How can we judge what is profane, what is not

Final Manifesto : how can we judge what is profane what is not From the last manifesto about the city that people incarcerated deeply into folly thing , Bangkok, “nang kwak” : the beckoning lady brings business and love . Also everyone got their own representation of “nang kwak” so, that make me realize something then that how profane could be ? what’s thing that we use to decide something that which one is profane or not ? I got this idea from temple where I went last week and I found some point that seems very interesting there. charity means an activity or gift that benefits the public at large Donor specification , on the temple wall , a luxury granite and marble where attach with donor’s name on itself every 2 meters so, there’s light up my idea that when we want to donate something is it essential enough to specify the donor’s name on ? Should other know whoever donate a lot of money for this wall, Sa-mien-naree temple? So , who’s said that “charity is mean need nothing back ?” even if there’s absolutely be marketing at all and it’s work so well because I can remember the name of people whom I never meet before and if one day, he’s apply to be a member of the Assembly he might got it cause his name is already well-known . Because there’s got another donation that donors did not attach their name on a paper money at all Therefore, how profane of this case? Profane or not? If whatever they have done absolutely used religion as a tool for them. And which one is more profane between The hotel "where used" an element of temple be a marketing or MK "where be" an element of temple for marketing ? Did any Buddhist feel offended with the case ? of couse , they did . The theme design of hotel is The lost ancient palace by reproduce the design form Laanna temple style and decorated with a lot of ancient elements , therefore, there’s the cause that everyone have to follow on and comments on because there’s indicate in terms of bhuddha and temple but the owner absolutely confirm that "There are palace style not temple style" at all , there’s an art ,the nicely palace and do not looking in terms of religion even if in every terms there’s actually be representation of temple so well. And after that all comments were fade out because Mandarin Oriental Dhara Dhevi Chiang Mai 14th is number 89th of 100 hotels from TRAVEL + LEISURE WORLD’S BEST AWARDS 14th So, there’s means any art could not be any profane ? it is not profane at all because it’s an art ,a decoration , a sculpture , a painting ? The point is “art” mean not profane ? Another case that seems support my idea is the “the secret of the last supper” that I had read after finished the book , internet researching is a good way to study deeply more about the interesting painting from Leonardo Da Vinci that what’s the secret behind this artwork and summary I found it. Take one JPEG of “The Last Supper” by Leonardo, save a second copy Flip the copy horizontally then, Overlay the copy on the original, and adjust transparency From computer technique , the hidden secret is Leonardo Da Vici did not painting jesus and 12 disciples but there’re got a person in red robe and baby at the painting. The truth was lay bare by a computer technician but there’s got a lot of people who contradicted this idea because of the reason that there’s too nonsense and it’s just accidentally at all. Did this idea made some profane because he distorted the fact that everyone faith long time ago . Not profane ? So how about all below.. Did there do any profane if there all be only an artworks which got a same language that everyone can told that there’re representation of the last supper. Or maybe , no one is care that profane or not because it’s just an artwork or maybe there’s not effect to them anymore because It's all just a sham. Then so , did I do any profane ? References : http://www.hflight.net/forum/m-1256021214/ http://www.giggog.com/world/cat12/news7577/ http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=109687