Skip to main content

Dear Jessica, THIS is protected speech: Get over it

Waldo brought my attention to this one, although I disagree strongly with his sweeping generalization in the opening line:

Christians are innovative when it comes to ducking responsibility for their bigotries.


This is the poster placed all over campus on an Ohio community college by an atheist group promoting its next meeting:



It brought out the predictable narrow-minded rejoinders that the people behind the poster were mocking religion:

Student aide Jessica Hodge said she felt the poster would “pollute the minds” of her children, ages 2 and 5, if they saw it.

“It looks like soft-core pornography,” she said. “I don’t think they’re making a statement at all. They just want to shock everyone.”

A Christian, Hodge said she doesn’t try to force her opinions on others. Questioning religion is fine, but mocking it isn’t, she said.


As another Christian who believes in the First Amendment, Jessica, I need to explain to you that mocking religion is perfectly fair game. And I'd also point out that at ages 2 and 5, if they're normal, your children will be incapable of seeing a sexual message in this picture because they are developmentally incapable of doing so. But even if they were, who gave you the right to have the world re-ordered to fit your particular child-raising practices.

This is also protected speech:



If you don't recognize it, it's Andres Serrano's Piss Christ.

The image below, also, by Dutch artist Theo Van Gogh, even though it resulted in a fatwah calling for his death:



Tasteless as you may find his poster, Chris Weaver of the atheist group is exactly right: most Christians have never heard of the Secret Gospel of Mark, nor considered its implications for Christian theology or the history of the early Church. Sure, possibly it is an invention and not a real scrap of the Gospel of Mark--but if Clement of Alexandria believed it was real, that says something that heterosexual only Christians would find exceedingly . . . uncomfortable.

Moreover, Jessica, as John Boswell's Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe argues, the modern construct of homosexuality and Christianity as somehow incompatible is just that--a modern construct not consistent with a long Church history of welcoming all sorts of people.

Contrary to your need to make the world simple and sterile for your children, American society has a need for vigorous consideration of ALL ideas, even in provocative terms. Even in mocking terms.

Christianity can stand it.

The question is whether or not some Christians can.

Comments

Piss Christ may be free speech, but I would prefer not to pay for it with a $15,000 prize from the National Endowment for the Arts. Once I know I'm not paying for it, sure I'll get over it real quick.
Anonymous said…
In Jessica's defense, I would not want to have to raise children in today's religious climate, but maybe that's just because I'm old.

"a long Church history of welcoming all sorts of people"

I think you only have half the message in this statement. Rather than condemning the woman caught in adultery, Jesus condemned those who were condemning her. But He also told her to sin no more. Sorry, His words carry a lot more weight than Clement's.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...