Catholics outraged that sculpture of clergyman looks like a penis

[Wonk]

AP - October 2, 2003

TOPEKA, Kan. - A sculpture from Longmont that depicts a Catholic clergyman in a cap bearing resemblance to a penis has drawn angry criticism from people who want it removed from the Washburn University campus.

The piece called "Holier Than Thou" is the work of Jerry Boyle of Longmont. It depicts the upper body of a heavyset man with a contorted face, wearing a tall ecclesiastical cap known as a miter.



(snip)

Boyle said he was glad his work was attracting attention.

"I like controversy," he said. "For a piece of art, if people want to laugh with it, laugh at it or spit on it, that's OK. I just don't like them to walk by it." Boyle said he created the sculpture as a "humorous piece" that was "not intended to be mean-spirited," and that he hoped people would form their own opinions about its meaning.

more...

:eyes:

[Blue_Chill]

1. HAHAHA!

That is some funny shit!

lol! :D

[ShaneGR]

57. Yeah, really funny if you like hate-based art

Depict all catholic leadership as fat little yoda-looking men with penis looking hats. Even the artist said he hoped people spit on it.
Yeah, that's really funny.

[Forkboy]

69. The arts not so funny

but some people's reaction to it is.

[thebigidea]

72. hate-based art?

Uh, slippery slope here.

So if I were to make wacky busts of some insane ayatollah, that'd be... ok? Bad? Good?

Satirical postcards depicting L. Ron Hubbard. Ok? Not allowed? Hate?

[Forkboy]

74. I'm more amused by the little Yoda-like comparison sgr2 makes

because we all know that busts of people are full body representations :D

[Blue_Chill]

155. Dude relax

It's a funny looking statue. So what? Art challenges people and beliefs all the time.

Just enjoy a good laugh, it means nothing to me and I'm Catholic.

[IndianaGreen]

150. What a dickhead

I meant the picture. Oh, that was precious!

And it is art! Love it or hate it!

The fact that there is a controversy about it shows that the artists succeeded.

[knight_of_the_star]

166. ROFLMFAO!

SWEET! That is a great pun!

[_NorCal_D_]

157. Yes,

That's one ugly, scary looking statue!
:scared:

[SharonAnn]

2. It's perfect!

The miter means hierarchical, patriarchal power.

The penis is the symbol of that.

Perfect!

[_NorCal_D_]

173. Yeah,

that's one way to think of it!

[karlschneider]

3. Yikes. That is one ugly piece of stuff. And it doesn't look like any

penis I've ever seen.......
:wtf:
:eyes:

[shrike]

147. Glad I'm not the only one

I would have never looked at that thing and thought "penis" unless the article hadn't pointed out the "likeness." Guess my mind isn't as dirty as I thought it was.

[youngred]

4. LOL

That is quite amusing.

[sleipnir]

128. From The City that Brought You FRED PHELPS!!!!!!

[roguevalley]

5. could be a Klingon penis. :)

Reminds me of the figures in Alice in Wonderland. Didn't she play
a chess game there? This could be the bishop.

RV, a Bishop who is sort of an authority on bishops. ;)

[kalashnikov]

6. I think its pretty clever, but

would I think it was funny if it was a rabbi with a penis/hat on his head or an imam caricatured in the same way? I dont think so, regardless of whether the sculptor was jewish or muslim. I dont see why it is ok for it to be a catholic priest caricatured in such a way. Also, I think it's one thing to have it on private property but when its on a state college campus that just is not right.

(im jewish by the way)

[BiggJawn]

11. Hell, I'd bust a gut if it was a Shaman with a pee-pee hat...

Don't forget, the reason Angels supposedly can fly is because they "take themselves so lightly"...

It's ART, not a "chotchki". It's supposed to offend.

[kalashnikov]

13. art is not supposed to offend

than all art would be insulting. My problem is that its basically a nasty caricature of a religious figure deeply respected by many people. My point is exactly that it does nothing but offend, it doesnt have a real message behind it that could somehow justify the way the priest is portrayed (the sculptor himself practically admits this).

[thebigidea]

16. wha?

"art is not supposed to offend"

damn, I'm in the wrong business. I was under the impression that... shit... wonder if its too late to be a plumber.

[kalashnikov]

18. is flipping the bird "art?"

the policeman didnt think so.

[thebigidea]

30. don't tell me you're actually going to get into a "what is art" debate

that's kinda been done to death. We're long past Duchamp, ya know.

[theemu]

138. Yeah, we are long past Duchamp

And I'll tell you what... it was amusing when Duchamp and a select few others were posing that question. People posing it decades later, still trying to ride on that particular movement with 'conceptual art,' are just plain unoriginal.

[Forkboy]

71. the policeman

has never seen me do it.

[wickerwoman]

24. The message seems pretty straight forward to me.

The sculpture points out the fact that the Catholic church continues to equate power with masculinity and that this trend is worsening (see the latest crackdown on women priests and altar girls.) This isn't Catholic-bashing, before anyone tries it on, my background is Irish Catholic. You don't have to look very far to see the long-standing misogyny of the Catholic church dating back to the church fathers is still very much alive today.
Penis=power miter=power therefore penis=miter. It's a phallic image even if the artist hadn't chosen to exaggerate that aspect of it.
I would not be offended if it was a rabbi or imam portrayed in a similar way. I might look at the motivations of the artist and/or question the judgement of the thing, but I would not be weeping bitter tears over the (let's face it) just criticism of misogyny in the more fundamentalist wings of all these religions.
I think it does more than offend. I hope that it makes people think and question, regardless of the artist's intentions.

[kalashnikov]

25. thanks

I hadnt really seen it that way before and appreciate your thoughts. However, I do think misogyny in the priesthood is better adressed through more clear cut avenues. If he wanted to write a paper on it or make a speech I think that would have been more effective. His sculpture amounts to little more than trading insults and is an unproductive way to open a dialogue about such a sensitive issue. A sculpture like this alienates more than enlightens.

[wickerwoman]

29. There are dozens of books, papers and speeches on this topic

starting with Gilda Lerner's excellent Creation of Patriarchy.

Is the artist basically stirring the shit? Yes. Is his primary intention to offend or seek publicity? Probably the later. Is his work totally without merit as a result? I wouldn't go that far, nor would I argue for its immediate removal from campus.

It's provocative, which I like. I just wish, like you, he was a little more active in continuing the dialogue his work begins.

