Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
Sandstrider: Sorry about the Hippie comment, but that whole "judge like a child" comment was a bit too much. I've made the comment in other contexts that I will never buy into the idea that "art" is somehow above reproach. If someone posted a photo of child porn on the site, would you really judge it on its technical merits? I hope not. Did you know that Hitler and Saddam Hussein were artists? You probably know that "Al Rub al Khali" means "the Empty Quarter" in Arabic. It's called that because there's nothing there but sand and is very inhospitable to life. You'll find a few bedouins roaming it, but they're just passing through. You can't live there without tremendous support equipment (nor can I imagine why you'd want to); but it's worth a camping trip. India would be a cool trip. Everyone I know who's been there tells me that's its wonderful and horrible at the same time. Terribly filthy, but wonderfully exotic. The Middle East in general is not as bad as is shown on television, but it's not the kind of place you come to with a light-hearted approach, either.

PDF: I don't think we actually disagree on much. Criticize all the ideas you want. Go ahead and question the idea that prayer does anything more than act as a placebo. But I maintain my belief that this photo was directed specifically at Christians. Only Meyers knows what he was thinking when he took it. But I know what it looks like to me. I'm also very scientific-minded. For example, I accept evolution as a fact.

Meyers: Ok, I concede the point on the "stick in the rear end" thing. And I agree that not everyone will feel cultural attachment or identification with a religion whose beliefs they no longer share. There are certainly a lot of atheist Jews who do, though. And you might be surprised what connection you might feel if you left the West and came to a Muslim country where you do not have the freedoms you have in the West.

Everyone: I stand on this: I think you'd think twice before doing something similar with a symbol of, for example, Judaeism, Islam, Homosexuality or Kwaanza.

Everyone: I think we've beat this horse to death.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
PDF: It's the word "attacking" that bothers me; I guess it all depends on how its done. What's clearly unobjectionable to me is someone criticizing religion in general. At some point it could become hateful, though, and I don't like that. I mean, if someone criticizes you too much, you're not going to like it, right? At some point, you'll become mad.

I have absolutely no problem with the position that prayer is a placebo. It's a valid theory. No one knows for a fact that God exists, they just believe it -- or want to believe it. So, for a person who doubts God's existence, the idea that prayer can heal is a placebo. And, either way, prayer can definitely be viewed as an alternative medicine. Some religions (Jehova's Witnesses?) don't even allow the use of medicines; but demand only faith and prayer for healing. I disagree with them in the strongest terms.

I regret having used the term hate speech at all, because "hate speech" gets legislated against in the U.S. and I am absolutely against making hate speech, or any speech, illegal unless it advocates the overthrow of the government, incites violence, urges the commission of crimes, etc... If someone hates a particular group and wants to say unkind things about them, I think that should be his or her LEGAL right just as it is the legal right of the victim to respond in kind. So, I'd NEVER want legislation against this photo; but that doesn't mean I can't take issue with the person who did it.

As for attacking a specific belief system. I guess it all comes down to what you mean by "attacking." And I don't know how you separate the belief from the people. Religion is culture. It's emotional and deep and intertwined with one's sense of identity. It's not as simple as believing something to be true or not. An atheist who was raised in almost any religion you can name may still feel culturally a member of that religious group.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
PDF: I disagree with your last point because I was just using Yarmulkas, beards and feathers to help demonstrate what I was getting at. A Torah, Qur'an and peyote bud with a Woody in the appropriate prayer position for the religion referred-to would suffice, in my opinion.

To everyone, I'd like to say that, as pissed-off as I was when I made my first post on this, I've said my peace and am no longer angry. IF the photo was only intended to say that prayer in-general is a placebo, then I have no issue with the message. I simply don't believe that that was what this picture was about -- not JUST that anyway (reference "stick in Woody's rear end" photographer comment above.)

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
I think Meyers and I have buried the hatchet. But I'll still address a few of the comments below.

Sandstrider: You sound like a 60's hippie with the "judge like a child" stuff. Think about the implications of what you're saying: As long as it's done in a photographically-excellent way, the message doesn't matter. So, a photo that intentionally attacks or mocks a culture or group of people is just fine as long as it's well-executed or esthetically-pleasing?! Christians are certainly not "a known majority" in the country where I live, or any country anywhere near where I live. Do you ever get out of the United States?

PDF: If "courage" was a reason you gave this a 10, then you must have known that it was an attack. Whether you agree with the message is irrelevant to whether it's acceptable.

Poonaka: While "the Holy Bible" contains Jewish sacred scriptures in what Christians refer to as "the Old Testament," I do not believe that Jewish people commonly refer to their sacred scriptures as "the Holy Bible." A Jewish person can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Everyone: Here's the test: Ask yourself if the same basic picture would be socially acceptable if it mocked Jews, Muslims, Native American religion, or the African American spiritual/cultural celebration of Kwaanza. If you would think twice before presenting such a picture, you understand what I'm getting at.

While I've called this "Hate Speech," I don't think Meyers is a hateful person. But the picture is intentionally insulting and inflammatory, culturally insensitive and provoking. It was an intentional jab; and I answered back.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
I'm not here to argue whether prayer is a placebo or not, but I will say that THAT message would not have been so offensive and could have been communicated by including other religious symbols in the picture as well. I got pissed because you singled-out one group for ridicule. It strikes me as hateful. Trying the same with some of the others I mentioned would bring a powerful social condemnation that I think you fear. You might not be gutless, but you sure picked the easy target.

You have an America-centric bias. The world is full of Christians. Ann Coulter and the American Republican Party do not speak for or represent us all. There are also many American Democrats who are Christians and lot's of people who are neither Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or Americans either.

I've said enough. You're probably a decent person who I'd regret arguing with if I met. But you sure pissed me off. I'll try to keep further argument/debate between you and me by private message.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 15:55:35.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
Had this photo included symbols of other religions alongside the Bible (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist and Hindu symbols together) it would have communicated the inoffensive opinion that religion is a placebo without singling-out a particular group. But, by singling-out one specific group, the photographer has submitted hate speech. Imagine the uproar had he used a symbol of another religion instead of the Bible -- a Jewish Woody with a yarmulka or Torah, a Muslim Woody with a beard and a Qur'an, a Native American Woody with feathers and a bud of peyote. I called this cowardly because this photo singles-out the only group that one can safely single-out in the Western world. It's safe to single-out Christians for ridicule. Try it with someone else and you'll lose your job, or worse. Finally, Christians are not synonymous with Bible Thumpers.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 02:50:07.

bad medicine
by sser

Comment:

Originally posted by CBalck: I'm sure you received a bunch of does not meet challenge comments - this is another one.... Alternative medicine still follows the premise of "do no harm" obviously what you are portraying isn't following that creed. As for the photo, it is gritty and harsh and definately captures the awful side of drug use.

I think the above comment is a ridiculously strict (and politically-motivated) interpretation of the challenge. The term "alternative medicine" leaves very wide room for interpretation -- including doing things that harm you. For an addict, or for a person with emotional trauma of some sort, shooting up may very well seem like medicine for what ails him because it gives him the relief he seeks -- albeit at a cost. And, for someone like me, the term "alternative medicine" conjurs up visions of snake oil merchants and flaky quacks.

Meditation
by dssagent88

Comment:
Congrats Chris!

Very Bed
by h2

Comment:
I don't like how her hand is so limp. It looks dead, which detracts from what I assume to be the objective -- a sexually titillating photo about someone enjoying some B&D sex. Put some life into the hand, and I think this could be a great photo.

Sign of the Times
by Artifacts

Comment:
Oh I miss Sedona! What a great place. Have you eaten at Rene's?