jamiefoxx

The Second Coming of Liberal Ignorance

Recall 2008 when conservatives began to berate the loose-minded liberals who referred to President Obama’s election as the second coming? It’s happening again, and this time those loose-minded liberals are famous celebrities and public universities.

Sunday night during the Soul Train Award Show, actor Jaime Foxx opened the night thanking God and “Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.” What could be more shocking than the groundbreaking revelation that Christians have been worshiping the wrong man all along? The fact that the mainstream media was hush on the entire faux-pa.

Yesterday morning, it was reported that Bunker Hill Community College, in the ever beautiful, never conservative state of Massachusetts, would be featuring a painting by artist Michael D’Antuono entitled “Truth.“The painting is a colorful depiction of our President hanging in front of the White House seal with a crown of thorns on his head. The painting was previously scheduled to be unveiled in New York City but was cancelled due to public outcry. In an interview with Fox News, D’Antuono said:

“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings. We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.” He went on to blame the conservative media for “trying to promote the idea that liberals believe the president to literally be our savior.”

I agree with Mr. D’Antuono, our First Amendment Rights should always be protected; they are vital to keeping our freedoms alive and well. Yet somehow, in New England, a slightly blasphemous picture of our President is less offensive then a prayer quilt hanging in a public school? The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the artists and the atheists, so when a group of Christians complains of the offensive tone of the painting their complaints also deserve to be heard.

As for D’Antuono’s idea that the conservative media is at fault for portraying liberals as believing the President is literally the reincarnation, I have no idea from where that originated. Nor did I realize Jamie Foxx was part of the conservative media. D’Antuono asserts that his intent was not to compare the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to Barack Obama’s presidency, yet somehow when I look at the painting I’m reminded of many portraits of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ I’ve seen hanging in every Catholic Church. The body posture and the downcast expression are somehow eerily similar to perhaps the most famous symbol in the world. But, never mind, that wasn’t the artist’s intent.

It’s hard to believe we’ve returned full circle from where we were four years ago. We again have liberals screaming of racism and sexism, while our religious symbols are trampled on in the name of secularism. This deserves a public outcry, as the artist defends his First Amendment rights, Christians too should stand up declare their religious symbols violated in the name of art.

Caitlyn Jarvis | Saint Anselm College | @caitlynjarvis

Related News

14 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Mark
    Dec 04, 2012 - 11:03 AM

    I wasn’t going to post again, but your comment about cowardice got me thinking. Not that I mind if you call me a coward. That’s water off a duck’s back, my troglodyte friend. But I’d like to reflect on some of the comments you made, and how they reflect on your character.

    Firstly, let’s take a look at the event that stirred up your hurt feelings. So Jamie Foxx gave an appearance at the Soul Train awards where he, a Democrat supporter, referred to President Obama as our saviour. Seriously, this is the incident that made your knickers dive through your sphincter and end up next to your Adam’s apple? A Hollywood actor jokingly making religious references to the man he voted for in the euphoria of a victorious election. For you to be this offended, you must have a very brittle faith and monstrous insecurities. You see, a brave man is secure and self-confident enough to not mind when others satirise his religion. You are not a brave man.

    Now, let’s look at how you react when you find yourself on the losing side of a debate. Do you manfully stand by the case you’ve made. No, you said “hey, stop picking on me and go pick on those muslims instead” . That has to be the most cowardly writing I’ve read in a long time. You see, if you really think I’m persecuting you, then it’s pretty despicable to ask me to go and persecute another demographic group in your place. That’s like saying to a home intruder “Hey, after you’ve finished robbing and beating me, can you please rob and beat the man next door”. Don’t you know that cowards who ask people to take their nasty questions away to different ethnic groups give Baby Jesus nappy rash?

    Nor did you dignify your craven” hey-look-over-there-a-muslim” red herring with any actual instances of First Amendment infringment. I’ll tell you why Christians are always being hauled in front of the courts by the ACLU and Muslims aren’t. It’s because when it comes to the First Amendment, American Christians are serial offenders and American Muslims are law-abiding. If you disagree, then please provide an example of Muslims infringing on the First Amendment. And if you want the ACLU to stop coming after you, then stop breaking the damn law.