[kalashnikov]

35. the problem is

that by "stirring the shit" as you put it he does more harm to his "cause". He only pisses people off. Only people such as yourself who have read the books and are knowledgeable about the subject are inclined to see his sculpture in a more favorable light and get the message. Most people simply laugh at it, but those who I believe he really wants to reach and could actually do something about the clergy's problem, devout catholics, only get pissed off and defensive. Thus, the artist is only damaging his "cause" for the sake of publicity. That sounds pretty whorish to me. If the artist had a genuine interest in chipping away at the problems within the clegy I would think twice about encouraging the college to remove the sculpture.
Otherwise he is a media whore no better than Rush or Savage, bombastic and offensive in pursuit of nothing more noble than peoples attention.

[thebigidea]

38. ahahhaha

"bombastic and offensive in pursuit of nothing more noble than peoples attention."

yeah, its called being an artist. Some people just can't play nice, you know? Damn troublemakers. Hitler and Goebbels had the right idea with that whole "degenerate art" business - ugly art has no business in the Homeland!

[kalashnikov]

47. you took my quote out of context.

Oh, and I think Limbaugh is poet. Goebbels was a poet too you know? They are just so damn artistic it makes me cry. I think "Triumph of the Will" was an artistic masterpiece. And the confederate flag and the swastika are really good pieces of artwork as well.

[thebigidea]

48. your argument for inoffensive art is mighty offensive

"I think "Triumph of the Will" was an artistic masterpiece."

it kind of is. Say what you will about Leni, she could cut film.

A creepy masterpiece, an unforgettably disturbing masterpiece, but probably a masterpiece nonetheless.

[wickerwoman]

39. I sort of agree but

I think the merit of the statue lies in the fact that we are now discussing this topic at all. The point isn't chipping away support for Catholicism but for opening up a discussion among less radical proponents of each side. Ideally, the statue is put up, the school newspaper publishes crazy editorials on both sides, some teachers fold the discussion into class, some students actually do the reading and thinking, a couple people come out of it with a different point of view from where they started. This is what colleges do best and I trust the process even if I don't trust the motivations of the artist 100%.

[kalashnikov]

52. I just think that

this sculpture is the worst way to do that. I belive he radicalizes as many as he convinces. I dont know in what kind of show this statue was displayed but I doubt it was an "examination of religions" type of thing.
I think his piece of shock art is more suitable to a discussion of what is art what isnt kind of discussion than one about the misogynism inherent in religion.

[wickerwoman]

54. It would be great if it facilitated a discussion of aesthetics as well

(as it's on the verge of doing here- I'd participate but it's almost bedtime :-) )
The point is that it gets people talking and thinking no matter how it does it.
Let's take the worst case scenario- the statue pisses off some Catholics. They go to class or work and complain about it. Some other students or co-workers who aren't sure start talking about it. Some people think a little more about religion or patriarchy or art no matter what conclusion they come to (including the statue is offensive trash.) I don't see this outcome as a bad thing. Eventually the polarized Catholics will come up against an articulate supporter of the piece and hopefully a conversation will ensue that un-polarizes them. Not everyone reads books that expand their world view or like to think about things that challenge their beliefs. I don't have a problem with the occasional in-your-face conversation piece on a college campus somewhere.

[kalashnikov]

56. true,

yet this could also be like the 10 commandments in the court house. It mobilizes many christian fundamentalists to speak out against the amoral, godless, secular nature of our society. They can now point to that statue when they speak about the kind of "virulent anti-catholicism" spreading throughout our society about to rend it to pieces. Instead of refuting the sculptors ideas they just point to the sculpture itself. This just gives them more ammo in the so-called culture wars.

[thebigidea]

58. good idea, lets censor ourselves so we don't give the RW ammo

and you are WAAAAAAAAAY off-base mixing the 10 commandments types with this. Fundies can be pretty soaked in that "virulent anti-catholicism" you speak of.

[wickerwoman]

61. And when they do point it out,

we'll be ready with rational and persuasive readings of the sculpture. There's some people we'll never get to, but that doesn't mean we should give them the whole field to play with.
Would you prefer to fight the culture wars by giving up before we even begin? Be the Switzerland of the culture wars and never create anything we believe in on the off chance we piss off people who disagree with us irrationally?

[kalashnikov]

64. no

I think we should should not be hypocritical. Claiming that we are sensitive to peoples religions and then supporting very offensive sculptures on public campus'.

[wickerwoman]

67. I think you skipped the stage where you establish conclusively

that the sculpture is "very offensive". To whom is it offensive and why? Convince me of that and we'll get back to the hypocracy claim.

[kalashnikov]

76. You dont think an obviously penis shaped hat

on the head of a nasty looking priest is not offensive? Regardless of the message behind it (if there is one).

[thebigidea]

78. these days, it'd take a fountain of urine squirting out of the top the hat

to make the "offensive art" gravy train.

[kalashnikov]

87. Its agood thing the rest of america isnt so jaded

most people tend to find penis' in public offensive, it would seem worse if they were positioned on the head of a priest in the middle of a college campus.

[thebigidea]

89. my goodness, yes... if only we could bring america back to simpler times..

back in the days before sarcasm cut a great swath through the fertile plains...

or somesuch purpleprose...

[wickerwoman]

137. Inherently, no.

Do you think statues showing women's naked breasts or genitals are inherently offensive? There is nothing offensive to me about nudity; what might be offensive is how that nudity is used. In this case, it's being used to direct what I consider a just criticism of the Catholic church. I don't have a problem with nudity, and don't have a problem with just criticism, particularly on a college campus full of adults, after all.

[kalashnikov]

159. Youre right

there is nothing offensive about nudity, unless its being used to offend as is the case.

[Spider Jerusalem]

94. But why should the artist "continue the dialogue"?

The artwork is its own statement. Any interpretation is necessarily coloured by the perspective of the interpreter. Art is a kind of psychic mirror. What one sees in it is largely a reflection of who one is, and no two people will see any one piece the same way. Hence the continued debate on the artistic merits of Picasso, Van Gogh, Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollack...de gustibus non disputandum.

[wickerwoman]

139. He or she shouldn't have to,

however, I think the artist in this case is being a bit inarticuate about the work, suggesting it is simply a joke like putting a bra on the head of Michaelangelo's David, and not really using the discussion of his work to suggest people look for anything beyond the prank level. I think that's a lost opportunity, but then it's also his perogative.

