Have you seen Poleteismo?

[anubiz]

---

See.. Even the Bible itself is telling you to grow up..

Move on na ang dili japun ka move on..
WOTL - Salbaheng Sining?

brad pasayloa ko pero ingnun taka ani nga ayaw na storyihe about ug bible tawhana kay dili na mo tou ug ginop mao bitaw nangugat na cya ug explain kay aron ma apil ta ug di mo tou ug ginoo kay ana man cya delusional daw ta nga motou ug ginoo..

[anubiz]

See.. Even the Bible itself is telling you to grow up..

Move on na ang dili japun ka move on..
WOTL - Salbaheng Sining?

brad pasayloa ko pero ingnun taka ani nga ayaw na storyihe about ug bible tawhana kay dili na mo tou ug ginoo mao bitaw nangugat na cya ug explain kay aron ma apil ta ug di mo tou ug ginoo kay ana man cya delusional daw ta nga motou ug ginoo..

[burikoy12]

It's pointless to talk about your faith and God to an atheist. I'd rather talk to a tree.

[endlessknight]

wa ba diay na ni mix? kinahanglan lang og tabang. di diay na pwedi? permi man gud kong maka dungog nga bisan kuno unsaon dili kuno magsagol ang oil og water

Unya, mo-mix sya kung walay sabon? Oil and water ra man kaha? OT na ta dong.

[Norad-II]

The issue here is not about LEGAL, MORAL or any other technicalities that you guys are trying to make pilosopo with.

The issue is not even about Catholic versus Protestant versus Atheist versus CBCP versus Gloria Arroyo versus SUV Bishops or whatever.

The issue here is that the sensibilities of the people were hurt. Period.

And blame not the CBCP. This art exhibit was first featured in GMA and/or ABS-CBN and then it got people rousing, the CBCP included.

Whether or not having an exhibit of a child having s*x with older men is LEGAL or ILLEGAL, MORAL or IMMORAL, the fact is it will hurt the sensibility of other people pretty much with how the exhibit depicting Christ with a pen*s in his face has also hurt many people.

In the first place, there is nothing in the 1987 Philippine Constitution that says that there should be no exhibit of children having s*x with men, pretty much as there is nothing in the said constitution that says that there should be no exhibit of Christ with a pen*s.

But there is a generalized law which says that we must respect one another. But respect can also mean many ways. Can this mean that we should respect the right of a person to hurt another person? Or respect the right to trample on another religion? Or respect the right to pornography?

So this is now where our morals come in -- your conscience. This isn't written in the law books but all of us are guided by this based on how we were raised/reared by our parents and the kind of society that all of us live in.

So even if some of us will think that the art exhibit depicting Christ with a pen*s is OKAY, but if we look at our conscience, if we think outside the box of whether it will hurt other people or not, WOULD IT STILL BE OKAY?


If you think that having a gory art exhibit of Christ with a pe**is and other things is okay, then go on. After all, we all deserve the kind of society that want.

Since the exhibit serves as a precedent, soon enough there will be people who will be putting up exhibits of children having s*x with men and/or any other exhibits that will come out of their wild imagination and they will argue with all the technicalities and legal loopholes in the world just to have it.

And soon enough we will have a pretty much decayed society. Soon enough a society where marijuana will be made legal, prostitution made legal, abortion made legal, and everything else made legal just to make people happy and contented.

This will not, in any way, shape or form, "open the floodgates" to people displaying artworks containing child pornography because, like I said previously, child pornography is ILLEGAL. That is akin to saying people would be smoking shabu inside an art gallery, and that is just stupid.

Also, with any form of self expression there will always be hurt sensibilities from some group of people. An author might write about creationism and claim that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that would understandably hurt the sensibilities of more rationally minded people who know better, but that doesn't mean we should have the publishing company shut down and the author sent to prison.

[alex98sander]

a case was already filed against ccp and cruz under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;

(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;

(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

[Norad-II]

Well f*ck me sideways, there really is a law against it. Well then, I guess my point was completely destroyed.

It's still a dumb law, though. I say we should repeal it.

[otherpeter]

nganong mag apil2x man jud ug maayo ning simbahan sa pamalakad sa gobyerno

[necrotic freak]

These religious douchebags are just over reacting on their dicknose god.

Spoiler! 

I wish Rodsky would give me some likes..

[rodsky]

Sadly, I too am taken aback by this Section of the Revised Penal Code. And yes, I say AYE to REPEAL!

-RODION