Art Show Is Latest Case Of Catholic-Bashing
Cfortunato
John Leo
http://www.mostnewyork.com/1999-09-29/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-42087.asp
The art world and the city's liberal establishment offer us one way to look at
Mayor Giuliani's dispute with the Brooklyn Museum — it's political meddling and
a form of censorship.
Catholics, however, are apt to look at the issue somewhat differently. They
tend to think that, finally, someone prominent has called attention to the
conventional Catholic-baiting of the city's art world and intelligentsia.
On the narrow issue of funding, Giuliani has a strong case. If it's wrong to
use public funds to promote religion, then it's wrong to use public funds to
demean religion, too.
But the broader issue is the ho-hum respectability of an increasingly toxic
anti-Catholicism. Think about whether any other religion or any minority group
has to put up with the following:
A National Endowment for the Arts-funded art catalogue describes Cardinal
O'Connor as a "fat cannibal in skirts" and calls St. Patrick's Cathedral "a
house of walking swastikas." In parades and demonstrations, mockery of Catholic
practices and rituals is routine: bearded guys dressed as nuns, foolish-looking
people playing Jesus or Mary or wearing miters to mock Catholic bishops. The
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, guys who apparently work full time to make fun
of nuns, are a fixture at many gay events.
In painting and sculpture, bashing Christian symbols, particularly Catholic
ones, is so mainstream that it's barely noticed. Recent examples include the
Virgin Mary coming out of a vagina, Mary encased in a condom, an Annunication
scene with the Archangel Gabriel giving Mary a coat hanger for an abortion, a
sculpture of Mary pierced with a phallic pipe and many satirical versions of
the Last Supper (one in the scheduled Brooklyn Museum show features a
bare-breasted female Jesus and 11 drunken apostles).
Playwrights are working hard to degrade Catholicism, too. Sometimes three or
four anti-Catholic plays are on stage somewhere in Manhattan on the same night.
"I'm a Catholic priest," says a character in the alleged comedy "Jeffrey."
"Historically, that's somewhere between chorus boy and florist."
In other plays, a corrupt cardinal accidentally kills a pregnant woman and
tries to bribe a judge ("The Cardinal Detoxes"), a corrupt gay alcoholic priest
comes apart ("Gunning for Jesus"), a gay Jesus character has sex with his
apostles and an HIV-positive street hustler ("Corpus Christi"), and a tale
about a Catholic witch and three lesbian nuns launches an eight-part play
intended to show, according to the playwright, that "the overriding evil is the
church" ("Burning Habits").
In most cases, these are just political screeds by angry writers flashing their
credentials as activists by lashing out at the church. This type of play almost
writes itself — just have Jesus or Mary have sex with a Pope, Judas or a farm
animal and contract a venereal disease or go to work in an abortion clinic.
Nobody in the cultural world will object. Instead, there will be a lot of talk
about the need for artistic freedom.
Most of the modern anti-Catholicism is a reaction to the church's stands on
abortion and homosexuality. Catholics should expect hard arguments here, and
open debate. But all too often, what they get instead is an attempt to degrade
Catholic religious symbols.
The usual term for this is propaganda. And nasty propaganda ought to be
denounced, not gussied up as high art.
Original Publication Date: 09/29/1999
ANO38
the Brooklyn Museum of Art. They are now in the process of demonstrating that
they can insult the Christian religion (and Catholics in particular) by
labeling a bit of scatological nonsense titled "The Blessed Virgin Mary" as
"art." Then using a museum largely supported by tax monies which include funds
collected from Christians they can then promote its public display. The
only right the protesting Christians are granted by their worships is to not
come to the museum.
The New York Times, their semi-official organ, has generated the predictable
editorial supporting them. Anything goes if you are careful to label it "art."
Tax monies can apparently be used for any form of expression by any group who
gains control of a public institution. Any attempt to defund them is called an
assalt on the First Amendment. Christians in New York City have little chance
of winning this battle. But the situation nation-wide may be different. People
in other localities should note this misuse of First Amendment rights and think
twice before they fund the arts.
Disgusted
Cfortunato
>the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
>
>PJSN's (People with Jewish-Sounding Names) are clearly are in firm control of
>the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
Excuse me, anti-Semitic jackass, but try to refrain from using a real issue as
one more opportunity to bash Jews.
I'm a Christian, and I am very offended my the art exhibit, but I find YOU far
more offensive than any art exhibit.
