Female Jesus Draws Brooklyn Museum Into Art Storm

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK -- Jesus is a woman. And she's naked.

Art as scandal returned Thursday to the same Brooklyn museum that sparked a legal storm by displaying a dung-decorated painting of the Virgin Mary.

"Get over it!" said photographer Renee Cox, who posed in the buff for her Last Supper image. "Why can't a woman be Christ? We are the givers of life!"

Cox is surrounded by 12 black apostles in "Yo Mama's Last Supper," part of an exhibit of 94 contemporary black photographers opening Friday, titled "Committed to the Image: Contemporary Black Photographers."

A topless woman, crucified, is displayed in another work, a photo collage by Willie Middlebrook.

Sacrilege! -- declared both New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

League president William Donohue called Cox "an admitted anti-Catholic."

And at City Hall, Giuliani said he's appointing a task force "that can set decency standards for those institutions that are using your money, the taxpayers' money," including the city-subsidized Brooklyn Museum of Art.

"I think what they did is disgusting, it's outrageous," Giuliani said, adding that anti-Catholicism "is accepted in our city and in our society."

But Cox says she composed her Last Supper to highlight legitimate criticisms of the Catholic Church, including its refusal to ordain women as priests.

"The Bible says we are created in the image of God," said the 40-year-old Jamaican-born artist in explaining why she used herself as the Christ figure.

Cox was raised Catholic in Scarsdale, N.Y., attended Syracuse University and the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan, and studied art in Italy.

...

This time, Giuliani threatens to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions he says are based on "showing decency and respect for religion."

But first, who defines decency?

"While I am personally offended by this current exhibit, it is not the role of government to play culture cop," said Vallone. "The mayor's proposal for a so-called 'decency committee' sounds more like a plea for a 'censorship committee."'

Orville Robertson, one of four curators who chose the exhibited works from more than 1,000 photos, simply calls the uproar "silly."

"We just thought these were great images," he said. "Nobody thought this was controversial!"

-----

What do you think?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Answers

I'm a believing Christian, and I'm not offended at the idea---I don't think it's terribly clever, that it's rather obvious, but it's not offensive or anything. (And no, that's not my hormones speaking.)

I think God must love naked females---and males, for that matter. After all, there must be at last two billion of each on this planet-- under our clothes---and certainly our clothes don't hide anything from an omniscient God.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

If God is omniscient, then he knows what we are going to do before we decide to do it. Since God also made us, he knew everything we were going to do the moment he made us. Thus, we have no free will.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Well first of all, i have to say that the title "Yo Mama's Last Supper" sent me into a fit of snarfing giggles. I should not read before i finish my coffee as i am not so coherent and am way too easily amused when i'm not sufficiently caffeinated.

That said, it scares me that someone would take it upon themselves to define what makes art offensive. Offensive to YOU perhaps, but that is no right to decide what is proper and acceptable to society.

It's a little frightening.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Well, communities take on that question on a regular basis. We leave offensive programming for later in the night, we keep offensive dance clubs/bars out of our neighborhoods, and we keep offensive magazines on the top shelf.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

I suspect I'm being really clueless here... but what's the offensive aspect? That the christ-figure is female, or that she's topless? Is it carnal or religious sensibilities that are presumably being offended here?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Oh I'm sure it's the whole tableau.

Nudity. Female Christ. Black apostles.

("You knew Jesus?" "Knew him? Nigga owes me two bucks!")

The white male Catholic church must view this as a mockery of everything they stand for. Much like they did my favorite movie "Dogma" which attacked the Church in many of the same ways. One of the oldest businesses on this Earth doesn't take kindly to being the butt of jokes.

What do I think? It doesn't sound like anything new or exciting, but it also doesn't sound sacreligious to me. Actually, I think it sounds beautiful.

Of course I was raised without any kind of church attendance, and while I believe in God and I have faith, it takes a lot to shock me.

The fact that people are trying to censor art burns me up though. There IS no argument in art vs. decency. Art is COMPLETELY subjective on all levels. What I think is beautiful you may find completely disgusting. It doesn't mean it's not art.

However... I think if it's going to offend 99% of the population then it's sort of misappropriation of public funds. I am still really torn on that one... on one hand you've got a chance of opening people's eyes to a new viewpoint which isn't a bad thing, and on the other - do I want my tax dollars funding something like this (lets pretend I'm an artless, grumpy Republican)?

