To: americanophile; Kolokotronis; annalex; MahatmaGandu; skeeter; NYer; Islaminaction; La Lydia
To: MizSterious; Nix 2; green lantern; BeOSUser; Brad's Gramma; dreadme; Turk2; keri; ...
3 posted on
05/07/2009 3:53:09 PM PDT by
knighthawk
(We will always remember We will always be proud We will always be prepared so we may always be free)
To: knighthawk
To: knighthawk
How about paintings of guns ... can they paint picshures of guns ... how about babies in the womb ... kinda think all that will be verboten too
To: knighthawk
I wonder if they would accept a painting of Mohammed?
8 posted on
05/07/2009 4:23:49 PM PDT by
Dinah Lord
(fighting the Islamofascist Jihad - one keystroke at a time...)
To: knighthawk
How ‘bout Crosses soaking in urine? We have one of those over here in the colonies that we could do without.
9 posted on
05/07/2009 4:26:40 PM PDT by
Don Corleone
(Leave the gun..take the cannoli now reads "Oil the gun..eat the cannolis.")
To: knighthawk
Interesting that those thugs could only thing of paintings of churches as offensive. Had they ever heard of a painting of Christ, Mary or the saints?
10 posted on
05/07/2009 4:29:17 PM PDT by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: knighthawk
"But a council managed to enrage local artists when it asked them to contribute their paintings to hang in wards."
Well then, one of the artists should paint a picture of those council members burning in the fire pits of hell. Wonder if they would except that.
11 posted on
05/07/2009 4:38:07 PM PDT by
GloriaJane
(http://www.last.fm/music/Gloria+Jane/_/World+Peace?autostart)
To: knighthawk
Many artists could not understand why images of Christian buildings were banned, but those of other religions were welcome.
12 posted on
05/07/2009 8:26:20 PM PDT by
rawhide
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