ANOther
"satirical" version of the Last Supper showing a bare-breasted female Jesus and
11 drunken apostles. Things have gotten so bad that this is just considered
ho-hum -- I guess if it had gotten splattered with dung it would have gotten a
better press.
We cannot be so intimidated by the "anti-Semite" charge that we fail to point
it out when Jews desecrate our symbols. They frequently act puzzled at the
source of anti-Semitism. All they have to do is look in the mirror.
I have lived in New York for some time and, believe me, it is a one-way street
here. They can move against you but you are not supposed to open your mouth
and just pretend nothing happened. I put a small creche in my apartment lobby
around Christrmas/Chanukah time. It lasted about 15 minutes. The only
decorations the Jews would allow in "their" building were Jewish "Happy
Chanukah" decorations. Creche displays outside will quickly lose the child
Jesus. My church does not include the Jesus child in the display until they
bring it into the church -- they know from experience what will happen.
Disgusted
JOHN C CROSS
Cfortunato wrote in message
<19990929105414...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>Art Show Is Latest Case Of Catholic-Bashing
>
>John Leo
>
>http://www.mostnewyork.com/1999-09-29/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-42087.asp
>
>
>On the narrow issue of funding, Giuliani has a strong case. If it's wrong
to
>use public funds to promote religion, then it's wrong to use public funds
to
>demean religion, too.
Religion is a powerful force in our society. We need to be able to pose
questions about anything purporting to present an "absolute" truth.
Religion should NEVER be "beyond debate". By the same token, the government
might support art galleries, and they might present such "questioning" art,
but this is being thrust down NOBODIES throats. You have the right to go or
not go, and there are no longer any "free" art shows anymore, so all art
shows can be boycotted if you like.
>
>But the broader issue is the ho-hum respectability of an increasingly toxic
>anti-Catholicism. Think about whether any other religion or any minority
group
>has to put up with the following:
>
>A National Endowment for the Arts-funded art catalogue describes Cardinal
>O'Connor as a "fat cannibal in skirts" and calls St. Patrick's Cathedral "a
>house of walking swastikas." In parades and demonstrations, mockery of
Catholic
>practices and rituals is routine: bearded guys dressed as nuns,
foolish-looking
>people playing Jesus or Mary or wearing miters to mock Catholic bishops.
The
>Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, guys who apparently work full time to make
fun
>of nuns, are a fixture at many gay events.
You should look outside your narrow window and see the crap thrown at
protestant "preachers " (and rightly so when they turn out to be corrupt and
hypocritical). What happened to the Bakkers? Got the shit kicked out of
them in the art world, and good going, I say.
>
>In painting and sculpture, bashing Christian symbols, particularly Catholic
>ones, is so mainstream that it's barely noticed. Recent examples include
the
>Virgin Mary coming out of a vagina, Mary encased in a condom, an
Annunication
>scene with the Archangel Gabriel giving Mary a coat hanger for an abortion,
a
>sculpture of Mary pierced with a phallic pipe and many satirical versions
of
>the Last Supper (one in the scheduled Brooklyn Museum show features a
>bare-breasted female Jesus and 11 drunken apostles).
>
Does any of this shake your faith? It would have to be pretty shallow for
that to be true.
>Playwrights are working hard to degrade Catholicism, too. Sometimes three
or
>four anti-Catholic plays are on stage somewhere in Manhattan on the same
night.
>
>"I'm a Catholic priest," says a character in the alleged comedy "Jeffrey."
>"Historically, that's somewhere between chorus boy and florist."
>
>In other plays, a corrupt cardinal accidentally kills a pregnant woman and
>tries to bribe a judge ("The Cardinal Detoxes"), a corrupt gay alcoholic
priest
>comes apart ("Gunning for Jesus"), a gay Jesus character has sex with his
>apostles and an HIV-positive street hustler ("Corpus Christi"), and a tale
>about a Catholic witch and three lesbian nuns launches an eight-part play
>intended to show, according to the playwright, that "the overriding evil is
the
>church" ("Burning Habits").
>
None of this sounds any more bizarre than what we read in the newspapers
from time to time about priests who rape their congregants or alter boys.
(And I am just saying the truth here--priests are fallible and this is no
commentary on the church of Catholicism).
<snip>
>
>The usual term for this is propaganda. And nasty propaganda ought to be
>denounced, not gussied up as high art.