Blah, I hate arguments like this. I'm just gonna go trundle off to art college and hope I still get some public funding someday. I'll be sure not to take any pictures of myself naked on a cross.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Yes, Manmander, you are quite right. Their God created a universe where Al Schroeder decided to post in this forum. An all-powerful and all-knowing God could also have created a universe where Al Schroeder did not decide to post in this forum. Thus God decided what Al would do when he created the universe. It is impossible for an omniscient God to create beings with true free will.

Christian theology is seriously flawed.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

"The white male Catholic church must view this as a mockery of everything they stand for. Much like they did my favorite movie "Dogma" which attacked the Church in many of the same ways. One of the oldest businesses on this Earth doesn't take kindly to being the butt of jokes."

You make a great point mentioning Dogma - which is a 'joke' but also contains some wonderful ideas that are dead serious.

And it doesn't come close to offending 99% of the population, so I'm really unsure why this piece of artwork - perhaps irrevent, but 'sacreligious'? I don't think so - would be deemed inherently offensive, except to the subset you not above. Which are NOT the sole arbitors or payers of those public funds.

I think what's bugging me most is the mayor pushing for legal action based on something he describes as 'sacreligious'. When did that become a crime again in this country?

After more thought I can think of a number of reasons it might be deemed offensive - it shows a form of execution that is pretty inherently offensive (and intended to be). It represents a religious icon that might be regarded as offensive to those of other religions, especially those who have been persecuted in the name of what it represents.

But all that applies equally to more traditional religious artwork (I've seem some crucifixions gruesome enough that they'd get an R rating by the movie industry) that is housed in tax-free churches in every town in the country, and I don't think anyone's pushing to force them to remove that artwork, nor should they.

I'm not even going to get into what seems to be the pretty blatent assumption Giuliani is making that there is something inherently offensive about women or black people.

I think I'm stepping into a landmine here, because I can already think of other areas where I would want smaller groups than 99% of the population to be protected from having tax money applied to something that is offensive to them, but overall I think that if everything that is offensive to any taxpayer is removed from public fundable status, we'd be able to shut down the government because there'd be nothing it could legally spend on.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

I'd help fund a giant butt taking a large simulated crap on a replica of Giuliani while playing a tape recorded voice of his objections. And I'd call that art.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

The thing that realy burns me up about this type of thing is that people end up discussing it without have ANY IDEA what they are talking about. Even in this article, they refer to a " a dung-decorated painting of the Virgin Mary." That controversy sparked with Giliani threatening to cut funding for an exhibit HE HADN'T EVEN SEEN. Then conservatives all over the country wrote columns and called into talk shows to weigh in on an exhibit THEY HADN'T EVEN SEEN. Liberals who also hadn't seen the exhibit defended it on the grounds of free speech and the right to criticize the church.

The deal is, he wasn't criticizing the church. He was a devout catholic, who used elephant dung as a symbol of the earth (this symbolism has to do with Nigeria, somehow). Every single one of his paintings used elephant dung as a medium, including his own self portrait.

As sparky the penguin once said, "anecdotal evidence isn't nearly as fun when you know the facts."

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

With all due respect, the question is art vs. decency, not Christian theology and free will. Even if you take a God out of the equation, the question whether you have free will---if you just are the sum of your experiences and your genetics, can you act any differently? B.F. Skinner would say no---is much broader than the narrow theological limits you imply.

Yet that's not the question.

If you want to talk about free will and theology, perhaps you should ask a new question, either on Xeney's or my forum. I don't think Xeney would thank me if I gave an extended defense of the doctrine of free will here, or Christian theology, for that matter.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

Hey Al, who died and made you moderator?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I'm actually going to ditto Al's last post... I'd rather talk about the actual topic than hash out theology. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs, so I'd rather not have to defend mine... that said, I don't see why it's offensive, either. And I am appalled that Giuliani wants to set up a "decency committee," and would try to ban something he hasn't even seen.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

- I find it rather ironic how people blast Giuliani for passing judgement without having seen the display and then go ahead and pass judgement without having seen the display. It must be nice living in a world where one does not have to abide by their own judgements.

- I find it hypocritical that Al would talk theology and then declare that this is not the place to talk theology. Again, it must be nice living in a world where one does not need to abide by their own rules.

