Iranian prez gives thanks for art censorship during Italian visit !!

[as seen on tv]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/europe/hassan-rouhani-italy-visit-nude-statues-capitoline-museums.html?_r=0

Here is where “cultural relativism” takes us. Artistic masterpieces are censored as a precaution, so as not to offend the sensibilities of religious extremists.

The Italian government, to avoid any embarrassing “photo bombs” by nude female statues in the background, had them all covered up during Iranian president Rouhani’s recent visit.

As a reciprocal measure, will the Iranians stop showing those constant TV "reality" shows which claim there was no Nazi holocaust, that it was all made up? I'm not holding my breath . . .

But these are modern times, and history is written by the victors, no? Iran was victorious in getting the west to agree to give it back $150 billion to continue funding terrorism against nations which observe human rights and democracy. They get to call the tune.

So - heads up, fellow citizens: there should be no complaining when the US constitution, the statue of liberty, and the 10 commandments are draped with black tarps during Rouhani’s visit to America.

Oh wait . . . my bad. We’ve already chiseled the 10 commandments off every public building in America.

Well, that’s one thing less we need to do, as we prepare to welcome Islamic extremists.

 

[marvin martian]

Oh wait . . . my bad. We’ve already chiseled the 10 commandments off every public building in America.

Left wing American government agencies use hammer drills, and ISIS uses RPGs. That's really the only difference.

 

[Arkady]

View attachment 29546

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/europe/hassan-rouhani-italy-visit-nude-statues-capitoline-museums.html?_r=0

Here is where “cultural relativism” takes us. Artistic masterpieces are censored as a precaution, so as not to offend the sensibilities of religious extremists.

I think that's awful. Even worse was when Ashcroft censored a nude statue here in the US, not even as a courtesy to a foreign visitor, but just to protect his own delicate sensibilities.

We’ve already chiseled the 10 commandments off every public building in America.

We've done no such thing. The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings. The test comes down to whether the context implies government favoritism for those particular messages, or whether they're more broadly a part of other themes, in a way that doesn't imply a particular endorsement. For example, if you have the ten commandments in a singular display, especially where their text can be read, it seems like the government pushing those particular commandments (including the notion that we're to have no god before Yahweh). If, on the other hand, the ten commandments are part of a frieze where other historical laws are also featured, like Hammurabi's Code, Salon's laws, Rome's Twelve Tables, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and so on, then it doesn't seem like the government is pushing the contents of that particular code, but instead just calling to mind the historical roots from which our laws have grown.

 

[as seen on tv]

Left wing American government agencies use hammer drills, and ISIS uses RPGs. That's really the only difference.

when the taleban came to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's, they immediately began to use 105MM artillery to destroy ancient statues and temples.

now ISIS is doing the same in Iraq/Syrian cities which fall to its troops

 

[as seen on tv]

I think that's awful. Even worse was when Ashcroft censored a nude statue here in the US, not even as a courtesy to a foreign visitor, but just to protect his own delicate sensibilities.



We've done no such thing. The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings. The test comes down to whether the context implies government favoritism for those particular messages, or whether they're more broadly a part of other themes, in a way that doesn't imply a particular endorsement. For example, if you have the ten commandments in a singular display, especially where their text can be read, it seems like the government pushing those particular commandments (including the notion that we're to have no god before Yahweh). If, on the other hand, the ten commandments are part of a frieze where other historical laws are also featured, like Hammurabi's Code, Salon's laws, Rome's Twelve Tables, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and so on, then it doesn't seem like the government is pushing the contents of that particular code, but instead just calling to mind the historical roots from which our laws have grown.

" The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings"

so on whose orders are all those 10 commandments being jackhammered off? or are they photoshopped fakes?

 

[Arkady]

" The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings"

so on whose orders are all those 10 commandments being jackhammered off? or are they photoshopped fakes?

As I explained, it depends on the nature of the display. It's not actually that hard to understand. If the way the commandments are displayed would reasonably be seen as a government endorsement of their contents (e.g., seeming like the government coming down on a particular side of the theological question of whether we should put no god before Yahweh, or whether we must keep the seventh day free of work, or, ironically, about whether graven images like those Ten Commandments displays are allowed), then that is a violation of the First Amendment, and needs to be ended. If, on the other hand, the nature of the display does not come across as the government entangling itself in religious matters, then that's OK. Obviously, since some of the displays were on the wrong side of that display, some will be removed.