    Lastly, look at readily you fill your britches with chocolate at the idea of sharia law. You don’t seem to be opposed to ecumenical courts in general, because you don’t object to the Beth Din courts that arbitrate Jewish Halacha law, not the Catholic panels that arbitrate Catholic canon law. No, it’s only the sharia courts that have you scared, because they have those scary Muslims in them. That’s why you want to deny Muslims the right to ecumenical arbitration that Jews and Catholics enjoy. Which makes you not only a coward, but a bigoted coward.

    Reply
  2. Mark
    Dec 04, 2012 - 10:13 AM

    Ah, I see that you couldn’t find an available power socket.

    Once again, my point of constitutional literalism has gone sailing over your head. The concept of “separation of church and state” is not only implied, but is the only workable interpretation of the Establishment clause. The earlier drafts of the First Amendment would have easily prevented the government from establishing a religion, but were rejected because they didn’t go far enough. The amendment eventually ratified was one that prevented even the respecting of establishment of religion. But don’t take my word for it, read the above quotes by Madison and Jefferson. They both created the First Amendment, so they know what they’re talking about.

    You keep saying that “freedom of religion” appears in the Constitution. Where do those exact words appear? Can you reference the page and paragraph? If you can, then I’ll happily concede that you have ” taken the time to actually read the Constitution and comprehend what it actually says and doesn’t say”. If you can’t, then my opinion of you being a dumbass will remain unchanged.

    Of course, the Constitution both confers freedom of religion and creates a wall of separation between church and state, but it doesn’t do this by inciting special words as though casting a spell, but instead by using the bureaucratic language of government to embody powerful ideals. It doesn’t matter that the exact words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in the First Amendment, because the prohibition of a government “respecting” religion plus the letters from Madison and Jefferson make it crystal clear. I can’t make it any plainer than that, and if you find that disingenuous, then it can only be because you have defective reading skills.

    Well-done on tracking down Jefferson’s letter, but did you read it as well as cut and paste it? You say Jefferson just reiterated what the first Amendment says. Well, the letter contains 233 words, of which only 14 quote the First Amendment. So that’s 6% of the letter you were able to read, and 94% that you were oblivious to. For the third time (!), Jefferson says “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State” (emphasis mine). It’s there in black and white, hence there’s no need for me to twist it to my own accord. I know that it’s sad, but sometimes reality really does have a liberal bias.

    Seriously, do you think that Ann Coulter and Mark Levin are constitutional scholars. Jesus-in-a-G-string, you cannot be serious! Ann Coulter did some low-level legal work in corporate and immigration law before becoming a part-time pundit and a full-time whackjob. Mark Levin is a shock jock with a law degree. The idea of either of those two clowns trying a constitutional law case is beyond ludicrous. But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by citing a constitutional law case that one of them acted in.

    Anyway, I don’t think I’m arrogant, but I do think that I’m smarter and better than you. I’m not saying that to make you feel bad. I just think it’s an objective fact, like saying I’m shorter than Michael Jordan or older than Daniel Radcliffe. I wasn’t particularly interested in comparing myself to me, but you had to keep misunderstanding history, legal theory, comedy and then doubling down when your ignorance was explained to you. Then you had to wear your whiny christian persecution complex on your sleeve. Taking all that into account, I’d be dishonest if I didn’t say that I think I’m both more intelligent and a better man than you.

    Reply
  3. Mark
    Dec 03, 2012 - 10:31 PM

    Ah, Matthew. Now I appreciate what Blackadder meant when he said “I always like to start my day by having breakfast with an idiot”.

    Firstly, I agree that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. Neither do the words “right to fair trial”, “right to privacy”, “executive privilege”, “democracy” or “freedom of expression”. Neither do the phrases “freedom of religion” or “free speech”, even you mistakenly inferred that they were. Would you then claim that the Constitution does not embody these ideals? I hope, for the sake of your teachers and parents who might have a sliver of pride left for you, that you wouldn’t.