>
Art is not about putting people to sleep. We have wallpaper for that. Any
decent form of art makes a statement--it can make you happy or make you mad
as hell. I've experienced both when looking at art. Either way it gets you
thinking and mobilized. This "black virgin" has gotten people angry and
mobilized. Therefore it seems to be VERY good art. I applaud the Brooklyn
Museum for sticking to their guns, and I welcome everyone to come out on
Friday to back them up.
WHEN
Friday, October 1, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. (The exhibit opens the
next day.)
WHERE
In front of the Brooklyn Museum of Art located at 200 Eastern
Parkway. (The Eastern Parkway station on the 2/3 subway
Go to http://pages.prodigy.net/johncross/Lederman30.htm for more info.
http://pages.prodigy.net/johncross/campaign.htm
>
>Original Publication Date: 09/29/1999
>
>
>
>
Joseph Hertzlinger
>PJSN's (People with Jewish-Sounding Names)
George M. Cohan, Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, the Solomons from
Third Rock ...
>are clearly are in firm control of
>the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
>The New York Times, their semi-official organ, has
reported that the parents of the art collector responsible think he's nuts.
>Christians in New York City have little chance
>of winning this battle.
Maybe they can appeal the neo-conservatives.
Joseph Hertzlinger
>We cannot be so intimidated by the "anti-Semite" charge that we fail to point
>it out when Jews desecrate our symbols.
Actually it's mostly by agnostics. You can read all about their agenda in
"The Protocols of the Elders of Nothing."
>I have lived in New York for some time and, believe me, it is a one-way street
>here. They can move against you but you are not supposed to open your mouth
>and just pretend nothing happened. I put a small creche in my apartment lobby
>around Christrmas/Chanukah time. It lasted about 15 minutes. The only
>decorations the Jews would allow in "their" building were Jewish "Happy
>Chanukah" decorations. Creche displays outside will quickly lose the child
>Jesus. My church does not include the Jesus child in the display until they
>bring it into the church -- they know from experience what will happen.
A Jewish family in Brooklyn was recently cited by a building inspector
for building a sukkah (which is somewhat more important than a creche).
They were given 30 days to take it down or they would face a $5000 fine.
Cfortunato
>Religion is a powerful force in our society. We need to be able to pose
>questions about anything purporting to present an "absolute" truth.
>Religion should NEVER be "beyond debate".
Who said a word about it being "Beyond debate." What was written was that
government funds shouldn't be used to demean religion. OR support it.
> You have the right to go or
>not go, and there are no longer any "free" art shows anymore, so all art
>shows can be boycotted if you like
But I DON'T have the right NOT TO PAY FOR IT.
>What happened to the Bakkers? Got the shit kicked out of
>them in the art world, and good going, I say.
But did the Government pay to "kick the shit out of" Jim Bakker?
If you want to do art that demeans religion, go ahead. That's protected by the
first amendment. But you do NOT have ANY right to public funding. I'm a New
York City artist. Is it censorship for the Government not to fund me and my
theatre company?
JOHN C CROSS
Cfortunato wrote in message
<19990930093145...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
>>
>>Religion is a powerful force in our society. We need to be able to pose
>>questions about anything purporting to present an "absolute" truth.
>>Religion should NEVER be "beyond debate".
>
>Who said a word about it being "Beyond debate." What was written was that
>government funds shouldn't be used to demean religion. OR support it.
>
>> You have the right to go or
>>not go, and there are no longer any "free" art shows anymore, so all art
>>shows can be boycotted if you like
>
>But I DON'T have the right NOT TO PAY FOR IT.
>
Well, I don't have the right NOT to pay for that huge military and nuclear
bulid-up your hero REAGAN foisted on us in the 80s, DO I? I didn't have the
right to prevent some right-wing nut case from running illegal gun-running
operations out of the White House basement, DID I? I DON'T have the right
to not pay for billions of dollars in subsidies to churches and religious
institutons throughout the country (because they are exempt from taxes) DO
I? I DON'T have the right to not subsidize millions of lazy Priests,
Preachers and what-nots who claim to know GOD and to tell us all what to do,
because they are tax exempt, DO I?
As long as your Catholic Church is being subsidized by MY GOVERNMENT I don't
see how such low-life scum-bags can criticise what the government does with
the tax money it gets from hard-working tax-paying citizens like myself.