 

[RickWA]

I think that's awful. Even worse was when Ashcroft censored a nude statue here in the US, not even as a courtesy to a foreign visitor, but just to protect his own delicate sensibilities.



We've done no such thing. The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings. The test comes down to whether the context implies government favoritism for those particular messages, or whether they're more broadly a part of other themes, in a way that doesn't imply a particular endorsement. For example, if you have the ten commandments in a singular display, especially where their text can be read, it seems like the government pushing those particular commandments (including the notion that we're to have no god before Yahweh). If, on the other hand, the ten commandments are part of a frieze where other historical laws are also featured, like Hammurabi's Code, Salon's laws, Rome's Twelve Tables, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and so on, then it doesn't seem like the government is pushing the contents of that particular code, but instead just calling to mind the historical roots from which our laws have grown.

I was going to invoke the example of Ashcroft as well - which was met with DOZENS of Slate Fray top posts of joyously irreverent lefties in near-ritual celebration of ridicule.

We will now note the ABJECT SILENCE of same in this forum.

IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.

You see, our common commitment to an open society and respect for plurality of tastes is far less important than hyper-partisan politics.

This is a timely example.

(Once again, for the record, Ashcroft is a statist pol and I am far from a fan of his in the political sphere).

 

[Arkady]

I was going to invoke the example of Ashcroft as well - which was met with DOZENS of Slate Fray top posts of joyously irreverent lefties in near-ritual celebration of ridicule.

We will now note the ABJECT SILENCE of same in this forum.

I don't note that. I said "I think that's awful." That's at least two speaking out on it, including the top post. However, obviously, we'd expect a lot less attention to this matter when it's happening in Italy than when it's happening here at home. Also, there's some difference between short-term censorship to accommodate the cultural sensitivities of a foreign guest during a brief visit, and longer-term censorship based on our own Attorney General's sensitivities. Making some concessions for the foreign culture of a guest can seem like hospitality, with things returning to normal the next day, whereas Ashcroft's action seems more like a salvo in a culture war, which obviously is going to rile some people more.

 

[resident_evil]

View attachment 29546

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/europe/hassan-rouhani-italy-visit-nude-statues-capitoline-museums.html?_r=0

Here is where “cultural relativism” takes us. Artistic masterpieces are censored as a precaution, so as not to offend the sensibilities of religious extremists.

The Italian government, to avoid any embarrassing “photo bombs” by nude female statues in the background, had them all covered up during Iranian president Rouhani’s recent visit.

As a reciprocal measure, will the Iranians stop showing those constant TV "reality" shows which claim there was no Nazi holocaust, that it was all made up? I'm not holding my breath . . .

But these are modern times, and history is written by the victors, no? Iran was victorious in getting the west to agree to give it back $150 billion to continue funding terrorism against nations which observe human rights and democracy. They get to call the tune.

So - heads up, fellow citizens: there should be no complaining when the US constitution, the statue of liberty, and the 10 commandments are draped with black tarps during Rouhani’s visit to America.

Oh wait . . . my bad. We’ve already chiseled the 10 commandments off every public building in America.

Well, that’s one thing less we need to do, as we prepare to welcome Islamic extremists.

The clear act of submission to evil by the West. Enough to make you vomit a little.

 

[resident_evil]

As a worker I'd refuse to do this job.

 

[resident_evil]

I think that's awful. Even worse was when Ashcroft censored a nude statue here in the US, not even as a courtesy to a foreign visitor, but just to protect his own delicate sensibilities.



We've done no such thing. The Ten Commandment remain on display in many public buildings. The test comes down to whether the context implies government favoritism for those particular messages, or whether they're more broadly a part of other themes, in a way that doesn't imply a particular endorsement. For example, if you have the ten commandments in a singular display, especially where their text can be read, it seems like the government pushing those particular commandments (including the notion that we're to have no god before Yahweh). If, on the other hand, the ten commandments are part of a frieze where other historical laws are also featured, like Hammurabi's Code, Salon's laws, Rome's Twelve Tables, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and so on, then it doesn't seem like the government is pushing the contents of that particular code, but instead just calling to mind the historical roots from which our laws have grown.