- The issue of belief is central to this discussion. If you do not blieve in God (as taught by the bible) then of course you're not going to find this display offensive. This display is clearly sacrilegious. The question then becomes whether or not a publically funded institution should be commiting sacrilege. I'd say the whole thing is a good argument for cutting off public funding of the arts.

The bible clearly states: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Troll.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Maybe so, but I'm gonna copy that verse down and next time my mom gets all holier-than-thou on me, BAM!

Uh huh.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

No one died and left me moderator---save of my own forum, where some here are posing on free will & an omniscient God topic----so you seem to have little problem with that. (And glad to have you on that, BTW.)

Yet it's not what this topic was about, was it?

All I did is answer that God (from the viewpoint of a believer) must not have problems with naked people---since we're all born with clothes on. If that's "theology", it's theology on the same level as "We're ALL naked underneath our clothes".

Like, well, DUH....

If you want to talk theology per se---there are few people who are more apt to do so. Either join me on my forum on that, or start a thread here if you want. Yet I didn't see it as the question.

The question is, as a religious person, do the paintings offend me? The answer is---no.

(BTW, I have been taught many times by a female teacher, even on religious subjects, and feel it time well spent. I'm not an inerrantist, and I find it amusing some trying to paint all those who believe that way.)

One of my favorite religious writers is Dorothy L. Sayers, BTW.

And I have seen the paintings, or at least reproductions of them in SALON, among other places. No problem with the paintings.

And I find it amusing that the mayor of New York, a self-admitted adulterer, is passing judgement on the paintings.

I think I'm not the only one amused---but then, I also think God has a sense of humor.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Curtis, may I suggest you do that from somewhere beyond throwing distance?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I guess some chritsians see it as promoting hate. I don't. They think that it is the only tolerated form of hate in this politically correct age. I think it's just an "artist" expressing herself. Maybe it's not decent - so what? You can make a case for ceasing public funding on an individual basis but then each and every exhibit would have to bow to such scrutiny and art is not free if it is bound by bureaucratic committee. (hey, that'd be a cool picture - her naked topless female Jesus hanging from a cross not attached by nails but bound to it by red tape.)

The person who pointed out Jeweliyani's adulterific hypocrisy was right on. Want to know what sparks such burning ant-christian passion? It's not the teachings of Christ, but the do as I say tactics of those elevating themsleves into a false moral high ground using the Bible as their step ladder.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Rudie, will you marry me?

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Bootlicker.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

I've been on vacation the last ten days, so I missed the beginning of this thread. But the "decency commission" thing is very hot in NYC, so I heard about that. On the train to work this morning, I was fantasizing about volunteering for the commission.

I do think of myself as a decent guy, so I think I'm qualified to serve on a decency commission -- I held an imaginary meeting in my head to find out what my commission would ban. The meeting convened at the 7:40 stop in Scarsdale.

Sacreligious pictures were the first agenda item. But many people that I respect have serious, deeply held hard feelings about certain Christian symbols. Plenty of them have issues about the European male hierarchy and the Neoplatonic attitude toward sex, and would feel liberated by viewing a nude black female Christ. Decent Protestant friends of mine, who have issues about the "idolatry" of representing Christ on the crucifix instead of a bare cross, might like to see a crucifix dipped in urine. (Damien Hirst, wasn't it?)

I don't know firsthand, but I have to believe that Buddhist, Muslim, and all other faiths have disaffected former members who would support seeing their frustrations with their former creed expressed in sacreligious art, too. Would a decent person ban the expression of a sentiment that he knows other decent people want very much to express? No. I swayed the conservative elements of the commission, and we voted by a narrow margin to let sacrelige into NYC museums.

So, could we ban violent pictures? But gory paintings arguably warn against the horrors of violence (Guernica, for example), and art can properly repel viewers from its subjects as easily as it can suggest imitation. One cannot impose a per se ban on violence, we found.

After a lot of wrangling with the more conservative elements, I hammered out an accord. The only thing we wanted to ban is child pornography and involuntary "snuff" portrayals of violence against an unwilling model. These, we agreed, were not decent.

It was generally recognized that pictures of these types are already illegal and not on view at any NYC museum the commission is aware of. So we held a final vote to disband the commission as having no useful purpose, and got off the train at 8:11, with the rest of the day free.