But that is just their hypocrisy. Personally, as a liberal, I don't care
about people criticising--even if they are tax-subsidized priests who think
that the Holy Spirit comes out of their arse every time they fart--but I do
care about obnoxious, ignorant, public officials taking unconstitutional,
unilateral steps to cut funding from independent institutions every time
they fail to utterly tow the latest fascist line.
If you want to live in a fascist state, you are welcome to do so--but you
will have to move out. You are currently living in a DEMOCRACY and that
DOESN'T mean mob-rule by whoever got one or two more votes in the last
election. It means a place where RIGHTS are respected. Try to find
someplace like Haiti, which I understand Giuliani really liked when it was
ruled by old Baby Doc. You can have a nice fascist Catholic state and kill
off all the liberals and artists who don't tow YOUR fascist line on what is
ART. In fact, I will recommend that he make you the COMMANDANT OF KULTURE.
YOU VILL DO A GUT JOB ZERE! HEIL KRAUTFACE!
john
http://pages.prodigy.net/johncross/campaign.htm (Liberal Lunatics on the
Loose)
http://pages.prodigy.net/johncross/books.htm (Liberal books)
http://www.openair.org/cross (Informal Cyberspace)
>>What happened to the Bakkers? Got the shit kicked out of
>>them in the art world, and good going, I say.
>
>But did the Government pay to "kick the shit out of" Jim Bakker?
>
>If you want to do art that demeans religion, go ahead. That's protected by
the
>first amendment. But you do NOT have ANY right to public funding. I'm a
New
>York City artist. Is it censorship for the Government not to fund me and
my
>theatre company?
Have you applied for any funding? That might help. Plus, you might fight to
get funding levels for art restored to levels it enjoyed in the Pre-Reagan
era.
Cfortunato
>>But I DON'T have the right NOT TO PAY FOR IT.
>>
>
>Well, I don't have the right NOT to pay for that huge military and nuclear
>bulid-up your hero REAGAN foisted on us in the 80s, DO I?
Pardon me, but I happen to be a dedicated liberal, and I wouldn't vote for
Reagan if you paid me.
However, once the Government funds art, it IS censorship, unless they fund
EVERYTHING they are asked to. SOME Criteria MUST be used to decide what to
fund and what not to fund. Using tax money to desecrate a religion is a
violation of the first amendment. And indefensible.
>I DON'T have the right
>to not pay for billions of dollars in subsidies to churches and religious
>institutons throughout the country (because they are exempt from taxes) DO
>I?
EVERY charitable nonprofit organization is exempt from taxes.
>I DON'T have the right to not subsidize millions of lazy Priests,
>Preachers and what-nots who claim to know GOD and to tell us all what to do,
>because they are tax exempt, DO I?
>As long as your Catholic Church
I'm not Catholic, either.
> is being subsidized by MY GOVERNMENT I don't
>see how such low-life scum-bags can criticise what the government does with
>the tax money it gets from hard-working tax-paying citizens like myself.
Why don't you open a soup kitchen? You will receive the same tax exemption,
religious or not.
>But that is just their hypocrisy. Personally, as a liberal, I don't care
>about people criticising--even if they are tax-subsidized priests who think
>that the Holy Spirit comes out of their arse every time they fart--but I do
>care about obnoxious, ignorant, public officials taking unconstitutional,
>unilateral steps to cut funding from independent institutions every time
>they fail to utterly tow the latest fascist line.
There is not a thing unconstitutional about cutting funding. You do NOT have
any RIGHT to government funds. What in the constitution makes you think you
do?
Quote it, please.
>If you want to live in a fascist state, you are welcome to do so--but you
>will have to move out. You are currently living in a DEMOCRACY
Yes, it IS a Democracy. So, how does that mean you have the right to
Government funds to desecrate someone's religion? And how is disagreeing with
that fascist?
> It means a place where RIGHTS are respected.
Yes. And WHERE is there a RIGHT to Government funds?
Bottom line: If you don't want the Government to have a say in the art you
produce, DON'T TAKE THEIR MONEY. To take public funds, and declare that the
public has no say in what you do with it is the height of arrogance and
hypocrisy.
Bart Lidofsky
: A Jewish family in Brooklyn was recently cited by a building inspector
: for building a sukkah (which is somewhat more important than a creche).
: They were given 30 days to take it down or they would face a $5000 fine.
Now, THAT'S funny.