[wickerwoman]

140. He or she shouldn't have to,

however, I think the artist in this case is being a bit inarticuate about the work, suggesting it is simply a joke like putting a bra on the head of Michaelangelo's David, and not really using the discussion of his work to suggest people look for anything beyond the prank level. I think that's a lost opportunity, but then it's also his perogative.

[JVS]

7. I call Bullshit!

These people aren't upset about the hat appearing phallic, it doesn't look very phallic. I think these people are upset because the sculpture depicts the clergy in a negative light.

[LifeDuringWartime]

12. bingo

eom

[Catherine Vincent]

8. LMAO!

I haven't laughed so hard tonight! Apparently the people complaining see a lot of penises? What a riot!

[AnnabelLee]

9. Maybe it's just me

but looking at that, I wouldn't have thought "penis" unless someone else suggested it to me.:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

15. Maybe if the gold stripe

was blue?

:shrug:

[Ferretherder]

17. Something else, AnnabelLee,...

...if one looks with just a little imagination, one might just see a VAGINA, instead of a penis.

,,,just my humble observation.

[roughsatori]

22. I know what you mean, it did not look very phallic to me

If it had not been pointed out I would have just taken it to be a caricature of an evil man hiding in a Noble Calling. The Miter looked like a Miter to me--but I was raised Catholic.

The phony-transgressive trend in art is tiresome. But this sculpture has technique beyond sexual frisson and silly bourgeois rebellion tropes. His sculpture reminds me of a George Grosz drawing--and Grosz is a favorite of mine.

Here's a link to a painting of Grosz's from MOMA:
http://moma.org/collection/depts/drawings/blowups/draw_014.html

[Yupster]

32. I agree Annabel

I just don't see it.

It just looks like an ugly piece of sculpture to me, but to each his own.

[Oilwellian]

10. To me...

it looks like one of the worms in the movie "Dune." :D

[-..__...]

19. H.R. Gigers Alien

[cprise]

14. Oh God- It's too good tonight!

.

[jiacinto]

20. I'm Catholic and find that to be offensive

Boyle has every right to make his sculptures, but this school also has the right not to have it on campus. If Boyle wants his own galllery and puts it there I don't care. But I find it offensive.

The level of anti-Catholic sentiment in this thread is offensive.

[youngred]

21. I'm Catholic and I don't

Blue_Chill even agrees ;-)

it happens

[kalashnikov]

23. so?

because you are Catholic and arent offended how does that mean its not offensive to most? If I wrote "Catholics Suck" in neat lettering and you didnt find it offensive does that mean its not offensive? If most of the Catholics in the area want it to be removed from public land because they think it is offensive I think they should remove it. If I put a dildo on a picture of someones mother and then displayed it on a college campus would that be right? Granted, the mother is a private citizen, but the idea behind the two is closely related.

[youngred]

26. Normally I agree with you

and there is a lot of anti-catholicism that goes on around here, but this isn't one.

Do I think its high art, no. I find it an amusing display of one person's view of bishops. They're entitled to their opinion. Should it be displayed on a public campus, probably not. On the list of things of importance in regards to Catholicism, this is fairly low.

:shrug:

I don't have a problem, but can well understand other's offense at this.

[Yupster]

34. Is this on a public campus?

Oh I missed that.

Obviously, if someone made a pro-catholic piece of art and put it on government property, many would be rightfully demanding it be taken down. The opposite must be true too.

The government shouldn't allow people to insult religions on government property either. Separate church from state.

[wickerwoman]

36. A college campus is government property only in the loosest possible

interpretation of the term. It would be disasterous for academia if the separation of church and state as it applies to something like a courthouse were applied to a college simply because it receives public funds. Would that prevent professors from bringing up valid criticisms (or any discussion) of religion in the classroom? What would be the status of anthropology departments and religious studies in public universities? Academia only works in it primary role (as a counterbalance to the private sector AND the government) when freedom of speech is given the widest possible space and when ANY position can be placed on the table and examined rationally. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, universities exist to guard against the excesses of government when it's in that government's interests to fool a public not trained in critical thinking skills.
Leave the statue there and let everyone draw their own conclusions about it. It's not the same thing as putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. The problem is that it's always Catholics that are the subject for

satirical art (and this applies to other than just visual arts) while Jews and Muslims are off-limits. I have no problem with a sculpture suggesting that some bishops are not as virtuous as they should be. That's a perfectly valid point. But where are the sculptures of evil rabbis? I can easily Google up several cases of rabbis convicted of multiple cases of sexual abuse of children, complete with cover-ups by their Jewish communities. I'd imagine I could find cases involving Muslims as well. I know for sure about the rabbis because people have claimed in these forums that rabbis are never pedophiles so I checked it out. Despite being married, rabbis and Protestant clergy are pedophiles in percentages such as are found among the celibate Catholic clergy. A certain percentage of men are pedophiles, no matter what their career choice is. But we have heard much about Catholic priests and not a word about the rabbis (many of them Orthodox rabbis) or Protestant clergy.

The sculpture is a fine caricature of an unpleasant-looking man dressed as a bishop and there's nothing new about that. Nor is there anything new about using sexual imagery for shock effect in art. Look at the art of the Renaissance in Italy and you can see unpleasant-looking clergy and explicit sexual imagery. Artists very definitely criticized evil men in the clergy then. This, however, was when everyone was Catholic if they were Christian, so artistic statements against evil clergymen were about condemning evil people, not about condemning the entire Catholic hierarchy nor condemning the Catholic faith nor condemning/ denying God.

Today, some people confuse a relatively small number of evil men in the clergy with the whole of Catholicism. Some even confuse evil with God or at least with the church that exists to serve God (however imperfectly it may do so.) It is not because of God or because of religion that evil exists. It is because human beings have a capacity for evil. And that capacity for evil means that there are evil Protestants, evil Jews, evil Muslims, evil Buddhists, evil agnostics, evil atheists, etc., as well as evil Catholics.

[kalashnikov]

43. yes

there is a double standard here. however, I think it makes a big diference when the overwhelming majority makes fun of themselves. No one is worrying about this sculpture causing an upsurge in church vandalism or attacks against priests. Yet if we were to let an offensive statue of a jew or a muslim be placed in a public place I fear that we would see an relative outpouring of anti-semitic or anti-muslim sentiment. No one worries about anti christian sentiment among christians. Its the same idea behind blacks the word n****r while discouraging its use among whites.

