Get The Picture ?

Get the Picture?

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Feb 09, 2006


So here's my question, and it's a simple one because I am a simple man: The New York Times will not print any of those Danish political cartoons that mock Islamic violence, but it will publish a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. What's up with that?

Here's what the Times wrote about the cartoons: "(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

Okay, fine, I agree with that editorial which appeared on February 7th. But the next day, the newspaper ran a picture of the dung-covered Mary accompanying an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery."

So we can't see the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban in the Times, but we can see a sacrilegious "gratuitous assault" on Mary that came from a shameful Brooklyn Museum exposition in 1999. Do I have that right?

Once again, we have a huge double standard in play in the secular-progressive press. In 1989, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, among others, published a picture by photographer Andres Serrano that showed the crucified Christ submerged in urine. Serrano was also featured in a New York Times fashion spread, according to reporting in The Washington Post.

And then there was the play "Corpus Christi," which featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles. The New York Times opined that folks who protested the play had "contempt for artistic expression."

Maybe I'm wrong, but dung on Mary, Christ submerged in urine, and a gay Jesus just might be "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." But, again, I'm kind of dense when it comes to "artistic expression," so I could be way off here.

The real question is this: Do the editors of The New York Times intentionally want to denigrate Christianity? I don't know. I can only go by the best available evidence, and the case I just made seems air-tight. Religious minorities in the USA seem to be given much more respect by the Times than the religious majority. Remember, 84% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

If you read The New York Times and the other secular-progressive papers, you know they often see the Christian majority as "oppressive." And its easy to see why. Many Christians oppose unfettered abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage--just to name three issues that the secular-progressives champion. Resistance to "progressive" change in America is strong in quite a few Christian communities. So they have become "dangerous" to some in the secular-progressive press.

Therefore, any denigration of Christian symbols is far more acceptable than the negative depiction of minority religions. Would The New York Times print a picture of Mohammed covered with dung? If you think so, I have a condo in Baghdad I'd like to sell you.

The cold truth is that it is open season on Christian symbols in much of the American press. That was demonstrated during the Christmas controversy which the secular-progressive press denied even existed. Insulting Christian icons is wrong, just as mocking the prophet Mohammed is wrong. The difference might be that Christians are taught to turn the other cheek, while militant Muslims might react a bit differently. And The New York Times knows it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Get the Picture?

The cold truth is that it is open season on Christian symbols in much of the American press. That was demonstrated during the Christmas controversy which the secular-progressive press denied even existed. Insulting Christian icons is wrong, just as mocking the prophet Mohammed is wrong. The difference might be that Christians are taught to turn the other cheek, while militant Muslims might react a bit differently. And The New York Times knows it.

---

well that answers a lot of questions...media are whores and they know christians have a better tolerence in general, muslims are blinded by their religion and so, their blood temperature rises to the boiling point at the sligtest "insult"... :dance:

I'm not sure how popular the cartoon of Mohammed would be. Many Americans don't care, but the Virgin Mary thing happened in our own backyard.

I laugh my ass off at the Muhammed Cartoons, I think they should be in the Funny papers everyday of the week.

The double standard on free speech in the press and media is total Bullshit.
Besides the examples mentioned in the article, Jesus and other Christian figures are insulted and mocked. Why is it that only Anti-Christians are truly guaranteed this right of free speech? If we speak up about this kind of stuff we get bashed and are told that its free speech.

Point number 2: It seems to me that the muslims acts of violence in response to the cartoons is making an example of what the cartoon was meant to depict...

The Virgin Mary "art" in question, if my memory serves me, was rendered in dung - not "covered" in it. It was not meant to offend, or shock - but our culture has a different take on it. I admit that I have not seen the exhibit, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but I'm OK with it even is she WAS covered in elephant shit.
Here's an article about the piece: http://dh.ryoshuu.com/press/19991005_a.html

BOYCOTT the OIL! Without firing a shot, we can fuck 'em where they breathe. The United States has boycotted Castro's Cuba for almost 50 fucking years, and he really didn't do anything to us for a reaction like that. Castro's a ruthless bastard, but at least he's keeps his shit in his own back yard.