No, the test is if the Ten Commandments have a historical placement on the site. New buildings are not allowed to have them. Now that we are a secular state Christian citizens can with a clear conscience forego their Christian sensibilities at a national level and vote against them while keeping the values for their personal behavior instead. Good money saving idea having a secular state. Thanks. ha ha

 

[as seen on tv]

No, the test is if the Ten Commandments have a historical placement on the site. New buildings are not allowed to have them. Now that we are a secular state Christian citizens can with a clear conscience forego their Christian sensibilities at a national level and vote against them while keeping the values for their personal behavior instead. Good money saving idea having a secular state. Thanks. ha ha

good to know. but many town squares have had "historical" placement of nativity scenes,, for a century or more. And THEY are evidently being sued into oblivion as well.

the same people who have a hatred of Christianity (and judaisim) evidently hold no such animus against islam, however.

 

[resident_evil]

good to know. but many town squares have had "historical" placement of nativity scenes,, for a century or more. And THEY are evidently being sued into oblivion as well.

the same people who have a hatred of Christianity (and judaisim) evidently hold no such animus against islam, however.

But now that they've made us a secular state they can no longer appeal to our Christian virtues to fund their secular charities at the federal level. We can vote, "Hell no!"

You want charity? I gave to my church. Go ask them for a meal and help if you're willing to humble yourself by asking and willing to show gratitude.

 

[RickWA]

I don't note that. I said "I think that's awful." That's at least two speaking out on it, including the top post. However, obviously, we'd expect a lot less attention to this matter when it's happening in Italy than when it's happening here at home. Also, there's some difference between short-term censorship to accommodate the cultural sensitivities of a foreign guest during a brief visit, and longer-term censorship based on our own Attorney General's sensitivities. Making some concessions for the foreign culture of a guest can seem like hospitality, with things returning to normal the next day, whereas Ashcroft's action seems more like a salvo in a culture war, which obviously is going to rile some people more.

It's different.

No, it's not. It may be in Italy and it may be whitewashed by partisans as some sort of deferential gesture, but considering the fact that those who (supposedly) emanate from a movement of openness, artistic expression even-to-the-point-of-offending, and who constantly admonish against allowing others to change who we are/what we're about...this smacks of the standard hyper-political extremist 'target selection'.

No big deal. I don't care what Italy does and I considered Ashcroft to be silly. I'm just not abiding the 'have it both ways' stuff that the self-exempting, perma-adolescent, usual suspects demand (and I'm not referencing you here, Ark - nor the conservative top poster).

There's simply no short term political utility for this instance...and the extremist, intolerant regime to which Italy prostrates itself is considered less an enemy that those who disagree politically in this country. It's a sign of the times.

 

[resident_evil]

I don't note that. I said "I think that's awful." That's at least two speaking out on it, including the top post. However, obviously, we'd expect a lot less attention to this matter when it's happening in Italy than when it's happening here at home. Also, there's some difference between short-term censorship to accommodate the cultural sensitivities of a foreign guest during a brief visit, and longer-term censorship based on our own Attorney General's sensitivities. Making some concessions for the foreign culture of a guest can seem like hospitality, with things returning to normal the next day, whereas Ashcroft's action seems more like a salvo in a culture war, which obviously is going to rile some people more.

You know what the difference is? Meese and Ashcroft covered lady justice for THEIR own sensibilities whereas Italy covered it up for a representative of a dominion religionist in an act of submission.

They should have met the mofo from Iran in some glass covered modern art building if they were interested in being good hosts while maintaining their own sense of vigor in their values.

 

[Arkady]

You know what the difference is? Meese and Ashcroft covered lady justice for THEIR own sensibilities whereas Italy covered it up for a representative of a dominion religionist in an act of submission.

Yes, I spoke of the difference between someone covering a statue briefly as a gesture of hospitality to a visiting foreigner, versus covering it for years based on their personal preferences. I'm not a fan of either, but I can see more justification for doing it briefly to make a guest comfortable.

