166. Henry Palmer (and others):

    While great art may provoke, stimulate and agitate, it does not follow that anything hanging in a gallery that’s provocative, stimulating or agitating is therefore art.

    “Sensation” is nothing more than a spoiled bunch of pretentious Eurotrash striking a “help-help-I’m-being-repressed” pose, cashing huge checks as they mewl about censorship.

    Damien Hirst and Chris Ofili are the hipper-than-thou art world’s version of Andrew Dice Clay.

  167. The United States government should only subsidize art if the American people say it should. There is no “they” there is only us. If you are outraged by governmental actions, express your views to your congressman, that’s what they’re there for, to be your vioce in the government of the United States. As for the outrageousness of the “art” one of the foundations of liberal democracy is the free exchange of ideas and images within society no matter how offensive or disgusting they may be. One can select those views and expressions to take seriously and value, but no person has the right to select those views which may be publicly expressed.

  168. Art should be produced on a supply-demand basis, not subsidized by taxpayers. You can be as offensive as you want-but not on my dime!!!

  169. I think we’re all missing the most important point revolving around this event:
    Hillary Clinton’s revealing
    position. Not only has she
    obliquely endorsed the exhibit, which shows what she
    thinks of Mary, the mother of
    the Son of God—i.e., she is
    anti-Christ(I didn’t say the
    Anti-Christ)—and it shows
    that she believes that obscenity-disguised as art
    should be shoved down all of
    our throats, and we should pay
    for it. Gulliano’s response is
    correct and moral (and constitutional), however Hillary is a safety and security threat to America and
    everything we claim we stand
    for. Tell me what you think.
    Post your views at http://www.delphi.
    com/straighttalk, or return email me. Can you imagine
    Hillary Clinton having the
    direct power to make laws?
    Merle Dautrey
    President
    Safe and Secure

  170. I don’t think we should have to foot the bill for this trash. Especially when it offends my religious beliefs. I also don’t like the idea that the money to support this garbage is taken out of my paycheck by the feds. Art is in the eye of the beholder and in my eye it is trash pure and simple. I wouldn’t support art that offended some other religious group either but it seems because it is only the catholics or christians it offends it’s okay. Will I’m here to tell you it isn’t okay and it makes me extremely mad that federal money out of my paycheck supports this. Everyone is entitled to his or her idea of what should be supported except where it infinges on my beliefs or the beliefs of others. Get rid of it trash needs to go to the dump!

  171. I think this is garbage; how can they call it art; desecration of holy objects and anyone who patronizes this sleeze deserves what they get.

  172. By the way, the Sunday New York Times ran an article on page one that re-inforced the less-splashy side of Giuliani’s case – that the Brooklyn Museum’s leaders effectively were pimps for the space on their walls, making a conscious effort to display that which would bring the most financial benefit to the show’s backers.

    It just confirms that art is no longer about creating a work of beauty for the ages – it’s about who you know, how much money they’ve got, and how fabulous their friends are.

  173. okay lets think about this….

    in order to create a virgin mary with elephant dung….

    THE ARTIST HAD TO BE SURROUNDED AND WORKING
    WITH ELEPHANT DUNG ALL DAY!!!!

    MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!
    isn’t that satisfying….

  174. I think that with that tax paying came an education,
    an education that was supposed to teach us to be more
    open-minded, and appreciate art, so maybe until you
    hard headed holy-rollers learn to appreciate these
    blasphemous images on a higher than kindergarden level
    religion, those tax dollars should go back to the school, to
    educate your children, so that they don’t start shooting girls
    in our schools cuz of being martyrs to you self assured
    religion. Grow up tax payers of america, art is older than
    god.
    Nuff said.

  175. I’m 15 and I think violence today is outragous and it should be stopped. I live in a small town called Dunnville and I have never seen any violence in my town!

