Polish death metal singer cleared by court of ripping up Bible; judge calls it an art form

[rug]

By Associated Press, Published: August 18

WARSAW, Poland — A Polish judge has found a death metal singer innocent of offending religious feeling, ruling that his ripping up of a Bible during a show was a form of artistic expression consistent with the style of his band.

Adam Darski, who goes by the stage name Nergal and is the frontman for the death metal band Behemoth, was charged after he ripped up the Bible during a 2007 concert in Gdynia, in the country’s north.

He was found innocent by a court last year but prosecutors appealed that verdict. The court issued an innocent verdict Thursday.

Concert video footage shows Darski throwing the torn pages to the audience and asking fans to burn them. According to the Polish news agency PAP, he also called the Bible “a deceitful book” and the church a “criminal sect” — strong language in this predominantly Roman Catholic country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/polish-death-metal-singer-cleared-by-court-of-ripping-up-bible-judge-calls-it-an-art-form/2011/08/18/gIQAd1oJNJ_story.html

[zazen]

1. ripping up a Bible? my, how earth-shatteringly original

Running around in the same valance of the mindset one claims to transcend.

[Orrex]

2. Well, it apparently hasn't been done too often in his neck of the woods, so give him some credit

Also, I've never understood the fetish for originality, as if novelty were the only virtue.

Something need not be "original" in order to be interesting or done well.


Hell, I've never even heard anyone explain exactly what "original" is.

[Silent3]

3. The most offensive thing is that there's a law against offending people...

...even if in this one case the accused was found innocent. Such cases shouldn't appear on the docket in the first place.

The oh-so-terrible risk that some people might (gasp!) do something other people find offensive is a necessary price of living in a free society. "Artistic merit", or lack thereof, shouldn't enter into it.

[AlecBGreen]

4. that was the 1st thing that stuck out to me

nt

[Kalidurga]

5. The fact he had was charged with a crime...

kinda proves his point.

[rug]

8. Never mind the law. The evidence in this case was interesting.

"The court said audience members who testified said their religious feelings had not been hurt despite the fact they were Christians."

[pokerfan]

9. I am reminded of a Bloom County...

[Iggo]

6. '...offending religious feeling...' ???

:rofl:

Wait, wait, wait...

Okay... :rofl:

[cleanhippie]

7. Rec for free speech

[ButterflyBlood]

10. What a stupid and counterproductive action

This guy got exactly what he wanted: People offended and he can now act as if he did some serious form of rebellion, and tons of rebellious teenagers will idolize him for it. When in reality the best thing to do is just ignore such things.

About a month ago I saw the last show of Disembodied, a local legendary hardcore band. In their early days, they often put "666" on their shirts or after their names, their first webpage had disembodied666 in the url, and many of their shirts later had upside down crosses or other anti-Christian imagery on them. Guess what was the first band that played on their final show? A Christian band. And they said nothing about God or religion on stage, just about how much they loved Disembodied and were sad to see them go. I once met a guy who claimed he wore a band shirt that says "WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING GOD?" on the back to church, and not as an act of trolling or to piss people off, but because he both likes the band and likes to go to church. People involved in this type of scene are so desensitized to this sort of thing they'll almost take it as a badge of honor rather than a deep offense at their beliefs. Failure to be offended kind of weakens the impact. It's much like how the GLBT community has claimed the word "queer". That's exactly the reason why in this scene you don't see bands doing this sort of thing anymore.

But charging this guy with anything just shows that yes someone was offended. The wrong way to go about it, even completely ignoring the free speech angle (which of course makes charging him with any abhorrent on its own.)