Brazil & Britain: Christians Censoring Images that "Hurt the Feelings of Believers"
In Brazil, we have a case of Christians successfully getting a court to ban an issue of the Brazilian edition of Playboy — not because of the nudity, per se, but because of the appearance of a popular Brazilian actress semi-nude holding a rosary. In Britain, an art gallery is being taken to court and sued for a large amount of money because of a display of statues of popular cultural icons, each with erections. Alongside Mickey Mouse and E.T. showing off more than they did in any movie, there was also a statue of Jesus sporting a very obvious rod or staff.
In Rio de Janeiro, judge Osvaldo Freixinho ordered the August edition of Playboy pulled from the shelves on the request of a Rio-based Pela Vida Catholic youth institute and a priest from Goiás:
Ricardo Brajterman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the photograph "hurt the feelings of believers". According to Brajterman, the decision also ordered the magazine to refrain from using religious elements in future articles that include nudes. In February, Brajterman also obtained a court order prohibiting a parade float with allegorical references to the Holocaust from entering Rio's Carnaval. ...
Talking to Dia FM, a Rio radio station, the actress called herself a good catholic and denied that she had any intention to shock, stir a scandal or challenge de Catholic church. She called the pictures artistic and in good taste. As for the rosary, she explained, it was just an allusion to a character in Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands by Jorge Amado whom she is playing on the stage right now.
A spokesperson for the São Paulo archdiocese, Juarez de Castro, however, disagreed. For him, the picture is a flagrant disrespect "not only to the Catholic church, but also to the people's faith. It's fashionable to say that these pictures are a photo essay, but in truth they are not more than vulgar eroticism."
Source: Brazzil Magazine (via Religion Clause)
Apparently this issue of Playboy included rare frontal nudity, but once again it wasn't simply the appearance of nudity which was the cause for censorship; it was the appearance of semi-nudity alongside a rosary. She wasn't performing sexual acts on a religious image or using a religious object to perform sexual acts on herself. She was just standing there, partially dressed, holding a rosary. This "hurt the feelings of believers" so much that it must be necessary to remove the entire publication from the view of anyone — not just the view of believers who might be "hurt" but anyone else as well, including people who wouldn't hurt.
It's frankly bizarre that someone's feelings would be "hurt" simply by seeing an image of another person doing something which they don't personally condone, but if their feelings really are impacted then I don't have a problem with them refusing to look at such an image. Outside of rather narrow and unusual circumstances (like perhaps an art history class where someone objects to basic, important works of art that have to be discussed), I wouldn’t force someone to view an image regardless of how unfounded their reaction is to it. Why, though, would they turn around and try to prevent anyone and everyone else from viewing it? It would be silly for a person to take an art history class then refuse to look at statues or paintings with nudity; it would be immensely worse for them to insist that no one else in the class be allowed to see those works of art either.
Even if we go so far as to allow, for the sake of argument, that a partially clothed woman holding a rosary is "disrespectful" toward "the Catholic Church" and "the Catholic faith," so what? Once again, I can understand if a Catholic doesn't want to see disrespect shown towards either, but upon what basis can they justify translating that into using force to prevent such disrespect from being displayed? No matter how much a person might personally be upset by disrespectful language, images, or ideas, there is no legal or moral basis for censoring them. Trying to do so is contrary to the entire project of the Enlightenment and the very foundations of individual liberty in the modern West. Unfortunately, it may be the case that it is precisely them which are the ultimate targets of religious censors.
It's patently ridiculous to expect or demand that the Catholic Church, as an institution, be shown respect by anyone outside it. Such respect might be earned and then again it might not; either way, no member can expect or demand that it be given automatically. Moreover, even if there weren't abundant reasons to disrespect it, no social institution deserves automatic respect from every person. Even secular, government institutions which every citizen is answerable to cannot expect or demand that, so why should religious believers think they can go to those secular institutions to use force to prevent displays of disrespect to private, religious institutions? Don't these believers realize that if they have to use force against expressions of disrespect, then they are effectively admitting that their religious institutions are incapable of earning sincere respect on their own?
It's also ridiculous to expect or demand that everyone show what anyone considers the "appropriate" respect to any set of religious beliefs. However important a religion may be to a person, they can't insist or expect that it also be important to everyone or anyone else. Moreover, even among those who do respect it, there's no legitimate basis for forcing them to show respect in the manner you think they should. If they disagree on how much respect should be shown and/or how to show it, the only avenue for appeal lies within whatever institutions exist for that faith (like having them expelled for improper behavior). It's unethical and even hypocritical to go outside that religion and demand that secular institutions enforce your religious standards on other members of your religion, never mind non-members.
In Britain, the Gateshead's Baltic Centre escaped official government censorship, but offended Christians have decided to pursue a "private prosecution" in what will be the first real test of a "public decency" law enacted in May, 2008, to replace the scrapped blasphemy law:
Lawyers for Emily Mapfuwa, a 40-year-old Christian who was offended by the artwork, launched a private prosecution against the gallery for outraging public decency and causing harassment, alarm and distress to the public. Mapfuwa, of Brentwood, Essex, argues the Baltic would not have dared depict the prophet Muhammad in such a way.
