Freedom of (Blasphemous) Expression: A Proposal

Feces on the Virgin Mary, a crucifix in a jar of urine, and a naked woman standing in for Jesus at the last supper are the themes of recent art works. These works have in common that they all blaspheme against Christianity with a distinctiveness of purpose; their blasphemy is greeted with yawns by the major media, and protests by Christians are deemed intolerant by those media. Two of the three have been displayed by the Brooklyn Museum, which is funded in part by wages confiscated by local government from those who earned them. Clearly, this use of tax dollars is anathema to many Brooklyn taxpayers.

The response by Christians has been limited to commentary and peaceful assembly. There has been no rioting, no vandalism. The offensive works themselves have not been marred, though perhaps this owes in part to tight security by the Museum. But if the presentation of these deliberately volatile works were an experiment, the conclusions would be that Christians are remarkably tolerant of heinous defilement of their most sacred images; the mass media are not in the business of being sensitive to Christians; and the use of local tax dollars in Brooklyn is not predicated on whether proposed uses are acceptable to the taxpayers.

I propose two experiments that would reveal much about religious and secular culture. First, find a brave artist to paint or sculpt a Buddha with poop smeared on him. Even reading the preceding sentence may be shocking to some, but remember we have a feces-encrusted Virgin Mary already. Without even executing the experiment, we know two things:

Buddhists would protest only peacefully, and many would not feel the need to protest at all, proving that Buddhists are as peaceful and tolerant as Christians; and the mass media would fly into intemperate rants about the insensitivity displayed by the artist. We know also that the mass media would protest a tax-funded museum displaying such a work. No one in the mass media would be forthcoming about the obvious double standard, that standard involving their own lack of protest over the PooPoo Mary and Pornographic Last Supper.

The second experiment: Find someone with no living relatives to produce a Piss Mohammad akin to the Piss Christ. Why someone with no living relatives? Remember the price on Salman Rushdie's head for writing a book that was incongruent with Moslem teachings. That price was set by the leader of a nation. The artist, were his name to be made public, probably would not survive the premier, were he to show up for it. We know, without attempting the experiment, what we would conclude about tolerance. Deliberately defiling anything held sacred by hundreds of millions of people is stupider than walking through a rough neighborhood of Washington, D. C., waving a large wad of cash. I would not agree, however, that it is outrageous only when religions other than Christianity are ridiculed. It is outrageous when any religion is smeared.

What we learn from the mere contemplation of these experiments is that Christianity enjoys a singular despised status among the mass media. If you don't believe that Christianity is being singled out, imagine a third experiment: a Feces Star of David. The outrage that we know would ensue would solidify the special status of Christianity, as distinct even from its own Judaic origins.

I have no further proposals. I cannot offer a solution to Christianity's selection as the one religion it is permissible to hate. My intent is merely to highlight this special status of Christianity. Any further conclusions you can draw on your own, but let me rekindle some memories: Judaism was the officially detestable religion in Nazi Germany. Stalin's Russia officially disapproved all religion. Perhaps it is time for Christians to maintain a remembrance of history, and protest a little louder.

February 24, 2001

Brad Edmonds, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in Alabama.