Beth, if you ever revive the "I am a freak" thread, I hope you will be kind enough to move this post over there. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

"The person who pointed out Jeweliyani's adulterific hypocrisy was right on."

Thanks, Rude. The artist did it first though, and well she should.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

I honestly think that if I'm secure about my beliefs that I can't possibly get caught up in whether something someone else does is decent or not -- only the insecure would actually have their sensibilities rattled. If you think it might offend you, don't see it.

I think of myself as Christian and the god I believe in has space for everyone and their beliefs. I view Christianity as one path to an end that has multiple paths; Christianity just happens to be the path that gets me there. An omiscient god already know that there's more than one path available to the masses, especially if numerous lesser beings like myself can see that.

If someone wants to play with the idea of Christ as a woman and the disciples as black, go to it! Chr...Um, Crying out loud, they were all in Africa at the time...they probably were all black. And frankly, Christ for me, has no gender. Something like sex/gender seems like it would really be rather useless to anyone but reproducing mammal, but hardly of use to a god.

Anyone who needs a decency commission has some serious crises of faith within themselves. A picture isn't likely to rip someone's deeply held faith to pieces and stomp on it. I find that art like that makes me examine my faith more closely and find its faults. Being that faith is what comes from imperfect people to examine a perfect god, it's bound to have LOTS of faults.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Wendy, that last paragraph was brilliant. The rest was really good, but that ending bit was completely spot on.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Right. Wendy, could you go argue a little of that logic on behalf of these poor fellers in Pakistan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/world/19PAKI.html (login req'd: try cpunks/cpunks)

"This careless editing may now prove his fatal undoing, for Mr. Mohsin and six of his colleagues at The Frontier Post have been charged under the nation's blasphemy law, which can carry the death sentence. The wordy letter, published on Jan. 29, turned out to be a sacrilegious attack on the holy Prophet Muhammad. A furious mob was soon on its way to the newspaper's offices, with outraged policemen not far behind."

I mean, it just might give ol Rudy some precedent to sink his teeth into. Lord knows he's done stranger things.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

We are talking about The Creator here.

To put this in terms you non-religious people can understand, how would you like it if an art display made fun of or mocked your dead parent? Now, no doubt some laissez-faire type people will think that is okay, but I would hope you could at least understand why that might upset some people, and why they might get doubly upset if their tax dollars were being used to help finance such an endeavor.

And I must say I cannot understand people who claim to believe in Christ yet allow that he may be a she. What is the basis of their belief, if not the bible, which makes it abundantly clear that Christ was a man of flesh and blood, the son of God.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

We are talking about The Creator here.

You mean the creator of the painting?

To put this in terms you non-religious people can understand, how would you like it if an art display made fun of or mocked your dead parent?

What dead parent is being mocked by these paintings?

(In general terms regarding your question, I can only tell you what I tell my kids when they get upset by 'yo mamma' chatter... unless there's a grain of truth in it to get upset by it, who cares? I don't - certainly not enough for them to go off on someone, because as a parent I *disapprove* of my kids engaging in quarrels over stupid shit.)

But back to the paintings.. what is being mocked or made fun of? And when did Jesus become a parent?

Now, no doubt some laissez-faire type people will think that is okay, but I would hope you could at least understand why that might upset some people, and why they might get doubly upset if their tax dollars were being used to help finance such an endeavor.

Sure. But show me one tax payer who isn't 'upset' about something their tax dollars are going toward.

And I must say I cannot understand people who claim to believe in Christ yet allow that he may be a she. What is the basis of their belief, if not the bible, which makes it abundantly clear that Christ was a man of flesh and blood, the son of God.

Now you're just trying too hard.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

1 Timothy 2:12, Lynda, 1 Timothy 2:12.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Manmander, freedom of speech is a very uncomfortable thing, but it is the central tenet of public life in the U.S. at this time.

If you choose to paint a picture that degrades my recently deceased family members, you're a rat, but I don't think you can be prevented from doing it. Certainly, if you choose to create a potentially offensive picture based on events in our public life, whether it's Hillary Clinton with a coat full of silverware or Christ as a nude woman, you cannot be prevented from doing it.

Why do we permit these things, Manmander? Because they are central to the morals of our country. We do not believe that it's evil to mock Hillary or test the limits of religious iconography -- or even transgress them. To the contrary, we hold this freedom as one of the highest goods of our society.