[thebigidea]

45. good lord!

"Its the same idea behind blacks the word n****r while discouraging its use among whites."

Yeah, its JUST LIKE that.

You know, I think - to use your own words - you just MIGHT be being... "bombastic and offensive in pursuit of nothing more noble than peoples attention."

[kalashnikov]

49. I didnt say they were the same

just the same idea, stop quoting isolated sentences and ignoring my argument.
I can tell your an "artist".

[thebigidea]

50. the same, the same idea: the same, or just the same idea?

"stop quoting isolated sentences and ignoring my argument."

I'm sorry, this is abuse. If you wanted an argument, that's two doors down.

"I can tell your an "artist"."

Naw, I'm a scribbler. Kinda different. Slightly less pretentious.

[Alenne]

44. Most of the satirical art is done by Catholics

or ex Catholics.

[wickerwoman]

46. You've expanded the discussion way beyond the scope of this incident

but I'd just like to bring up the point that in this specific case the point is not Catholicism=evil and therefore Catholics are evil but that Catholicism in its authorized form is deeply misogynist equating all power with masculinity even though it was rich Roman women who gave the religion its start. Honestly, does anyone think the miter wasn't originally intended to be a phallic symbol?
I don't think Jews or Muslims are off limits to artistic criticism especially by their own (and a lot of "anti-Catholic" art is created by Catholic women despairing over "their" churches attitude towards them.) I bet a weekend in New York could turn up some art examining the role of women in Jewish and Muslim religions.

[kalashnikov]

53. sure there is a legitamite message

hidden in the sculpture but as I implied before few people see it as anything more than a nasty looking priest with a penis on his head. Iam sure there are shows about the role of Women in jewish and muslim religions, however they tend to be displayed in a more private seting within the community. For a number of reasons of course but primarily because the general christian community doesnt understand the problems and social dynamics of these minorities and tends to generalize. The christians are less understanding and more critical of such minotities and this usually leads to problems. But, when a christian sculptor puts a sculpture of this nature on display publicaly he is in a sense showing it to a christian community because the US is overwhelmingly christian (and fairly religious too).

[wickerwoman]

59. Well, I wouldn't like to comment on the hypothetical placement

of hypothetical art, but I could imagine a piece examining the role of women in Jewish religion on a campus in Isreal. Certainly there are any number of Jewish and Muslim poets whose work is quite public. Jewish comedians (arguably a form of art) quite publically joke about the frustrating aspects of their own religion and play on stereotypes to do it.
It raises an interesting question about public vs. private spaces. I'm not sure a university is any more public than it is private. It's a world of its own where priority is give to free speech and rational dialogue. Put another way, why be on a college campus if you don't want your views challenged and don't feel prepared to defend them? This statue isn't displayed in the context of town hall or courthouse or business lobby- it's on a university campus. A public university is not a Christian community and therefore there is no mandate to avoid potentially offensive statements about Christianity.

[kalashnikov]

63. first of all

It is not potentially offensive it is offensive and quite obviously so. Second, I would say that the US is a Christian community, it is overwhelmingly Christian; if you only meet one or two jews or muslims in your life (seeing them on TV doesnt count) you are living in a christian community (a divisive one, but one nonetheless). Thus, most state college campus tend to be part of that community.
Third, while I may be refuting my earlier posts, there is a big difference between what is said in private discourse and what is said in public. An intracommunal dialogue can be about things that would not crossover well outside that particular community. Simply because only that community has the background and sensitivities to discuss the issue. The larger society encompasses groups who will not be very understanding (i.e. discussing jewish issues with the KKK present).
So, I think there is a double standard but that its there for a good reason.

[wickerwoman]

66. LOL

Up until 2 weeks ago I lived in a building in New Jersey where the fact that my last name wasn't Jewish was a matter for comment months after I moved in. I was literally down the street from a synagogue. I'm typing this three blocks from a mosque. YOU may live in a Christian community if that's what you want to convince yourself it is, I live in America, where my Dunkin Donuts is kosher and I buy feta cheese from the local halal butcher. I guess I'm not living in a Christian community. Are you living in the USA? Read the constitution. This is specifically not a Christian community no matter how many individual members of that community are or are not Christians.
I said potentially offensive because it has the potential to offend. It offends you, it doesn't offend me. Therefore it is not inherently offensive as you argue.
I'm confused as to what the solution is to the fact that there are diverse opinions in America ranging from anti-Catholic bigots to KKK members. Not to say anything at all ever on the off chance someone may be offended? Not terribly American either. You can keep your Christian community. I'm glad I'm living where I am.

[kalashnikov]

75. my point was

that jewish art that steryotypes jews but maybe has a subtle point, to those who understand judaism, is more appropriate and less likely to spur anti-semitism if it is presented to other jews (in the jewish community). I draw a parallel between this and the fact that the sculptor in question created a piece of art that portrayed a priest in an offensive manner being shown to what is primarily a christian community. Only those who understood christianity would be able to grasp it's subtle message and since the overwhelming majority are christians it is unlikely to spur anti-christianity.
I agree that there are places in America where it doesnt seem to be like a christian community but there are only a handful situated mostly in ver big cities (LA, NY). Im talking generalities here, there are always exceptions to any rule.

[thebigidea]

77. oh, that's completely ridiculous

"Only those who understood christianity would be able to grasp it's subtle message and since the overwhelming majority are christians it is unlikely to spur anti-christianity."

Explain to me what a non-Christian misses when viewing this piece. Ugly, twisted religious figures are hardly limited to Christianity.

[kalashnikov]

81. the mysoginism represented by the miter hat

as a phallic symbol.
If the message was religious figures are ugly and twisted then I think thats a very broad steryotype and makes the whole thing even worse. But I think you the "artist" have missed the message.

[thebigidea]

82. snicker

"the mysoginism represented by the miter hat as a phallic symbol."

I think most educated adults would grasp this. Are you saying that Non-Christians aren't able to grasp the subtle nuances involved in mocking authoritarian/patriachal clerics?

"If the message was religious figures are ugly and twisted then I think thats a very broad steryotype and makes the whole thing even worse."

how so?

Is there a scale of Offense we could measure it on? Please explain.

" But I think you the "artist" have missed the message."

Ah, and in quotes! Such a vile insult! Lo, I am stung. STUNG!

But all ears for your message of peace, love, and artistic misunderstanding...

