 | |
| Street Poster in Ottawa - appropriate for public square? |
Sharing the space
Sharing the space
Good will to all men? Not from the grumpy atheists! (Thank God not all atheists are grumpy but there sure seems to be a lot of them)
Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussions? The language of many of their contributions in public debate is laced with invective and dripping with sarcasm and bile. There are exceptions of course, but they tend to fall more into the category of being the 'exception that proves the rule' when compared to the hostility of many of today's atheist posters. Comment offered by the theists in the public square is often depicted as being 'malicious' or 'venomous' and intended to enslave the 'feeble minded and weak' by those who post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Venom is something that is oriented to death. Christians are oriented in a 180 degree different direction. We speak not to the culture of death that grips our world but rather for the culture of life and light which ends with the gift of eternal life. For example, the Catholic Church in its hum...
"We don't tell women who fear being attacked that they shouldn't walk their neighbourhood streets."
ReplyDeleteOh, yes we do!!!
"Passersby such as mothers with strollers have a right to enjoy public streets without confronting, to their sudden surprise, sexually explicit promotional posters."
A "right?" Sexually "explicit?" And what makes mothers with strollers more important than everyone else? What about the rights of the rest of the community to enjoy the poster without having some crazed lunatic ripping down their choice of art/advertising? She was the only one who objected to it -- what gives her the right to impose her standards over theirs?
And what was sexually "explicit" about it, anyway? The poster, as described, might have been suggestive -- although one would obviously have to be aware that the practise of discipline can be sexually stimulating to some people -- but hardly "explicit." If genitalia are not prominently on display and being employed in a sexual manner, it is not explicit. Otherwise, we will have to continually monitor advertising for socks and shoes, underwear of all kinds, and earlobes, necks, backs, and countless other body parts and clothing. Because I guarantee you, if it exists in our world, someone has a sexual fetish for it!
I find this picture offensive and particularly so if it can be viewed by children. Disgusting.
ReplyDelete