Posted by GCA student "C.W."
Throughout
this event, Elaina Smith and others adhere to the idea that this event was
orchestrated out of a freedom of expression. The WKU students argue that it was
just a part of the freedom of speech. Yet, according to the U.S. courts, the
distribution of obscene materials is not a part of this freedom. Condoms are
considered an obscene material because it is abhorrent to morality or values.
If this was an act of freedom of expression and was highly legal, then shouldn’t
we allow others to experience this freedom? Shouldn’t we allow serial killers,
pedophiles, sociopaths, and others to express how they feel? Yet, anyone in
their right mind would not allow that. If
everyone was allowed a freedom of creativity, then extremists would be allowed
to put their plans into action, and who knows where the human race would be
today.
This event
is also seen as just a class project in which learning and debating is free to
flow from. Yet, was this, as art professor, Kristina Arnold, says, just a
lesson in debating? This act, as seen by myself and many others, was not a form
of debating, it was more of a form of vandalism. This is where we see how it
was offending to Christians. To a Christian, the cross is a symbol of Jesus
Christ’s saving power and love, but when a condom or any other object is added,
it will cause an upset. For example, if beef were placed on a Hindu symbol, it
would cause the same effect. President Gary Ransdell said, “No member of our
University family should impede another member of our family’s freedom of
speech or creative effort, especially when it comes to exercising religious
freedoms. The offending student has apologized. This matter has been dealt with
properly, decisively, and brought to a conclusion.” Mr. Ransdell seems to have
ended this conflict very well, but in all reality it has not ended. Elaina
Smith has yet to issue and apology, and doesn’t seem willing to in the future.
Hilltoppers for Life request that she does not get credit for this project, and
is right in wishing so. This was not an act of art, but of vandalism and was
thus offensive.
Sources:
Article: Art Professor of Student, Accused Of Desecrating
Pro-Life Cross Display For Project, Speaks Up by Elsa Bolt
If Condoms are "obscene" materials as you claim, please elaborate on how Health Departments (Government run and funded Health Departments) are allowed to distribute them for free.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comment!
DeleteFirst of all, our Health Departments also distribute vaccines for patients that can lead to that person getting that sickness or other side affects. Yet, That is for another debate.
Second, we need to look at what the term "Obscene" means. The Merriam-Webster dictionary clearly says that something that is considered "obscene" is "abhorrent to morality or virtue", and if you don't know what abhorrent means, it means "strongly opposed". Condoms do just that--they strongly oppose morality and virtues. Condoms are strictly for "protection" in premarital sex. Sexual purity is a strong moral and virtue in a huge percent of the world. For example, in many African tribes, they injure the woman so that sexual intercourse would be painful so that she would not be sexually immoral. That is a very extreme measure, but it shows how important it is to the people groups of the world to be sexually pure.
Getting back to your original question, our government does not understand how condoms are offensive, because their mentality says that people are going to have sexual intercourse so it is a lost cause to try to tell them not to. Through that mentality, they issue condoms to keep people "safe". But, in all actuality, the free distribution of condoms causes more premarital sex, thus resulting in more unplanned pregnancies and STDs. If the Government funded health departments spent more time and money in funding for a sexual purity campaign more people would be aware of the risks of even having sexual intercourse, with condoms or without. The ultimate way to stop unplanned pregnancy and disease is to not have sex in the first place.
Thank you for your response!
DeleteHowever, let me make a distinction between our two claims. You are making an ethical and moral claim while I am making a legal one. Regardless of how valid your ethical and moral arguments may be, it has no standing on whether or not this art exhibition should be allowed.
You believe that the condoms are obscene. Fine. I may believe that crosses and churches are obscene (I would like to point out that I don’t actually believe that crosses and churches are obscene, I’m just using the position for the purpose of debate). Also fine. However, neither of us are LEGALLY valid in our arguments, which means neither of us have actual ground to stand on in demanding that the condoms be taken down or the crosses be taken down. The Supreme Court case Miller v. California established a specific test for determining whether speech or expression is obscene. The test has three prongs, which you can find here [1]. In order for speech (I use speech to refer to the act of placing the condoms because like flag burning, placing the condoms is symbolic speech) to be labeled obscene, it has to satisfy ALL of the prongs. The third prong, which is: “Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” is the one I can concentrate on. We can determine that the work actually has serious artistic value (as would be judged by the courts) because of previous works NOT declared obscene, and freely distributed. A work of art highly vilified among church-goers is Piss Christ, a famous photograph of a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. This work of art was freely distributed, won awards, and the artists received some taxpayer money. If Piss Christ was not declared obscene, it is safe to say that the condom display wouldn’t be either.
The point there is to say that regardless of what you personally feel, you’re not legally justified in calling condoms obscene materials. Condoms are perfectly normal parts of sexual relationships, and can be used in the context of a monogamous marriage just as easily as outside of one. These items are not obscene, and are widely available. No state bans them, and they are free at a lot of health centers.
Also, while I’m typing this out, I would like to point out the absolute absurdity of your other argument about pedophiles and sociopaths. Of course we don’t allow expression of those ideas because they actually cause physical harm to other people. Legalizing pedophilia is ridiculous because children cannot consent to sexual activities, and of course serial killing is bad because people do not consent to their own murders.
Also, your sentence: “extremists would be allowed to put their plans into action, and who knows where the human race would be today” was VERY ironic being read from the perspective of a non-Theist. Have you ever taken a step back to consider that you’re on the other side of the extremist card? You promote a worldview where a man is the head of a household, you view contraception as obscene, and anyone who doesn’t accept your savior into their heart is damned to hell for all eternity? Right wing Christian America (which I think you fall into) makes no bones about the fact that they believe America to bee a “Christian Nation” and should be governed by “Christian Principles”. That sounds pretty extreme to me. Imagine where the human race would be if YOUR form of extremism flourished? Christianity would be the politically dominant faith and Gays would be even more oppressed than they already are.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test