Buying oil from the middle east is nuts. WE should be dictating what price we'll pay when, or if, we resume trade. As far as I'm concerned, they can shove it.

P.S. O'Reilly is still an asshole.

advocaat made a point I bit my tongue about. Yes, volumes have been written about that exhibit. O'Reilly is indeed a "simple man" who's "kinda dense." It's just another example of the right criticizing something they "don't understand," or haven't seen at all.

It truly shows pride of freedom to allow some misguided right wing youth to wear a mohammed/bomb t-shirt. However, the only thing that t-shirt wearing antagonist is proving of himself is that he's an ignorant, divisive hypocrite.

It's typical nonsense from the same sort of genuises who STILL support Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vincevaper

It's just another example of the right criticizing something they "don't understand," or haven't seen at all.

---

Whats not to understand? He gets the basic picture, and hes making a critique on the left wing powers when it comes to the press and freedom of speech.

"Because its ok to make fun of those evil christians, but we should be nice to the poor innocent muslims that are killing people...Im sure the old lady with the Nativity Scene in her front yard is going to firebomb the neighborhood..."

No... its not right no matter how you look at...I agree with the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

The Virgin Mary "art" in question, if my memory serves me, was rendered in dung - not "covered" in it. It was not meant to offend, or shock - but our culture has a different take on it. I admit that I have not seen the exhibit, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but I'm OK with it even is she WAS covered in elephant shit.
Here's an article about the piece: http://dh.ryoshuu.com/press/19991005_a.html

BOYCOTT the OIL! Without firing a shot, we can f*ck 'em where they breathe. The United States has boycotted Castro's Cuba for almost 50 fucking years, and he really didn't do anything to us for a reaction like that. Castro's a ruthless bastard, but at least he's keeps his shit in his own back yard.

Buying oil from the middle east is nuts. WE should be dictating what price we'll pay when, or if, we resume trade. As far as I'm concerned, they can shove it.

P.S. O'Reilly is still an asshole.

---

Howdy BA,

If it wasn't meant to offend,what was it meant to do ? Would you throw elephant dung on yer mom or on a pic of her ? The Virgin Mary 'art',was most certainly meant to offend both Catholics and Christians,there's no other reason for it. It also sends a message to boys and men,that women should be treated like such,that they are only worthy of having dung thrown at them,rappers are always calling for violence against women,including beatings,rape and kickin em in the stomach to force a miscarriage and kill the un-wanted child of promiscuity.

Have a good one ....

Christian religion has been forced to become more tolerant (thankfully) whereas as the Islamic people tend to come from backward countries that have not progressed and resemble western countries hundreds of years ago, and they simply do not understand the freedoms we take for granted. Unfortunately a lot of Southern US states are similarly backward which is why you get freaky rednecks like Torog. The vast majority of Europeans are not religious and it is a culture/time clash going on. I am very anti religion although I think the Dalai Lama has a lot to say.

Insulting religious icons is not wrong, it shows you have a brain.

Supporting US troops who torture and kill (just like Nazis) and thinking your Country is God's special country is wrong. If you believed in God you would know it is Gods universe, and the US troop is no more right, infact probably more wrong than the Iraqi troop he is fighting, because the US is the aggressor in this and most instances. It is about respect for life and human life no matter who or where the person comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiden

Christian religion has been forced to become more tolerant (thankfully) whereas as the Islamic people tend to come from backward countries that have not progressed and resemble western countries hundreds of years ago, and they simply do not understand the freedoms we take for granted. Unfortunately a lot of Southern US states are similarly backward which is why you get freaky rednecks like Torog. The vast majority of Europeans are not religious and it is a culture/time clash going on. I am very anti religion although I think the Dalai Lama has a lot to say.

Insulting religious icons is not wrong, it shows you have a brain.

Supporting US troops who torture and kill (just like Nazis) and thinking your Country is God's special country is wrong. If you believed in God you would know it is Gods universe, and the US troop is no more right, infact probably more wrong than the Iraqi troop he is fighting, because the US is the aggressor in this and most instances. It is about respect for life and human life no matter who or where the person comes from.

---

Howdy Raiden,

Well ..this here "freaky redneck"--says you can take yer secular progressive crapola,and put it where the Sun don't shine..lol:)

I don't support any American soldier,who tortures and kills like a Nazi would,or a Jap would,or a Russian would,or a Chinese would,or a French would,or an arab would do and have done.