Consider our position. We live in an age without certainties. The pre-Enlightenment world is dead, and the stars no longer revolve around this earth. We have no concrete vision of heaven to compare with Dante's, and the universe is at best a big cold place that is utterly indifferent to us. No one can verify even life after death in a way that passes our rigorous modern demands for proof.

Over this abyss of uncertainty, the U.S. has woven a web of conversation. We're working it out together, what it is that we mean, why we're here. Freedom of speech is also a procedural necessity for this project. We can't resist the tyranny of blindly accepted ideas and the tyranny of persons who are convinced that only their ideas are right, unless we can speak out.

These functions of free speech are not my sentimental little fantasy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes identified them first, in the context of deciding what public speech is acceptable. Personally, Holmes had recently lost his Christian faith and was aghast at the emptiness of the world he found and the danger of human meaningless in that world. But, as an active judge he couldn't simply walk away from the question of how we rule the country when we can't simply enforce the Ten Commandments or the Christian moral code.

His solution is in his decisions about freedom of speech. He declared the U.S. a "marketplace of free ideas." Each person is free to speak about his or her views of the truth, no matter how odd or offensive. The only limit on that right is when our speech presents a "clear and present danger" of physical or economic injury to another. Holmes did not craft his speech decisions expressly to protect a tapestry or safety net of conversation woven across the abyss of an uncertain and godless universe, but rather to preserve the rule of law, and resist tyranny. Holmes experts, however, generally agree that he also meant to create a substantive right to work on rebuilding the tapestry of public meaning.

And that is why we tolerate speech that we find offensive, Manmander. Not because we're bad little boys and girls who like to say "Jesus" and "shit" in the same sentence. Because this society is looking for something we haven't yet named, and the only way to name it is to keep calling on it until it answers. And your and my right to the search and to an open discussion about the search, whether it's for the meaning of life or a good 25 cent cigar, is the core of our public morals.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Curtis - 1 Lynda 2:12. 'Thus sayeth the uppity woman: You're close enough to throw things at, so bite me!'

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Aye, but I have a most formidable defense: I:495:Wilson Bridge.

