I was not going to blog about the so-called
pornographic artist-ical photos Autonomous Government of Extremadura (PSOE) has paid for. But seeing the critics that Catholic, who have protested about them, are being made, I have to write a few lines.
Yes, I was a critic of Muslims who considered normal to kill, menace and even maim to the editor and cartoonists who had insulted Islam by portraiting Mohammed in a rather not charming way. But, milords, IT WAS A PRIVATE PAPER.
The difference here is HUGE. The most insulting cartoon was one of Mohammed portraited with a bomb as a turbant, but it is true that Mohammed was a warrior who killed people with swords. So, if he would have lived now, he would have used bombs, so it's not very insulting.
But Virgin Mary did not masturbate Jesus Christ or Christ was a pedophile, nor can it be extracted from any part of the Gospel. Anyway, much more than the obvious pornographic considerations (and of really bad taste, and can something be called art if it's of bad taste, if art is beauty's portrait?), this is a work who has been sponsored by a PUBLIC institution, with the MONEY OF ALL TAXPAYERS, even the ones who ARE CHRISTIAN. Because, lately it looks like as if the other Christians do not get appalled by this kind of crap, made only by the author to get attention. Well, it really has to be hard to be so old and to be doing things like this to obtain glory in pornographic art.
Here, no one is demanding to kill the artist, just not to be sponsored by public money.
If not, all pornography should be banned, and no one is asking for that [or at least not me, even if pornographic magazines/videos/.... would be totally broke if they rely on me to buy them :D]. But in a free state, people should be allowed to buy whatever they want, either it's wrong or bad, except when it's a crime. And I really think that pornography sex is no more that the result of a prêt-a-porter and bad-tasteful attitude that is not contributing to make this world better at all. Things that really last (valor, honor, goodness, real love, etc) are not even considered -and normal people, like any one of us, should be blamed for nor stand for them- or considered as stupid considerations or of really unmodern taste. But that is MY own thinking and I am not the only one in this world.
Oh, and by the way, if these photos were shown in a private gallery, with the sponsorship of the Generalitat de Valencia (PP), I will critic PP by the same reasoning. These days looks like the only basis to defend PSOE attitudes is to say "you did it much more times and graver". Spanish political climate reminds me to the primary schools when little children accused the others of having done the same or even more wrong, not to be punished.
Lastly, Zapatero said, when meeting Turkish Erdogan, that people should have respect for another people's religion, about the cartoons. Well, I hope he will say something about this, but as Christian extremists are not supported by the normal Christian believer and what is more, the doctrine of love for all people even your enemy, is the basis, I think we are going to wait sat in a very comfortable chair. Though, of course, they are trying to raise those extremists continuosly but, at least for now, with very few success (thank GOD).
CONCLUSION: Each one in his/her house can do whatever they want. BUT NOT WITH MY MONEY. OR EVEN WORST: WITHOUT ASKING ME FIRST WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE MY MONEY FOR...
Sugiero: Filed a complaint against the photographer.
Extremadura Automous Community President, Socialist Rodríguez Ibarra, ask for forgiveness to "all the people who could have been offended by the pornographic photos of Jesus Christ and the Virgin". But adds "Politicians do not have to like artistic expressions"... Hmm, of course, they are not paying them.... [Now, ask the author for the money and then pay him with your own purse]
He has also declared that "no one wanted to offend the Catholic Church". Hmm, must not have read what the author-pornographic artist has said: "they are a critic to the Catholic Church with no intention of offending" (¡!) or "Other religions do not affect me, are not a part of my culture. I am not going to attack something I do not know. I have felt attacked by some things, by the double standard, and many other things that I am not going to tell you now". In the era of Internet, of global communication, of world travels, an artist say there are things he does not know... So there are no cojones aren't there? Ooh, I am so frightened by people who would attack me, I just do not want to even know of their existence... And he talks of double standards. Chicken. In another time, this man would have been the first going to have communion...
Juan Carlos Girauta en Libertad Digital: Ni Dios: "What is worst here, is the sponsoring".
Nota: Todos los links están en español. El resumen de lo que digo es: a mí estas fotos pseudo-artístico pornográficas me parecen un deseo de su autor de ser conocido. Y de un mal gusto espantoso. Y soy católica convencida y me encanta ir de museos y admirar obras artísticas. Ahora bien, a riesgo de que alguien se lleve las manos a la cabeza y una vez vistas a mí no me escandaliza nada: a mí simplemente me parecen soeces y que, si este hombre a su edad, ha tenido que recurrir a esto para ser conocido, tiene muchos problemas.
En cuanto a la comparación con las caricaturas de Mahoma, es clara: mientras que las caricaturas habían sido pagadas por un periódico privado (y, por tanto, podías dejar de comprarlo si no te gustaban) estas fotos han sido pagadas por un ente público, sin permiso de los ciudadanos, ciudadanos que, en una parte importante son cristianos -no sólo católicos, me da que los protestantes tampoco bailan de alegría al ver a Cristo masturbado por la Virgen [en una Piedad curiosa, porque si el Cristo en la Piedad está muerto, hmm, ... me da que sentiría poco] o a un Cristo pedófilo-.
Además, mientras que Mahoma sí fue un soldado que asesinó/mató a personas con sus propias armas, esta clase de actividad sexual no viene ni puede extraerse de los Evangelios.
Así que Ibarra, menos pedir perdón, y devuelvan ustedes el dinero -póngalo de su bolsillo- y me da igual que a ustedes no les gustara esa "expresión artística": el problema es que apartaron dinero de otros fines más legítimos y necesarios -Extremadura no puede permitirse el lujo de desviar dinero de invertir en otras cuestiones básicas mucho más necesarias para su desarrollo- para pagar una obra ofensiva para buena parte de los extermeños. Que son los que les pagan a ustedes el sueldo...
Ahh, y por si no queda claro, si es cierto que el PP patrocinó una exposición de estas fotos en Valencia, me parece igual de mal.
Me da igual lo que cada uno haga en su casa: pero me gustaría que me preguntaran antes de usar mi dinero.
Aahhh, que el dinero público no es de nadie, Carmen Calvo dixit. Se me había olvidado eso...
Powered by Zoundry