As for Texas being God's country,it's a popular belief here--which I support.

Have a good one ...

You live with your head where the sun dont shine Torog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiden

You live with your head where the sun dont shine Torog.

---

Howdy Raiden,

Well..maybe yer right..maybe I should just toss away all of my old fashioned values and git with the program--folks with good character--need not apply..so I'll have to git rid of that too I reckon. Then I can be as 'enlightened ' as you are :thumbsup:

Have a good one ! :stoned:

That would be really cool. Only you have got your eyes ofcourse and I don't proclaim to be enlightened, but there are certain things I hate like war, blind faith, naive patriotism and extreme nationalism. Unfortrunately you seem to have a belief in all these things. It's nothing personal and sorry for calling you freaky really it is because I have not had a smoke today yet.

Wow, I agree with Bill O'Reilly! He's right, there is a double standard, and in the end it should be ok to insult whatever religion we feel like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy BA, If it wasn't meant to offend,what was it meant to do ? Would you throw elephant dung on yer mom or on a pic of her ? The Virgin Mary 'art',was most certainly meant to offend both Catholics and Christians,there's no other reason for it. It also sends a message to boys and men,that women should be treated like such,that they are only worthy of having dung thrown at them,rappers are always calling for violence against women,including beatings,rape and kickin em in the stomach to force a miscarriage and kill the un-wanted child of promiscuity. Have a good one ....

---

Hi Torog,

The "dung" that disgusts you is also fertilizer, without which we'd have a lot less food in the world. *

Since there is no evidence that a "virgin" ever gave birth to a baby, the whole story is a fraud anyway. I gave you my version of how this ridiculous story could have happened in December '05. Virgins do NOT have children - and your mythical savior god is the fictitious creation of primitive, sick, superstitious minds for the purpose of controlling people and exploiting the populace. The filth, lies, stupidity, and immorality in the bible(s) has caused FAR more misery and destruction than a pile of elephant shit on a canvas ever could. That goes for the koran, also. The monotheistic faiths are destroying the world - and the sooner the world realizes that, the faster the damage will stop.

*and if abortion and other types of birth control are made illegal, there's even more misery on the way thanks to overpopulation - which religion loves: it goes hand-in-hand with ignorance and fear, keeping the churches in business - doing nothing but creating more misery and stupidity.

wow. if there's so much misery because there are so many people on the planet, which i think is bullshit, there's plenty of fucking room on the planet. we don't have to be crammed into giant compact cities dependent on everything else for survival.

why don't you jump off the cliff first? would that spare anyone of their misery? i guess i'm just to assume that it will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

wow. if there's so much misery because there are so many people on the planet, which i think is bullshit, there's plenty of fucking room on the planet. we don't have to be crammed into giant compact cities dependent on everything else for survival. why don't you jump off the cliff first? would that spare anyone of their misery? i guess i'm just to assume that it will.

---

I'm not the one that's having five brats that I can't afford to support. Don't "assume" anything - or haven't you heard what the result of that usually is?

I hate to burst your bubble BA but it really is possible for a virgin to get pregnant and in today's world, even maintain her virginity after childbirth. Now I don't think they were performing C-sections 2000 years ago but virgin conception is a documented medical possibility. If those little man-critters get on the outside of a womans vagina, without any penetration involved, they can and occasionally do (although rarely) make the big salmon run upstream to the egg factory. As for the existance of god, or gods or deities in general, it's the ultimate catch-22 scenario since one can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a supreme being or beings. You either believe or you don't. It doesn't make you a barbarian or a savage if you believe nor does it make you a satanist or enlightened if you choose not to believe. People make these choices based on a huge number of factors including their upbringing, personal experience, the experiences of others or the inability of one or the other to make an effective case for their beliefs. Torog chooses to believe, you do not. Odds are that this one fact will never change.

