Like us on Facebook

Friday, October 8, 2010

On Sacrilegious Works of Art and Tolerance

The Advocate

A Colorado woman angered by a painting depicting Jesus receiving oral sex from another man was arrested Wednesday when she took a crowbar to the piece of art and shredded the lithograph.

It really is a bit unbecoming when we want to ram down people's throats what for some is sacrilegious. It is safe to say that it is questionable for some us even. 

It is one thing to bring and raise awareness to various of our issues this Hemispherewide, and it is entirely another to shock people into accepting our irreverence. We might think the work of art in question to be an allegory to the rampant hypocrisy we see and hear everyday in our media.

Most people in the Western Hemisphere do believe Jesus is their "Lord" and it will be centuries until they accept "vanguardism" in art. It behooves us to think twice before we set out attacking people ideologically if we want to have them on our side to help us advance our agenda. 

It is imperative that we demonstrate we are tolerant to show them we think with our hearts and minds instead of (and not because of!) our lower abdomens.

P.S.:  (Added later) On a lighter note, one might think it must've been quite a scene to watch the Colorado woman hell-bent on destroying the offending work of art. Only after reading Stan's comment (see below), did we realize that, for some of you in the U.S.A., there's freedom of expression enshrined in your consitution and you can "say" virtually anything you want without fear or favor. Some can't. Makes it even more interesting.


  1. It's always risky for artists to make statements using historic or religious figures. But if we do actually have freedom of speech, and belief in it wholeheartedly, those forms of self expression should be accepted. They may not be liked, or I may not even agree with them. But I support the artists right to freely express his/her thoughts. The problem is that if Mohammad was depicted getting a BJ, this Colorado woman probably would not have been offended. That's too bad, because if she would be offended, I might give her a little slack. But what we experience too often are those who constantly complain because they feel their rights are being tread upon. By the reality is that her rights end where my rights begin. We have to stop 'tolerating' each other, and each other's beliefs, and start accepting that we have diversity on this planet, and what may offend some, may not offend others. I personally wouldn't want to see any religious figures or symbols displayed in any way that would dishonor them. But if someone else does, and wants to make a point by doing it, I feel I'd have to support their right to do so, or I could not honestly say I supported freedom of speech. Too many of the right wingnuts use freedom of speech as a means to let them say what they want, while telling me to shut up. That's not freedom for all, that's freedom for some.

  2. You've added to the text. Thank you, Stan.

  3. When I first read this, I honestly didn't want to finish it. It turned me off so badly. But I have to admit, I agree with Stan. I wouldn't be jumping-up-and-down happy about this piece of artwork, but you're right, it is about this artist's freedom of expression. I, personally, wouldn't have touched this rendition of artwork with a ten foot pole, but that's where my rights end and the artist's rights begin. So, for now, I both applaud the woman, and the artist. Both stood up for their rights, so let no man put asunder. Viva la U.S.A.! (No offense, Mauro!)

  4. i know that art knows no rules, no boundaries nor person, but upon knowing that many people are saying that His(Christ) image is worthy of extreme respect, we should respect it also....We should not desecrate the image of Christ...