By Mark David Blum, Esq.
Once again, the armies of religious anti-freedom are on the march. Actually, they are not allowed to march; at least not in front of the United States Supreme Court. Yet like their Muslim brothers whom they otherwise detest, Christians have a hardon for an artist who depicted Jesus with a woodie. Clearly not soaking in urine but rather expressing an otherwise normal state of male human existence still “It's the Lord Jesus Christ being humiliated, ridiculed and vilified. It's just so disgusting, pornographic, and offensive, it's hard to find words to express the outrage.” Christian leaders want to nail the artist to a cross and have his art destroyed.
Personally, I am proud of my erection. Most men are. It is a sign of good health and normal behavior. Erections are common and happen several times a day; don’t they? But like the six ton piece of bait on the front steps of the Court House in Dixie County, Florida, Christians want it both ways.
On one hand, they demand the right to display their artistically proper religious symbols in the public square. At the same time, they demand the destruction of any religious based art that is not foursquare with the Christian fear of humanity.
First of all, we have to start with facts. Outside the Biblical record, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a record of plenty of folks meandering about Northern Africa all proclaiming to be prophets and all being said to have some kind of magical powers. At the same time, there is no historical record outside the Bible that there were ever Jews in Egypt building pyramids as slaves.
Second, there is no such thing as ‘The Ten Commandments’. In fact, outside the Bible, there is no historical record whatsoever to substantiate the existence of Moses or the Exodus. But-for a single reference in the second book of the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments do not exist.
But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose they do …
Suppose all those years ago, some white dude who looked a lot like Charlton Heston (with or without an erection) climbed up Mt. Sinai (which does exist) and receive an engraved rock with just ten rules by which all mankind was to live. How simple life would be.
God’s gift would be a great surprise since mankind could not even follow His one simple law all those eons earlier; something about not eating an apple. Suddenly, God demanded humanity to follow ten rules. For purposes of this discussion, let’s just assume that these ‘tablets’ are the root and basis for all law as we know it.
There still is no such thing as the Ten Commandments. The original tablets were last seen in the custody of Solomon and supposedly stolen by one of his sons and stashed in a small church in what is now Ethiopia. Though they contained the word of God, these tablets are now long gone from the face of the earth.
Anything we see today can be nothing more than an artist’s rendition of how the artist perceives the Ten Commandments. Whether in a court house in Arkansas or on the wall in a post office in North Syracuse, the Ten Commandments we know and love today are just the subjective images of the maker. They are not real.
So why is the Ten Commandments “acceptable” as being “Christian” art but Jesus having a morning erection is “blasphemous”?
The best explanation comes from a laundry room in an apartment building I once lived in. In my building, the laundry room was downstairs and shared by all tenants. One day I came in and noticed a large wooden cross hanging on the wall. I took it down. Next time I went down there, it was back up again. I took it down and rehung it upside down. This game went on for months until I found out that my opponent was none other than my Catholic bride.
A cross in the laundry room did not offend me. I did not feel oppressed by the presence of Jesus. In fact, I hardly noticed Jesus at all. If I did, I would have asked him to let me know when the dryer stopped instead of me having to run up and down every so often.
That cross in the laundry room was no different than the monument that cost a State Supreme Court judge his job nor is it any different from the crèche that is placed in the public square in Syracuse every holiday season. Likewise it is no different that a hard up and horny Jesus. Each is the same thing. Each is art.
These depictions are just artist’s visions. They are the thoughts, images, and symbolism of a religious event. For example, when I look at Moses receiving the law from Mount Sinai, I see simplistic attempt by a weak artist to come up with a symbol for “The Law”; as everybody can see on the exterior wall of the Law School at Syracuse University. How I see these images, however, is not how you would see them. To someone else, these artistic depictions could represent the most sacred of moments. Another might see the piece as being profane.
That is the role of art: To provoke and make you think.
Distinguishing two recent and apparently conflicting cases before the Supreme Court last two terms was the question of intent behind the presentation. Not even the most brilliant and astute among us can recognize the difference between creating a religious environment and presenting secular art with a religious theme. Art with a religious theme is a question of taste, not law. Religious expression by the State, in art or otherwise, is illegal. It is simply too subjective of a question to pose whether something is a religious environment or a secular one laden with religious art. Is it Constitutional for a government to have an artistic display that includes Jesus with a Woodie? Is it art or does it violate the Lemon laws?
The Supreme Court said “intent” is the litmus test whether something is art or religion. A new legal standard has been created where “equal time” is evidence of secular intent. The Court said, “[t]he counties’ manifest objective may be dispositive of the constitutional enquiry, and that the development of the presentation should be considered when determining its purpose … scrutinizing purpose does make practical sense, as in Establishment Clause analysis, where an understanding of official objective emerges from readily discoverable fact, without any judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not resolve the issue and in fact, just confused the situation. Nationwide, religionists are coming from all directions trying to coerce government into being more religion oriented and to incorporate religion into secular society. Look no further than all our morality laws such as gambling, prostitution, drugs, blue laws, and gay marriage. Now Christians want to destroy our art. Once you start to burn art, it is not a far jump to burning people.
There is a grave and gathering danger when a government can create a lie that its’ intent is secular but in reality the quiet unspoken intent is to bring out God into civil society. That ‘intent’ cannot be readily discerned and with all the other rules in play today, government action will be presumed to legitimate. So long as a government body passes a “resolution” saying it is an ethics discussion, then that makes it fair under the new rules. Civil ethics and religious dogma, though at times concur, do not travel the same pathways are not the same discussion.
Maybe if just once, the majority of the Supreme Court were to carry their laundry down a flight of stairs, they might be able to truly understand what it is that people are complaining about.
It is not about secular intent. It is about being of one religion and having to enter a public building and see ornaments and art promoting and honoring another religion. Being a Jew, I already have a life long and well deserved distrust of most things “Christian”. Going down into my laundry room reminded me in a very stark way that some wounds and irrational fears will always exist. Jews Christians and Muslims will go into eternity distrusting and fearing the other. We may all be able to live together and get along, but inside of each of us, is a certain element of doubt that will probably never go away.
Our Nation’s Founders did not give a damn whether people’s sensibilities were offended. These guys had just taken up arms against the established government and themselves behaved in a very offensive manner. Their concern was a greater one; to prevent the church from injecting any control over civil society. Also, they worried about the State interfering with the Church. The latter concern was a settlement with those people who fled Europe’s freedoms to find greater religious persecution here.
The Supreme Court seems more focused on sensibilities than on law. Theirs are decisions that made people’s feelings and intentions the relevant factor. Thomas Jefferson and others made it clear in their writings and speeches: The wall between church and state is absolute. “How it makes you feel” was never part of the calculus. Neither was the reason why the State crossed that line. Seeing a statue of Jesus or a granite ten commandments may give you a woodie. As for me; I am neither offended nor concerned as I could care less. Believe what you will. Do not use my tax dollars to fund your belief system and do NOT attack the belief systems of others.
Intentions be damned.
Such is Mr. Jefferson’s wall.