    The constitution is only 4,400 words long, and does not have the space to spell out using short words what each part means. Don’t worry though, Jefferson and Maddison saw that simple-minded people like you might be confused, which is why they wrote letters that spelled out what the First Amendment means. Although Jefferson wrote his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he meant for it to answer the future questions of people like you. Repeat after me: thus-building-a-wall-of separation-between-church-and-state. There, that’s not so hard, was it.

    “Thomas Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was drafted and ratified”
    Oh boy, whatever your history teacher was paid, it was too much. Firstly are you aware the First Amendment did not even exist in 1787, when the Constituion was being writen, but was ratified in 178p. Are you aware that the First amendment was modelled on a bill Jefferson drafted for the Virginia Legislature in 1777, widely referred to as the ‘precursor to the Religion Clauses of the first amendment”? Are you aware that Jefferson mentored James Madison, and voluminous correspondance between Jefferson and Madison between 1778 and 1789 showed Jefferson proposed the ideas that Madison would draft into the First amendment? Are you completely clueless as to the role Jefferson played in creating the First Amendment?

    “Well, gee. So I guess “freedom of religion” and “free speech” means nobody has the right to talk about Jesus in public”
    Ye Gads, man! Can you not read? see that word “Congress”, that’s the subject of the First Amendment. That means the First Amendment refers to what the government can and cannot do. Private citizens can talk about any religion till they’re blue in the face, but if you’re acting as a representative of the governemnt, then you have to check your proselytizing at the door. How can you not get that? Perhaps you could find a ten-year old to explain it to you.

    Matthew, you really need to go right now and stick your tongue in a power socket – your brain needs starting.

    Reply
    • Matthew
      Dec 04, 2012 - 05:25 AM

      “Firstly, I agree that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. Neither do the words “right to fair trial”, “right to privacy”, “executive privilege”, “democracy” or “freedom of expression”. Neither do the phrases “freedom of religion” or “free speech”, even you mistakenly inferred that they were. Would you then claim that the Constitution does not embody these ideals?”

      No, but I would say you are being intentionally disingenuous to make a point. Allow me to remind you of what I said: “The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the document, implied or explicit, in whole or in part.” You are welcome to argue against that until YOU are blue in the face and yet you will never, ever be able to change that very simple fact. However, freedom of religion and freedom of speech DO appear in the Constitution, especially under the aforementioned guidelines.

      “Although Jefferson wrote his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he meant for it to answer the future questions of people like you. Repeat after me: thus-building-a-wall-of separation-between-church-and-state.”

      Again, you are being disingenuous. Let’s take a look at the entire letter:

      “The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
      I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

      As one can clearly see, Jefferson was reiterating what the First Amendment said. People have taken the phrase and twisted it to their own accord for the sole purpose of squelching Christian expression in America.

      Now, I know and understand you think you are somehow smarter and better than everyone else because you have an education or whatever, but so do many other people and yet they don’t carry the arrogance you do. But if you think that highly of yourself, then what are you doing here? Why not go after bigger fish like Mark Levin and Ann Coulter? Maybe it is because they are both Constitutional scholars and would pwn you in less than 5 minutes. So you come here and try to insult the intelligence of others under the assumption we haven’t taken the time to actually read the Constitution and comprehend what it actually says and doesn’t say. And you made a mistake. A big one.

      Finally, you have indicated you have no problem with the words of Jamie Foxx or the works of Michael D’Antuono because in your opinion, people who choose to believe in God (as Jefferson obviously did) or Jesus should be mocked. But here is the reality, Mark. You are not a big man at all. You are a coward. How do I know? Because I can see right through you.

      We have these atheists (like yourself) all across the country who do indeed like to mock believers. But it is always God, always Jesus. The FFRF et al have been screaming about crosses on mountains, nativity scenes and of course, prayers. They are more than willing to go to court to try and stop any and everyone from so much as uttering God or Jesus as if they are the most abominable words in the English language. And yet you hear about the presence and influences of Islam over Dearborn, MI, Hancock, NY and judges making rulings in Florida that allow for the incorporation of sharia law. And the response from the FFRF and their seemingly anti-religious comrades is silence.

