Derico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4233 posts, RR: 13 Posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
As 2009 comes in a few hours, this year there will many celebrations and parties in cities and towns all over Argentina. In some cities there are particular or peculiar traditions.
One of them La Plata, where there is a longtime tradition of neighbors getting together to create large, even elaborate, sculptures, sometimes running well into the thousands of $. Planning for these begins almost a year before in some cases, around February. Then on Dec 31, the sculptures and artworks are placed in street corners all over the city. One of them will be this one:
Within a few hours, as the city fireworks show reaches it's height, this entire representation of Jesus Christ and the Disciples on the Last Supper will be nothing but a heap of ashes, just as all the other works of art destined to this peculiar celebration of large bond fires to bring in the new year. It will burn to the ground in a huge fire.
Of course, this particular case has created a lot of controversy, even protests by some neighbors in the area. They have even petitioned city hall to prohibit it's burning in public, and flyers have been distributed all over the area urging people to boycott watching the burning if the authorities do not intervene to stop it. La Plata authorities have already said the work has been inspected and fulfills regulations and safety guidelines, so that there are no grounds to ban it, and said they certainly will not intervene on a basis that could be construed as limiting freedom of expression.
Critics point out that if a figure of Abraham, Moses, or of Muhammad or Buddha was burned, the INADI (the government's anti-discrimination commission), would ''certainly not allow such a display. It's only because it is a Catholic and Christian scene that nothing is done'', a neighbor opposing the sculpture said.
So, is this offensive or is it freedom of expression? Any Christians and non-Christian here care to give any thoughts? My belief is freedom of speech. And yes, that includes burning flags, and figures of religious motives, including Jewish, Islamic, Eastern or whatever religion, or non-religious too.
Of course I personally would never do it and find this particular case and other incidents like it ridiculous, but can't say I would prohibit it.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
As a Catholic, it is offensive and it is freedom of expression. They'll just probably go to hell in the afterlife or at least some purgatory.
Derico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4233 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1528 times:
I can understand that. I'm not a practicing religious person, but I have to say when those opposed say that if it was another religious figure the one being burned it would create far more sensitivity from the authorities, they are probably right.
Perhaps it's the fact that in pluralistic societies there is a pattern or undercurrent that states the minority must be protected from the majority, and that the majority needs no protection. I could be wrong though.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
QXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting Derico (Thread starter): Any Christians and non-Christian here care to give any thoughts?
As a practicing and sold out Christian...
I do find this very offensive. Does it change the fact that they can do it? No, they have the freedom to express what they would like. What I would potition or beg for is that they do it the privacy of their back yard or somewhere else and not out in public. This would be for my sake and probably for others.
As said earlyer, this does offend me but I can not stop them. Only government.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1492 times:
As a christian I find this also very very offensive. This shouldnt be allowed at all. Okay I know about freedom and all of that, but still there is a limit somewhere.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4943 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1456 times:
As a christian, I honestly don't care. They can do what they want with it. It's not like their forcing me -or anyone else- to participate. Not allowing this would make us radicals, just like the nutjobs that called upon a holy war when those cartoons came up offending the Muslim religion.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7882 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1447 times:
I don't know the motivation behind the exercise. It does not appear to me to be intended as a slight or attack on Christianity. It's simply a tradition of building (apparently with a lot of love and expense) these representations, and at the end of the Christmas season, you mark the event by burning the whole thing.
As a Catholic, personally I see no problem with it. Kinda strange, but that seems to be they way they choose to honor the holiday.
It is very different than if it was meant as an attack or an insult. If someone put together some cheap rag figurines and set them alight as a protest against Christianity (or any other faith) then I would say that is offensive.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1447 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5): Does the burning of these figures affect your relationship with your god?
Well then you can ask the same to the muslims when the cartoons came up.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1424 times:
Quoting Derico (Thread starter): So, is this offensive or is it freedom of expression?
It is both.
Quoting Derico (Thread starter): Critics point out that if a figure of Abraham, Moses, or of Muhammad or Buddha was burned, the INADI (the government's anti-discrimination commission), would ''certainly not allow such a display.