"Swear there ain't no heaven and pray there ain't no hell?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonsaiguy

I hate to burst your bubble BA but it really is possible for a virgin to get pregnant and in today's world, even maintain her virginity after childbirth. Now I don't think they were performing C-sections 2000 years ago but virgin conception is a documented medical possibility. If those little man-critters get on the outside of a womans vagina, without any penetration involved, they can and occasionally do (although rarely) make the big salmon run upstream to the egg factory. As for the existance of god, or gods or deities in general, it's the ultimate catch-22 scenario since one can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a supreme being or beings. You either believe or you don't. It doesn't make you a barbarian or a savage if you believe nor does it make you a satanist or enlightened if you choose not to believe. People make these choices based on a huge number of factors including their upbringing, personal experience, the experiences of others or the inability of one or the other to make an effective case for their beliefs. Torog chooses to believe, you do not. Odds are that this one fact will never change. "Swear there ain't no heaven and pray there ain't no hell?"

---

Look, if Joseph, or another man, masturbated and spilled some sperm into Mary's vagina, and she got pregnant, then I'll accept that as a possible reason for her pregnancy sans intercourse . Iâ??ll even accept the possibility of ANY theory of a "virgin birth" that has a scientific basis. I do NOT accept the "religous" story that she was impregnated by a "ghost", holy or otherwise. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers were also non-believers in this nonsense. Credalism and dogmatism are not limited to the Muslim community. The mindset of many religious people is so buried in unquestioning allegiance to a doxology and so intimidating to people who would like to think freely that really vital dialogue is almost impossible

If anybody should be "offended" by opinions, it is the people that do not believe in fairy tales, threats of eternal damnation, and other very aggressive symptoms of mental illnesses caused by belief in the supernatural. The religious fanatics, and people that do not speak out against them, are contributing to the destruction of the world - and I am never going to think that superstition is equivalent to logic and reason. If it hadn't been for religion, we'd probably have had many medical and scientific breakthroughs long before they came into fruition (think stem-cell research).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Hi Torog,

The "dung" that disgusts you is also fertilizer, without which we'd have a lot less food in the world. *

Since there is no evidence that a "virgin" ever gave birth to a baby, the whole story is a fraud anyway. I gave you my version of how this ridiculous story could have happened in December '05. Virgins do NOT have children - and your mythical savior god is the fictitious creation of primitive, sick, superstitious minds for the purpose of controlling people and exploiting the populace. The filth, lies, stupidity, and immorality in the bible(s) has caused FAR more misery and destruction than a pile of elephant shit on a canvas ever could. That goes for the koran, also. The monotheistic faiths are destroying the world - and the sooner the world realizes that, the faster the damage will stop.

*and if abortion and other types of birth control are made illegal, there's even more misery on the way thanks to overpopulation - which religion loves: it goes hand-in-hand with ignorance and fear, keeping the churches in business - doing nothing but creating more misery and stupidity.

---

Howdy BA,

Well..I tell you what..we'll just have to agree to disagree,huh ?

However,I would like an answer as to whether you'd treat a picture of yer mom,the same way the Virgin Mary was treated.

You also didn't address that the 'artist/scatologist' knew that he would offend Christians,he cannot claim ignorance in regards to such--what say you ?

Have a good one ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy BA, Well..I tell you what..we'll just have to agree to disagree,huh ? However,I would like an answer as to whether you'd treat a picture of yer mom,the same way the Virgin Mary was treated.
You also didn't address that the 'artist/scatologist' knew that he would offend Christians,he cannot claim ignorance in regards to such--what say you ? Have a good one ....

---

You want to know what I have to say? First of all, where I come from, you don't say things about people's parents. This can get you in a LOT of trouble. I don't care if you're a "roughneck", "redneck", or whatever you consider yourself, but you've done this several times and I've had enough of it. Both of my parents died a long time ago, and your question does not even deserve an answer.

Torog...

I'll answer that question: No, I would not be offended (besides, I'd be able to sell it for a pretty penny!). I have to admit that I probably wouldn't like it because I'm not that fond of his work. His intention is to expose potential misinterpretations, thereby deconstructing our assumptions. It's more about the materials and cultural constructs than it is specifically about christianity, though christianity's tradition of iconography is part of what makes it "tick." I think it questions the preciousness of iconography in a more genuinely thoughtful way than can ever be claimed of the turban/bomb.