[kalashnikov]

86. my temple has a female rabbi

'"If the message was religious figures are ugly and twisted then I think thats a very broad steryotype and makes the whole thing even worse."

how so?"


Nice, all religious figures are ugly and twisted. Good observation. I have never seen a religious figure who is not ugly and twisted, to imply otherwise would be wrong. All jews are greedy and all priests are pedophiles too.

[thebigidea]

88. interesting argument

"Nice, all religious figures are ugly and twisted. Good observation."

I didn't make this observation, I was just asking why you'd be MORE offended. How offended can you get? Are there grades, distinctions?

"All jews are greedy and all priests are pedophiles too."

you have interesting theories. Best of luck with them.

[kalashnikov]

92. well the first grade

is you ignoring my argument and quoting out of context. Then farther down comes say, oh how about a sculpture implying that all priests are ugly, twisted, mysoginistic, bastards by way of a penis placed nicely on the head of a bishop. See there are grades.

[Forkboy]

95. Without a doubt the funniest line on DU tonight

ugly, twisted, mysoginistic, bastards by way of a penis placed nicely on the head of a bishop

[kalashnikov]

98. thank you forkboy

[Forkboy]

99. no

thank YOU.

[thebigidea]

101. thank you, rifle-named-poster... for making us laugh at love - AGAIN.

[thebigidea]

96. snicker

"Then farther down comes say, oh how about a sculpture implying that all priests are ugly, twisted, mysoginistic, bastards by way of a penis placed nicely on the head of a bishop."

Now - how is it implying that ALL priests are, etc etc etc.

It could just be this ONE priest, after all.

what's the problem?

Are priests off-limits for comedy n' art?

Why?

Who made you Tyrant of the Arts and Lord High Censorshipful Inquisitor?

[kalashnikov]

102. i appointed myself, if you couldnt tell already.

You were implying it was a statement about all priests. Besides if there is a priest out there that looks like that, god help him.

"It could just be this ONE priest, after all"
yep ONE lonely priest with a penis-head.

[Forkboy]

106. This thread is like a gift that just keeps on giving

[thebigidea]

107. this conversation has officially gone past the expiration date

I can't top:
yep ONE lonely priest with a penis-head.

or... OR MAYBE I CAN!

(orchestra starts up - vaguely british musical begins)

CHOIR: "...but TWO lovely priests with one penis head -
why they wake your wife,
right from her bed!"

GUY WITH A MOUSTACHE: "When a bishop has a hat like that -
you know his robes must hide a bat
or some other obvious sort of rhyme
the kind a poster makes
when out of time."

CHOIR: "yep, ONE lonely priest with a penis-head!
yep, TWO lovely priests with a penis head!"

NUN: "Bishop, is that your hat - or have you stroked your bat?"

CHOIR: "yep, ONE lonely priest with a penis-head -
he just wanted his vile needs fed."

I give up. Andrew Lloyd Weber, I'll get you next time... NEXT TIME!

(swears revenge)

[kalashnikov]

110. what art!

[thebigidea]

114. lets see your art, dearie

And if you offend a single religious figure, why... I'll... I'll... I'll write a very harsh letter to artforum!

[kalashnikov]

119. Im going to start AAA

Artists Against Art. We will destroy art like the bishop/penis(benis) and anything you create in the name of artistic expression. We will claim that blowing up others art is called "visual deconstruction" and it is a new and highly regarded movement.

[thebigidea]

121. you're late by about 40 years

been done before.

The avant garde isn't called the "avant garde" for nothin!

[wickerwoman]

144. That doesn't make any sense.

You're arguing: a.) only Christians can understand the subtle message of the piece.
b.) it's being displayed in a "Christian community"
So c.) What's the problem? Won't those Christians understand the subtle criticism?

I'm an atheist and I understand this are so a.) is obviously hooey. I'm not Jewish and I can laugh at Jon Stewart's Meshuganah humor without donning a white sheet and burning crosses. That's Jewish art in a non-Jewish community and it translates well enough to get its point across without anyone getting hurt.

[kalashnikov]

160. its nice youre so cultured

and educated, but most people are not.

[kalashnikov]

164. i was originally responding to a poster

that said ther was a double standard, this statue is only be ok because it is a catholic priest. if it were a rabbi or an imam than it would be loudly denounced. I responded that he is right because a)for the most part only someone who has an understanding of christianity and some experience would be able to appreciate this piece B)the US is overwhelmingly christian c)thus if it were a jew or a muslim this would not be the case. Nonetheless, that doesnt mean it's not offensive or innapropriate. Its just that the bar is set lower for christian art work than for art work criticizing other minority religions.

[thebigidea]

68. uh, you were Jewish, right? What's this Christian Community Crap?

"if you only meet one or two jews or muslims in your life "

errr? Which America are you talking about. Not mine.

[kalashnikov]

79. I know many jews who fell this is not an all inclusive community

They feel very strongly that the US is Christian and have experienced anti-semitism on more than one occasion. When you have to have a policeman stationed outside of your temple for fear of anti-semitic attacks your definitly not 100% part of that community. But again, Im saying on balance considering the vast majority of Americans are Christians, even if the govt. has no part in it, by default then it is a christian community more than anything else.

My high school footbal team prayed before every game in the name of J.C.

[thebigidea]

80. yeah, but I thought you could live your whole life and meet only one

Jew and/or Muslim.

so you have a temple, yes? I'm guessing this would be, uh - a small Jewish Community, yes?

"by default then it is a christian community more than anything else."

this is a very bizarre claim you're making. The motivation to say so puzzles me.

[kalashnikov]

83. I have only met one muslim face to face

I live in a jewish community within a greater christian commnity.
Nothing wrong with it but it is a fact. Would you say that in the middle ages that Europe was not a Christian community just because it had jewish communities within it, called ghettoes? I know thats a stretch but it does prove my point.

[thebigidea]

84. nope, sorry. Your point is a bit unproven.

I don't understand your obsession with calling the US a "Christian Community"

do they give you a commission, or something?

[kalashnikov]

90. Its only a christian community in the sense that

most americans are christian. thats all im saying. no more no less. Its also for the most part a relativley religious (compared to other western christian countries).

[thebigidea]

91. but why rush to label it a Christian Community?

why the need to smear Christ all over everything?

Does it say anything about Christian Communities in the founding documents of this rather bizarre country?

