 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2006"In the Name of God"
Cathedral of Copenhaguen. http://www.aidoh.dk/phpdocs/photo/showPhoto.php?photoID=11665&quality=web http://www.aidoh.dk/new-struct/Happenings-and-Projects/2006/In-the-Name-of-God/C athedral.htm Excerpt from the site: "In the Name of God" "The copper sculpture depicts a pregnant teenager in natural size crucified on a big cross. It is a harsh comment to the impact of the fundamentalist branch of the Christian church..." > Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > crucified on a big cross. It is a harsh comment to the impact of the > fundamentalist branch of the Christian church..." <> The copper sculpture depicts a pregnant teenager in natural size crucified on a big cross. It is a harsh comment to the impact of the fundamentalist branch of the Christian church, with President Bush and the Pope in the lead, on contraception and sexual education. Women, including teenagers, bear the brunt of the disastrous consequences of the ban on condoms based on ´Christian´ morality. <> I searched for the word "adoption" on this site and came up empty. Although the sculpture is certainly provocative, I'm not aware of anyone here who opposes access to condoms or sexual education. Quite the contrary, I'm sure. So, what's the purpose of posting it to this adoption newgroup, snookums? A pregnant teenager in this country is less likely relinquish her baby than her older, more educated counterpart. She's 50+ times more likely to keep her child and 33+ times more likely to seek an abortion than to relinquish her baby for adoption, despite the best efforts of the Pope and GWB to deny her access to condoms and sexual education. Perhaps you could petition the artist to rename the sculpture "Di On The Cross". I've got a couple of holocaust websites if you need them. Dad http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/12/01/2576853-ap.html Danish artist raises eyebrowns on World AIDS Day By JAN M. OLSEN COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) - A provocative Danish artist raised a statue of a crucified pregnant teenager outside Copenhagen's Lutheran cathedral to mark World AIDS Day on Friday Jens Galschioet said the sculpture was meant as a protest against Christian fundamentalists and the idea that "God allows nothing but chastity and unprotected sex." He said he chose a pregnant teenager for his artwork "because they are the hardest hit by AIDS." Galschioet received permission from city authorities to erect the statue, named "In the Name of God," outside the cathedral. The statue raised few eyebrows in the secular Danish capital. Even the clergy appeared unmoved. "It's a good supplement to the crucifix we have inside the church," said Anders Gadegaard, the cathedral's dean. Galschioet said he would try to have copies of his statue displayed next year in Nairobi, Kenya, the Vatican and Dallas. In the 1990s, Galschioet set up statues with a pig's head in various European cities to address what he called growing racism and intolerance in Europe. In 1999, Hong Kong university students put up another of his sculptures honouring the victims of the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Dad I agree with the concept. There should indeed be a harsh comment made '... to the impact of the fundamentalist branch of the Christian church, with President Bush and the Pope in the lead, on contraception and sexual education...' All of which has not a lot to do with adoption. But much to do with AIDS throughout the world. There are lot of babies born to teenage girls in Africa and the third world who are born HIV pos. That is down to the wrong moral attitude of the Church, isn't that the point Jens Galschiot is trying to make? It's certainly not about forced adoption in the past as Di and her cronies seem to think. And, good protestant girls around these parts would have found it difficult to buy condoms. That at a time when GWB was still in short pants. In the 1950s and 60s the whole of society's attitudes were that no good girl should be having sex before marriage, therefore no need for contraception to be available to unmarried women. I expect Di will be back shortly to insist that it was conceived, sculpted, cast and erected by Origins Inc or one of its tawdry little offshoots. Everything else is down them, why not this. Robin * >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >including teenagers, bear the brunt of the disastrous consequences of >the ban on condoms based on "Christian" morality. <> <above text left in place for context> >She's 50+ times more likely to keep her child and 33+ times more likely >to seek an abortion than to relinquish her baby for adoption, despite >the best efforts of the Pope and GWB to deny her access to condoms and >sexual education. Perhaps you could petition the artist to rename the >sculpture "Di On The Cross". These stats, I'm assuming, are USA based, right? The comment left in context above would surely MORE than apply to what GWB and his ilk have done to our cousins in 3rd world countries...unfortunately, I fail to note if there was mention of AIDS? No condoms! insists GWB, et al., along with preaching the grand gospel of abstinence, and we all know what a whale of a success that program has been. At its source this has nothing to do with adoption, so you're right on that score, Dad. <snip> >Dad pb... > Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "The copper sculpture depicts a pregnant teenager in natural size > crucified on a big cross. Di, is that you nailed up there on the cross? Kathy <snip> > > Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > <snip> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ><snip> Could any one of