  176. I do NOT think it’s the people’s job to fund artists. But I don’t condone censorship of art of any kind however. I think that artists should be free to produce whatever works they can come up with….but not with my money. And people must STOP making terrible analogies. Like when stacy wrote something earlier about this article and drew the comparison of burning books. Taxpayers don’t support writers. So why should tax payers support artists? Because they’re profession doesn’t pay well? Too bad. Get a real job if you want to make money. You want to create fabulous works of art? Outstanding, and good luck to you. I hope it works out. But don’t come complaining to me that the public refused to give you a grant to make more paintings of the Baby Jesus covered in maple syrup being eatin by rabid wolves. I’m sorry if you feel it’s “just not fair” that you should suffer for your profession. I don’t care. There are people in this world who need tax dollars FAR more than artists do. (And I’m NOT referring to the wealthy or the ‘upper class’) That money would be much better spent by improving our education system or helping the homeless. I may be babbling at this point, but I just fail to see how these people deserve taxpayer money to do a job that they chose.

  177. It’s funny how people think they have a choice in how their tax money is spent. There are plenty of things that I find offensive in our national budget – like aid to corrupt foreign dictators and pork barrel projects – but we don’t get to pick and choose based on personal taste or circumstances. I don’t eat beef, yet hundreds of beef farmers get part of my tax dollars to artificially inflate prices. Should I protest that? I don’t have any kids, yet some my taxes go schools. Should I not have to pay for that either? No, because this is how it works: We all pay into the same pot and you can’t get upset because .0001 cents of every dollar (which is the percentage of federal budget that goes to arts funding) is going to soemthing that you find disagreable.

    So to all the whiny christians who feel the need to get their panties in a wad over federal funding of art they don’t like, here’s a concept: GET A GRIP. If you don’t like it, ignore it and go on with your lives! If only your faith were as strong as your ability to scream out in moral indignation, maybe there could be a reasonable discussion about the whole matter.

  178. Issue #1:

    Artists should EITHER be subsidized OR charge admission, not both.

    Issue #2:

    I think artistic expression is great, especially when it mocks value systems which are deserving of mockery, and by extension, the half-wits who hold said value systems as sacred, in this case, Catholicism. HOWEVER, I don’t believe in double-standards; if we’re going to mock one religion or culture, ALL religions and cultures should be equally open to mockery. As was stated in the original article, our society gives more consideration to followers of one creed than another. While I find all spiritual religions to be idiotic cop-outs for weaklings, I don’t think one set of dilusional beliefs should be given special treatment just because it’s “politically correct” to do so.

  179. In my humble opinion, if the art is subsidized, it is subsidized. I think exhibits SHOULD allow pictures of Mary, Buddha, MLK, the Pope, or Howard Stern surrounded by feces in porn (although in the latter’s case noone would notice.) Subsidies come from taxes and taxes often go to things we do not like. But if they also go to exhibits we do like, then we can’t complain. If we get rid of the virgin mary poop, we have to get rid of all the subsidies. We either allow all or allow nothing. As far as spitting on God, He has been spit on since the beginning of time. He’ll get over it.

  180. To all of the religious people that find this offensive, I have some words of wisdom. Every religion thinks it is right, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholisism, Hinduism, Muslims etc. Unfortunately, the Christian right is the most vocal and condenscending of all. They do not like anything that might tarnish their “rightous” delusions of themselves. Well, Christians of the world, look at your fine examples. Catholic pedophile priests, televangelists, that bonehead Pat Robertson. Boy, you DEFINITELY have the RIGHT to criticize art.

    A good thing for these christian right a-holes to remember is that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

  181. First off, I believe that our tax money should be used for more important things,like educating our children and helping hospitals. You know, things that are actually helpful in society. While I am a huge supporter of artists, I fail to see how offensive art such as this promotes the well being of our society. Second of all, Im glad to see that many of you are so smug about the failures of the church. Are you the same about seeing a family torn apart by divorce or world war? No, the church isn’t perfect, but what should we say? “Shame on us for reaching out to feed the poor or to help keep kids off the street.” Speaking for the majority of GOOD and HONEST christians in the world, you can say what you want, draw what you want, sing what you want, but dont expect the rest of us to foot the bill.

  182. Hell no, art should NEVER be subsidized!!!! Never mind the crap which we’re being forced to pay for; just WHO is determining that some stuff is “art” deserving of a dip at the public trough, while other stuff is just plain unworthy? Isn’t art, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?
    WHO GETS TO DECIDE, AND WHY DO THEY GET TO USE MY MONEY TO DO THE DECIDING?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Best comments get a free hardcover copy of Living Sanely in an Insane World. We'll email you for your address if you're selected.