Darryl, I guess it’s a difference between being unwilling to distort an artist’s work and being ready to steal and distort its meanings out of anything the artist intended.

Blake was opposed to the established church, as were many other deeply religious people. He had very unorthodox ideas about God and religion but he said that he was always conscious of God’s presence in his life and through out the world. Atheists who appropriate his work as part of their propaganda are lying about his intentions and the content of his work. I guess it comes down to a question of honesty and respect for an artist’s intentions.

Theft, distortion, propaganda, lying, dishonesty, disrespect: a bit over the top are we? Who made you Blake’s defender? And why should we care how his work is used? If spirits were real, and he were cognizant of us, he might be thankful that the world hasn’t completely forgotten him yet. You might consider that not everyone views such a use of Blake as iniquitously as you do. To impute your motives to others is unwarranted, and says more about you than about Mr. Blake.

Blake was opposed to the established church, as were many other deeply religious people. He had very unorthodox ideas about God and religion but he said that he was always conscious of God’s presence in his life and through out the world. Atheists who appropriate his work as part of their propaganda are lying about his intentions and the content of his work. I guess it comes down to a question of honesty and respect for an artist’s intentions.

Blake’s intentions were quite clear, though complex. I doubt he would have endorsed any kind of atheistic materialism, I’ve read most of what he wrote and don’t recall ever having seen anything like that. To steal his work to promote Beyond Belief is intellectually and morally dishonest.

Original intent is your standard? Aesthetic malleability is mine. No one knows the fullness of the meanings that may be found by others in one’s work. We make of Blake what we will; what suits us. I doubt that he is in any position to give a damn.

“As the caterpillar chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.” William Blake

Mock on, mock on Voltaire, Rousseau
Mock, on, mock on, tis all in vain….

Blake’s intentions were quite clear, though complex. I doubt he would have endorsed any kind of atheistic materialism, I’ve read most of what he wrote and don’t recall ever having seen anything like that. To steal his work to promote Beyond Belief is intellectually and morally dishonest.

That’s doable in an environment where you pass fifty of your neighbors, on average, when you’re walking downtown.

You’re right, walkability is key, and subdivisions are the great Satan. I live in a medium sized town (60,000+) but it is very walkable/bikable. Walkable= more encounters with neighbors, more eyes on the street, enhanced feeling of community, larger public sphere.
Subdivisions provide an illusions of safety through homogeneity. Real neighborhoods are better.

Logos, to use one of William Blake’s best known works to promote atheism is rather dishonest. Blake’s life and work were primarily motivated by his religious experiences and ideas. I know that many people don’t believe it but I think an artistic genius’ intentions should be honored.

That would first require everyone to form a consensus on what each particular person’s intentions and motivations were and on whether each potential application was consistent with them. And seeing as neither of those is ever going to happen…

As for James Watson, other than having heard the arrogant jerk a number of times and had people who knew him tell me stories about what a back-biting asshole he is, there’s his bragging about having stolen Rosalind Franklin’s work and insulting her after her death in absolutely sexist language. I seem to recall that Crick thought he’d gone way too far on that one.