I would certainly like to see a test case.
It seems that Christianity and similar faiths (Mormonism) are among the last safe things to be publicly mocked, derided, or degraded. Usually the worst abuse comes from those who clamor the loudest for tolerance and acceptance.
QXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1398 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 5): Does the burning of these figures affect your relationship with your god?
No it does not. But that does not mean that I can not be offended by it.
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 6): Not allowing this would make us radicals
That is true. That is why they can do it and if I had my way, I would ask them to please not make it a public display just out of curtisy.
If you want to take it to the extream, Christians that were burned at the stake, thrown into lion pits, crucified, etc. etc. etc. and there were not over thrown governments or radicals brought up because of it. Persecution is persecution. Not an act for war or a killing spree. Things like the burning of this statue to persectution of death is never seen as an act for some war in Scripture.
PSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3006 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
An exhibition by simple minds, who as usual, feel threaten by those who don't.I agree with those who said that it is really an exhibition of non-tolerant extremists individuals.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12): So why should you be offended. What is not offensive to you is offensive to someone else... such as burning a cow.
That statement makes no sense. So what is offensive to one should only be determined after consultation with others? He should no longer have the freedom of his own thoughts?
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, RR: 34 Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1282 times:
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13): That statement makes no sense. So what is offensive to one should only be determined after consultation with others? He should no longer have the freedom of his own thoughts?
It makes perfect sense... I am merely pointing out that it is all relative - especially where religion is concerned. And I didn't mention anything about freedom of thoughts!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1272 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14): It makes perfect sense... I am merely pointing out that it is all relative - especially where religion is concerned. And I didn't mention anything about freedom of thoughts!
No, but according to your earlier statement, he should not be offended.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8422 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
Hmmm....I don't think this is offensive and I'm a Christian. If people want to go to the effort and expense to create such a large representation of The Last Supper and then burn it, why should Christians be upset about it?
Derico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4233 posts, RR: 13 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1168 times:
The local newspaper El Dia has lots of pictures of the dozens of works that were burned last night. Even Troy burned again!
I can't find one of the Last Supper yet. Last I heard, a lawyer might get involved in suing the city, arguing the burnings take place in a taxpayer zone (the city sreets), which are lit and paved by public money, therefore the taxpayers offended by this had their rights violated, since he says they street will be cleaned up by city workers... payed for by, the public.
That's in theory a reasonable argument, but there are many times when religious symbols are also placed in the public street (nativities, crosses, minorahs), so another lawyer could come in and claim the city is sanctioning those religions. That's why I don't think such a case, even if it went to a court, would win. Not a lawyer though!
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
I can be offended by anything of my choosing. If it goes against my morals and standards, I have every right to be offended. I dont have the right to go hurt him because I am offended though. Planemaker, I am sure you are offended by things so your comment is kind of irronious.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 15): Telling someone they should not be offended is telling them how to think on a subject.
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 16): Standards are different all around the US... let alone all around the world. That is a fact.
So would it not make sense then, based upon your comment here, that peoples standards also produce convictions and things which cause someone to be offended. If your standard is not met, you could just be offended.
Fact: People get offended
Not A Fact: People dont get offended
QXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 21): Please do not be selective and distort my point. If you quote me... please quote me completely so my statement is in context
SOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3082 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 6): Not allowing this would make us radicals, just like the nutjobs that called upon a holy war when those cartoons came up offending the Muslim religion.
I am not defending those crazy people,but there is a difference between the two.One is meant as a celebration the other was meant as an insult to a religion.Big difference.
I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
25 EZEIZA: Correct 100%, but the point remains in not being extremists. Even if it were intended as an offensive celebration, it is only offensive if you allow
26 SOBHI51: Correct.But celebration can be taken both ways.Fun and or Offensive.But calling both my Prophet and my religion terrorist and other insults can only
Sponsor Message: 
From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4233 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, 
From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2402 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5544 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 823 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3082 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