us, Kathy. pb... > >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > pb... Speak for yourself. Kathy >> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Kathy I believe that's exactly what I did, Kathy. > >> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I believe that's exactly what I did, Kathy. "Could any one of us, Kathy" ? Maybe you could rephrase it to read, "That could be me nailed up there on the cross"? Fwiw, my comments to Di were warrented because she compared the plight of HIV victims to her own plight as uh, umm,...I think a *forgotten mother*. Kathy > > >> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "Could any one of us, Kathy" ? Maybe you could rephrase it to read, > "That could be me nailed up there on the cross"? Exactly, Kathy. When you said "Speak for yourself", you could have been speaking for me :-) > Fwiw, my comments to Di were warrented because she compared the plight > of HIV victims to her own plight as uh, umm,...I think a *forgotten > mother*. I share your feelings about the co-opting too. Any concievable bandwagon will do for Di. (and I don't even think this thing works as a political statement, let alone art) > Kathy > > > >> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > When you said "Speak for yourself", you could have been speaking for me > :-) :-) > > Fwiw, my comments to Di were warrented because she compared the plight > > of HIV victims to her own plight as uh, umm,...I think a *forgotten > > mother*. > > I share your feelings about the co-opting too. Any concievable > bandwagon will do for Di. Yep. > (and I don't even think this thing works as a political statement, let > alone art) No, I don't either. What a precious waste of metal. Kathy > > >> >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "Could any one of us, Kathy" ? Maybe you could rephrase it to read, > "That could be me nailed up there on the cross"? Exactly, Kathy. You said, "Speak for yourself". But you could have been speaking for me :-) > Fwiw, my comments to Di were warrented because she compared the plight > of HIV victims to her own plight as uh, umm,...I think a *forgotten > mother*. I share your feelings about the co-opting too. Any concievable bandwagon will do for Di. (and I don't even think this thing works as a political statement, let alone art) > Kathy > Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > crucified on a big cross. It is a harsh comment to the impact of the > fundamentalist branch of the Christian church..." Yawn. Been there, saw the crucifix in the jug of urine. Big deal. You want something that will really offend, something really avant-garde? After all, that's the definition of art these days, speaking truth to power and offending the official political structure. Here goes -- A copper sculpture of a pregnant teen half-buried in a pit being stoned by a group of middle-eastern men, in a harsh comment to the impact of the fundamentalist branch of Islam. That won't happen. It'll never be done. Why? Because a fundamentalist Christian won't behead you. steve >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > steve The only blow up clinics and shoot doctors. Marley >>> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Marley Mind you, if Di had her way as a fundamentalist antiadoptionist http://groups.msn.com/ForgottenMothers-/general.msnw?action=get_message&mvie w=1&ID_Message=50085 <quote> These stories need to be exposed and the culprits flogged within an inch of their lives.... .... I hope that social worker burns in hell. And the sooner the better..... preferably while she is still alive and tied to a stake. <end quote> Now where does that imagery come from? I reckon Di and her cronies from 'Forgotten Mothers' wouldn't mind a few stonings and crucifixions if they could cast the first stone, hammer the nails in. Robin * > > Here goes -- > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > The only blow up clinics and shoot doctors. And remember the response to Eric Rudolph who gunned down an abortion doctor? I do -- A FBI task force led by people appointed by George Bush hunted Eric Rudolph down. A Department of Justice led by people appointed by George Bush gathered the evicdence. A federal prosecutor appointed by George Bush brought him to trial. A judge appointed by George Bush ensured a fair trial and an appropriate sentence. A federal prison run by people appointed by George Bush has him jugged today. Damn that George Bush. The clinic bombers? Caught, tried, convicted, jugged. It's sad to see you buy the progressive mantra, I always thought you to be an anarchist republican. steve >> > Here goes -- >> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > steve And you don't think that the likes of Eric Rudolph and Paul Hill have big support with anti-aborts? Think again. There's whole "ministries" whose sole task is to aid and comfort them. The more "moderate" folks, like OSA, OR-W, etc make public statements against clinic violence but they support it clandestinely and quietly. One of our local doctors has put up a webpage where he documents clinic patients, posts their license plate numbers and also the personal information of abortion providers. It's one step behind the Nuremburg Files. This doctor also believes that abortion providers should be executed under God's law--not to mention gays and lesbians. I asked him once what happens if somebody takes him seriously and whacks a provider. He told me that's not his problem. These whiteboy Christian fundies are terrorists, but no much will be done about them. They hate Bush, too, whom they consider pro-abortion and pro-queer. the line goes from Dobson and Robertson right to Rudolph and Hill (Hill was associated with Regents) and the lesser scum. like Michael Bray, Fr. Marx, Johathan O'Toole, The Spingnolas, and Neal Horsley. Marley >>> > Here goes -- >>> > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >Marley Leave it to our Marley to be so well informed about these gutter sucks. My only thought, alas, as I read steve's lil list was "My, goodnees! We surely did spend a whole ton of $$$$$$ on that pissant murdering SOB" ...and will continue to do so until his last putrid breath. pb... >>> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Marley Bless you. >> Cathedral of Copenhaguen. