"Mommy, why did Jesus shoot Santa Claus?"

Owner Claims "Artistic License"

Quote :

One Nipomo man's holiday decorations has his neighbors banding together to get it removed.

The display is of Jesus and Santa, the two icons of Christmas. However, Jesus is holding a shotgun over the dead body of Santa Claus.

I know some folks get a bit irked about the whole commercial nature of Christmas, but really now...

Quote :

The artist, Ron Lake, who is house sitting where the decorations are on display, says that it represents the commercialism of Christmas.

Lake also says that his display it is a work of art and open to interpretation. "You can tell your kids and make it as if there's a Santa Claus, and let them believe all that, but you can't explain these things or ignore this thing. I don't get it," says Lake.

You don't get it because there's a very large, very vacuous space where your brain should be.

They're kids. Sometimes it's a good thing to give kids something to believe in - whether it's Jesus or Santa or whatever. Seriously, an atheist could say the same thing about Jesus and you'd probably want to wring their neck.

Quote :

The display is of Jesus and Santa, the two icons of Christmas. However, Jesus is holding a shotgun over the dead body of Santa Claus.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As an art exhibition piece, this would have been rather humorous. However, as yard decorations they're really quite tasteless.

What he should of done was some sculpture of Jesus charging Santa while wielding Excalibur as Santa defends himself with the Mjollnir. And in the background, the Apostles would be fighting Santa's reindeer.

And that would be the best Christmas ever.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

What he should of done was some sculpture of Jesus charging Santa while wielding Excalibur as Santa defends himself with the Mjollnir. And in the background, the Apostles would be fighting Santa's reindeer.

And that would be the best Christmas ever.

OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE TODAY THAT NOW I FIND MYSELF AGREEING WITH MIKEY...?! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey, you're right. That would be the best christmas display EVER.


I will now attempt to finagle a friend into sketching that as my christmas present. XD

As long as there's lasers shooting off in the background, I'll be happy.

Raine wrote:

As long as there's lasers shooting off in the background, I'll be happy.

Rudolph's nose can finally be put to good use.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Raine wrote:

As long as there's lasers shooting off in the background, I'll be happy.

Rudolph's nose can finally be put to good use.

About bloody time. One red light does not help you steer through heavy cloud cover.

Oh hell, I'm agreeing with Mikey again.

That would be epic and I would pay money to see it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm sure we've all seen the pics of deranged Christmas light displays with Santa on a cross or some shit.

Congrats, Mikey. You have temporarily redeemed yourself. Have a gold star.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Raine wrote:

As an art exhibition piece, this would have been rather humorous. However, as yard decorations they're really quite tasteless.

Tasteless they may be, but given some of the other stupendously tasteless displays that people have put up over the years, this one really shouldn't be any more than a blip on the radar. His neighbors are going to have to answer awkward questions to their kids about something at some point, and can not bubble wrap the world. They need to chillax.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Raine wrote:

As an art exhibition piece, this would have been rather humorous. However, as yard decorations they're really quite tasteless.

Tasteless they may be, but given some of the other stupendously tasteless displays that people have put up over the years, this one really shouldn't be any more than a blip on the radar. His neighbors are going to have to answer awkward questions to their kids about something at some point, and can not bubble wrap the world. They need to chillax.

I've seen some tasteless Christmas displays, too, but not usually ones that give small children nightmares. About ten years ago, the crazy Vietnam vet up the street put a blow-up doll wearing only a strategically placed Santa hat on his chimney. It resulted in a number of complaints and lots of cars full of men stopping to stare (and fap). In spite of the complaints, the doll stayed there until just before Christmas, when a Santa Ana wind blew up and carried the doll into his next-door neighbor's yard, where it was chewed up by the dogs.

I'm pretty sure nightmares weren't the kind of dreams that display induced.

Penguin wrote:

I'm sure we've all seen the pics of deranged Christmas light displays with Santa on a cross or some shit.

I think I saw a Santa that had hung himself once, although it's possible the display had just slipped.

Saleha wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

What he should of done was some sculpture of Jesus charging Santa while wielding Excalibur as Santa defends himself with the Mjollnir. And in the background, the Apostles would be fighting Santa's reindeer.

And that would be the best Christmas ever.

OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE TODAY THAT NOW I FIND MYSELF AGREEING WITH MIKEY...?! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

*patpatpat*

Peace on Earth! And good will to message boards! In the spirit of love, compassion, and deranged maniacal laughter at perverted and irreverent artwork!

KelinciHutan wrote:

Raine wrote:

As an art exhibition piece, this would have been rather humorous. However, as yard decorations they're really quite tasteless.

Tasteless they may be, but given some of the other stupendously tasteless displays that people have put up over the years, this one really shouldn't be any more than a blip on the radar. His neighbors are going to have to answer awkward questions to their kids about something at some point, and can not bubble wrap the world. They need to chillax.

As Groucho Marx once said "Pardon me for a second while I have a strange interlude."

I know that people cannot "bubble wrap the world" for their children. I get that. However, don't you think it should be the parents who get to decide when to tell their children about certain things (such as the existence of Santa)? I mean, I believe in Santa as a concept instead of as a person, but I don't go around forcing that on others.

I've seen plenty of displays around my own town that either pleasantly mix the secular and religious aspects of the holiday (such as the ones where Santa is kneeling in prayer before the Baby Jesus) and some that eschew the secular element altogether for just the manger scene or a cross done in Christmas lights.

There are ways of getting your point across without being an utter ass about it. Especially when you read that he only keeps the display up during the daylight hours and just so happens to have a yard that faces a school bus stop. To me, and this is my opinion and mine only, he was not trying to keep true to his faith but rather pick a fight so that he could get his 15 minutes and proclaim how he's such a special little snowflake because he's going to take Christmas back from the dirty secularists with their Santa Claus and so on and so forth...