      The reason is understood. You can mock Christians for as long and vociferously as you desire. But you do that to Allah and Muhammad and people will literally try to kill you. Take a look at the photos on this site: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/muslim-protest-london.shtml Do you think these people are joking?

      But of course you know that.

      Which is why I am not impressed with self-absorbed twerps like yourself. You have completely and utterly failed in every way. I expect you to respond to this, in some lame, half-baked attempt to bring yourself out of the muck, but it will neither make a difference nor change anything. You will still be the same little man trying like the dickens to keep people from seeing that yellow streak up your back.

      Reply
  4. Mark
    Dec 03, 2012 - 08:14 AM

    Matthew, let me do you a favour and educate you regarding the first amendment. It states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. If the meaning is unclear, then let’s examine the writings of the people who wrote it.

    James Madison, considered to be the father of the Constitution, wrote: “[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total SEPARATION of the church and state.” (emphasis added)

    Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association: “contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”.

    This is the framework in which the first amendment was intended to be understood. Jefferson’s and Madison’s letters act as a user’s manual so to speak. In contrast, the approach you espouse is called constitutional literalism, which even first year law students aqre smart enough not to touch. Constitutional literalism is a staggeringly impractical and silly approach to the constitution, and no-one besides right-wingers with no legal background support it.

    Regarding your bizarre reply to my comment, yes I saw the whole Jamie Foxx clip, and thought it was fairly funny. I’m not sure if you’re incensed that he was using christian terminology or if you really think Foxx believes Obama is a supernatural figure. If it’s the former, then try to grow a thicker skin because people have the right to mock you if you want. If it’s the second, then you really need to get out and meet some non-christian people.

    Regarding the second point regarding christians having their First Amendment rights infringed (I note that you cut the First Amendment part out when quoting me – accident?), I dare you to provide some examples. You might want to look up what the first Amendment actually means first though, because christians being told by the courts that they can’t abuse their government position to force their own religion down others throats is not a First Amendment infringement.

    Lastly, a word of free advice. You’re probably going to go through life complaining about the liberal elites who make it hard for you. I’ll let you in on a secret – we’re elite for a reason. Unlike you, we put in the time to educate ourselves, and end up in well-paying positions where we can use out intellect. Guys like you never put in the effort to learn, and end up as…..well, what’s the antonym of elite? So the next time you complain that people like me are calling the shots and you’re stuck doing manual labour, just rememeber that people like me have been trying to educate you all your life, and you just weren’t interested.

    Reply
    • Matthew
      Dec 03, 2012 - 06:03 PM

      1) The First Amendment says Congress can neither create its own religion nor keep people from practicing theirs. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the document, implied or explicit, in whole or in part.

      2) Thomas Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

      Your argument is invalid. Have a nice day.

      Reply
    • Matthew
      Dec 03, 2012 - 06:31 PM

      One other thing:

      Your attempt to be condescending was a sad, sad fail. I do not have to cite anything because you already know about it. But what’s more, you seem to think the purpose of the First Amendment is to stifle religious speech while completely ignoring what it actually says:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Well, gee. So I guess “freedom of religion” and “free speech” means nobody has the right to talk about Jesus in public.

      And you think you are intellectually superior by asserting the exact, dead opposite of something a ten-year-old can understand?

      Again: Your argument is invalid.

      Reply
  5. Mark
    Dec 02, 2012 - 12:19 PM

    It’s hard to take this post seriously.

    Um..Ms. Jarvis, rest assured that no-one actually thinks that President Obama is the son of God. Jamie Foxx is speaking tongue-in-cheek in referring to Obama as a saviour. He doesn’t expect you to take him literally.

    Christians have never, to the best of my knowledge, had their First Amendment rights infringed. The First Amendment, which prevents a prayer quilt from being hanged in a school, also prevents the school from hanging paintings of Mohammed, Krishna or Richard Dawkins. I suspect you’d be less sanguine about government-endorsed religious displays if they weren’t of your religion.

    First Amendment does not protect religions from criticism from individuals. Just as one can satirise politics, laws, countries and arts, so are we free to satirise religion. If you don’t like us doing that, then……….here’s a tissue.