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Because a fundamentalist Christian won't behead you. No, they'll just beat you to death :P  SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 > > Here goes -- > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, they'll just beat you to death :P I must have missed that event, have a reference? I don't recall a fundamental Christian beating anyone to death after a brave, brave artist put a crucifix in a jug of urine and called it 'art'. steve >> > Here goes -- >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fundamental Christian beating anyone to death after a brave, brave > artist put a crucifix in a jug of urine and called it 'art'. So what? If you notice I didn't mention a specific incident. SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> Newsgroups: alt.adoption Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:00 PM Subject: Re: "In the Name of God" >>> > Here goes -- >>> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> fundamental Christian beating anyone to death after a brave, brave >> artist put a crucifix in a jug of urine and called it 'art'. And that's right where fundies have dunked it. Only they call it politics. Marley > >> > Here goes -- > >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So what? If you notice I didn't mention a specific incident. Hokay, so mention one. It helps to have one example (preferably more) if you're going to accuse a whole group of people of beating others to death. steve Steve White wrote: > > Cathedral of Copenhaguen. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > That won't happen. It'll never be done. Maybe not. I'd love to see it, though, if only as part of a larger history of humanity's ability to brutalize its members. We can represent all nations, each era, and every religious belief in a pantheon of pain. > Why? > > Because a fundamentalist Christian won't behead you. I'm not sure of the link between the two, Steve. I'd say the reason we won't see your particular concept in bronze (copper is so tacky) is that it doesn't happen here and an artist foolish enough to create it in an area where this occurs wouldn't be creating anything else. Der J. > steve > > Here goes -- > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > represent all nations, each era, and every religious belief in a > pantheon of pain. Which would never be done by our brave artist who subscribes to the progressive mantra -- -- all cultures are equal except our own, which is inferior. That's why he'll slam a fundamentalist Christian but not an Islamicist. > > Why? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is that it doesn't happen here and an artist foolish enough to create > it in an area where this occurs wouldn't be creating anything else. Link is pretty obvious to me. Fundamental Christians sometimes can be foolish (I kill snakes, I don't handle them), but overall they're pretty harmless. They recognize the secular and the religious spaces and see each as separate. Our jihadi buddies don't see that difference whatsoever. Insult their prophet, insult their ways? Beheading, baby. Nothing less will do. And our brave artist knows this. Which is why, in the safety and comfort of the western world, he'll make his inane 'statement' about fundamental Christians and garner the applause of knuckleheaded art critics and hippie chicks. But he won't dare insult those who just might, possibly, conceivably, kill him. That wouldn't do. And it might happen here; witness the response to the Danish newspaper that published a few tacky cartoons. Moral courage isn't something you generally find in today's art. steve >Steve White wrote: > > Moral courage isn't something you generally find in today's art. Do you think art should be judged on moral considerations rather than or at least as much as aesthetic ones? > >Steve White wrote: > > > > Moral courage isn't something you generally find in today's art. > > > Do you think art should be judged on moral considerations rather than > or at least as much as aesthetic ones? Equally so, if it purports to be a form of social criticism. J. > > >Steve White wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Equally so, if it purports to be a form of social criticism. It sets itself up for that, but I also think ultimately you still have to judge the effectiveness of art, even *as social criticism* on aesthetic grounds. And IMO as a piece of art this doesn't have impact. > > > >Steve White wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > aesthetic grounds. And IMO as a piece of art this doesn't have > impact. Oh, we're in agreement on that. steve > >Steve White wrote: > > > > Moral courage isn't something you generally find in today's art. > > > Do you think art should be judged on moral considerations rather than > or at least as much as aesthetic ones? A fair number of artists today claim to be the ones with the superior morality. Okay, as J says, what do I know? Certain my aesthetics are different from theirs. But that's your claim, Mister Artist, sir, how 'bout proving it? steve > > > Here goes -- > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Our jihadi buddies don't see that difference