She should be charged with public indecency or whatever the relevant local law is, and sentenced to the minimum sentence on the books for that offense. You shouldn’t engage in civil disobedience unless you’re willing to take the consequences for it.
But she should absolutely not be sanctioned in any way by the school for this. Her offense was not academic in nature, nor does it impugn the good name of the school. If the bishop is so upset, he can go ahead and excommunicate her-- It’s not the school’s problem that he’s offended.
I find it hard to believe that that piece of artwork wasn’t meant to offend Christian sensibilities, considering that it also contained porno-magazine clippings. His apologists focusing on the elephant dung (which, I understand, he uses in much of his artwork and not just in that particular offensive piece) is a bit disingenuous.
Yeah, it does. She appeared at an official school event, all dressed up as if she were a part of all of it. (I can’t tell if she was actually in the parade or not from the article.) If the school doesn’t do anything about it, that means the school supports her breaking of the law.
It’s also a really stupid form of protest. The people who are against birth control are also against showing off your genitals in public. She just sent the message that people on her side are just as depraved as those people think they are. The only people that will like her form of protest are already on her side.
Offending the people you are trying to convince never works. It’s such an obvious concept that I suspect this lady was just trolling for attention rather than having any intent of persuading others to her cause. Just like PETA.
Dang, when I read the title I thought it was Central Michigan. I was hoping things were getting lively up there. It seems to me that the more the bishop whines about it, the more successful the event was. Ignoring it would have been a better move. Turn the other cheek, in a manner of speaking.
I think we all know the answer to that one, but what point are you making?
The whole reason for the protest is to offend and provoke and draw attention to her point (which she has done). In doing so she has broken laws I’m sure but considering she has only caused offence rather than physical harm I think the courts should be lenient.
Had she offended Islam in this way she stands a fair chance or actual harm, a probability of threatened harm and most certainly somewhere, someone would die because of it. A simplistic analysis but an accurate one.
I am simply trying to imagine the decision process. “I’m keeping my shirt on, but taking my bottoms off - yeah, that’ll show them!” :smack: I mean, well, she did show them, but…
Ditto. People think of CMU for their technical side, but forget about the well respected arts and theater program. It was meant to be proactive and succeeded. The school should do nothing. If PGH feels they can give her a citation under decency laws, that’s their decision.
Y’know, you replied to a serious post discussing the appropriate consequences of a protest with a bit of gratuitous leering. I find that really off putting.
She is not irrelevant to the imams and devout Muslims and an insult to her is an insult to Islam, just as this twisted twats insult to the Pope is an insult to Catholicism.
Please don’t think I’m trying to troll here but I seriously wonder what would have been the result if she had done a similar stunt to protest the subjugation and demeaning treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or many countries that follow a more extreme interpretation of the Quran. Islam appears to be the only religion that resorts to violence when someone insults their sacred cows (sorry about mixing religions but the metaphor is applicable). I don’t recall death threats for Piss Christ. The Last Temptation of Christ got a few placard wavers. However cartoons of Muhammad result in murder attempts. Seriously, WTF?
I understand the point she is trying to make: shame on the Catholic Church for being so backward about birth control and how they should embrace it not only to reduce unwanted pregnancies but also to prevent the transmission of STDs. I actually agree with the sentiment and believe the Church should revise their thinking and move into the 21st century regarding prophylactic birth control (pills, condoms, IUDs).
However, my problem is with her deliberate insult and desecration. If you want to protest something it can be done in such a way that people will not be so offended by the messenger that the message gets lost in the static. When the OWS people distributed home addresses of the CEOs they were protesting and actually showed up to protest at their homes it went beyond anger and disgust with the inequities of corporate greed to stalking and harassment. At that point the protesters no longer look like the good guys and they appear as hate-filled, vengeful wackos.
She’s not trying to reach out and open a dialogue about birth control with the Catholic Church. Her message is explicitly, “FUCK YOU” to the Catholic church. The deliberate insult and desecration didn’t obscure the message - they were the message.
This thread is about an event that actually happened and garnered a response from the Catholic Church in a country that’s predominantly Christian - your Islam hijack is entirely irrelevant. If you’re really curious about the hypothetical response to an event that you made up, start another thread.
Enginerd, you are correct. My question would be better suited to a separate thread and I apologize for the hijack. We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Sure, she was saying “fuck you” to the Catholic Church. However the way it was done is my problem. In this case, she gets a wink and smile because of who and what her target is: the Catholic Church. It is considered OK to attack them because:
They are the epitome of organized religion
They are misogynists
Their stand on birth control is outdated
Their stand on homosexuality is outdated
Their handling of sexual abuse by clerics has been pathetically criminal
Etc., etc., etc.
All very true and I would never argue about that. However, if someone protested against Obama’s policies on abortion by dressing in blackface while wearing bloody surgical scrubs and carrying a speculum we would tear them apart. It wouldn’t matter what they were trying to say. The messenger becomes the issue, not the message.
Don’t worry. Future employers will find it on her Facebook page or, at least, when they Google her name. Remember kids: the Internet is forever. Thank god my youthful indiscretions were never done on camera and occurred long before the Internet existed.
I guess I don’t really understand what you’re saying. You obviously don’t like the way she was (half) dressed and groomed. I get that you don’t see being deliberately offensive as a good tactic. But when you say “it is considered OK to attack [the church],” who do you mean? Who exactly is doing the considering?
I consider her protest OK, and that’s independent of the fact that I agree with her about the church. I also, though, don’t have a problem with her being punished for breaking public nudity laws, because she broke them. I do have a problem punishing her for the protest itself, because that’s speech. As a private university, CMU could punish her without running afoul of the first amendment, but that’s contrary to the idea of academic freedom.
As to your anti-Obama protester, I’d consider his protest (legally) OK too. I’d think he was an asshole, but I would be similarly against punishing him for the content or target of his protest. There aren’t any laws against being a racist asshole. If his speech is free of direct threats, then it’s protected, regardless of who it’s directed towards.
We approve and disapprove of protests based on our own points of view, but it’s entirely possible to disapprove of an act without wanting to see it prosecuted.
