Comments on: If you want your day ruined . . .

By: Steven Kippel

Steven Kippel — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:17:25 +0000

In other news: http://i.imgur.com/r4e2C.jpg

By: Steven Kippel

Steven Kippel — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:15:39 +0000

And the other soldiers aren’t sad because they killed fellow human beings. It only matters that they’re American.

By: Steven Kippel

Steven Kippel — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:15:11 +0000

That would explain Skousen.

By: Steven Kippel

Steven Kippel — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:12:29 +0000

Robby, the artist does have the “righteous” on the right hand side symbolically. He states exactly this.

“The righteous are on the right hand of God. Notice there are more on the good side. I believe the majority of Americans are good.”

…except of course the media, professors, judges, politicians, and entertainers. They’re bad.

By: Steven Kippel

Steven Kippel — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:10:31 +0000

This artist talks a lot about symbolism. So what symbolism is he sending by having Jesus pointing to the US Constitution instead of the The Father? Or Jesus wearing a red sash not to symbolize His blood, but the Americans who died for “God and country?” And Christ doesn’t look into the future to the new creation, no he’s looking instead to the future of America, and he’s sad.

And “Christ is holding the U.S. Constitution symboliz[ing] His approval of this incredible document.” I’m not sure who told him Christ approved, or why he should even care.

By: Robby

Robby — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:56:38 +0000

See, thats part of what gives me the shivers. I don’t think they are in any way “making fun”. I think this is a pretty fair reflection of some people’s devotion. I’m originally from Texas – *ahem* – and unfortunately this type of thinking is a given for some folks. I remember being in church the Sunday after 9/11 and the song leader led “God Bless America”. I don’t think I can recall a time when I’ve heard a congregation sing with more energy and intention. It was pretty feakin’ depressing to be in there, wishing that I could be a part of a community that would be willing to proclaim Christ crucified and risen with just as much enthusiasm as they do their divinely-mandated ‘patriotism’. You’ll have to excuse me now while I go find an immigrant to share Jesus with.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:59:34 +0000

I was under the impression, when I first saw this, that this looked like the “Mormon Jesus.” It’s also interesting that Glenn Beck is LDS, and his views are well captured by this picture and the captions therein.

This is scary, but certainly not surprising.

By: Jared

Jared — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:37:29 +0000

Here’s an awesome rendition of the same painting, but with much different captions on the scroll over.

Enjoy.

http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:19:58 +0000

If you go to the homepage of that website the artist says, “sometimes art is the expression of things too subtle for words.” Dude, there is NOTHING subtle about THAT!

By: Halden

Halden — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:40:41 +0000

Yeah, conservative evangelicalism is the very close runner up behind Mormonism as the most disgustingly American religion ever conceived.

By: Andy Alexis-Baker

Andy Alexis-Baker — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:38:51 +0000

Certainly doesn’t help rehabilitate my view of Mormons that I got from reading Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven.” Interesting that you cannot tell the difference between that Mormon heretical crap and regular old evangelical nationalism from people like Maury Davis of Cornerstone Church in Nashville.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:35:22 +0000

I would like to point out that this creative abortion is mislabeled as “fine art.”

Comparing today’s standard of Christian art to the past is fairly funny, but not “ha ha” funny, more like “hey guys, I don’t think my arm is supposed to bend this way” funny. If we keep going in this direction, Christians will be producing the finest reality TV shows, LOL cats, and pornography within the next fifty years.

By: Halden

Halden — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:15:35 +0000

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the author is actually a Mormon.

By: Andy Alexis-Baker

Andy Alexis-Baker — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:48:26 +0000

The civil war soldier has his hands over his face for the travesty of Americans killing Americans. The preacher in the lower left of the picture holds a Bible. No travesty in the fact that Christians have killed Christians (let alone the people we are supposed to announce the gospel to).

My personal reactions to this type of imagery is a mixture of anger, apathy (what do we expect from Constantinians?), revulsion, sadness, and sarcasm. If an atheist had painted a picture like this, where all those who expressly denied a god were extolled, or if that person had painted it to mock Christians, I would not have nearly the guttural reaction. It is because a Christian did this that makes it so bad.

Thinking about this in terms of religious art, this is not akin to the icons of other churches that Protestants once held to be so abhorrent. Icons point to something beyond ourselves, this points only self-referentially and can only be an idol, never an icon. This is idolatry under Christian guise, which makes it a particularly potent target for criticism.

But this is nothing. How about this real live church service from Cornerstone Church in Nashville in 2008, with Marines propelling form the ceiling, giant flags on the stage and Oliver North giving the sermon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnUWDngr1eU

Here is a sermon from the pastor about the slogan ‘compel them to come in” in which he recounts how he forced Dallas County inmates to go to chapel by hitting them with a toilet plunger. http://www.youtube.com/user/oldlefty66#p/a/u/0/hGUfvcv7–Q

The art is nothing compared to the real thing…

By: atimetorend

atimetorend — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:35:42 +0000

Wow! I echo your, “I’ve actually never seen anything in this category.” Someone could write a book about the picture.

The soldier representing MLK is amazing as noted above. Also when you mouse over him, you read:
“Represents the modern American Soldier. He happens to have the last name of “King” on his body armor. He stands as a tribute to Martin Luther King – a great leader of American Civil Rights.”

Because actually putting MLK in the picture would have been a problem? Maybe it would have caused the artist to exceed their African American quota? At least he wasn’t wearing “Thurmond” on his body armor!