You are correct that it is deliberately "Sensation"-al. The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists. These artists were not new faces put up in a shopfront window but were all well established cross-continent successes: ie, already a part of art history. It's the duty of a museum to be an informative source for those who study or care about the subject. If you want to ban paintings, burn library books while you're at it... and stop public funding of libraries that offer books with contemporary themes you disagree with.

Provocation is nothing new in art nor will it disappear. It strives to expand visual experience as well as intellect. One of the deliberate puzzles of the painting is that it is not NECESSARILY an insult. Of course, you could claim the cartoon (I refer to the most widely published turban/bomb) is a valid piece of cultural criticism. I'd argue (as I'd guess a number of news publishers would) that it's more of a jab than a questioning provocation, with an intention to offend that smothers the very little it has to say intellectually. Of course that judgement's subjectivity adds to the difficultly of the 'whether or not to publish' problem. In any case, someone who cries blasphemous offense at that mary painting then proceeds to wear a turban/bomb t-shirt in the name of "free speech" is a hypocrite. As for thoughtful, provocative questioning of iconography and religion in general: yes, please. (On that point, FLESH, you do NOT agree with O'Really.)

But why listen to me? I'm just one of those homos so grateful you've decided not to beat senseless. Intolerance and stubborn ignorance are things I have less and less patience for as I get older. I never thought Willie Nelson would make me smile as often as he has recently.

"The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists."

I meant to say:
The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists shown.

Thanks for your input, Vince. If you're ever in Brooklyn, we'll show you the town!

Now, let's have a look at the big bad picture (image below) and the Brooklyn Museum where it was shown in 1999.

Brooklyn was nicknamed the City of Churches, in the 19th century, and the Borough of Churches when it became part of NYC. Much of the populace is religious, and didn't utter a peep of protest when this exhibit was shown here in 1999 - just ex-mayor Giuliani, who sought to cut-off funding to the Brooklyn Museum, where the art was shown as part of a tour. At the time, humorist Paul Krassner (founder of the Realist and â??Chicago 8 co-conspiratorâ??) parodied Rudy (who has a slight lisp) on the radio (WBAI New York) with a dead-on Sylvester the Cat expression, "Sufferin' Succotash, itâ??s filttttth!"


From Salon.com:

salon.com > Arts & Entertainment Oct. 2, 1999
URL: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/02/dung
True "Sensation"
The only offensive dung in New York's controversial art exhibit is the mayor's bullshit.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daniel Kunitz

For the last week New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has tried to convince us that he is deeply disturbed about the state of contemporary art and in particular the Brooklyn Museum of Art's mounting of "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection." His credentials as an art critic would be more solid, however, if he had actually taken the trouble to see the exhibit. What set the temperamental mayor off this time was not black Catholic artist Chris Ofili's painting "The Holy Virgin Mary," but rather a photo of the work in the show's catalog. There is, of course, a world of difference between a photo of a painting and the painting itself. But Giuliani is more interested in scoring political points than in carefully considering what he has dismissed as "sick stuff."

Thank God this farce is now in the hands of the courts. As Floyd Abrams, chief legal counsel for the museum, has argued, once the city funds an art institution, any attempt by the mayor to dictate the contents of that institution amounts to censorship. By the way, the "Sensation" catalog clearly states that "the exhibition has received no city, state or federal funding." The museum itself "is supported in part by the City of New York" -- the taxpayers, not the mayor -- "for the maintenance, security and staffing of this City-owned building."

Had Giuliani actually paid a visit to the exhibit's Thursday night preview, he would have seen, in Ofili's "Virgin Mary" painting, a large, exuberantly decorative black Madonna, made sparkling by the addition of map pins, on a fluorescent yellow-orange ground. Its colors, shiny pins, and Mary's benign expression all combine to give the painting a celebratory air. True, cut-out rear views of buttocks with pussies peeping underneath surround the image of Mary -- these are meant to refer to the naked little putti of traditional religious art. Are painted versions of naked cherubic boys less offensive than photographs of parts of mature nude women? Is there only one way to paint a Madonna? And come to think of it, when are we going to see Giuliani's painting of the Virgin, since he said he could do it as well as Ofili?