She complained in writing to Northumbria police earlier this year, asking for an investigation, and was informed in May that there was no case to answer.
But the Christian Legal Centre - an organisation that aims to "promote and protect the biblical freedoms of Christian believers in the United Kingdom" - agreed to pay her legal costs. The CLC also funded the case brought by Stephen Green against the BBC over Jerry Springer - The Opera. A CLC spokesman said Mapfuwa believed in freedom of expression, but "this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ".
Source: Guardian
In referencing the violent behavior of some Muslims in reaction to art which offends them, was Emily Mapfuwa lamenting the fact that Christians can't or don't engage in similar bullying, was she issuing an implicit threat that if provoked too much Christians will start emulating Muslim bullying, or what? I honestly don't see what the purpose is of bringing up the fact that some Muslims engage in illegal, immoral violence to censor material they dislike or that such bullying can be effective in causing both censorship and self-censorship. It doesn't justify Mapfuwa's own censorious agenda — the fact that some Muslims use violence to achieve the censorship they desire does not and cannot justify any Christians' efforts to go to the courts and thus appeal to the force of the state to achieve their own censorship goals.
Father Christopher Warren, of the Roman Catholic cathedral of St Mary’s in Newcastle upon Tyne, has been quoted as saying that "For Christians the image of Jesus is very special and to interpret it in a sexualised way is an affront to what we hold dear." First, the fact that Jesus was fully human according to Catholic doctrine mean that it's perfectly reasonable to reference human bodily functions, including involuntary sexual reactions. What better way to emphasize the human-ness of Jesus than to point out that, like every human, he must have farted, burped, and experienced the occasional stiffy?
Moreover, even if such ideas are "an affront" to what Catholics hold dear, why does this mean that non-Catholics must be prevented — by force if necessary, and punished if they don't obey — from expressing them? Warren is free to impose such restrictions on his own parish, if Catholic law allows, but to ask the secular state to do the same to everyone else is going much too far. Frankly, I find that an affront to what I hold dear. Can I now sue Christopher Warren in court and get the state to punish him for offending me? I'll bet he wouldn't like it if I tried, which would be hypocritical. He might even laugh, just as I find his own position laughable, but at least I have the good sense not to be serious.
Christopher Warren's words, though, suggest that he is worse than any workaday censor. Warren does not merely assert that it's inappropriate to depict Jesus with an erection, but it's inappropriate for anyone — non-Christians included — to interpret Jesus in any sexualized manner. Since interpretation is something that happens in your mind first, it sounds to me like Warren is effectively asserting the authority to determine what the rest of us may or may not think, never mind express. That goes beyond mere physical censorship (already bad enough) and shoots straight for mind control — a goal which the Catholic Church has arguably sought quite often through its history.
Remember when I said that there were abundant reasons to disrespect the Catholic Church? Well, priests like Christopher Warren are an excellent case in point.
Comments
Big f***ing deal. Atheist governments have killed millions and you are whining about this?
Hypocritical little wimp.
So, you don’t think censorship is important?
Every government that isn’t explicitly theocratic is technically “atheist.”
Feel free to point out any actual hypocrisy. Given your proclivity for personal insult and ignoring the substance of the issue, though, I rather doubt you’ll try.
“What better way to emphasize the human-ness of Jesus than to point out that, like every human, he must have farted, burped, and experienced the occasional stiffy?”
This makes me wonder - do Christians think that Jesus didn’t have genitalia? After all, if God never intended him to reproduce, he wouldn’t need them, would he?
I bring this up because I’ve heard creationists claim that Adam never had a belly-button, because he was supposedly created in adult form without an umbilical cord.
There is only one reason to display Jesus with an erection: to massively annoy the hated christians. To complain that the Christians are annoyed is juvenile… or it is disingenuous, maybe both. The intolerance of such provocation is now a basic feature of atheism. If you cannot handle the backlash from such things, best not poke them in the eye in the first place.
But it is the poke in the eye that is important to atheists, and then bemoaning the backlash. Irrational, emotional, juvenile agitation, not worthy of adult conversation.
And you know this… how?
Unless, of course, your starting assumption is mistaken. Just how much work have you done to check it out and verify it?
And how do you know that the artist is an atheist, or if an atheist was motivated by their atheism to create this piece? In what way do you believe that “atheist provocation” motivated the Mickey Mouse and E.T. statues which were at the same show? Do you not think that perhaps your interpretation of the “purpose” of the work should consider this context? Indeed, do you know anything at all about the artist, his history, and this particular show?
Do you suppose that there might be a difference between mere “backlash” (negative criticism) and active censorship attempts? If you go back and read the above piece, you won’t find any objections to people who simply dislike and criticize the art in question. What you will find are my objections to criticism efforts. Do you think you could address that instead of something irrelevant? Specifically, do you agree with efforts to censor images, art, and ideas which Christians find offensive to their religious sensibilities… or not?
