Anti-abortion display stirs up controversy

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 03:52 PM

YouTube - Cemetary of Innocents conflict

Quote:

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point butted heads Thursday after an anti-abortion organization planted 4,000 white crosses on campus to symbolize aborted fetuses and a student responded by pulling hundreds of them out of the ground.

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

The group has come to expect minor vandalism each time it displays the exhibit, but students were shocked when Roderick King pulled up many of the crosses in protest.

"It's just so disrespectful, and it's disappointing that this comes from UWSP students. I've always thought of this campus as a tolerant place. ... Someone made these (crosses) with their own hands," said Pointers for Life member Tracey Oudenhoven.

King eventually left the site of the display after speaking with Protective Services officials, but he later returned to protest. King said his anger was not just politically charged, but also related to the anonymity of the exhibit.

"If you're not ashamed of this, then you should claim it and sign it," King said. "My student dollars are going to support this, this travesty."

Pointers for Life reserved the space but didn't indicate its sponsorship of the exhibit. At King's request, students eventually posted a sign reading, "Sponsored by Pointers for Life."

Students put up the exhibit early Wednesday. By Thursday morning, some signs had been slashed and a few crosses had been broken. King said he didn't participate in those acts.

Passing students paused to watch King debate the moral implications of abortion with Pointers for Life members, and even some who supported abortion rights said they supported the group's right to protest.

"You don't have to agree with this. I don't agree with this, but they have just as much right to be here as the Pro-Choice Alliance," said student Colleen Kiefer.

The last line says it all...

This *cough* gentleman's INtolerance (and the others like the woman in the video)is on full display...

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 08:44 PM

Yeppers. That's why I feel so blessed to be an American. We can publicly protest and raise awareness for any cause. And that is a good thing.

crazyflamingos · #3 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 10:19 PM

I think that he was right that the "Pointers for Life" should have identified that they were sponsoring the display. Otherwise how is one to know that the display itself is not vandalism?

And, yes, crosses stuck in the ground on a state university without permission would be vandalism. Without permission it would be no different than what kids around here used to do that they called "forking" -- sticking forks in the lawn.

If the young man removing the crosses was under the impression that they were an act of vandalism then he would have believed that he was acting within his rights to remove them. Maybe he went a bit overboard. And he certainly should have sought more information first. But I think that some of the onus for this confrontation needs to fall on the group that failed to properly identify what was going on.

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

I think that he was right that the "Pointers for Life" should have identified that they were sponsoring the display. Otherwise how is one to know that the display itself is not vandalism?

And, yes, crosses stuck in the ground on a state university without permission would be vandalism. Without permission it would be no different than what kids around here used to do that they called "forking" -- sticking forks in the lawn.

If the young man removing the crosses was under the impression that they were an act of vandalism then he would have believed that he was acting within his rights to remove them. Maybe he went a bit overboard. And he certainly should have sought more information first. But I think that some of the onus for this confrontation needs to fall on the group that failed to properly identify what was going on.

The group did reserve the space, but didn't put up any public display of that fact. I think the reason may have been tied to the type of display. It was clearly a shock factor work (of visual art ?), meant to do just what (though maybe not exactly in King's case) it did. Play on the emotions to address a cause.
If this was a display of brilliantly colored kites meant as an eye gift to the viewer, it would have taken from the original intent to have a sign that read "Sponsored by K-Mart."

crazyflamingos · #5 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

The group did reserve the space, but didn't put up any public display of that fact. I think the reason may have been tied to the type of display. It was clearly a shock factor work (of visual art ?), meant to do just what (though maybe not exactly in King's case) it did. Play on the emotions to address a cause.
If this was a display of brilliantly colored kites meant as an eye gift to the viewer, it would have taken from the original intent to have a sign that read "Sponsored by K-Mart."

All of which does not change the fact that any student or university employee who was not affiliated with either the sponsor or with the issuance of permits had no way of knowing that it was not an act of vandalism.

I might be proud of drawing a portrait of George Washington on someone's lawn with colorful plastic forks but, without permission. it would be vandalism.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

All of which does not change the fact that any student or university employee who was not affiliated with either the sponsor or with the issuance of permits had no way of knowing that it was not an act of vandalism.

I might be proud of drawing a portrait of George Washington on someone's lawn with colorful plastic forks but, without permission. it would be vandalism.

That isn't exactly a fair comparison. There might be a painting of Washington or even some vulgar work of art in a campus area at any given time. Who sponsors them? Probably the art or drama department, but maybe a club. Students and professors don't ask who sponsored it unless they are interested in what it represents. They merely react to it.

crazyflamingos · #7 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

That isn't exactly a fair comparison. There might be a painting of Washington or even some vulgar work of art in a campus area at any given time. Who sponsors them? Probably the art or drama department, but maybe a club. Students and professors don't ask who sponsored it unless they are interested in what it represents. They merely react to it.

How is it not fair?

Things stuck in a lawn without permission are vandalism.

It does not matter if it is crosses or forks. It is still vandalism. And it is not out of line to assume that it is vandalism until there is evidence presented to show that it isn't.

If a painting is hanging on a wall, it is not going to look like vandalism to any reasonable person. Why should it?

tristanrobin · #8 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 10:53 AM

This installation art piece is obviously successful at doing what good art should always do: provoke emotions.

I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose - however, that does not negate the power of the display.

crazyflamingos · #9 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

This installation art piece is obviously successful at doing what good art should always do: provoke emotions.

I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose - however, that does not negate the power of the display.

Unfortunately, I think the only that reason it has provoked emotion is because the group who created it did not take credit for it and then demonized someone who, understandably, viewed it as vandalism rather than art.

If they had put up signs taking credit for their work in the first place then I suspect that the only reaction that it would have provoked would have been, "Ho-hum."

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

All of which does not change the fact that any student or university employee who was not affiliated with either the sponsor or with the issuance of permits had no way of knowing that it was not an act of vandalism.

And when did it become the RESPONSIBILITY of that guy to take matters into his own hands and declare "Vandalism until someone tells me different"?...

Even if he KNEW that those crosses were vandalism (and he only speculated because, as we found out, the crosses were NOT an act of vandalism), he STILL had no authority to physically do anything...He could've EASILY asked administration what the story was with the crosses...He could've EASILY got to the bottom of it instead of saying "I don't know if it's vandalism or not, so I'll say it is and respond in kind."...

Is that really the way you think ANYBODY, let alone a student, should act?...Everytime they see something that may or may not be vandalism, they should immediately destroy it?...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/abortion/3086-anti-abortion-display-stirs-up-controversy.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	05-10-2008 09:37 AM

The Following User Says Thank You to tristanrobin For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
saltwn