[kalashnikov]

93. It is not officially a christian community

of course! Im not smearing christ over anything. But before WWII it was an overtly christian community and now it is a more covert christian community. With the decline of religion christianity has less of a hold on this country than it did, but there are still traces. how about the power of the christian right for starters?

[thebigidea]

100. jesus!

so you're saying that its on the decline, yet you still insist on putting it front and center by calling the whole country a CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY? For Jesus, Mary, Moses, and L. Ron's sake - why? WHY?!

"how about the power of the christian right for starters?"

a quote from W.C. Fields should do:
"never give a sucker an even break."

[kalashnikov]

105. go look up "community"

is there another word you would better understand that isnt so offensive to you?

[thebigidea]

109. yeah, you could use COMMUNITY.

Without the Christian part.

not so hard, was it?

[kalashnikov]

112. every time i turn around i see a christian!

there every where! they have taken over my community and turned it into a....a...CHRISTIAN community! See, its a community made up of primarily christians.

[thebigidea]

115. do you inspect people for crosses or something?

or can you just smell religion at 20 feet?

[kalashnikov]

120. I can generally hear them.

It sounds like this "Christ Killer! Catch the jewboy!"

[thebigidea]

123. somehow, I don't believe you

I suppose you'll interpret this to be anti-religion on my part.

[kalashnikov]

125. well maybe there was a sligh exaggeration

[snippy]

132. The "christian right" aren't christians. They just claim to be.

[Rex]

154. Sigh, the Bible talks about passing gas...is that offensive?

"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." (Isaiah 16:11)

It seems that some just have no sense of humor.

[Mari333]

27. Patriarchy=Penis worship

Its not hard to see why St PETER is called a PETER.
Religions use symbols, and the male god is a dick. Thats pretty much it.

[MrPrax]

28. Preserving public spaces...

for public reaction is always a good thing...

Nobody ever had a strong reaction to a Mall or a Big Box

Anything that might intrude

[Booberdawg]

31. That would be a pretty strange looking penis then

never would have crossed my mind.

[TheDonkey]

33. It's looks awful

I'd want it removed too. The mans face looks terrible and bloated and his hat is over the top. I don't agree with the artistic value of the piece. I'm glad the artist was trying to stimulate people, but this is inappropriate for public space.

[AnnabelLee]

40. After looking at it again

The face is what really bothers me. It looks like a cross between Winston Churchill & Yoda.

[JohnKleeb]

41. jesus christ dont these guys look at their own dicks lol

That doesnt look like a dick.

[Pastiche423]

51. Uh...

maybe that's what his looks like. They do come in all sizes, colors and shapes.

O8)

[JohnKleeb]

134. lol

Then thats the weirdest dick Ive ever seen lol wait the only dick Ive seen is my own lol. *then groans*

[Clark Can WIN]

42. I think the hat looks like

Audrey II

[ShaneGR]

55. Nice to see all of the anti-Catholic behavior here

not. I don't find it funny at all. I recognize the artists intent of hatred.

[wickerwoman]

60. Rather than posting a blanket label on the arguments of others

why don't you engage with the specifics.
Are you including my posts in "anti-Catholic behavior"? If so, do you deny that the authorized version of the Catholic church is misgynistic? If not, how can you call pointing out a specific, and true, problem with the current Catholic church "anti-Catholic"? If you acknowledge that it's a problem let's work together to make it better (and the first step is recognizing that it is a problem and having an honest discussion about it.) What's anti-Catholic about that?

[kalashnikov]

65. he not saying the idea is Catholic bashing

only the way it's presented is highly offensive.

[wickerwoman]

70. He/She's referring explicitly to the responses in this thread

calling them "anti-Catholic" and I'm asking who specifically is bashing what.

[Forkboy]

73. I'd love to visit the Museum of Fine Arts with you

here in Boston.

[Clark Can WIN]

174. What if it was the artists

reaction to personal experience? A reaction to pain and harm at the hands of Roman clergy?

[patdem]

62. If the hat fits...wear it...damn it! I am a Catholic by baptism+8 years

in Catholic school...so I am NOT a bigot so stop saying that! (thank you Bob)

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. You'd have to be some sort of sex-obsessed pervert...

to think that looks like a penis. Do these people look at the Pope in full ecclesiastical garb with mitre and say "look, His Holiness is wearing his dickhead hat"? I doubt it. Some people are just too fucking stupid to live.

[incapsulated]

97. I was raised as a Catholic

I am also an artist.

The piece is a perfectly legitimate work of art, social commentary, criticism and satire. I like it, myself. "Holier than thou", indeed.

You have every right to be "offended" by it. However, in a free society, being offended does not give you the right to "silence". If this work is on school property, then the school has the right to remove it of course. But there are some here who don't seem to "get" the idea of the freedom to express oneself, visually or through speech, without repercussions. Your right to be offended ends at my right to express my point of view, however I like within the law.

To call it "Catholic Bashing" is very subjective. Was the work, created by a Catholic, bashing the religion, the hierarchy of the church or its actions in regard to the sexual abuse that it covered up and by it's actions, encouraged? Does the artist not have the right to express any of those feelings? Are they legitimate? Even if you believe this was created only to provoke, I will point out to you that provocation can also be the beginning of discussion and thought. It can be an attempt to "provoke" you to think about an issue, by pushing your buttons. It can also be childish and immature. But we have a right to be assholes in this country, too, you know.

[thebigidea]

103. Thank "Bob" for that

"But we have a right to be assholes in this country, too, you know."

otherwise i'd be seeking in asylum in the south of France or somesuch...

[incapsulated]

104. Those French...

They love les assholes!

Evidence: Jerry Lewis.

[thebigidea]

116. I'm packing my bags

I better whip up some kinda big penis-head sculpture to break the ice and make my name, though.

[kalashnikov]

108. where do you draw the line bettween provoking and

an artists free expression. surely youre not encouraging us to walk around in KKK regalia and curse the black man in order to "provoke" discussion on racism? There are better ways to have a dialogue on an issue than "provoking" people.

[Forkboy]

111. the fact that there may be better ways

doesn't negate the validity of this way though.

[kalashnikov]

113. i always though that if we just shot

all the minorities you wouldnt need to worry about these pesky "discussions."

[Forkboy]

117. well I'm sorry that's how you feel

:crazy:

[thebigidea]

118. and at last the truth comes out

well, that didn't take long.

[kalashnikov]

122. s-a-r-c-a-s-m.

what does it spell? sarcasm!

[thebigidea]

127. comedy doesn't suit you

and, say -

isn't it a bit hypocritical?