Back when she was alive, my family bent over backwards to make my hyper-religious mother-in-law comfortable during her visits. My wife would remove any jewelry. We'd hide any alcohol. We'd avoid any secular activities on the Sabbath. We'd plan meals around the religious culinary taboos. I'd do my best to avoid even minor profanities in speech (she'd cringe even about "oh my god"). I'd definitely make sure my copy of "The God Delusion" wasn't in plain sight. And so on. Despite the inconveniences, and the fact I despise religion, I never complained much about it. I'm old-fashioned when it comes to hospitality. I think that if you're going to invite someone into your home, it's your job to make them comfortable. And if those courtesies mean a couple days of complying with religious notions you find silly, and doing so doesn't hurt anyone else, then I do it.

Obviously, it's a little different when a nation invites a foreign dignitary. But some of the same concepts apply. For example, if Bush invited the Saudis to the state dinner at the White House, I guarantee they weren't going to be serving pig. If Laura Bush was going to be in a photo op with the Saudi leaders, it's highly unlikely she'd be wearing the usual skirt that exposed her calves. Instead, expect ankle-length trousers along with long sleeves. There's a whole team in the White House that deals with protocol, which focuses, among other things, on not offending the religious sensibilities of guests. It's all more than a little silly, but as long as nobody's getting hurt, it's silliness we can put up with for the sake of hospitality. For me, censoring art crosses a line, but I can understand the hospitality impulse that led to it.

They should have met the mofo from Iran in some glass covered modern art building

Modern art also includes nudes.

 

[resident_evil]

Yes, I spoke of the difference between someone covering a statue briefly as a gesture of hospitality to a visiting foreigner, versus covering it for years based on their personal preferences. I'm not a fan of either, but I can see more justification for doing it briefly to make a guest comfortable.

Back when she was alive, my family bent over backwards to make my hyper-religious mother-in-law comfortable during her visits. My wife would remove any jewelry. We'd hide any alcohol. We'd avoid any secular activities on the Sabbath. We'd plan meals around the religious culinary taboos. I'd do my best to avoid even minor profanities in speech (she'd cringe even about "oh my god"). I'd definitely make sure my copy of "The God Delusion" wasn't in plain sight. And so on. Despite the inconveniences, and the fact I despise religion, I never complained much about it. I'm old-fashioned when it comes to hospitality. I think that if you're going to invite someone into your home, it's your job to make them comfortable. And if those courtesies mean a couple days of complying with religious notions you find silly, and doing so doesn't hurt anyone else, then I do it.

Obviously, it's a little different when a nation invites a foreign dignitary. But some of the same concepts apply. For example, if Bush invited the Saudis to the state dinner at the White House, I guarantee they weren't going to be serving pig. If Laura Bush was going to be in a photo op with the Saudi leaders, it's highly unlikely she'd be wearing the usual skirt that exposed her calves. Instead, expect ankle-length trousers along with long sleeves. There's a whole team in the White House that deals with protocol, which focuses, among other things, on not offending the religious sensibilities of guests. It's all more than a little silly, but as long as nobody's getting hurt, it's silliness we can put up with for the sake of hospitality. For me, censoring art crosses a line, but I can understand the hospitality impulse that led to it.



Modern art also includes nudes.

What a bullshitter. You didn't do it for your mother-in-law you did it to not get your tally wacker in a vice with your wife.

The difference was stated. You had an Islamist supremacist in the room and you showed your weakness of character when simply changing venue was the more rational act.

 

[Arkady]

What a bullshitter. You didn't do it for your mother-in-law you did it to not get your tally wacker in a vice with your wife.

Nah. My mother-in-law, despite her silly religious sensibilities, was an extremely sweet woman. I didn't want to make her uncomfortable.

The difference was stated

Yes, quite clearly. In one case we have right-wing evangelicals insisting on long-term censorship in line with their own religious taboos, in the other, we have a host using short-term censorship to make a guest comfortable. There is, indeed, a big difference.

You had an Islamist supremacist

You're confused. The guest was Hassan Rouhani. He is a member of the pro-reform faction in Iran, with the backing of ousted reformer Mohammed Khatami, as opposed to the hard-liners of the Council of Guardians and Ahmadinejad. That's not to say he's great. But, within the context of Iran's politics, and the politics of the region overall, he's one of the good guys trying to coax the region out of the dark ages, however slowly. He is, in fact, currently facing off with the hardliners over the issue of whether liberal candidates can be allowed to run for office:

http://www.juancole.com/2016/01/ira...dates-makes-parliamentary-vote-pointless.html

More info:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-election-idUSBRE95A09O20130611