Cain't top (cross?) that, can you, woman?

~~~

Mamander, you're gonna have to come harder than that. Believeable trolls work best. I know of what I speak.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

I only make an exception to the Wilson taboo for you, darlin'...

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Mr. Tom Dean:

I'm not sure what your point is. Surely you are not trying to say that because you have the right to free speech I do not have the right to find what you are saying offensive?

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Right, Manmander.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

There is also a bible verse that says, (quoting from an imperfect memory), "Jew and Gentile, male and female, all are one in Jesus Christ." Since art isn't necessarily historical, how can one --- even a believer---take offense at this?---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

People, people ... not only is Manmander a troll, he is one with whom you are all very familiar. It pains me greatly to see you all led astray once again.

But Manmander lives with a mighty mouthy woman (hint, hint), so I can see why he's quoting that verse from Timothy. It must give him great solace to know she'll get her comeuppance in the hereafter.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Yea, but Beth... if God created her so she COULD be uppity, she has no freewill, so it'd hardly be fair to give her any comeuppance about it later.

Besides, hasn't the woman suffered enough??

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

I think the trolling award in this thread goes to Lynda's post with the bolded text (about 12 posts up) where she pretends not to know what "The Creator" means.

The fact is, Tom Dean's eloquent dissertation is completely irrelevant. The issue here is not whether or not these artists can make this stuff, or display it. Rather, the issue is whether or not they can show it in a publically funded museum.

I'd like to know just why we should allow religion bashing in a public institution.

If the name of the exhibit was, oh, say, "Woman and Donkey: 101 Explicit Positions," would everyone's reaction be the same?

Mar: The fact that people are trying to censor art burns me up. There IS no argument in art vs. decency. Art is COMPLETELY subjective on all levels. What I think is beautiful you may find completely disgusting. It doesn't mean it's not art.

wendy: If you think it might offend you, don't see it.

Lynda: Show me one tax payer who isn't 'upset' about something their tax dollars are going toward.

Tom Dean: freedom of speech is a very uncomfortable thing, but it is the central tenet of public life in the U.S. at this time.

Or maybe, just maybe, would people be saying we should have some standard of decency for a publically funded museum?

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

People have the right to protest the exhibit you describe.

Personally, I think that should be the limit of their freedom to do anything about any exhibit in any publicly funded museum. Well, at least in the country I wish to live in.

People should be fighting (if necessary) to protect freedom of expression rather than the other way around, and though I have a problem with religion trying to insert itself into actual government processes, I have no problem with a religious art exhibit in a publicly funded museum -- even if that religious exhibit was the most blatant attempt to proselytize its viewers or chastise unbelievers who came to view it. I would probably find such art as the latter, offensive, but I would never ban it. Fair is fair.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

No, I'm pretty sure I'd be saying exactly the same thing. Funding for the arts is a relatively low figure, and 'decency' is impossible to define without winding up in a situation where you have to keep broadening it everytime you come across someone who is offended by more than you are. While there is a lot of art in publicly funded museums that doesn't impress me, I don't think I've ever gotten into a huff over the level 'decency' a bit of artwork is displaying.

(thanks for the award - I'm all warm and fuzzy now. I thought it was merely blatent sarcasm, but if you think it lives up to being a real troll, I'll take the compliment, Dave.)

Our taxes go in far greater quantities to pay for welfare and war preparation - both of which have large numbers of people who find those things offensive and 'indecent', but we aren't considering getting rid of them to avoid upsetting taxpayers.

Tom - if we removed all religious based artwork from publicly funded museums, most of them would be stripped bare of any of their historic art. We do allow it, no matter how offensive happy material depicting children burning in hell is to many people.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

whoops! Sorry, meant Cory there.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

"If the name of the exhibit was, oh, say, "Woman and Donkey: 101 Explicit Positions," would everyone's reaction be the same?"

No, mine would be puzzlement. None of my donkeys can manage more than fifty positions, given the fact that they have no hands restricts the possible positions....

Luckily, the rubes will still pay, just with fifty positions...

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

No DaveVanmander, I still wouldn't be offended. Stop trying to foist your supposed values on me.

"Donkey and Dave Van: 101 Positions"

A masturbatory fantasy from the mind of one scary Canadian. Sex with himself.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Y'know, this is actually an interesting topic. Is there anyone out there who thinks censorship on any basis other than "clear and present danger" is appropriate, and wants to debate it?

Personal to Manmander: Matthew 7:6.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Tom: Well, let's look at what you said earlier:
"After a lot of wrangling with the more conservative elements, I hammered out an accord. The only thing we wanted to ban is child pornography and involuntary "snuff" portrayals of violence against an unwilling model. These, we agreed, were not decent."

Here you have stated that there are things you wanted to ban on the grounds that they are "not decent."

Are you prepared to withdraw that statement? Or are you going to insist a painting depicting children in some sexual light presents a "clear and present danger." You know what those words mean, so you know it clearly does not meet the test.

Mar: Any foisting exists only in your imagination. Stick to bootlicking, you're better at it.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

