This is not new. I still remember the issue about Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. The whole thing went by…nothing really happened. There was also the clamor against the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, remember that one? Today, we hear the same roar all over again. This time, it’s all about an art exhibit in which the Roman Catholic faithful declared as blasphemous.
Mideo M. Cruz, an artist with a very peculiar taste, displayed some of his artworks in the Cultural Center of the Philippines. These arts include a Jesus picture with a penis on his face and rosaries surrounded by condoms and some girlie pictures. The work is entitled “Polytheism” and it is all about Philippine history of idol worship. Base on Mr. Cruz interview, the phallic was a representation of male dominance over women.
Ok, I will not pretend that I know what art is. I might even say that his art work suck since they are just bunch of Catholic religious icons that can be bought in Recto and Quiapo and some Filipino smut mags rolled into one. But hey! I’m no artist. The issue here is expression. An artist creation is his expression about the world he lives in. So I bet Mr. Cruz is getting a little piss on what he sees around him and he’s lucky enough to have an outlet to relieve is views. Unfortunately for him, not everyone share the same idea, and he pissed them big time.
Enter the ultra-moralists Roman Catholic lackeys and lynch-mob that will not stop till Mideo and the whole CCP officials are burn in a stake. Well, in the first place, it seems they are the one who's making such a commotion on this art exhibit.
So what did Mideo did to deserve this? I heard in a TV interview that Mideo irk not only the Roman Catholic faithful but the entire Christendom as well. Really? Come on! I bet most Evangelical Christians are laughing right now telling their congregation that the Roman Catholic deserve that for worshipping graven images. Other says that this is an act of terrorism. Eric Manalang, president of Prolife Philippines, (him again?) even sued Mideo with violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code,. Oh for Christ sake!
According Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code:
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
Amendment of Article 201, Revised Penal Code. Article 201 of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows;
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
"2. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such literature, and the owners/operators of the book store or other establishments selling the same;
"3. Those who in theaters, fairs cinematographs or any other place, shall exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, including the following:
"(a) Films which tend to incite subversion, insurrection or rebellion against the State;
"(b) Films which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their Government and/or duly constituted authorities;
"(c) Films which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
"(d) Films which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
"(e) Films which offend any race or religion;
"(f) Films which tend to abet traffic in the use of prohibited drugs;
"(g) Films contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees, edicts, and any or all films which in the judgment of the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures or other agency established by the Government to oversee such motion pictures are objectionable on some other legal or moral grounds.
"4. Those who shall sell, give away of exhibit prints, engravings, sculptures or literature which are offensive to morals."
That is clear enough…is it? Wait…Section 3 is talking about films, so I guess Mideo will fall to section 4 – that his work are offensive to morals, right? So what moral code did Mideo tramples? All that Mideo did was to show to us what he thinks of idolatry and the deconstruction of neo-deities. His artworks are purely symbols. So it is "malaswa" (disgusting) OK, agree, but what do you expect with protests? Mideo's work is a protest about Filipino idolatry, what is so beautiful about that? An artist's work is not for everyone's consumption. If Mideo's work offended the ignorant majority then sorry, an artist's expression doesn't usually all about beautiful pink clouds.
And is it immoral? So, defaced and degraded an image that represents Christ is immoral, right? How about worshipping a graven image? That is also immoral – base of Judeo-Christian standard.
That where blasphemy enters the picture.
Blasphemy!
According to these Catholic lynch-mob, Mideo committed blasphemy. OK…so what is blasphemy? The word blasphemy is derives from a Greek term meaning “speaking evil,” that was then, but as time goes by, blasphemy became too lose a word. Blasphemy can now be everything, from just being a heretic, to being in a different faith. The Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas saw non-belief as blasphemy. Martin Luther condemned as blasphemies Anabaptism, Arianism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam. Any denial of an article of Christian faith is understood as blasphemy. Sin was blasphemy, opposing Luther was blasphemy, questioning God’s judgments was blasphemy, persecution of Protestants by Catholics was blasphemy, Zwinglian dissent from Lutheranism was blasphemy, missing church was blasphemy, and the peasantry’s political opinions were blasphemy.
When Mideo made those sacrilegious artworks, he was accused of blasphemy…by the Roman Catholic Church, because those religious paraphernalia (pictures of Christ, rosary, etc.) are used by Roman Catholics. But talking about blasphemy, these things are also seen as blasphemy by other religion. Born-Again Christians says that using graven images is blasphemous. Islam even says that it is blasphemous to worship Jesus as the Son of God. Does that mean Born-Again Christians and Muslims can also sue the Catholics for being blasphemous?
Majority Rule?
According to some senators, majority doesn’t like Mideo’s work. It should not be shown in public galleries because people were scandalized and offended. One blog even says that Cruz's freedom of expression fizzled out the moment the first person cried 'heresy!' Some critics even say since the CCP is a public agency it should NOT be sponsoring or funding any exhibit or event that could potentially spark social discord.
Then maybe Mideo should pay for a private gallery for his exhibits instead huh? Does that make the difference?
The majority has the right to say…what majority? Like the average Roman Catholic will even gives a damn to that exhibit. Geeezzz!
This is a good example of Utilitarianism. This is purely self-interest.
OK, Mideo stepped on the Catholic majorities’ foot, but what happened to my rights? I don’t think Mideo’s work was blasphemous…It’s taste-less yes, but blasphemous? What happened to my individual rights and the rights of those who want to see Mideo’s artistic protests? In the detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34 in the United Nation Human Rights Council and the General Assembly paragraph 48 states that, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18). (See article)
There is nothing hateful in Mideo’s artwork. It doesn’t make me feel hatred towards my Roman Catholic neighbors. Looking at them doesn’t make me want to kill Catholics. I think these Roman Catholic lynch-mobs are just making the issue worst or they are just ignorant of the UN resolution.
- =================================================
- If you have some questions or comments on the article, send the author an e-mail at pinoy_atheist@yahoo.com. Thank you.