Aren't people going to be...

um...

OFFENDED by your remark?

Congrats. You have now gone full circle. From offended to offender. Enjoy your complimentary peanuts.

(art thus defended, thebigidea slinks back into the shadows... ready to fight... ANOTHER DAY! cue theme music. fade out.)

[kalashnikov]

163. iam speaking to a certain audience here

that doesnt seem to be offende by anything. I mean you would think that a priest with a penis on his head would be highly offensive, but not on this thread. I know that no one here is offende by what I said, least of all you.

[Forkboy]

168. I'm offended by injustice

not art.

[kalashnikov]

124. got to go, fun discourse!

[incapsulated]

126. Apples and Oranges

You are comparing the deliberate attempt to provoke a violent reaction from minority group with a sculpture that is critical of a very powerful, very wealthy, worldwide religious order.

When you make those kinds of leaps, its a short trip to censorship in the name of "peace and order". C'mon now.

I said that art can provoke discussion. It is under no obligation to do so. It can exist for no good reason other than the artist wanted to create it. Just like any of your thoughts and ideas have a right to exist and express themselves, again, within the bounds of the law. Attempting to incite physical violence is not a valid form of expression or discussion.

Even the KKK can march in this country. But when they want to do it through a neighborhood where they know holocaust survivors live, it is fair to say, "no, but you can march over there."

[drfemoe]

129. Does anyone ever read the whole story?

This is posted as an inscription on the bust...

"The artist says, I was brought up Catholic. I remember being 7 and going into the dark confessional booth for the first time. I knelt down, and my face was only inches from the thin screen that separated me and the one who had the power to condemn me for my evil ways. I was :scared: scared to death, for on the other side of that screen was the person you see before you."

I really believe reading the whole story before becoming over wrought would bring the level of discussion WAY up.

I could relate to the piece as a comment on the current state of the Church et al, until I get the info about the artist's viewpoint. To him it represented, at least partly, intimidation and fear. And it seems to evoke those same emotions from some who see it. That's what's interesting ...

The statue is a LOAN .. it's not a permanent fixture. No taxpayer money.

Catholicism, like any and all religion (and art) has always been controversial. :wtf:

I looked up my old research on the history of the mitre, etc. But, dut, before I read the article. :eyes: (see I know how we are)


Maybe a later thread about history and meaning of the mitre.

[Booberdawg]

130. I still don't understand why anyone thinks that looks like a penis??

And I've read the article and there is no indication that it was even INDENDED to resemble a penis. I think the people that stirred this up and called for it's removal have made a big to-do over nothing and created an issue that didn't exist.

The sculpture is offensive because it is BUTT UGLY. Who cares about the frikkin head piece. Sheesh!

[snippy]

131. Maybe the guy was a dick.

By the way, my penis doesn't look like that. Should I see a doctor?

[Liberator_Rev]

133. Deplorable and Disgusting Post # 37

How many Catholics here believe that a good way to offset the current pedophile scandal is to tear down ALL CLERGY of EVERY faith, and EVERY OTHER PROFESSION as well, as Dembones does in her post # 37 ???
"Despite being married, rabbis and Protestant clergy are pedophiles in percentages such as are found among the celibate Catholic clergy. A certain percentage of men are pedophiles, no matter what their career choice is."
She want's everybody to stop "bashing" the Catholic Church, because her research supposedly proves that "everybody does it", "it" being
"The grand jury inquiry lead by Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly found the archdiocese's own records reveal that they received complaints from 789 alleged victims, involving more than 250 clergy and other workers. But he said, the number of victims, spanning a period from 1940 to today, probably exceeded 1000.
Introducing the 91 page report, he said: 'What we have documented in the course of this investigation borders on the unbelievable. The duration of it, six decades of the sexual abuse of children by members of the Catholic clergy. The magnitude of it is simply staggering'."

The worst I have heard in 30 years in my own denomination (which shall remain nameless, because I don't promote my denomination either here or on my web site), was a peer of mine who, shortly after his wife had divorced him, was caught masturbating in his car while taking pictures of unsuspecting girls walking home from school. There may be more, but because our denomination is so democratic and everybody has to answer to and report to the elected governing body, I doubt there is anything like the Catholic scandals.

But if Dembones has any sources OTHER than Catholic PR sources, it would be nice if she would let everybody in on them, instead of her expecting everybody to accept her (unbiased?) conclusions.

That's what I regularly do at my sites:
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist
&
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal



P.S. If one purpose of art is to use the senses to promote thinking, then I think this thread shows that this piece of art is outstandingly successful.

[JohnKleeb]

135. Whats so disgusting about saying there is good and bad in all faiths

Knowing how you act I bet you wouldnt vote for a Catholic, I guess Kucinich, Kerry, and Clark are on the bottom of your list. There is good and bad in all faiths. I remember a time also when Tiniore found some articles about scandals in your demonation. Face it Rev there are good and bad in all faiths. You on the issue of Catholicism sound like what people did to Jack Kennedy in 1960. Are my grandparents bad people for bringing up their children Catholic but at the same time teaching them good values that serve them today. You really seem to have it out for the Catholic Church, I tell you this it is really annoying. In fact Ive talked to my fellow Catholics here at DU, I like your intent of liberal christianity nothing could be farther from the truth but you seem to have it out for the Catholic Church. Of course theres bad stuff in the history but there are acts of good as well.
Meanwhile in Topeka: Fred Phelps maintains his true bigotry.

[Liberator_Rev]

143. Chalk up another vote for "EVERYBODY does it" excuse.

JohnKleeb also subscribes to "our Catholic pedophiles and their protectors in the hierarchy aren't doing anything that all you other people are doing."

And for your information John, Kucinich is my favorite candidate, and I'm close enough to my Catholic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro to give her a kiss on the cheek whenever we meet on her visits home.

It's really amazing why you find it so incredibly difficult to differentiate between my criticizing the ultra-Conservative LEADERSHIP of the Catholic Church, from my feelings for individual Catholics, like by love for Dennis, who has the courage to repudiate the teaching of those same Conservative clerics.

[JohnKleeb]

156. You only focus on the Catholic church

You really seem to have it out for Catholics. I am glad you like Dennis but I bet unlike you he has respect for the pope. No what I find difficult is how you mock the Catholics here by challenging us. I like your message of liberal christianity but you seem to have it out for the catholic church. What about the conservative movement with in your church, the methodists. If you focused attention on that and no I am not a pedofila apologist I think you delibartly select out Catholics, I remember when you blamed them for the rise of nazism, btw the pope fought the nazis in his native poland. I dont like all the church does but I do know they do good.

