1
Piss Christ , anyone?
It wouldn't surprise me to
learn that our YouTube generation
knows little about the outrage sparked by Andre Serrano's 1987 photographic depiction
of Jesus Christ on the crucifix submerged in a bottle of Serrano's own urine. It provoked a furious response among "devout"
Christians who showed little tolerance for the free speech canard used to
justify the vulgar depictions of the Prophet Muhammad currently in the news.
Nope, back then it seemed,
nobody, particularly conservatives both religious and otherwise, was having it. When it came to Piss Christ, they didn't have the "constitution" to stomach any of
that First Amendment sh*t.
Today, like then, most of what
I get out of the conservative media is breathtakingly infernal, but little of
the malevolent crap it spins out on a daily basis infuriates me more than its seething
contempt over what it considers the contempt among Muslims for those who slander
their Prophet Muhammad under the cover of "free speech."
It seems that slandering the
Prophet Muhammad has become somewhat of an intermittent ritual for much of the
Western world over the past few years. The Innocence of the Muslims is of
course, the latest free speech test case, but was joined just days ago by yet
another dispatch of anti-Prophet Muhammad "cartoons" emanating from a French
"satirical" rag which shall remain unnamed.
So today it seems that free
speech may be the only part of the Constitution that conservatives and the ACLU
agree upon -- at least until the next Piss
Christ comes along. So who or what
is next in line to wield "free speech" like a flaming wrecking ball in a linen
closet? What prevents the imbeciles who needlessly
provoke Muslim outrage from understanding that even free speech -- just like the
right to bear arms, for example -- is subject to the same kinds of common sense
restraints imposed on most freedoms in a non-existential society? But beyond that, what is gained through the
exercise of free speech for the purpose of religious provocation; of goading
adherents into the position of defending their faith, just because free speech
grants one the right to do so?
I'm all for free speech. But it's about context. To those among us who, in this particular context,
would soapbox the free speech issue, I have one serious question: Would you stand as firmly in the defense of my
freedom of speech to call you an a**hole?
Knowing human nature, my guess is
probably not. So really, when used
simply as justification to goad and inflame, is the concept of free speech actually
enhanced or diminished?
I presume that outside of a
courtroom, lying should be considered a form of free speech. But how often does one hear somebody justify
being caught in a lie by claiming he was simply exercising his "free speech
rights?"
As trite as it may be, the use
of free speech rights to express contempt for the Prophet Muhammad in a manner
designed to incite is fueled by the same objective that motivates someone to falsely
yell FIRE in a crowded building.
What the conservative media
tells us is that when Jesus is defamed -- as they claim occurs yearly during the
annual "War on Christmas" -- Christians don't go on killing campaigns. But as anyone familiar with the Crusades can
attest, Jesus need not be defamed in order for killings to occur in the name of
Christ. Certainly in 1987 and beyond, the
Piss Christ controversy erupted in a
shitload of backlash both here and abroad, some of which would be labeled
"terroristic" by today's standards. In
addition to repeated vandalism of the print itself and angry protests, there
were continual death threats made against Serrano and against staffers at
museums and galleries showing the exhibit
There was also governmental
intervention. It was officially denounced
by a couple of apparently free-speech-hating U.S. Senators and Rudy Giuliani tried
to ban the exhibit in New York. And
perhaps to no one's surprise, there were legal steps taken by the Catholic
Church to prevent its display. In April
of last year, Christian activists completely destroyed a print on display at a
French museum.
In light of this, how does one
avoid concluding that what's being enacted today is no more than free speech
rights being snidely pimped? Of being expressed
in a way that in the end comes off as the pointless bullying of followers of a
centuries-old faith which is radically different from that of the bullies. It's a type of free speech abuse that simply
wouldn't be tolerated if imposed on followers of certain other faiths.
It's ignorant to presume that
Islamists use their abhorrence of slander against the Prophet Muhammad as an
excuse to murder non-Muslim "infidels."
Think not? Ask any Muslim living
under Taliban rule. It's a centuries-old
cultural thing that most on the other side apparently just don't
understand.
But any medievalist
consequences directed by Muslims against fellow Muslims considered to have been
disrespectful to Islam is one thing; the idea of non-Muslims wasting time and
energy concocting ways to insult a group that shares a different set of
cultural/religious norms seems more like an exercise of free speech depravity.
Try to imagine how the Pat
Robertson or that Koran-burning idiot Pastor down South and others of their ilk
would react if "Mustapha" from over in Libya decided to bootleg a video showing
the Virgin Mary being fucked by a donkey or Jesus Christ getting all "biblical"
with a sheep. Or if "Ahmed" from down in
Yemen decided that posting on Facebook, his Photoshop
of a Catholic priest pulling a "Sandusky" on 10-year-old altar boy would be
something all the Christians who've "friended" him would get a kick out of.
1 | 2
