Art-injustice: liberty or intolerance?
I watched House of Cards, the latest season and without any exaggeration I agonized by its bullying of Christianity and dis-respect for fathers. The dude, you know who, pissed on his father's grave, and spit on the cross to mention the brain tearing scenes. This is without mentioning that he has no wish to be a father, in which case he avoids repeating the failure of his father simply by not being a father, instead of being the right one, or to put it around, a father that does it right.
From what I have seen on the movie, it has so many issues it touches, from women's struggle in a society to homosexuals being persecuted or manipulated by people of interest, while justice is not clearly served. Such areas it tries to show, in my view are relevant with the context of our time.
In this art is where one uses the maximum possible liberty to express societal situations and realities, while it admittedly changes great deal of leveling social landscape. This is without mentioning its great contribution in political and economical reforms, and up lifting mind set to higher stages. Oh yes, it also does help by inspiring scientists and researchers in enlightening what books and years of study can not accomplish, in some areas such as tech advancement.
While the liberty of art can reflect societal freedom, and it does so well to awaken when people sleep over certain unsolved matters, it becomes conservatively rigid to hurting certain groups of a society, if it does what it does with discriminatory, derogatory or abusive manners unless one insists to define what abuse is to a person/group other than themselves.
Imagine, a movie series made with insult, which many in Christianity or other faiths can tolerate, up to spitting in what is symbolic to some religion. I am sure by now, that I can tell which religions came to your mind immediately, and just think of what would be the reaction to such act.
The question is, why does art or movie industry specifically, pretend that ''it does 'it' with liberty'' and fail to do so to all, by having liberty over selected one or few faith types?
I am not saying, that it would have been just if other religions were also spat on, this is just to shed light on how selective the art-injustice has become in our time. Reciprocally speaking this tells us that art has demonstrated selective-injustice towards Christianity, House of Cards did so particularly exemplified.
How far can it go? Can't writers and artists get across their message without intentionally or unintentionally demeaning certain group of people or at least their faith, if it were not towards the people?
Where is the ''tolerance'' art wants to create among people in itself? Why is it intolerant towards Christianity? Does this show that art can never flourish without hurting religion?
I am wondering and trying to grasp the essence while I try to see through the glass of liberty, and art became unbending in the department of attacking faith (Christianity, in this) and sticking to it.
Are we to continue to see, such a matter as father-son relationship as nothing more than a spit on the grave? While orgy is glorified as in other scenes, what is wrong to show regard to the value of respect for fathers? Or is movie industry taking you to the spot where you drop it all together?
Is art so narrow stated and unaccommodating if people have a faith which art does not seem to appreciate? Where is the line, and what defines the point of ''liberty'' and ''intolerance?''