Poppycock. Ms. Bachmann believes she is a conservative, the 'tip of the spear', and so do many Republican voters.  Being 'crazy' may be an essential prerequisite to run for office as a conservative Republican.

But be assured there were pinkos in the bushes wanting to spend your tax dollars on that poem, which is exactly why they want to end the Bush tax cuts.  So they can go into mass production of poems just like this. If you care about common decency, if you care that your children grow up wholesome and pure and the way our founding fathers intended, vote Republican.

Here was my take on Piss Christ in my first blog here at Dagblog: Koran Burning and other Performance Art.  It isn't the full story on how view it, but it is one of a (infinite?) numerous starting points.

First off, it is my personal belief that everyone should feel totally free to inject their selves into whatever side conservation is going on.  If someone wants a private conservation between his or herself and another commenter, then they need to exchange email addresses.

With that said...

intimidation and denying the rights of artists to self-expression is not the American way

So you say.  And I would say, too, and strongly so. But saying it, even it saying it strongly doesn't make it so.  Unfortunately we don't have some tablet handed down by God which explains in unambiguous means what is exactly is the American way.

even acceptance of their argument by a large segment of the population does not make it correct

True. Doesn't make it correct in the ultimate sense.  But culturally speaking, it is true.  I could bring up a lot of indigenous populations and their spiritual beliefs about the universe, and while I don't believe them, I also choose to respect them.  I also choose to respect their claims on burial grounds, etc which interfere on the projects of those who do not believe their particular concept of the universe.

In the end, concepts like all humans are created equal are still concepts.  Their "rightness" or "correctness" depends solely on the majority of the culture agreeing on the concept.  We depend on a collective agreement on moving forward on the majority view.  At times, the minority view may feel compelled to confront the majority.  All the power to them.  But it is not in the quest to achieve the goal that minority view achieve the status of dominant view (ie the Queen of England is an collaborator with aliens from outer space, and using cocaine money to fund the descendants of the Illuminati in their attempt to achieve world domination.)

A group which wants to take away choice and deny freedom needs to be fought. The biggest mistake Liberals made was not shutting this idiocy down from the get go..

Yes. I agree with you, because I know what you mean.  But the fact is we do accept limitations.  We are not free to say, do, or express anything.  For good reason.  It is all too easy to provide examples which even the most liberal, biggest supporter of the ACLU would not sign on to. 

The ACLU is best example of where the liberal and conservative mindset rests.  That a true liberal, in my opinion, fights for the right of the KKK to march in a parade in spite of the disgust their view engender shows the true depth of where their values lay.  

That's censorship and America is not supposed to be about censorship. And if being on the correct side of this issue makes us look bad, while that may be our fault for not making an equally strong and proper counter-argument and insisting that what the right was doing in forcing their minority view on the general public was, and is, un-American

Who says America is not about censorship. What if the pursuit of happiness goes through censorship. Do we not have the liberty to censor, or the freedom to censor?  Do we want our children exposed to all the various views of life at particular moment?  

The minority view is not always righteous.  Being a liberal in America, it is sometimes easy to fall into the trap that it is.  If there was negative to the 60's it was the over embracement of the anti-hero, the anti-establishment idol.  And for every Billy Jack there was a Dirty Harry. 

Personally, I didn't care for Piss Christ as a work of art, because I thought it was a mediocre piece of work, not particularly clever nor artistically interesting, but it certainly did stimulate a lot of discussion, and that's what art should do; make people think.  So, I'll defend the artist's right to make his artistic statement.

And so will I defend.  At the same time I will respect the offended individuals.  If it was Jewish star, or an image of Chief Joseph, or a Buddhist statute that was dunk in piss, would you be more willing to listen to those offended?

And instead of putting our tails between our legs and letting the radical right frame the argument as a sign that Liberal philosophy was un-American and/or a demonstration of the paucity of Liberal moral values, Liberals should have repeated every waking minute of every day for as long as it took, that America is about tolerance of other viewpoints even ones with which we disagree and an artist's right to self-expression is part of what makes America great.

So the problem is that you claim a loyalty to the concept that one should be tolerant to other viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that has an issue with the work of art. 

We're not like Communist countries, we don't censor our artists,

But like the Communist countries, you are asking the government to suppress the majority opinion because you personally don't like what the majority believes because it goes against your values.

Democracy is messy and the People don't always go the way you want them to go.

Shame on the God-damned bastards that want to take away your right to choose for yourself what is or isn't art.  That's how you fight back against cultural bullies.  Call them out for being against freedom and liberty and wanting to take away the rights of the individual to make up their own minds. Paint them as being what they are, un-American.

Okay, I'll ignore your request for the God above to damn your enemies.  But let me ask you - if some "artist" wants to call his child pornography art, will you defend him or her, or will you draw a line between the right of free expression and decency?