I strongly recommend that you google Ceramic crosses/ crucifixs and see what comes up.
The class is for learning how to make ceramic stuff. Crosses aren’t as complicated apparently as the course curriculum would like. Nothing wrong with crosses but the next step would be to make a flat pancake and call it a masterpiece. The guy really needs to try harder and do a better job. Making crosses is one way to get out of doing any substantial work.
Says the eye of the beholder. Nice try at being an art critic. (other adjectives respecfully withheld)
A crucifix has a figure of Jesus’ body on it, so I guess this human form, celebrated in art and culture for millennia, is a cookie cutter image? I have seen thousands of crucifixes, often very original>
Let’s say you are right. How is that reconciled with the swastika comparison?
Yea pots and tiles are so much more "substantial".
I strongly recommend that you google Ceramic crosses/ crucifixs and see what comes up.
Shakelford says college officials are not only banning crosses, but menorahs and other religious items from the class.
You're right. Next class: Star of David, then on to the bonus round: ceramic fractals.
The class is for ceramics. We all lack the ability to read the class curriculum. So no way to see what ‘items’ may be required to be fashioned to pass the class.
Was it a ‘simple’ cross? Were there photos? Was it a case of the teacher saying that the project was not ‘complex’ enough? None of those things was mentioned.
It was a teacher restricting the student from fashioning, specifically, a religious item. It was a case of an anti-Christian person, using his ‘superior’ position as a teacher, to try to demean a persons Faith.
If he had fashioned a flat pancake, he should be graded accordingly, provided there was guidance on what was expected.
Regardless, I don't think the real issue is that the work Mitchell is producing is too simple. Crosses or crucifixes, the "problem" is that he is making an obvious Christian symbol. The Tolerance Police simply will not tolerate that!
When will Christians of all types band together and put a stop to this nonsense? All one needs to do is point-out that, at the time of the Constitution's formulation and subsequent ratification, there were still five states with an "established religion." The last of them (Massachusetts) did not formally remove Congregationalism as the Established Religion of the Commonwealth until 1833! This means that, for over 40 years after the Federal Constitution went into effect, at least one state held to things like mandatory Christian belief for office holders, and taxes levied and collected for a specific denomination, and neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court ever intervened. They did not, because they knew that the U.S. Constitution granted them no authority to do so! How, then, can anyone with a straight face say that the logical absurdities brought up in this thread can really find their origin in "Constitutional issues"?
Mind you, I don't think that states having established religions, religious requirements for office holders, and so forth, is a good idea. But that is not the point. The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing religions at the Federal level. Christians need to take the argument back from the relative handful of village atheists and other cranks and insist that all of this controversy based on a manifestly false set of premises come to an abrupt and permanent end!
That’s a plausible reason. But did the instructor say that?