This just in! Christian fundermentalists and homersexuals share common ground. Both agree that censoring, artist arresting and legislation outlawing certain expression is just what this nation needs.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Manmander, I usually ignore offensive fools, but in your case I'll make an exception. If you don't think there's a clear and present danger in allowing the making of child pornography and snuff representations, you are either evil or stupid. In either case you should be ashamed, shut up and go away. Also, don't presume to tell me what "clear and present danger" means, because I know and you clearly don't.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Okay, just so we're clear on this:
clear and present danger n : a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout `fire' in a crowded theather when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety"

Note that I said a painting. Perhaps it wasn't clear I meant that no model was used, the subject matter exists only in the artist's mind's eye.

Where's the clear and present danger to public safety? I certainly agree it's offensive, but "clear and present danger"? You can't be much of a lawyer.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Manmander, after the boys at vodkatea traced your semi-hack into Gus' forum back to your employer in about half an hour, I'm surprised you're so quick to accuse others of professional incompetence. Why so malicious today, anyway? I'm happy to engage in a little fighting, but we have to change the field. Because, listen close: Even if you are making your defense of model-free kiddie porn just out of a perverse sense of fun, it is still pretty disgusting. I want to be clear how seriously I mean this, and in what cold blood. I've always thought you are a pretty amusing fellow, and felt like others take offense too quickly at your guises and gibes. But if you take one more step down the road of defending child porn (painted, imaginary, in digital format on a hard drive, whatever) I'm going to take you seriously and I'm going to worry a little bit about your kids. It's not an appropriate subject for two fathers to debate in a spirit of fun. You can do it, of course, but I won't join in any more.

Like I say, let's find a more entertaining place for a fight. If you're in the mood to cross swords tonight, I'm in a mood to oblige you. Shall we switch back to the evils of monotheism or something?

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

First of all, let me get this straight: you call me an "offensive fool" and "either evil or stupid," and then when I make a mild retort you ask why I'm so malicious? Ha! Good one.

I'm not advocating child porn. What I *am* saying is that child porn where no model was used clearly does not meet the test of "clear and present danger."

You know what's funny, Tom? You suddenly sound like a religious zealot. Just look at what you've written. Suddenly the subject is too offensive to even talk about, it's just so obviously offensive.

Yes, it's offensive. But it doesn't always pass your "clear and present danger" litmus test.

And if you think I'm "defending kiddie porn," you are sadly mistaken. You asked the question, "Is there anyone out there who thinks censorship on any basis other than "clear and present danger" is appropriate, and wants to debate it?"

I am attempting to illustrate to you that that person is you, Tom Dean.

Now show me the clear and present danger or get down off your "absolute free speech" high horse.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Looking around the net it seems there is a major free speech issue going before the supreme court on this very matter.

According to the LA Times:

The federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed 2-1 that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from making it a crime to generate "images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct"

It seems that at least two appeals court judges are as "evil" and "stupid" as I am, Tom Dean. Read a little more about it on Slashdot.

Why does everybody always have to resort to attacking me personally? I really have to wonder.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

I stand by "offensive fool," because you were playing the fool and being offensive. (I did not mean "fool" to imply that you have any trouble crossing a busy street.) But if you really intended, in that first post in which you apparently defended painted kiddie porn, to raise the issue of a painting not drawn from a live model, which you admit you did not say, then I will withdraw the "evil or stupid."

What your new argument in this latest post ignores -- and if deliberately, I repeat my accusation of malice -- is that my own first post on decency specifically included the presence of a model as the basis for the offense, which is (as I said) a criminal matter. Read it.

Now, if you can still demonstrate that I am a religious zealot on a high horse using a failed litmus test (don't they instruct against mixed metaphors in Canadian grammar schools?), have on.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Damn, crossed in the mail. My previous post is intended to refer to the post before the one in which you whinge, "Why does everybody always have to resort to attacking me personally? I really have to wonder." I will repsond to that shortly.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Manmander, the link you posted that discusses the 9th Circuit decision permitting ficitious images of children in sexual positions has the following text right at the top of the page: "But prosecutors said this kind of pornography can whet the appetite of pedophiles, and therefore is dangerous even if no real children are involved." What standard do you suppose they are arguing?

Say, can you negotiate crossing a busy street?

As far as why threads in which you post turn into personal attacks on you, I have no idea. The unkind things I said to you were not said to hurt you, but to warn you that you were crossing a line. You weren't hurt. C'mon, get up and stop whinging. Where's my post explaining the zealot's high horse litmus test?

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

5:00 p.m. in British Columbia, I see. Okay, I'm outta here, too, in five. So don't take my silence in response to your next post as assent to your (likely untenable) position, Manmanderbly. Folks on the subscribe list, sorry to pollute your e-mail accounts. Don't hate me in the morning, just delete me.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Yes, I read what those prosecutors said. They lost. It'll be interesting to see what the supreme court has to say.

And just so there are no more "misunderstandings" I'll leave it at that.

Take care.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Not much of a lawyer. Heh.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Tom! You want to continue. Very well then.

Tom this is what you wrote:
The only thing we wanted to ban is child pornography and involuntary "snuff" portrayals of violence against an unwilling model.

You later wrote:
my own first post on decency specifically included the presence of a model as the basis for the offense

This clarification is deliberately misleading. You did not just say 'model', you said 'unwilling model.'

My assertion is that a reasonable person, upon reading your original sentence, would not associate the words 'unwilling model' with the words 'child pornography,' as you claim I should have. I further assert that you did not intend it to read as you're now trying to make out.

1. The sentence structure is ambigous, at best.
2. The preposition you have chosen, 'against,' is not commonly used in that context claimed, ie., "child pornography against an unwilling model."
3. If we assume that you did mean "child pornography against an unwilling model" as [one of] the "only thing[s]" that you wanted to ban, we must conclude that you are okay with child pornography which includes any willing model, whether underage or overage. You didn't mean to say that, did you Tom?

I'll allow you to answer (3) before we continue.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

On second thought, there's no need to wait for your answer. Since you have sided with the prosecutors in that supreme court case I mentioned, you clearly want to ban all child porn, irrespective the use of an underage model in its production. We can thus conclude that you would like to ban the display of such at the museum.

Next let's address the issue of "clear and present danger." You have quoted the prosecutors as saying "this kind of pornography can whet the appetite of pedophiles, and therefore is dangerous even if no real children are involved."

The reason prosecutors lost in court was that they could not show this to be true. Much study has been conducted in this area, and to my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence to support this assertion. Thus, it is clear that no "clear and present danger" exists.

Now, I'm no legal scholar, but even if it could be proven that kiddie porn can cause pedophiles to offend I don't think it meets the intended definition of "clear and present danger." The way I see it, the legal principles involved will force the supreme court to allow virtual child porn. Consider the implications of finding otherwise.

If we allow that virtual kiddie porn should be illegal because it can cause pedophiles to offend, we must also allow that meainstream porn should be illegal if it can be shown that it can cause rapists to offend. We must also ban stuff like godhatesfags.com if it can be shown that it might cause somebody to offend, etc., etc.

Is this really the country we want to live in, where we have no right to say something if it can be shown it *might* cause somebody to commit an offense?

NOTE:I am not speaking in support of child porn, per se. I am merely arguing that this is something most people want to ban on a basis other than "clear and present danger."

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Ok, a couple of points.. first, regarding your 'what if the child is consenting' question - I'm sure you're already aware that the law does not regard a child as being able to consent, and that you're already aware that that renders your question nothing more than a distraction.

So that leaves ficticious depictions, and it comes down to this - there is much art that is deliberately uncomfortable, that depicts all sorts of horrors. War. Death. Abuse. Disease. Poverty. Eternal damnation. All of which are horrors that touch children as well as adults, and the art may depict children as well as adults.

Pick a horror and there's an artist out there who has tried to capture it visually. And for each piece that depicts a horror, there is someone out there who is offended by it and wants it removed from their view so they don't have to think about it, and there's also someone out there who looks at the horror and gets off on it.

Do we remove every piece of controversial artwork so that the offended won't have to think about it, and the sickminded won't get pleasure in it? And just how far do you go with that - ban any image of a child, because a pedophile will find a way to eroticize it?

Do we stop with visual depictions, or shall we start going through books and ban any book that describes an act of pedophilia, because someone will mistake their offense at the action described with offense at having to witness it? (And will it help one child in that situation to remove ourselves as witnesses to the reality of it?) Shall we pull an AOL, as they did with the word 'breast' and ban anything that *might* be construed as being of interest to pedophiles, and ban all ability to impart information about it and all ability of victims of it to ever tell anyone?

I realize there are some who are so firmly committed to their assumed right to never have to face anything uncomfortable that they'd say yes to all of the above, but our Constitution says otherwise. What you in Canada have in place for the protection of your freedom of expression is your own business.

Back to the original topic: Our Constitution also has a provision, in the 9th Amendment that prohibits one group of people from attempting to use their Constitutional rights to deny the rights of others: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In this case, Guliani is more than welcome to label the works 'disgusting'. He's more than welcome to mount a campaign calling for Catholics to boycott the exhibit or the museum, for that matter. But when he attempts to pursue an act of censorship - trying to legally deny the artists their own right to expression, and their own religious expression (none of these pieces of artwork were done to 'make fun of' Christ), he's stepping outside the bounds of a document he - as with any politician - has expressly agreed to uphold.

The problem with allowing for censorship when it's about something you don't like is that you set precedent for someone else denying you your own right to speak controversially. And there is *always* someone who finds your chosen topic something that shouldn't be heard, no matter how nonoffensive you find it yourself.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

I tripped over an interesting article that reminded me of this: Displaying Civic Culture: The Controversy over Frederick MacMonnies' Bacchante It's about a similar incident that happened about 100 years ago in Boston.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001