[Darranar]

161. The fact is...

that, yes, it is wrong, but not only Catholics do this. It happens in every faith. There are fools and fundamentalists in every faith. There are good people in every faith as well. Singling them out and bashing them constantly isn't the way to go. Why don't you read your own website for once, Liberator Rev?

And I'm no catholic, BTW.

[JohnKleeb]

162. Thank you Dar

Its always a pleasure to get backup and especially nice when your backup isnt of your faith because it proves that you arent alone. Of course its wrong, Ive never said it was ok, but Ive never acted like the catholic church is the only ones with it. I am glad he can tolerate Catholic politicans and support them. Heres it for me, I dont agree with Rome on everything but I do think they have done some good deeds and I feel those should be mentioned as well.

[philosophie_en_rose]

136. Doesn't it look more like a squid?

?

[LittleApple81]

141. That is what I was going to say!

I was raised as a catholic... and the people that think this looks like a penis might have been raised as catholics too. One thing I remember is that we were raised not to think about penises and much less look at penises. Maybe they should look at the picture of a penis and compare.

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. Hate AND Stupidity

All in one statue.

I don't care what the artist does in his own time, but placing this on a PUBLIC campus is a huge attack. If I were a student on that campus, I would file an immediate case against the school for harassment and discrimination.

This, friends, is why in our society the public should not be involved in art projects. You can't count on people exhibiting common sense and not attacking others. I just e-mailed my congressman this article and said the same.

I love the arts, but am reminded that government and the arts just don't mix.

[bloom]

145. Pro-religious art and anti-religious type of art - RANT ----------------->

It would take a hell of a lot of anti-religious art to begin to equal all of the pro(esp. Catholic)-religious art that is in art museums.

Seeing as how in Europe for centuries art was controlled by the Church in regards to subject and style - it seems fitting to have art that might perhaps just say the opposite. (And esp. by a person raised in that faith!!!)

To those people who would like to have this statue be removed - how about removing all of the pro-relgious art from all of the public art museums and esp. University museums.

I think it's ludicrous to suggest people should not be allowed to look at this while all of the pro-religious art continues to be a large portion of what is in art museums TO THIS DAY!!!

[Liberator_Rev]

146. Very good points,Bloom.

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. Not exactly good points

You want to ignore history. For a huge chunk of history, religion was much more dominant than it is in America today. During that time, numerous great works of art were created.

You seek to compare this piece of dung with a work by Da Vinci or Botticelli. That doesn't fly.

We live in different times. While we can admire or honor great old works of art, that doesn't necessarily mean that we as a society endorse them.

However, placing new and unheralded works in a public space IS endorsing them and their sentiment.

[bloom]

149. It wasn't just Da Vinci or Botticelli - it was everybody and it was

COMPLETE CONTROL.

I am happy we don't live in such times. I think it's good and positive for society to see both sides of the coin expressed.

If someone wants to create pro-religious art - go for it. I don't think art with more critical views should be suppressed.

[youngred]

151. Not really

though the church did commission a lot of artwork it was not complete control on content nor commissions. Especially during the Renaissance, there were a lot of religious works, but there were also many secular paintings and sculptures done throughout art history

[bloom]

165. Stifled art and Unstifled art

Ok -I was talking about 2 different things - one was the control by the church during the Middle Ages. Where painting and thought in general did not develop. Where - in painting things were basically copied and classical art - from Greece, for instance - was considered "bad".

___________________
http://www.student.loretto.org/internet992/mmonroy/Millennium/renaissance.htm#Decline%20of%20the%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church%20%A0

Giotto, a 14th-century Florentine painter, is often considered the forerunner of Renaissance painting. He broke with the highly formalized style of medieval painting, in which static, expressionless, two-dimensional figures were arranged in size and form according to their symbolic importance. Giotto based his art on observation of the real world and tried to use space and light more dramatically.

<snip>
During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church had been almost the sole patron of the arts, and most of the artwork produced had religious themes. By the 1400s private collectors and patrons began to demand paintings of secular subjects. "
___________________

It is precisely the Renaissance paintings that followed - which were created in a less stifled time which were the great paintings which one will find in musuems throughout the world today.

Catholics can claim to be victims about various things... I do not believe that art is one of those things. Look at the artists that school kids in the US grow up knowing about. Is it not the Renaissance artists - who painted mostly Biblical figures? Michelangelo, esp.

And honestly - I think there are too many paintings of nearly the same subject from nearly the same time and place in too many museums. Religious paintings from the Renaissance. There must be a million of them.

[youngred]

172. victims, no I don't think they're victims

and honestly I don't care about this statue much at all. an Attack against catholics this really is not.

THe rest I'd agree with you, but the renaissance up til modern times has seen a steady decrease in religious artwork. The people with the money and power attracted artisans...at first that was the church only... then the Italian Merhcants... then the Northern European Merchants... eventually artists worked for themselves.

[Muddleoftheroad]

152. Not suppressed

I don't think this stupid sculpture should be suppressed. Clearly, it found PRIVATE money somehow. It should also find a PRIVATE venue, not a public campus.

[Rex]

153. Hmmm...doesn't look much like a penis to me.

Guess that's why they call it art. :)

[MuseRider]

158. I will view it tonight!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I am performing at Washburn tonight. I just saw this, was going to pass it by since I am trying to calm myself for the concert but just peeked in and it is HERE! Now I will go back and read the replies and I will let you know if it really looks like a penis after I see it.

[opihimoimoi]

167. More like the ET from a star in the Andromeda Galaxy, they all look like

that.

Come, we go find the welcome mat. and they do want to meet our Leader/ Oh Boy.

[MuseRider]

171. We could introduce

them to the statue. It is probably more intellegent than our current leader and at least it won't misunderestimate them.

[Deja Q]

169. I'll be mature and not draw any parallels of this with organized religion

Bot, man, I could make some real good stuff - that phallic photo is just too much! (oh, and my subject line did not imply the trite sex scandals either. I mean organized religion.)

[Malva Zebrina]

170. Oh my

this is just awful--everybody knows that bishops and any other heirophants do not have penises.!! (penisii?) (penisium?) I mean the thing to do is to cut the whole thing off.!!