Bart Lidofsky
JOHN C CROSS
university who's professional work happens to "insult" somebody like your
friend Rudy Giuliani. Should der fuhrer be able to get him fired from his
job and/or shut down the university and/or take over its board of governors?
Just because, in fact, he wants an issue to spout about in front of the
cameras because--hey!--there's an election to win! Now, maybe there are some
people who feel "insulted" by whatever the professor says--and frankly,
there are a lot of professors professing things that might worry you--does
this make him right? Of course not--those decisons should be made by people
with the qualifications to make them--not some idiotic politician out to get
on the news for 15 minutes!
I believe that the government should help fund the arts in our society. As
it is, the governemtn DOES fund the arts. The question is, under what basis
should it do this. Should every piece of art be presented before hizzoner
and maybe a panel of respectable people representing every major and minor
religion in the city? I think about 200-300 should do it. They will spend
their entire work day poring over pieces of art. "Sorry, this bust shows a
nipple." "Sorry, there a definate bulge in the pelvic area." "Sorry, that
squiggfle looks a bit like the symbol for Allah, and thus is sacriligious."
Get real. If the city is going to support the arts, they should provide the
funds to reputable experts in the area who should make decisions based on
artistic merit--not whether or not some old lady will get her knickers in a
twist (or whether or not it is election season at City Hall). Thats what
the city did, by supporting institutions such as the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
Once the money was given out, when Giuliani arbitrarily creates a stink and
tries to prevent one particular piece of art selected on the basis of
artistic merit from being shown, and uses his power of office to do so--THAT
IS ATTACKING OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. Not the artists--ours! Because it
means that the city will fund the arts, but only as long as the "arts" are
what they say they are.
Now, what do you FAIL to understand. This debate is NOT about whether the
government should fund the arts--Giuliani is even arguing that. It is about
whether ignorant morons LIKE Giuliani should be able to terrorise the arts
community into only doing what he allows them to do. True, they could
decide not to accept government money--fine. Then who is going to help
support the museums so that we can appreciate art from time to time. And
what institutions will those funds go to? Only the ones Giuliani controls?
Where will diversity and different voices come from? The Rockerfeller
Museum? Give me a break!
Static I
Should people whose religious beliefs do not allow for either war or capital
punishment be forced to pay taxes to support these activities?
Cfortunato
>university who's professional work happens to "insult" somebody like your
>friend Rudy Giuliani.
He;s not my friend, I think he's a jackass. That's beside the point.
>Should der fuhrer be able to get him fired from his
>job and/or shut down the university and/or take over its board of governors?
No, and he doesn't have the authority to defund the museum either. The City
Council does. I believe the State Legisature and the Governor have authoriry
over the State University.
>Just because, in fact, he wants an issue to spout about in front of the
>cameras because--hey!--there's an election to win!
One more time: Guiliani is a dope. He is politically grandstanding. He is
doing himself no favors by going about this the way he is. And he as no
authority to defund the museum.
All that is immaterial. The question is: Should public money be used to demean
a religion or race?
Cfortunato
>
>Should people whose religious beliefs do not allow for either war or capital
>punishment be forced to pay taxes to support these activities?
As long as they live in a pluralistic society, the use of tax money is up to
elected legislature - mot up to each individual on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Which means the decision is NOT the Brooklyn Museum's, but the City Council's.
Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087 Bioengineer-Financier
(JOHN...@prodigy.net) on Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:36:39 -0000 we perused:
*+-Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there is an instructor at a state
*+-university who's professional work happens to "insult" somebody like your
His name was Leonard Jeffries and he was rightfully removed.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[DQ2K: Make the Murky Clown Frown!]
Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087 Bioengineer-Financier
To call it "Catholic-bashing" is to make it smaller than it is.
75% of USA Christians and 85% of USA Christians show Mary some
enhanced respect or veneration. In fact, so do a lot of other faiths,
in some vague form. Moreover, it is offensive to a historical figure
who is broadly respected. Bob Jones University was correctly defunded
when it preached bigotry. As a broad rule, we do not publicly fund
offensive material of any sort. We are a civil society, where we do
try to show each other some respect, at least in public.
Static I
>elected legislature - mot up to each individual on a pay-as-you-go basis.
>Which means the decision is NOT the Brooklyn Museum's, but the City
>Council's.
You are absolutely correct and the City Council IS supporting the Brooklyn
Museum. It is the Little Tyrant creating this constitutional crisis all by
himself.