    Reply
    • Matthew
      Dec 02, 2012 - 10:27 PM

      It’s hard to take a post seriously when the writer clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

      1) Did you see the Jamie Foxx clip in its entirety? Right after he made that blasphemous statement he proceeded to encourage the audience to stand and chant “Obama!” Whether it was meant as a joke or not, the fact he has thus far remained silent on the issue speaks volumes.

      2) Christians have never had their rights infringed? Considering the fact organizations such as Americans United, Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists and others have gone only and exclusively after Christian expression, your statement suffers from gross stupidity.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Dec 13, 2012 - 10:44 PM

        Conveniently you leave out the ACLU, which one can easily find has supported Christians in their basic expressions of religion, contrary to what many characterize them as: anti Christian

  6. Jared Cowan
    Dec 02, 2012 - 01:52 AM

    Symbols aren’t protected merely because they are held dear. The government has no business in religion, so their removal in relation to government sponsored buildings is hardly stepping on first amendment rights, which are first and foremost in terms of religion the right of religious exercise, not a right to the symbols themselves, which are admittedly part of the religion, but not essential in all cases to the practice. If Christians become incensed at someone doing blasphemous things, there are no grounds to prosecute the person, since you can’t sue on behalf of Jesus, Moses or Mohammed, for instance. If I become incensed at someone violating what is an implicit, but still important wall of separation between church and state, it isn’t the same as being offended at religious bigotry or the like which I can easily find in the South, esp. in the Bible Belt. The former is a matter of the constitution, the latter is personal aesthetics.

    The important clarification is between what is government sponsored action and what is action sponsored by individual or private groups of citizens. The latter is fine by me, a remotely strict secularist and incidentally an atheist. The former is both a waste of taxpayer money and unnecessarily divisive, even with arguments of historical precedence, which are irrelevant to the present situation of extreme religious diversity in this country.

    Reply
    • Matthew
      Dec 02, 2012 - 10:39 PM

      “The important clarification is between what is government sponsored action and what is action sponsored by individual or private groups of citizens. The latter is fine by me, a remotely strict secularist and incidentally an atheist. The former is both a waste of taxpayer money and unnecessarily divisive, even with arguments of historical precedence, which are irrelevant to the present situation of extreme religious diversity in this country.”

      This statement further undermines your credibility (not that you had any in the first place). The Constitution does not mention a “church and state separation.” Period. The only people who bring that baloney up are those who don’t want people talking about God and Jesus in public.

      Here’s my suggestion: Build a bridge and get over it. The Constitution says freedom OF religion, not from it. If you hate religion so much, why don’t you go to a country where it is not allowed, like China. In fact, you can have a a great big anti-religion cakewalk through Tianamen Square if you want to. But as long as you are here in America you better get used to me talking about Jesus and you keeping your mouth shut, because I am not like any of these other spineless fools who will bow to the will of a tyrant in a black robe. You try to shut ME up, and I am liable to forget I am a Christian just long enough to kick your ass.

      Reply
      • Joshua Cunningham
        Dec 03, 2012 - 04:10 AM

        And it seems he would know about bigotry considering some atheists have plenty of it, too.

      • Jared Cowan
        Dec 13, 2012 - 10:38 PM

        The Constitution not directly mentioning something does not mean the government has no right to manage it in some sense or that the Supreme Court cannot interpret it in a reasonable manner, such as the nuance of the right to bear arms or where the freedom of speech or religion stops, however isolated and particular the limitations are.

        I have no issue with citizens speaking about God and Jesus in public. I live in teh South and don’t plan to leave, mostly because the people here can be very civil and tolerant of differences in spite of the negative stereotypes that persist. The government, on the other hand, has no real reason to speak religion, since it isn’t their job to legislate morality to society.

        Your threats of violence, again, seem fairly counter to Jesus’ message of turning the other cheek. This is not to say you have no right to be indignant if you are genuinely threatened as to your rights, but in this case,you aren’t. I never said you couldn’t believe in Jesus and such things, but I don’t believe the government should give your beliefs any sort of special treatment or even give it real concern, since it is fundamentally a private matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter