Fox News: libraries can’t show anti-religious art

In this interview from Fox News some guy comes on and suggests that libraries don’t have the legal right to have anti-religious art in their exhibits.

Feel free to comment and criticize.

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the man manages to string together a coherent legal argument. It came across as white noise to me. Am I missing something?

I think it would be absurd if anything religious or non-religious was prohibited from libraries. I do not have a problem with religious art being sold at libraries, government institution or not. Pictures of crosses, or art with other religious imagery, is in my opinion perfectly acceptable if it is being sold _as art_ in a library, and not being used to promote religion. The same is true of anti-religious art.

It becomes a problem only when the state is putting religion (or irreligion) where it doesn’t belong, like in schools, on the money, or in the pledge of allegiance. In that case, it is simply a promotion of religion by the government.

Here, we are not talking about the promotion or religion or irreligion. We are talking about art being sold at a library. It would be very strange indeed if libraries were prohibited from holding items that have any implications for religion (positive or negative). The reason libraries are allowed to carry religious books, like the bible, is because they are not being used to promote religion. They are being held as part of the libraries collection -this is an acceptable purpose for a library, government run or not. The same goes for sales of art. If it is not the promotion of religion (or irreligion) but is the sale or display of art, it is constitutionally acceptable.

Duration : 0:3:49


Post Author: mark

25 thoughts on “Fox News: libraries can’t show anti-religious art

    HaleyMary

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    I agree with …
    I agree with killbot9. If people knew truly without a doubt that their religion was true, they wouldn’t be bothered by this in the least.

    ohsnap31

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    Suck my dick Brad! …
    Suck my dick Brad! The bible is full of horrendous crap. It certainly has impaired your judgement.

    Andre00x

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    hahaha It’s funny …
    hahaha It’s funny because it’s true…….

    vivalaleta

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    @killbot9 Amen.
    @killbot9 Amen.

    Mark73

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    @NavinJohnson90


    @NavinJohnson90

    They might be chronologically older than 21, but I wouldn’t call them “adults”.

    AtheistCitizen

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:53 am)

    @Mark73 totally …
    @Mark73 totally scripted. she just kept throwing fish.

    killbot9

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    If you really …
    If you really believed in your religion, these things wouldn’t bother you…

    PurushaDesa

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    So when it’s an …
    So when it’s an outright endorsement of their religion like the Ten Commandments outside that courthouse, everything’s hunky-dorey, and ‘One must not deny the inextricable bond between the constitution and Christianity. But when it’s an artist exercising freedom of expression by criticising their religion, suddenly it’s all ‘Government buildings must be as far away from any religious commentary as possible’. It’s like these droids run on programs.
    ‘IF B, SELECT A.
    IF A, SELECT B.’

    myironlungca

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    Religious people …
    Religious people are stupid.

    1HumanKind

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    someone please help …
    someone please help this guy go to his sky daddy. enough with these already.

    MagnusIan

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    Hypocritical …
    Hypocritical douchebags.

    sneeptheelite

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    @crackerkiller89

    @crackerkiller89
    Coming from a guy called crackerkiller? You ain’t in a position to call anyone stupid.

    sneeptheelite

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    The Bible should …
    The Bible should definately come with that sticker on it.

    nothingUnrealExists

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    Equal treatment for …
    Equal treatment for religious people! Ha! We should be so lucky. Yes, give then equal treatment. Strip them of their special status and send those pedophile protecting bishops to prison.

    ColoradoMikeyS2

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    Religious people …
    Religious people ARE stupid.

    deadman1144

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    The ten …
    The ten commandments in public building is good but art making fun of the bible in public building bad can you say hypocrites

    guaflar

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    wow, the stupidity …
    wow, the stupidity is indescribable..

    brianthemayan

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    It should say…. ” …
    It should say…. “Warning! WILL impair Judgment”….

    labrat882

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    His logic is …
    His logic is ass-backwards. Because it is public you can and SHOULD be able to say anything. If the library would be owned by a private party, they can set their own rules. wtf is this idiot babbling!?

    d4rkfi3nd

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    this is the biggest …
    this is the biggest load of balls i have ever seen

    ligerman30

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    Freedom of speech …
    Freedom of speech protects negitave opinions of ideas, especially in public places. However, this is not unconstitiutional because the clause about religion is about not promoting a religon by the govt. Not about disliking a religon by the govt.

    ALMAlex5

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    If it was just a …
    If it was just a picture of a bible, this wouldn’t be an issue, and wouldn’t be on fox. Its such rubbish.

    DreamwaIker

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    hmm… yeah, …
    hmm… yeah, according to our laws, it shouldn’t be in there even if I personally don’t mind it… and even if religious stuff is also in there against the laws

    OnTheFritz602

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    What next, ban …
    What next, ban books that suggest that religious myths may just not be true?
    ie – Origin of Species.

    msginca

    (July 20, 2010 - 3:54 am)

    1) It’s not …
    1) It’s not anti-religious … the bible *DOES* impair judgment
    2) The government should no more get involved with this freedom of speech issue than it should be *PROMOTING* god on our *CURRENCY*

Leave a Reply