Oh yes, I forgot the dung. By now we all should know that in Africa, where the dung idea came from, elephant droppings carry none of the horrible connotations that shit carries in New York. Before offending us all with his own bullshit, Giuliani might have troubled himself to learn about the sacred nature of pachyderms and their dung in other parts of the world. Once again, had Giuliani gone to see "Sensation," he would have come across another engaging Ofili canvas called "Afrodizzia." With its multi-hued, rhythmic swirls of paint and shiny pins, "Afrodizzia" features lots of little pictures of black men wearing afros. The painting also contains a number of elephant-dung clumps on which the names of black heroes like Miles Davis, Cassius Clay and Shaft are inscribed. Standing in front of this remarkably affecting, energetic painting, I found it hard to imagine that Ofili is really bashing blacks.
According to the mayor's dung-obsessed logic, Ofili is not only a Catholic basher, he's a racist too.

To this day I still can't figure out how our culture got to the point where people think they have an inalienable right to not be offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vincevaper

Torog...

I'll answer that question: No, I would not be offended (besides, I'd be able to sell it for a pretty penny!). I have to admit that I probably wouldn't like it because I'm not that fond of his work. His intention is to expose potential misinterpretations, thereby deconstructing our assumptions. It's more about the materials and cultural constructs than it is specifically about christianity, though christianity's tradition of iconography is part of what makes it "tick." I think it questions the preciousness of iconography in a more genuinely thoughtful way than can ever be claimed of the turban/bomb.

You are correct that it is deliberately "Sensation"-al. The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists. These artists were not new faces put up in a shopfront window but were all well established cross-continent successes: ie, already a part of art history. It's the duty of a museum to be an informative source for those who study or care about the subject. If you want to ban paintings, burn library books while you're at it... and stop public funding of libraries that offer books with contemporary themes you disagree with.

Provocation is nothing new in art nor will it disappear. It strives to expand visual experience as well as intellect. One of the deliberate puzzles of the painting is that it is not NECESSARILY an insult. Of course, you could claim the cartoon (I refer to the most widely published turban/bomb) is a valid piece of cultural criticism. I'd argue (as I'd guess a number of news publishers would) that it's more of a jab than a questioning provocation, with an intention to offend that smothers the very little it has to say intellectually. Of course that judgement's subjectivity adds to the difficultly of the 'whether or not to publish' problem. In any case, someone who cries blasphemous offense at that mary painting then proceeds to wear a turban/bomb t-shirt in the name of "free speech" is a hypocrite. As for thoughtful, provocative questioning of iconography and religion in general: yes, please. (On that point, FLESH, you do NOT agree with O'Really.)

But why listen to me? I'm just one of those homos so grateful you've decided not to beat senseless. Intolerance and stubborn ignorance are things I have less and less patience for as I get older. I never thought Willie Nelson would make me smile as often as he has recently.

---

Howdy vince,

Thanx for yer considered reply,but I still don't understand how anyone can call such a thing 'art'. I also can't help but wonder if the 'artist' is a hater of women,that there's a big problem with respect towards all women,just under the surface.

I ain't gonna stop listening to what you have to say,just because you're gay,if I did-we'd never be able to work things out for the best for all concerned.

As for Willie,did ya see that he just put out a song about gay cowboys ?

I'm sure that he did so,because he believes that gay folks are people too and deserve to be treated humanely,at the very least.

Have a good one !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy vince,

Thanx for yer considered reply,but I still don't understand how anyone can call such a thing 'art'. I also can't help but wonder if the 'artist' is a hater of women,that there's a big problem with respect towards all women,just under the surface.

I ain't gonna stop listening to what you have to say,just because you're gay,if I did-we'd never be able to work things out for the best for all concerned.

As for Willie,did ya see that he just put out a song about gay cowboys ?

I'm sure that he did so,because he believes that gay folks are people too and deserve to be treated humanely,at the very least.

Have a good one !

---

Either that, or Willie still owes the IRS money..:)
Actually, I would submit that Willie is probably one of the more fair and open minded people in the music biz.

The reason they got so pissed was the fact that any representation of the prophet mohammad or god is against their principals. So we kinda took a shit on a part of who the muslims are.

At least 15 people are dead in Nigeria, thanks to the moslems:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1636729

We don't need the Middle East's oil, or other business. It would be wise to cut them off, before the climate gets worse.