It’s funny, but that last sentence fairly well sums up my own reaction to some of the statements of people who treat evidence-free speculation as if it were proven fact, then proceed to construct complex, spiraling, self-referential arguments based on nothing but the empty air of those speculations.
It would be rude of me to actually tell people this when they try to present their idle speculations and myths as facts, but I can’t help having that reaction in the first place. Thank you, though, providing such an apt and succinct description, even if I can’t use it.
Apparently this issue of Playboy included rare frontal nudity
Frontal nudity is not rare, it is on every issue, every month. I have no idea were the reporter who wrote that story got that idea. Carol Castro’s was actually rather tame by the magazine’s standards, as is usually the case with famous actresses (issues with B-list celebrities are racier).
So it’s fine to show children and others images of state sanctioned ritualisd torture and killing, but an errection is too offensive ? Hmm that human body, its only good for eating or hurting.
The only sensible reason for censorship should be age. Obsessive Bible reading can lead to a mental breakdown and psychosis. It is important to for young people to read the Bible knowing that there are some passages that are extremely wicked, just like the Talmud. Also the Bible “spake as authority prose style can have a harmful effect.
Provocation occurs in the mind of the provoked, specifically in their insecurities.
Emily Mapfuwa wasn’t offended, she just didn’t like being reminded that she old and unattractive. She doesn’t like sex because she doesn’t want anyone else to be happy if she isn’t.
The right to offend is more important than the right to not ever be offended. Actually, i don’t know of any right to “not be offended”.
I think whatever the ins and outs of the Jesus portait,there is something in the statement that Mohammed wouldn’t have been portrayed in the same way.Maybe that’s correct because that would have resulted in deaths,not just a court case.The best way to address militant Islam is through the youth of the Arab world who are as sick as the rest of us in being told what to think.I read something the other day that heavy rock music is increasingly the voice of disaffected youth in Muslim countires.
quote: “Christians, though, are equally capable of using censorship and oppression to ensure that no believers have to take the chance of stumbling across anything offensive”
yeah all those christians and their sucide bombs and airplane crashes into buildings. Yep they are equally capable of oppression in the same we as muslims.
We should storm their churches like Bash Back! did in michagen and just wreck havoc on them. Atheism needs to be enforced.
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html
correction of above ..”the same way as muslims.”
yes I was being cheeky in the above about Christians and suicide bombing since I haven’t found any practicing this type of thing (so if any religious people are reading this chill) but I’m serious about storming their chruches. We should jail anybody who is a Christian and reads the bible too much. And if you are squemish about wiping out believers then at least outlaw Christianity and close down their churches and force them to realize their is no god or gods. There is no greater meaning than the meaning you make up for yourselves. That is all.
Read the atheist manifesto for a great book on pure atheism.
oops sorry for the 3rd comment. Im a little drunk and in charge of a bicycle as they say.
aint no beer like Canadian beer!
laterz
Ummm… suicide bombers aren’t really an example of oppression.
Why? What about atheists who read the Bible?
You’re right oppression is longer and killing you softly over time energy draining type of thing while bombings are an ‘oppression’ rolled up into one little attack. But still I think other than the time factor its a matter of tomato and tomato.
As for atheists reading the bible, of course I am not including them. Pardon my grammar I was abit tipsy last night. I should have said anybody who is a Christian (ie says they are a Christian etc) or who reads the bible as a religious excercise at any time, public and private in libraries or in their churches or in their homes should be arrested and jailed.
Atheists should be exempt because they read it differently. But Christians should be denied all rights of regular Americans (Canadians, insert name of your country here _______). I think freedom from the cage (jail) should be only for those who are atheists. Atheists should be helped to follow a purified atheism without any trace of christian morality (the whole good vs evil thing is religious originated rule according to the manifesto. I know many atheists don’t believe that but I tend to agree with the arguments in that book.)Sorry I wanted to get more into that but…
I have to get to work! My damn boss is a Catholic one of those sweet nicey people who never swears and I hate her guts for it you know? She’ll ride my ass if I dont show up on time. Damn Christians expect you to work when you have a hangover. A minor one but still a hangover.
later my american friend (please dont invade any more countries while Im at work–just kidding –you did good with the whole obama election thing congrats–he is one of us but I believe plays the religion card to keep the god types off his back!)
don’t any religious type convince you that there is a God or that life has any meaning. nothing means anything and we are from nothing and to nothing. And thats okay crack a beer and pass the special brownies. cheers.
PS I mean no ‘ultimate spiritual type’ of meaning in life not referring to ‘meaning’ that you make up for your self of course. But in the ultimate sense that says okay it applies to you and me and x,y,z. Ahh gotta go or the great Catholic in floor 25 will preach to me! oy!
take care >:oD
And why would this be justified?
So basically you want to create a new Nazi system which targets Christians instead of Jews.
Ultimately, that makes you worse than almost every Christian out there, except for those who want to do the same to you. They and you have more in common than you and I.