whatsoever. Insult their > prophet, insult their ways? Beheading, baby. Nothing less will do. Hadn't occurred to me that a western artist would be terribly concerned about being killed by jihadists, but what do I know. > And our brave artist knows this. Which is why, in the safety and comfort > of the western world, he'll make his inane 'statement' about fundamental [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Moral courage isn't something you generally find in today's art. Why limit it to art? I don't see much evidence of moral courage in society generally, except among the fringe elements, right, left, and in orbit. Go along and get along is the motto of the day. J. > steve > > Link is pretty obvious to me. Fundamental Christians sometimes can be > > foolish (I kill snakes, I don't handle them), but overall they're pretty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hadn't occurred to me that a western artist would be terribly concerned > about being killed by jihadists, but what do I know. Last time I looked, the Netherlands were considered part of the Western world. So, what do you think Theo van Gogh's _next_ movie will be about? - Jordan > > > Link is pretty obvious to me. Fundamental Christians sometimes can be > > > foolish (I kill snakes, I don't handle them), but overall they're pretty [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Jordan As I said, but what do I know? I wasn't familier with van Gogh's story, but from what I read just now even he wasn't terribly concerned about the results of his work. Wrongly, it seems. "Working from a script written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, van Gogh created the 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies; telling the stories of four abused Muslim women. The title itself, "Submission", is the translation of the word "Islam" in English. In the film, the women's naked bodies are veiled with semi-transparent shrouds as they kneel in prayer, telling their stories as if they are speaking to Allah. Qur'anic verses unfavourable to women are painted on their bodies in Arabic. After the movie was released in 2004, both van Gogh and Hirsi Ali received death threats. Van Gogh did not take these very seriously and refused any protection - reportedly telling Hirsi Ali: "Who would want to kill the village idiot?"" For those as ignorant as I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) J. Btw, his next film will be "Visions of Hell". Steve White wrote: > Here goes -- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why? Actually IIRC, because they won't stone her while she's pregnant. They'll wait until after she has the baby. Also because Islam generally prohibits representation of the human form. (Though for some reason there's a whole genre of miniature painting in India that flourished during the Moghul rule under court patronage.) > Steve White wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually IIRC, because they won't stone her while she's pregnant. > They'll wait until after she has the baby. They won't do it then, either. > Also because Islam generally prohibits representation of the human > form. (Though for some reason there's a whole genre of miniature > painting in India that flourished during the Moghul rule under court > patronage.) Not quite the point. There's an entire group of Christians, the iconoclasts, that don't like depiction of the human form. They don't behead anyone over it (not for the past ten centuries, anyways). steve > In article <1165544048.134432.327...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > iconoclasts, that don't like depiction of the human form. They don't > behead anyone over it (not for the past ten centuries, anyways). The Amish are included in this group of Christians that don't like depiction of the human form. That includes tourists who take pictures of them. I don't recall the Amish beheading any tourists lately, although almost all of them snap away the first chance they get. The Amish community showed incredible grace a few months ago when they attended the funeral of the man who shot to death four of their children. Dad > > In article <1165544048.134432.327...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Dad Oh absolutely, Dad. They showed what forgiveness and Christianity is all about. I'm not sure I could do the same if this had been one of my children/grand children who were murdered in cold blood. Kathy > > In article <1165544048.134432.327...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > painting in India that flourished during the Moghul rule under court > > > patronage.) > > Not quite the point. There's an entire group of Christians, the > > iconoclasts, that don't like depiction of the human form. They don't > > behead anyone over it (not for the past ten centuries, anyways). Actually, I was arguing that this was one reason such a statue would be unlikely. I wasn't actually attempting a discussion on relative merits of religious belief. I personally think all religions have a potential for violence among their followers, and fortunately only a minority of the followers actually are violent. > The Amish community showed incredible grace a few months ago when they > attended the funeral of the man who shot to death four of their > children. Completely true. Amazing grace. > > > > Here goes -- > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > they attended the funeral of the man who shot to death four of their > children. Remember the Amish girl that asked the killer to kill her first, so as to try to save the others? What a brave young woman filled with grace. I can only hope to have her kind of courage. I don't think I do. steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.