Why can't there be room for both at this time of year?

Thank you, Spotts, for putting into words the off, protesting quibble in the back of my mind about this whole thing.

Mikey, your idea is genius, and would quickly become the Greatest Christmas Display Ever.

And it sounds more like he takes it down at night to prevent people from messing with it. Not to cause a ruckus. People can get over it, its his private property and its his right to express himself so long as it's not obscene.

All they have to say is "Well, this idiot man felt like setting up his decorations so that Jesus and Santa look a little different than most people do it. Jesus doesn't really carry a shotgun."

BAM! Explanation over.

Quote :

"Mommy, why did Jesus shoot Santa Claus?"

"Because you touch yourself at night."

Spotts1701 wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

Raine wrote:

As an art exhibition piece, this would have been rather humorous. However, as yard decorations they're really quite tasteless.

Tasteless they may be, but given some of the other stupendously tasteless displays that people have put up over the years, this one really shouldn't be any more than a blip on the radar. His neighbors are going to have to answer awkward questions to their kids about something at some point, and can not bubble wrap the world. They need to chillax.

As Groucho Marx once said "Pardon me for a second while I have a strange interlude."

I know that people cannot "bubble wrap the world" for their children. I get that. However, don't you think it should be the parents who get to decide when to tell their children about certain things (such as the existence of Santa)? I mean, I believe in Santa as a concept instead of as a person, but I don't go around forcing that on others.

I've seen plenty of displays around my own town that either pleasantly mix the secular and religious aspects of the holiday (such as the ones where Santa is kneeling in prayer before the Baby Jesus) and some that eschew the secular element altogether for just the manger scene or a cross done in Christmas lights.

There are ways of getting your point across without being an utter ass about it. Especially when you read that he only keeps the display up during the daylight hours and just so happens to have a yard that faces a school bus stop. To me, and this is my opinion and mine only, he was not trying to keep true to his faith but rather pick a fight so that he could get his 15 minutes and proclaim how he's such a special little snowflake because he's going to take Christmas back from the dirty secularists with their Santa Claus and so on and so forth...

Why can't there be room for both at this time of year?

First off, I am not going to take a position on the whole Secular vs. Sacred aspects of Christmas, mostly because I don't really care. The important Christian holiday is Easter. Christmas is fun, but if it weren't on our calendar, we'd live. And I get the impression that you're right. He probably is trying to make a point. I don't really care what his point is, though. His Christmas display could be anything. I don't give a rip.

My point is, why do you? Especially when you are saying things like, "I've seen plenty of displays around my own town that either pleasantly mix the secular and religious aspects of the holiday," and "There are ways of getting your point across without being an utter ass about it." So, you are allowed to make whatever points you like so long as you are pleasant and not an ass about it? That sounds like censorship there (yes, over Christmas lights; if people are allowed to do stuff like "Piss Christ" and call it art, then this does not get to be evil, either). This guy put up a display that was the way he wanted it. He did it in his own yard, at his own expense. It's mean-spirited, so that probably makes him a jerk. Jerks still get to put up tasteless displays and do so all the time. I'm pretty sure I remember a few Christmas displays that got put up in Antidotes of things like Santa shooting Jesus. How is that better? It isn't.

Tasteless is allowed. It may be tasteless, but it's still allowed.

KelinciHutan wrote:

My point is, why do you? Especially when you are saying things like, "I've seen plenty of displays around my own town that either pleasantly mix the secular and religious aspects of the holiday," and "There are ways of getting your point across without being an utter ass about it." So, you are allowed to make whatever points you like so long as you are pleasant and not an ass about it? That sounds like censorship there (yes, over Christmas lights; if people are allowed to do stuff like "Piss Christ" and call it art, then this does not get to be evil, either). This guy put up a display that was the way he wanted it. He did it in his own yard, at his own expense. It's mean-spirited, so that probably makes him a jerk. Jerks still get to put up tasteless displays and do so all the time. I'm pretty sure I remember a few Christmas displays that got put up in Antidotes of things like Santa shooting Jesus. How is that better? It isn't.

Tasteless is allowed. It may be tasteless, but it's still allowed.

Did I at any point in either of my posts say it shouldn't be allowed?

I said he was being an ass and forcing his belief down other people's throats, but I don't seem to recall actually saying that someone should force him to take it down.

But let's assume for the moment that I did. So what? I'm a private citizen. The First Amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech (read: censorship), not from other citizens.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Did I at any point in either of my posts say it shouldn't be allowed?

I said he was being an ass and forcing his belief down other people's throats, but I don't seem to recall actually saying that someone should force him to take it down.

But let's assume for the moment that I did. So what? I'm a private citizen. The First Amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech (read: censorship), not from other citizens.

You do seem to be coming down on the side of the cabal of other neighbors who want to make him take it down. And given that they'd have to do some legal brangling to do so, it seems to me that the government gets involved at that point which would bring all that Free Speech and Expression stuff into play. You are a private citizen, but the people that the private citizens appeal to in order to force some other private citizen to do something are not. If you're not on their side, then I apologize for falsely accusing you. That was the impression I received, but I admit it could have been mistaken.

I certainly don't disagree that he's being a jerk. But I do disagree that that allows his neighbors to force him to stop being that way.

KelinciHutan wrote:

You do seem to be coming down on the side of the cabal of other neighbors who want to make him take it down. And given that they'd have to do some legal brangling to do so, it seems to me that the government gets involved at that point which would bring all that Free Speech and Expression stuff into play.

Not necessarily. There have been plenty of times where you bring enough outrage and shame upon someone that they change behavior of their own accord without getting the government involved.

Now granted, it only works when one has shame to begin with but still...