I saw Jesus killing Santa Claus...

[quote name='darkslime']this reminds me of how cool creative and useful it is to embed a youtube video of something someone just said and make the page load slower.[/QUOTE]
You're sarcasm would work better if someone said something like "I just ****ed in my pants", and someone else embed the multi-million viewed Lonely Island music video, which everyone has already seen.

The video I put up isn't considered very popular, and being a South Park fan I wanted anyone who read this thread to both see it and understand zeze's post.
 
*sigh* Try to be short and sweet. So many responses.

1) The "this is art/my expression" excuse is a seal of approval of assholes everywhere, usually thrust out when they know they have no proper explanation; equivalent to pleading the fifth except with preconceived intent.

2) Jesus killing people = awesome religious fuckshittery at its finest. Way to miss the point AND broadcast your ignorance ten fold in the name of some retarded DURRSYMBOLISM.

3) There is no war on Christianity's expression of this holiday. None none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none. No more than Democratic gun grabs, Death Panels, or Sarah Palin's sense of irony. These are all products of deranged minds incapable of dealing with reality, and choosing to hide in a warm shelter they've constructed themselves.

4) Christians help make this holiday commercial on their own just as much as all the nasty mean atheists/agnostics/non-Christians, and might arguably be most to blame.

5) Commercialism is not inherently terrible - if you're failing to keep the spirit of the season you deem as the "true" reason alive, then that is YOUR fuckup. This bullshit about reminding other people "what the truth is" is stupid - they aren't your concern, no matter what their religious affiliations are.

6) Stupid man is stupid.

7) Call the Jesus statue Ted Nugent and you conveniently remove controversy AND still get to gotcha everybody. But you aren't smart enough for that. Please see #6.

8) Being a dick like this doesn't get your point across.

9) I hate stupid people.

10) Holiday expressionism is a retarded thing to get angry about. Just like people wailing against store employees saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." It astounds me that Christians are unable to understand that this is an affirmation of faith on some level, meaning that if there is a comparable statement in, say, Satanism, they'd throw a fit if they heard a Best Buy employee utter hail Greats in the name of the hoofed one. Which is to say, you don't get how whining about it entails that other people in contention with you ought to be able to whine as well about their religious dogma weapons of choice.

11) In reference to 10 - I think everyone should man up, shut up, not care about random strangers making minimum wage saying ANYTHING in public, because at that point you are literally saying "my life is SO great that I have to INVENT shit to be angry about."

This whole season just makes the soup-of-insane-shitholes boil over with madness, which - in great irony - is 100000000% contrary to their supposed "true reason for the season." If you really believed in Jesus's teachings, NONE of this sort of whiny bullshit would exist, and instead you'd open your arms and houses to those you deemed "lost" in a show of brotherly love.

But hey, why do that when you can just troll around.
 
Guy is a total ass. I generally support property rights and look down on intrusive residential regulations, but guys like this are a good example of why it's important to have at least a few ground rules for a community.
 
I agree with so much of what you wrote Strell. :)

While I do understand the point this guy is trying to make, he's crazy-insane and lost his point some time ago.

But my favorite part of the story is where the neighbors called the police.

Don't the police have anything better to do than investigate offensive lawn ornaments?

And a petition! Whoo-hoo!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I agree with so much of what you wrote Strell. :)

While I do understand the point this guy is trying to make, he's crazy-insane and lost his point some time ago.

But my favorite part of the story is where the neighbors called the police.

Don't the police have anything better to do than investigate offensive lawn ornaments?

And a petition! Whoo-hoo![/QUOTE]
Hmmm, wonder if i could use this to get rid of my neighbor's lawn gnome.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I agree with so much of what you wrote Strell. :)

While I do understand the point this guy is trying to make, he's crazy-insane and lost his point some time ago.

But my favorite part of the story is where the neighbors called the police.

Don't the police have anything better to do than investigate offensive lawn ornaments?

And a petition! Whoo-hoo![/QUOTE]

I'm no lawyer - so maybe you can inform us.

Would this be a better matter for civil court? I always thought that was primarily for business disputes.

Regardless, there needs to be repercussions when people violate a contract.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A contract violation is a business dispute.

What contract is being violated here?[/QUOTE]

Residential regulations.

Do you own? I do and there's a contract between me and the community that I must abide by. If I want to change it I'm free to lobby the bldg reps or run for a comittee chair myself.
 
What this "art" represents in terms of (1) craftsmanship and (2) the intellect required to make a point/statement in a body of work is disastrous.

There's no subtlety, no humor, no *craft* - just the power of the mind and intellect replaced with the subtlety of a cannon blast in the dead of night.
 
[quote name='camoor']Residential regulations.

Do you own? I do and there's a contract between me and the community that I must abide by. If I want to change it I'm free to lobby the bldg reps or run for a comittee chair myself.[/QUOTE]

What exactly is in the residential regulations within this guy's community that he cannot put up holiday decorations?

Because, from the looks of that video, several others are in violation as well.
 
He can't hide behind the 1st amendment forever because it does not protect anything deemed to be offensive. This probably won't go to court because it sounds like the guy already gave up and took the stuff down, but a judge could say that since it is a public display easily seen by children, it is offensive and has to be removed.
 
[quote name='momouchi']He can't hide behind the 1st amendment forever because it does not protect anything deemed to be offensive. This probably won't go to court because it sounds like the guy already gave up and took the stuff down, but a judge could say that since it is a public display easily seen by children, it is offensive and has to be removed.[/QUOTE]

What?

There's two quotes that go well here...
"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all."

"Indeed, if 'free speech' means anything, it must protect the expression of unpopular ideas."

Basically, we don't need the first amendment to protect speech everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the speech that you and I don't agree with - or, in this case, expression.

Now, this guy is an idiot - don't get me wrong. IMHO, I think his display is more about getting attention than getting his "message" out. But it's his property and the display was not vulgar (which is very different than offensive) and from anything I can gather about the situation not illegal.
 
[quote name='momouchi']He can't hide behind the 1st amendment forever because it does not protect anything deemed to be offensive.[/QUOTE]

If that were the case, it wouldn't protect anything. This is the Constitution we're talking about, not the U.N.
 
Yeah I meant vulgar, but this could be considered vulgar. Vulgar meaning indecent; obscene; lewd.

The Supreme Court is allowed to deem something vulgar and it will not be protected under the freedom of expression clause in the first amendment. While it is highly unlikely any case like this would reach the Supreme Court, or even a Court of Appeals, it is possible. A judge's interpretation of the Constitution can completely change the mean of a phrase. This is why certain pornographic material (ie child) is illegal. It has been deemed vulgar and therefore not protected. It all depends on what the justices decide.
 
I'm not saying I'm for or against the man's display, personally I don't care. But I was making the point that he could have lost in a court of law and been forced to remove the display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top